LMFAO.......... That third result is from my site. Its purpose is to show someone if they are vulnerable to a flaw that will allow a porn dialer install. The page requires MSIE because no other browser is so flawed as to be vulnerable.
Nearly the same thing happened to me recently. My site was mentioned in a newsletter that was forwarded to spamcop in a complaint. Spamcop notified the owner of my web host's data center that my site was "spamvertised" and it nearly got me shut down.
What's really cute is that the spam complaint was bullshit anyway. It's an opt-in newsletter written by a very well known technology writer and it has a confirmation process. This was no spam, yet some dumbass reported it as spam and spamcop blindly accepted it. So much for their claim to be "the most accurate spam blocking service".
It makes enough money to pay for itself so that we are able to keep providing free support to people and hosting free software.
Every day, I deal with disbelief, ignorance, and beliefs frozen in the past. For every person whose attitude is set in stone, there are hundreds who are willing to learn new things and accept that the internet has malicious people working to exploit it. We'll keep educating those willing to learn and hope the others at least protect themselves so as not to be a burden on the rest of us.
What you have looked up in the definition of "surveillance spyware".
In my original post, I said that it falls just short of being "advertising spyware", and pointed out the differences that makes it fall short. Don't bother posting the definition of that term, as I am its author.
If we're going to throw irrelevent analogies around, how about this one? If you install eBlaster surveillance spyware with the full knowledge of what it is, does it stop being spyware just because you know what it does?
When is this going to end? Or better question, WILL this ever end? It's getting to the point that I can't walk into public restroom to take a leak without having it recorded in a half dozen different goddamn databases.
Yeah, people will hopefully boycott those bars using systems like this. And that just kills me, because my best friend is a bartender in a Vancouver bar. I don't know if her bar is doing this yet. If it does, I'm scared business may drop off enough that she loses her job.
I cannot BELIEVE this line from the 2nd article:
"Proponents of the machines assert that any invasion of privacy is not alarming because there's not much privacy left to invade. "
BULLSHIT! Am I excused from mugging someone because they were mugged an hour earlier and were left with only a dollar? Does that somehow make it OK for me to take that last dollar?
What the user knows or doesn't know is irrelevent. Nothing the user knows about it changes its nature.
While surfing, if the advanced options are turned on, all URLs the user surfs to are sent to Google. By definition and technically, it is spying on that user. In Google's case, it is tolerated because they are not evil or using it to monitor anyone.
Technically, the toolbar is almost advertising spyware, but falls just short of meeting the definition. URLs surfed to are sent to a Google server for aggregation and that is what makes it come close. I can't remember if it assigns a GUID (probably not).
Unlike actual spyware it doesn't hijack any settings, it doesn't show any advertising, and Google doesn't use drive-by activex installers on affiliate web sites. It does have one very bad habit in that the new version has an automatic updater that can't be disabled.
The toolbar is not spyware, is not considered spyware, and is not targeted or referred to as spyware by anyone (with any sense) in the antispyware crowd.
If you are having trouble accessing Google and other major search engines, there is a NASTY browser hijacker going around using a bad HOSTS file to redirect the IP. We finally have the bugger figured out and here are instructions on dealing with the problem:
Note that on some systems the hijacker has hacked the registry to point to a bad HOSTS file at C:\Windows\help\HOSTS. Look in this location as well as those above.
If any line is found that mentions google or other search engines, delete the entire file. That should fix the hijack. To prevent it from happening again, apply all relevent security patches.
For 100% protection from this sort of attack, lock Internet Explorer behind a firewall and use a real browser. MozillaOpera
Think the "Music" industry is hurting how? Boycott all CD/DVD/Tape purchases for a full year and listen to the good ol radio...
Actually, boycott only those who are associated with the RIAA. They don't have every single artist, althought it seems that way sometimes.
Go here and check it out before buying a CD. If it's listed, skip it and maybe even write to the label explaining they just lost a sale.
If your favorite artist is signed with a label that's part of the RIAA, don't buy their CDs, but do buy their merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc) and concert tickets (even if you can't go, buy a ticket and give it to someone who can). Support them in a way that cuts out the label and gets the money more directly to them.
Throughout this entire debate, I keep seeing people state that two million telemarketers could be put out of work if the list goes into effect. You know what? Frankly, I don't give a damn if all two million of them end up on the street. Telemarketers are scum; their business is scum; and I hope the entire industry goes bankrupt.
