Now it is Computer Cops Turn

[LockBox]

The more I think about this, the clearer this becomes. They have nothing to stand on. These are all informational and review sites. If it fits THEIR description of spyware, then they can call it spyware. What made it clear to me is thinking of this like we review and classify other products, and have for years: If you visit travel sites (as I do) you see a lot of comments about hotels that are less than desirable from a hotel PR point-of-view. If a site says that the TRADEWINDS is a dump and lacks recreational facilities, then, they have every right to classify it as a "dump." If the TRADEWINDS gets a law firm to send letters to all the travel sites that say they lack adequate recreational facilities, do they have a leg to stand on when they explain they are NOT a dump and they DO have recreational facilities? Their explanation that there are three ping pong tables and that, in the legal opinion, is "adequate" would be laughed at! But this is new territory and we're all treating it differently. The fact is that if some of these products are considered spyware by a site, and it meets their definition - it's a BAD review, just as travel programs flag BAD hotels and give a "stay away" down arrow. It's all based on THEIR (the sites) definition and standards. What's the difference?

Originally Posted by Gerard Morentzy

The more I think about this, the clearer this becomes. They have nothing to stand on. These are all informational and review sites. If it fits THEIR description of spyware, then they can call it spyware. What made it clear to me is thinking of this like we review and classify other products, and have for years: If you visit travel sites (as I do) you see a lot of comments about hotels that are less than desirable from a hotel PR point-of-view. If a site says that the TRADEWINDS is a dump and lacks recreational facilities, then, they have every right to classify it as a "dump." If the TRADEWINDS gets a law firm to send letters to all the travel sites that say they lack adequate recreational facilities, do they have a leg to stand on when they explain they are NOT a dump and they DO have recreational facilities? Their explanation that there are three ping pong tables and that, in the legal opinion, is "adequate" would be laughed at! But this is new territory and we're all treating it differently. The fact is that if some of these products are considered spyware by a site, and it meets their definition - it's a BAD review, just as travel programs flag BAD hotels and give a "stay away" down arrow. It's all based on THEIR (the sites) definition and standards. What's the difference?

You know Gerald, that's a damn good point. If we would only apply time tested ways of doing things to some of this new technology we could see with more clarity. Just because it's a spyware forum and just because they urge people to stay away from certain products based on their own chosen criteria, is no different than what other mediums have been doing with other products for years. You are right, the definition of spyware, like your example of "adequate" rec facilities, is at the discretion of the forum, certainly not the product being reviewed!

Your analogy is actually very good. Good enough to pass on to site owners. Sometimes when it comes to this new technology and web related stuff we try to reinvent the wheel. The precedent for bad reviews and opinons of products and advice to "stay away" has been around forever.

[ronjor]

most adware customer-victims don't even know the EULA is there

This should change. The EULA should be in your face, easily readable,understandable and short.
This may be one more good reason to support shareware authors as they try to keep it clean.

[LockBox]

Following up on my analogy of a couple of posts back.....When it comes to the EULA, it doesn't matter as far as how the software is classified by a forum. Following the same analogy I used before with the hotel, it doesn't matter whether a person willingly chooses to stay there. If the "adequate recreational facilities" are poor - they are poor. Big deal I chose to stay there in the first place! All it says is that I stupidly chose to stay at a place that I knew was a dump. Yes, I knew it upfront and agreed to stay. Does that all of a sudden not make it a dump? An opinion, on a certain grid of criteria, can still be made that the hotel was a damn dump. The fact I agreed to stay there doesn't change a thing. SO....just because I agreed to a EULA and agreed to the software doesn't keep me (or anybody else) from calling it spyware - if it fits their definition of spyware. Okay, so I agreed to download spyware. Dumb me. I can call it what it is whether I agreed to download it based on a EULA or not. It's a review of the product - based on certain criteria - before, after, or during use - it doesn't matter!

[ronjor]

They have nothing to stand on. These are all informational and review sites. If it fits THEIR description of spyware, then they can call it spyware.

Could you clarify? Long day here. Who is they?

[LockBox]

Sorry Ron, With "they" I am referring to the legal team sending threatening letters to site owners for how they classify certain software. I am arguing that it's no different than books, magazines, sites, that "classify" other products by their own criteria all of the time.

[napatec]

Check out the Better Business Bureau listing from the link on idownloads website. [http://www.data.bbb.org/reno2.asp]

Maybe we can all contribute to "an unusual volume or pattern of complaints"
Any record of how many computer users ONLY and OVERWHELMING interest in idownloads products is in HOW TO REMOVE THEM can only help whomever may face their scumbag attorneys in court.
see below


i Download.com
264 Village Blvd Suite 201
Incline Village, NV 89451

Original Business Start Date: 04/01/01
Type of Entity: Corporation
Principal: Kris McDonald, Director of Operations
Phone Number: 800-844-5919
Fax Number: 212-899-5072
Web Site Address: www.idownload.com
Membership Status: yes
Date Joined BBB: 07/09/03
Type of Business: Computers Software & Services


The information in this report has either been provided by the company, or has been compiled by the Bureau from other sources.

