New Anti Spyware Coalition (ASC)

[Antarctica]

Microsoft,Symantec Webroot,Lavasoft and many other have founded this coalition to fight the Spyware threat.

What do you think?

http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/about/index.htm

[Bubba]

Will there be bite in their position....Will they cower to the bank rolls of the crapware wheelers and dealers....will there still be a play on words after defining spyware\adware....will the less knowledgeable still be up a creek without a paddle when the smoke clears :-\

I reckon this time next year we will see :o

Previous related thread---> Coalition Defines Spyware (http://www.wilderssecurity.com/showthread.php?t=88624)

[ErikAlbert]

Adverts belong on websites only without dirty tricks.
Adware/Spyware don't need a better definition, they must be forbidden in the future.
Why do we need ASC to accomplish that ? It's simple, but they don't want it to be simple because the business world want adware on our computers to make even more money.

At best, ASC will decide to allow/approve adware programs on our computers.
A new kind of "innocent" adware, that doesn't harm our computers and that doesn't need to be listed as a malicious threat in AntiSpyware softwares.

We users are supposed to accept these innocent/harmless adware programs on our computers and we users will be forced to look at adverts on our computers at approperiate times, just like on TV.
If I'm searching for a new mouse on internet, adware programs will show me adverts of mouses on my computer and that is even better than adverts on TV.

That is the main goal of ASC and that's why Microsoft is sleeping with Claria and Aluria with WhenU, because Claria and WhenU have the know-how to create these new kind of adwares.

[meneer]

Please read Brian Livingstone's WindowsSecrets (http://www.windowssecrets.com/comp/050714/) article on this matter. Good links too.

[James Taylor]

Yeah Opera adware should die. D

[Antarctica]

Thank you meneer, very interesting article from Brian Livingstone. 8)

[HD rider UK]

Evening all

So now we have the Anti Spyware Coalition, why do I have a certain feeling of deja vu about this? COAST fell apart under the strain of its self inflicted inconsistencies, but can ASC avoid the same fate? Unless the rumour regarding the collapse of the MS/Claria deal is correct, the answer could well turn out to be "No". 180 solutions etc, would not have to join up even if an invitation were to be made as someone less charitable than I could draw the conclusion that the Trojan was already installed in the OS.

The main benefactors of an all embracing definition of the term "Spyware" will be the Scummers themselves, think of the weight it would add to their Cease and Desist attempts against various forums recently - why do you think that the spokesmen for these companies are all in favour of such a definition? Their approval should raise a red flag of warning to the members of ASC that maybe they should take a moment to reconsider.

My principle feeling about this however is one of regret. The fight against malware is not going to be won by Individuals like myself employing HJT to clean individual machines for the victims in support forums, the complexity and rate of infection is rising to fast for that, all we can do is first aid, sorry but its true. We need a powerfull voice at Executive level to represent the victims and promote Legal Remedies to this plague. I would have expected an organisation such as ASC to fulfill that role, sadly in view of present performance I have deep reservations about their ability to do so. I hope to be proved wrong.

HD Rider UK

Actually, in reflection, its not so much a "red flag", more a damn great "Skull and Crossbones".

[mercurie]

This is a good thing. One suggestion will they have maybe a legal defense fund to defend one of it's members from the recent law cases against a member, from crapware company. That way when one is attacked with one of these legal cases it does not have such a cash resource drain for legal fees. A type of joining of forces.

Sue one Anti-Crapware company the wagons will circle. Companies like Dell it is in their best interest.

Just a thought. :-\

[JRCATES]

-{ Quote: "Microsoft,Symantec Webroot,Lavasoft and many other have founded this coalition to fight the Spyware threat.

What do you think?

http://www.antispywarecoalition.org/about/index.htm" }-

Sounds good in theory....but couldn't this be a bit like the tobacco industry with their "anti-smoking" campaign? I mean, if these companies are successful in erradicating spyware....where does that leave them? Out of business?

[cheater87]

yay spyware will be a thing of the past :D

[bigc73542]

I personally believe that they can reduce the malware influx but will never completely stop it. There is just to much money to be made writing malware (spyware adware). I think they can and will make a difference but time will tell how well they will do.

[rdsu]

-{ Quote: "I personally believe that they can reduce the malware influx but will never completely stop it. There is just to much money to be made writing malware (spyware adware). I think they can and will make a difference but time will tell how well they will do." }-
I total agree with you.

[meneer]

-{ Quote: "I total agree with you." }-
Not all together... we've seen the MSAS/Claria problem (same as CA Pestpatrol a few months ago) and the problem is that the definition of spyware was not clear. In the Pestpatrol case Claria claimed that they were not spyware. CA later concluded that they were, by the CA definition. I fear that the original CA definition was more fitting (at least for us, privacy minded people) than the current proposal, thus perhaps making the Claria claim a valid one... their tools may not be regarded as spyware when viewed against the new definition. I didn't check this, I'm not that familiar with American legal stuff, IANAL.

I do sincerely hope that any definition will be explained in a broad way, I don't like EULA bound Okay's. Software should be very transparant as to what you may expect from it. The Claria way (hidden in other companies EULA) or the Microsoft way (changing EULA's in updates?) don't impress me as good examples of transparancy.

[meneer]

-{ Quote: "unwanted technologies: 'those that impair users' control over material changes" }-Just to illustrate the definition problem:

I can see Gain not being spyware since a user presses OK on installing a free/sponsored program. Installing is under users' control
Windows Media player (or even Windows...) does comply to this definition. Lots of material changes that result in the other parts of the definition (resource use, lost privacy control)

-{ Quote: "Material: (usually material to something ) technical important; significant; relevant Example: facts not material to the discussion.
Impair: to damage or weaken something, especially in terms of its quality or strength Example: His health is much impaired Example: visually-impaired.

(source http://www.allwords.com)" }-Then, please further define the words Material and Impair. How much impact is needed for a tool to conform?

In my view (but as I said, IANAL) the definition leaves a lot to be desired.