There are thousands of people who would love to make a living scamming old ladies out of their pensions. There are people who would love to make a living selling crack. There are people who would love to make a living mugging people. Too bad there are laws against doing any of these things. It's just tragic as hell that several million people are out of work and unable to make a living doing these things because of these unfair laws.
My message to telemarketers is this: Screw you. Get an honest job. Anyone who makes a living browbeating money out of people too timid to tell them to go to Hell is scum. No one deserves a job selling crack. No one deserves a job mugging old ladies. No one deserves a job spamming our telephones.
Someopne really needs to ask the obvious question in one of these discussions - Why do they want to talk to people who don't want to be talked to?
Telemarketers do not make money selling to people interested in receiving sales pitches over the phone. Telemarketers make money selling to people who are too polite and too timid to tell them to go to Hell.
My ex-girlfriend is a perfect example of this. She refused to answer her own telephone unless she was paged first because she could not bring herself to hang up on a telemarketer. It drove me nuts. This is the type of person the telemarketers want. They don't want the Do Not Call list to stop them from calling people like this.
I guess it's a toss up: have a little validator button proudly displayed somewhere on your site and have a few display errors in Internet Explorer or have a messily coded site that is slow, but works.
Not at all, unless you're doing something extremely complicated. MSIE won't do box models without serious hacking and Opera has the occasional odd quirk, but otherwise my sites all look the same in all 5th generation browsers and up. That's with one smallish style sheet (plus one for the printer) and XHTML 1.0 transitional, all 100% standards-compliant and no hacking.
Now, in browsers below MSIE 5.5, I don't care how it looks. NS 4 can't import the style sheet, so it sees plain text. What the rest of them see, who cares? If they don't speak proper CSS/XHTML and bork on my page, tought shit.
I'm not a professional web designer. I write my own pages and wanted them to look nice (to me anyway), so I studied the accepted standard and used it. W3C likes the markup and the pages work in MSIE, Opera, and Mozilla.
I'm not learning the hacks to make those older browsers work just to accomodate people using seven-year old browsers that render using a proprietary version of HTML.
Any method of munging the address must still be clickable within the visitor's browser. If it is clickable, it can be harvested. Javascript and html encoding may stop most of the bots, but bots exist that can slurp the address no matter how much javascript you wrap it in.
I use a PHP email form that never sends the address to the to client accessing it. Short of hacking the server and looking at the php script in plain text, there is no way to harvest the address. I have no need to let the public know my address. If they want to email me, use the form or use my site's message board.
I don't want the guy getting slashdotted, so I won't link his site. If you really want the script I use (available in PHP or ASP), go to hotscripts.com and search for dbmaster's mail form.
Re:Here's an awesome idea.
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
Wow...... That's so silly and simple it might just work. Does anyone see any problems with this that might render this ineffective? I know the EU is trying to make it illegal to disable RFID tags, so it may be illegal to use this in Europe, but is there any technical reason why this wouldn't work?
Disable the things at checkout
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 1
I worked in a warehouse, and the benefit for a warehouse operation is obvious. I've never worked retail, but the benefits for retail is just as obvious. To be able to track each individual item inside a store or warehouse would make keeping up with inventory cheaper and would probably lower costs to end consumers. For this reason, I support the use of these tags, but only in those two environments.
We need an ironclad, no-exemption law in every country that these tags will be disabled permanently at the point of purchase. Once an item has been purchased, it ceases to be merchandise and becomes private property. The former owner of an object has no legal right to track it after transferring their ownership.
Yahoo may think this will cause 3rd party users to download the official client. I believe they are incorrect. People will just wait on Trillian to get back onto the network or they'll tell their other Trillian friends to switch to one of the other 3 networks it accesses.
I suppose since their software can't compete with their rivals' software on features and functionality, they're trying to compete on number of users. That's pretty stupid however, since AOL and MSN have that locked up.
Why not just friggin agree to a standard network that any client can access? Then they could concentrate on making the software good enough that people want to use it because they like it, not because they have 1 or 2 friends who refuse to use a different network? They could also concentrate on that secure, encrypted corporate version that AOL, Yahoo, and MSN all want to start selling to corporate buyers.
LOL.... Goddamn doesn't that figure? I've been logging in all day waiting to see if they've got a patch, and as soon as I hear they do, the database server goes AWOL.