BBB MEMBERSHIP

This company has been a member of the Better Business Bureau since July 2003. This means it supports the Bureau's services to the public and meets our membership standards.

PROGRAM PARTICIPATION

The company participates in BBB CARE. The company participates in the Bureau's Membership Identification Program. This company participates in BBBOnLine. This company has agreed to use special complaint handling procedures including mediation and arbitration if necessary to resolve disputes.

NATURE OF BUSINESS

Company sells an assortment of utility software products that are downloadable online.

CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE

Any complaints processed by the Bureau in its three-year reporting period have been resolved. The number and type of complaints are not unusual for a company in this industry. Based on BBB files, this company has a satisfactory record with the Bureau.

To have a "Satisfactory Record" with the Bureau, a company must be in business for at least 12 months, properly and promptly address matters referred to it by the Bureau, and be free from an unusual volume or pattern of complaints and law enforcement action involving its marketplace conduct. In addition, the Bureau must have a clear understanding of the company's business and no concerns about its industry.

When evaluating complaint information, please consider the company's size and volume of business. The number of complaints filed against the company may not be as important as the type of complaints and how the company handled them.

Closed Complaints
Number of complaints processed by the BBB since the firm's BBB file was opened in June of 2003: 9
Number of complaints processed by the BBB in last 12 months: 7


Complaints Concerned
Advertising Issues: 1
Outcome of the complaint -
Resolved: 1

Guarantee or Warranty Issues: 1
Outcome of the complaint -
Resolved: 1

Product Quality Issues: 4
Outcome of all complaints -
Resolved: 4

Customer Service Issues: 2
Outcome of all complaints -
Resolved: 2

Credit or Billing Issues: 1
Outcome of the complaint -
Resolved: 1



LICENSING INFORMATION

This company is licensed by CC Business License.

ADDITIONAL TELEPHONE NUMBERS

Additional phone numbers for this company include:
(800) 844-5919.

ADDITIONAL ADDRESSES

Additional addresses for this company include:
1180 Avenue of the Americas 14th Floor, New York, NY 10036.

COMPANY MANAGEMENT

Additional company management personnel include:
Arlo Gilbert, Pres./CEO.

REPORT DATE: 02/23/2005

COPYRIGHT DATE: 2005 BBB of Northern Nevada, Inc.

STANDARD DISCLAIMER

As a matter of policy, the Better Business Bureau does not endorse any product, service, or company. BBB reports generally cover a three-year reporting period, and are provided solely to assist you in exercising your own best judgment. Information contained in this report is believed reliable but not guaranteed as to accuracy. Reports are subject to change at any time.

Optional BBB survey:
Dollar amount you intend to spend with this company: $

[Bubba]

CastleCops responds to iDownload/iSea

Originally Posted by CastleCops

Recently we received a letter from a law firm titled "Incorrect Classification of iDownload's Product as Spyware & Related disparagement of iDownload". We retained counsel to evaluate our options and last night sent our reply which will be quoted in full below.

One Thing to NOTE!

We must all stand on this or suffer more spyware, malware, crapware, trashware, destructionware, trespassware, intrusionware, theftware, whateverware, on our private personal property!

Our computers are "PRIVATE PROPERTY", all information on them is "PRIVATE PROPERTY", anything removed from them without express permission right at that moment it's taken is "STOLEN PRIVATE PROPERTY", anything put on our "PRIVATE PROPERTY", without express permission at that moment is "TRESSPASSING", anything put on our "PRIVATE PROPERTY" that alters in any way how our applications work or respond is "VANDALISM", any of the above applied in a deceptive or repetative manor, such as the afore mentioned "toolbar" is no less than "CRIMINAL".

I REST MY CASE!

WORLDS RECORD FOR FASTEST OPEN AND SHUT CASE!

[Firecat]

Well lets see these companies try and sue MS...That's when the turning point comes!

" These sleazy tactics will next be pointed at Spybot most likely and other applications that help the user to be free of spyware.Where does it all end? Do the sleazeballs end up winning? What can we all do to help the good guys?"

What's needed is a decentralized clearinghouse for 'plugin signatures'; Lavasoft etc. release the core package, but then obtain auxiliary signatures from a decentralized peer to peer network - then the lawyers have no one to sue because the base package doesn't finger IDownload sleazeballs.

[Firecat]

Hehe..sleazy but excellent idea!

