Slashdot Mirror
Avira Wins Case Upholding Its Right To Block Adware
Mark Wilson writes: Security firm Avira has won a court case that can not only be chalked up as a win for consumer rights, but could also set something of a precedent. Germany company Freemium.com took Avira to court for warning users about "potentially unwanted applications" that could be bundled along with a number of popular games and applications. Freemium.com downloads included a number of unwanted extras in the form of browser toolbars, free trial applications, adware, and other crapware. Avira's antivirus software warned users installing such applications; Freemium took objection to this and filed a cease and desist letter, claiming anti-competitive practices. But the court ruled in Avira's favor, saying it could continue to flag up and block questionable software.
i tell you we are fucked for this to even need a court case of course we can flag and block things we don't what on your pc.
Browser Search Toolbars - it's a matter of provider. Personally I prefer to not have any toolbars because I don't trust those vendors. Other articles state that the current landscape of BHOs pegs about 80%+ of them as having malware-like behaviors, including:
- Deliberate opt-out mechanics with unclear opt-out instructions.
- Deliberately sabotaged uninstallers (so they can't be easily uninstalled).
- Installer tripwires (so they automatically reinstall if removal is attempted).
- Obfuscation to make them hard to detect.
- Or just plain drive-by installation.
If your software has to attempt to protect itself from my attempts to uninstall it then try making a case for why it might be wanted. The industry is living in denial if it can claim software we're all trying so hard to remove is "wanted". So...If I can assert that then why can't any random company say the same? Or is this a case of "it's only legal to say it if no-one is listening"? Companies like Freemium.com are the reason computers aren't any fun anymore - I spend more time fixing machines because of disingenuous jerkoffs like those.
Under what legal theory would it be forbidden to offer a product that blocks shitware? Even if we grant that this 'freemium.com' must be tolerated as legal-but-sleazy, rather than dragged out and hung from a lamp post; is there some sort of 'right to be installed' that software possesses that nobody told me about?
It seems about as silly as arguing that throwing away junk mail without opening it is abridging the spammer's right to free speech.
While true, judges tend to follow the ruling on the table. If only to appear consistent and not wanting to contradict their peers.
Twice so in a matter where most judges don't have the slightest inkling of an idea what's going on. Like, say, "anything computer/internet".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
It aces artificial AV tests in performance, because by default, it only scans files by extension, which is a huge security risk. The free version makes annoying advertisement pop-ups. And in my experience it popped out vaguely threatening messages about a vague virus which neither Combofix nor MBAM nor a couple of other AV products could find.
In my experience, all free AV programs are highly suspect in their behavior, by their nature and goal. They're full of upsells, they will passive-aggressively threaten you, they will try and install PUPs themselves... etc.