To quote (ie, rip off) another slashdotter whose handle I forget...
I'm reminded of one of the only TV commercials ever published by 3dfx. An engineer introduces his new chipset, capable of billions of calculations per second. With pride and courage in his voice, he speaks of how this chip will allow them to revolutionize medicine and scientific research, saving billions of lives. An interruption over the intercom says, "Excuse me people, we changed our minds; we're going to use it to play video games."
We have remarkable technology at hand, capable of verifying the source and integrity of data transmissions, communications, financial records, all manner of irreplacable information. We're going to use it to keep people from listening to music. Irrespective of copyright and how poor and hungry Metallica and Dr Dre are right now... that's a totally different issue. We're going to use it to keep people from listening to music. I hope somebody's proud.
I couldn't say it any better myself, so I won't try.
The judge should follow the law himself. Congress meant for the FTC to run this, had that intention in mind when they wrote it, have restated that today, and have also stated that they will rewrite a new bill that restates it in smaller words so even dumbass Oklahoma judges can understand it.
Getting the judge's office number is easy -- just call up the courthouse. But if you did call, you will probably just get a secratery that will say that the judge makes his rulings BASED ON THE LAW.
Then she would be lying. The congress authorized the FTC to do this, had this very action in mind when they wrote the bill, have said afterward that this is what they intended and that they will write a new bill to clarify it in language even this dumbass and/or bought off judge will understand.
Not "free of charge". It costs thousands of dollars for access to the list.
I'm sure they are grateful that the "hostiles" are on a list they can avoid, but so are the people too timid to tell them to fuck off. If those people are also on the list, then they can't browbeat them into buying things they don't want.
So it'll put you out of work? Good asshole. When Congress writes a new bill that once again specifies that the FTC is to enforce the do not call law (in language even that dumbass judge can understand), I hope and the other scumbags in the telemarketing industry all land on the street. It happened to me once, and I didn't like it, but at least the job I lost was an honest goddamned job that didnt' make me ashamed to tell people about.
Go get a job that doesn't involve browbeating people too timid to tell you to fuck off into buying things they don't want or need.
Slashdot Mirror
LMFAO.......... That third result is from my site. Its purpose is to show someone if they are vulnerable to a flaw that will allow a porn dialer install. The page requires MSIE because no other browser is so flawed as to be vulnerable.
Really guys, I'm dying here. LOL
Nearly the same thing happened to me recently. My site was mentioned in a newsletter that was forwarded to spamcop in a complaint. Spamcop notified the owner of my web host's data center that my site was "spamvertised" and it nearly got me shut down.
What's really cute is that the spam complaint was bullshit anyway. It's an opt-in newsletter written by a very well known technology writer and it has a confirmation process. This was no spam, yet some dumbass reported it as spam and spamcop blindly accepted it. So much for their claim to be "the most accurate spam blocking service".
It makes enough money to pay for itself so that we are able to keep providing free support to people and hosting free software.
Every day, I deal with disbelief, ignorance, and beliefs frozen in the past. For every person whose attitude is set in stone, there are hundreds who are willing to learn new things and accept that the internet has malicious people working to exploit it. We'll keep educating those willing to learn and hope the others at least protect themselves so as not to be a burden on the rest of us.
What you have looked up in the definition of "surveillance spyware".
In my original post, I said that it falls just short of being "advertising spyware", and pointed out the differences that makes it fall short. Don't bother posting the definition of that term, as I am its author.
If we're going to throw irrelevent analogies around, how about this one? If you install eBlaster surveillance spyware with the full knowledge of what it is, does it stop being spyware just because you know what it does?
When is this going to end? Or better question, WILL this ever end? It's getting to the point that I can't walk into public restroom to take a leak without having it recorded in a half dozen different goddamn databases.
Yeah, people will hopefully boycott those bars using systems like this. And that just kills me, because my best friend is a bartender in a Vancouver bar. I don't know if her bar is doing this yet. If it does, I'm scared business may drop off enough that she loses her job.
I cannot BELIEVE this line from the 2nd article:
"Proponents of the machines assert that any invasion of privacy is not alarming because there's not much privacy left to invade. "
BULLSHIT! Am I excused from mugging someone because they were mugged an hour earlier and were left with only a dollar? Does that somehow make it OK for me to take that last dollar?