[fcukdat]

time for the privacy community to start fighting back.

online patition against isearch scumware pervaiors!!
http://www.petitiononline.com/mm23Feb4/petition.html

please sign

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by fcukdat

time for the privacy community to start fighting back.

online patition against isearch scumware pervaiors!!
http://www.petitiononline.com/mm23Feb4/petition.html

please sign

Thanks signed it already! Put up a new thread for the same and tell an admin to sticky it please.

[Jimbob1989]

Originally Posted by fcukdat

time for the privacy community to start fighting back.

online patition against isearch scumware pervaiors!!
http://www.petitiononline.com/mm23Feb4/petition.html

please sign

Signed

[spy1]

In case no one's already informed you, "online petitions" are absolutely useless - for anything.

Furthermore, urging people to sign them gives those who "sign" the false sense that they have actually accomplished something - when they haven't.

And, it let's them never give the matter addressed another thought - because, after all, they've "done all they could" when they signed the useless petition.

Not trying to burst your bubble or anything - this is simply the truth.

[fcukdat]

hey its a battle,maybe its charging at the enemy with a penknife instead of machinegun but every little helps imho

[Jimbob1989]

Originally Posted by spy1

In case no one's already informed you, "online petitions" are absolutely useless - for anything.

Furthermore, urging people to sign them gives those who "sign" the false sense that they have actually accomplished something - when they haven't.

And, it let's them never give the matter addressed another thought - because, after all, they've "done all they could" when they signed the useless petition.

Not trying to burst your bubble or anything - this is simply the truth.

Why do you believe this is not effective and can you suggest any better ideas?

Jimbob

[Firecat]

Originally Posted by spy1

In case no one's already informed you, "online petitions" are absolutely useless - for anything.

Furthermore, urging people to sign them gives those who "sign" the false sense that they have actually accomplished something - when they haven't.

And, it let's them never give the matter addressed another thought - because, after all, they've "done all they could" when they signed the useless petition.

Not trying to burst your bubble or anything - this is simply the truth.

Do you suggest that we rob their bank account and use the money to counter-sue them? (kidding)

[spy1]

Because online petitions are totally un-verifable. Every "signature is meaningless, because the identities behind them can't be validated.

IOW, since they can't be validated, they're nothing more than a feel-good measure.

Alternatives? Sure, but they actually require some actual effort on everyone's part:

Find your Congressman and Representatives names and fax nos.. FAX them. Ask them to support legislation that will rein in frivolous lawsuits - and ask them to put the makers' of WhenU under the microscope, both their financial dealings and their actual programs - after all, WhenU can affect legislator's and their families, too (and screw up government systems that it gets on - perhaps a tip to HomeLand Security might be in order, too).

http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/

https://tips.fbi.gov/

I expect everyone to either be too dis-interested or too lazy to respond - because it's written in stone that that's what our downfall will be.

I've gotta go get ready for work. Pete

[Peeved McAfee User]

The reply that should have been sent.

Mark D. Hopkins
Savrick Schumann Johnson McGarr Kaminski & Shirley attorneys and counselors at law
4330 South Mopac, Suite 150
Austin, Texas 78735
Telephone: 512-347-1604
Dallas: 214-800-2898
Fax: 512-347-1676
mark@ssjmlaw.com

Dear Mr. Hopkins:

Re: Incorrect Classification of iDownload’s Product as Malware & Related disparagement of iDownload

In order to avoid litigation in the above captioned mater, please inform your client, iDownload.com, that we have reconsidered the classification of iDownload's software product, iSearch toolbar. Instead of classifying it as Spyware, Foistware, or Malware we have decided to reclassify it as Scumware.

We hope that this satisfies the requirements of your request.

Best Regards,
The computer using public

Ps: It should also be noted that when someone damages or misuses your property or takes away your freedom of action, it is also "tortuous conduct".

I suggest a new category of software:

Attorneyware - Software that is suspected of being malware, but we can't call it malware under threat of legal action.

Trogdor

[Zhen-Xjell]

Hi folks, thanks for picking up the story. Slashdot picked it up also:

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/05/02/23...tid=158&tid=17

We also have our thread on it:

http://castlecops.com/postt107522.html

Ed Bott has an interesting article:

http://www.edbott.com/weblog/archives/000496.html

Thanks all.

[Bubba]

For those individuals that signed the above mentioned Petition....there was a slight error in the first Petition....and is asking those that signed it earlier in the day to re-sign.

http://castlecops.com/postp471275.html#471275

Originally Posted by Mere_Mortal

I've just noticed that several people have become confused about the use of the Yes/No option in the said petition. This appears to be creating inconclusive results. I have contacted the website in hope of removing this option to avoid further confusion....Okay, it's now been resubmitted: http://www.petitiononline.com/mm24Feb5/petition.html

Almost 100 signatures in 6 hours. Dayum.

Okay, if you signed this petition, please resign the new one. Sorry for the inconvenience. There is now no confusing yes/no option