What the user knows or doesn't know is irrelevent. Nothing the user knows about it changes its nature. While surfing, if the advanced options are turned on, all URLs the user surfs to are sent to Google. By definition and technically, it is spying on that user. In Google's case, it is tolerated because they are not evil or using it to monitor anyone.
Technically, the toolbar is almost advertising spyware, but falls just short of meeting the definition. URLs surfed to are sent to a Google server for aggregation and that is what makes it come close. I can't remember if it assigns a GUID (probably not). Unlike actual spyware it doesn't hijack any settings, it doesn't show any advertising, and Google doesn't use drive-by activex installers on affiliate web sites. It does have one very bad habit in that the new version has an automatic updater that can't be disabled. The toolbar is not spyware, is not considered spyware, and is not targeted or referred to as spyware by anyone (with any sense) in the antispyware crowd.
At the risk of slashdotting my own site.....
If you are having trouble accessing Google and other major search engines, there is a NASTY browser hijacker going around using a bad HOSTS file to redirect the IP. We finally have the bugger figured out and here are instructions on dealing with the problem:
http://forums.spywareinfo.com/index.php?showtopic= 12127
Look for your HOSTS file and open it in a text editor. There is no extension on this file. It is only HOSTS.
Win 9x/ME: C:\windows\HOSTS
Win NT/2000: C:\winnt\system32\drivers\etc\HOSTS
Win XP: C:\windows\system32\drivers\etc\HOSTS
Note that on some systems the hijacker has hacked the registry to point to a bad HOSTS file at C:\Windows\help\HOSTS. Look in this location as well as those above.
If any line is found that mentions google or other search engines, delete the entire file. That should fix the hijack. To prevent it from happening again, apply all relevent security patches.
For 100% protection from this sort of attack, lock Internet Explorer behind a firewall and use a real browser. Mozilla Opera
Think the "Music" industry is hurting how? Boycott all CD/DVD/Tape purchases for a full year and listen to the good ol radio...
Actually, boycott only those who are associated with the RIAA. They don't have every single artist, althought it seems that way sometimes.
Go here and check it out before buying a CD. If it's listed, skip it and maybe even write to the label explaining they just lost a sale.
If your favorite artist is signed with a label that's part of the RIAA, don't buy their CDs, but do buy their merchandise (t-shirts, posters, etc) and concert tickets (even if you can't go, buy a ticket and give it to someone who can). Support them in a way that cuts out the label and gets the money more directly to them.
Throughout this entire debate, I keep seeing people state that two million telemarketers could be put out of work if the list goes into effect. You know what? Frankly, I don't give a damn if all two million of them end up on the street. Telemarketers are scum; their business is scum; and I hope the entire industry goes bankrupt.
There are thousands of people who would love to make a living scamming old ladies out of their pensions. There are people who would love to make a living selling crack. There are people who would love to make a living mugging people. Too bad there are laws against doing any of these things. It's just tragic as hell that several million people are out of work and unable to make a living doing these things because of these unfair laws.
My message to telemarketers is this: Screw you. Get an honest job. Anyone who makes a living browbeating money out of people too timid to tell them to go to Hell is scum. No one deserves a job selling crack. No one deserves a job mugging old ladies. No one deserves a job spamming our telephones.
Someopne really needs to ask the obvious question in one of these discussions - Why do they want to talk to people who don't want to be talked to?
Telemarketers do not make money selling to people interested in receiving sales pitches over the phone. Telemarketers make money selling to people who are too polite and too timid to tell them to go to Hell.
My ex-girlfriend is a perfect example of this. She refused to answer her own telephone unless she was paged first because she could not bring herself to hang up on a telemarketer. It drove me nuts. This is the type of person the telemarketers want. They don't want the Do Not Call list to stop them from calling people like this.
I once sold drugs to work my way through a couple of semesters at college. Then someone passed a law saying I couldn't do that.
:(
Those assholes put me out of a job, and I had to find something else
</sarcasm>
I guess it's a toss up: have a little validator button proudly displayed somewhere on your site and have a few display errors in Internet Explorer or have a messily coded site that is slow, but works.
Not at all, unless you're doing something extremely complicated. MSIE won't do box models without serious hacking and Opera has the occasional odd quirk, but otherwise my sites all look the same in all 5th generation browsers and up. That's with one smallish style sheet (plus one for the printer) and XHTML 1.0 transitional, all 100% standards-compliant and no hacking.
Now, in browsers below MSIE 5.5, I don't care how it looks. NS 4 can't import the style sheet, so it sees plain text. What the rest of them see, who cares? If they don't speak proper CSS/XHTML and bork on my page, tought shit.
I'm not a professional web designer. I write my own pages and wanted them to look nice (to me anyway), so I studied the accepted standard and used it. W3C likes the markup and the pages work in MSIE, Opera, and Mozilla.
I'm not learning the hacks to make those older browsers work just to accomodate people using seven-year old browsers that render using a proprietary version of HTML.
Any method of munging the address must still be clickable within the visitor's browser. If it is clickable, it can be harvested. Javascript and html encoding may stop most of the bots, but bots exist that can slurp the address no matter how much javascript you wrap it in.
I use a PHP email form that never sends the address to the to client accessing it. Short of hacking the server and looking at the php script in plain text, there is no way to harvest the address. I have no need to let the public know my address. If they want to email me, use the form or use my site's message board.
I don't want the guy getting slashdotted, so I won't link his site. If you really want the script I use (available in PHP or ASP), go to hotscripts.com and search for dbmaster's mail form.
Not long at all
Wow...... That's so silly and simple it might just work. Does anyone see any problems with this that might render this ineffective? I know the EU is trying to make it illegal to disable RFID tags, so it may be illegal to use this in Europe, but is there any technical reason why this wouldn't work?
I worked in a warehouse, and the benefit for a warehouse operation is obvious. I've never worked retail, but the benefits for retail is just as obvious. To be able to track each individual item inside a store or warehouse would make keeping up with inventory cheaper and would probably lower costs to end consumers. For this reason, I support the use of these tags, but only in those two environments.
We need an ironclad, no-exemption law in every country that these tags will be disabled permanently at the point of purchase. Once an item has been purchased, it ceases to be merchandise and becomes private property. The former owner of an object has no legal right to track it after transferring their ownership.
Yahoo may think this will cause 3rd party users to download the official client. I believe they are incorrect. People will just wait on Trillian to get back onto the network or they'll tell their other Trillian friends to switch to one of the other 3 networks it accesses.
I suppose since their software can't compete with their rivals' software on features and functionality, they're trying to compete on number of users. That's pretty stupid however, since AOL and MSN have that locked up.
Why not just friggin agree to a standard network that any client can access? Then they could concentrate on making the software good enough that people want to use it because they like it, not because they have 1 or 2 friends who refuse to use a different network? They could also concentrate on that secure, encrypted corporate version that AOL, Yahoo, and MSN all want to start selling to corporate buyers.
LOL.... Goddamn doesn't that figure? I've been logging in all day waiting to see if they've got a patch, and as soon as I hear they do, the database server goes AWOL.
To quote (ie, rip off) another slashdotter whose handle I forget...
I couldn't say it any better myself, so I won't try.
The judge should follow the law himself. Congress meant for the FTC to run this, had that intention in mind when they wrote it, have restated that today, and have also stated that they will rewrite a new bill that restates it in smaller words so even dumbass Oklahoma judges can understand it.
Getting the judge's office number is easy -- just call up the courthouse. But if you did call, you will probably just get a secratery that will say that the judge makes his rulings BASED ON THE LAW.
Then she would be lying. The congress authorized the FTC to do this, had this very action in mind when they wrote the bill, have said afterward that this is what they intended and that they will write a new bill to clarify it in language even this dumbass and/or bought off judge will understand.
Not "free of charge". It costs thousands of dollars for access to the list.
I'm sure they are grateful that the "hostiles" are on a list they can avoid, but so are the people too timid to tell them to fuck off. If those people are also on the list, then they can't browbeat them into buying things they don't want.
So it'll put you out of work? Good asshole. When Congress writes a new bill that once again specifies that the FTC is to enforce the do not call law (in language even that dumbass judge can understand), I hope and the other scumbags in the telemarketing industry all land on the street. It happened to me once, and I didn't like it, but at least the job I lost was an honest goddamned job that didnt' make me ashamed to tell people about.
Go get a job that doesn't involve browbeating people too timid to tell you to fuck off into buying things they don't want or need.
English is not my native language
Neither is mine according to my poor, abused partner who has to proofread everything. :/
Sorry dude, didn't realize.