So if the adware/data mining is made part of another program like a browser or the OS itself, it's no longer adware. A very self serving definition. Using that logic, a trojan that is self contained and doesn't interfere with the rest of the system is no longer a trojan. Fortunately, their interpretation of "adware" isn't law or binding. I don't care what they say is or isn't adware. AFAIC, if it displays ads, it's adware. If it tracks or data mines the user, it's spyware. My definition of "computing experience" doesn't include either.
It's not about twisting definition. It's how they limit the scope of things they detect as adware, partly to avoid legal problems. Otherwise, let us all call browsers and free AVs (with in-app ad to promote paid features) adware then. While they are trying to tackle part of the adware problem , here we have members nitpicking on their statement/definition; disregarding the bigger picture. Microsoft bashing must be a lot of fun. And oh yes, advertising is part of modern computing experience. You can't deny how things work today. Whether you accept advertising is a different story.
They're not addressing the problem. They and corporations like Mozilla are becoming part of the problem. Integrating adware into legitimate software doesn't make it legitimate or desirable regardless of how they define it. It has nothing to do with legal liability or problems. It isn't their place to define adware, to say what does and doesn't qualify as adware, or to tell user what they should accept. They have no such authority, legal or moral. Adware and spyware distributors have been trying to portray themselves as legitimate since the days of the earliest adware removal programs. The "modern computing experience" is already infested with ads and tracking code. The last thing users need is more ads inserted by the applications themselves. They didn't build the internet. They don't own or control it. The internet doesn't need them to survive. You can call it Microsoft bashing if you want. I'm equally disgusted with Mozilla using Firefox to deliver ads. What I'm "bashing" is the legitimizing of forcing ads on the user along with the tracking and data mining that goes with it. If other users want to accept it, that's their choice. My "modern computing experience" contains almost no ads or tracking code. I intend to keep it that way. That includes refusing adware regardless of how they legitimize it. Users should boycott adware infested software entirely, not just try to weaken or neutralize the adware components they contain. Just like the ads on the internet, ads delivered via a browser or OS will become "personalized" by continuously increasing the tracking and data mining of the users. This kind of "value" users don't need. Don't let them force it on you by portraying it as legitimate.
Did you read the article? First of all, they are not changing the definition of adware. Obviously, they have no univesal rights to do it...like Duh! The article is about the criteria they use to classify adware for their antimalware program. Can you see the difference? I am not going to touch on advertising and privacy implications. We have discussed this before in more relevant threads. It is a problem. I just do not share the same view of advertising as being entirely negative. It is pretty clear to me that both of us won't be able to change the other person's mind on the subject.
Well, some of the free software (including some AVs) are adware, and twisting a definition doesn't make them less adware. I'd rather see them labeled this way so I can make an informed decision rather than install them and find out later that they have embedded ads. True, I made a mistake in my above post. Advertising is a part of modern computing experience, that part being a plague that must be fought and removed completely in order to restore a healthy and pleasant experience. I agree 100% with this!
Well, I'm split on this. I do think advertising on the web and some PUP-bundled software has gone overboard. At the same time, I appreciate and use "free" content and services. Wish it was more black and white but the economy does not work that way.
Yes, I read the article. When corporations like Mozilla and Microsoft redefines adware in a way that allows the embedding of it into user software, the rest of the industry follows suit. Because they are "industry leaders" the rest use their position as a standard. Regardless of how they portray it, they're legitimizing adware/spyware with the message that it's OK if it's part of another application like a browser. The "standard" of what's acceptable will only expand from there. If this was limited to just the displaying of ads, it wouldn't be so bad as long as the user had a clear and obvious way to opt out of seeing them. Even if it starts this way, it won't stay that way for long. Once ads are acceptable as part of an application, in commes making them "relevant to the user" which means tracking and data mining those users. Unlike adware that's separate or delivered as a BHO, plugin, extension, etc, the user won't be able to get rid of it because it's part of the browser or the operating system. The long term goal of this is to shove adware/spyware down the users throat in ways that they can't get rid of it. If a company can't survive without the profits from embedded adware in their products, there's something fundamentally wrong with their product or the company behind it. The users shouldn't be forced to make up for that. The internet has too many ads now. We don't need more delivered by the software too.
Sneak it in a bit @ a time, softly softly That's often how ALL sorts of bad things start to happen, & then continue to get worse as a Lot of people just get used to it & accept it. This doesn't only apply to adware etc, but Many other things in life ! It's crazy how many people seem to easily succumb to accepting these new "Norms" without a fight etc ! That's why there's so much continual non stop conflict in the world
Hi NP Well written post Your post describes exactly my own attitudes and feelings to adware, profiling and data-mining. I try to remove ads wherever possible, when they are foisted onto me. If I want to look at an ad, then I'll look at an ad, other than that, I don't want to look at an ad or have one sneak up on me or insinuate itself into my ordinary everyday "doings". I certainly don't feel that we should be bullied or enveigled into accepting ads as normal. I especially don't like the argument that accepting ads should be a contracted condition for living life without censure or admonishment. It seems like we are getting to the point that if you don't accept ads it is increasingly regarded as subversive, maybe even criminal and a person that does not want to live a life of ads may lose their entitlement to participate in the fullness of society. You'll be loitering in an ad free area and maybe picked up by the ad police and sent to an ad acceptance and retraining camp until you can be safely re-integrated into normal society.
http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/arc...eans-close-new-adware-detection-criteria.aspx http://blogs.technet.com/b/mmpc/arc...ol-of-your-browser-new-detection-changes.aspx also: Microsoft Changing Detection of Adware and Browser Modifiers | Threatpost | The first stop for security news apologies if already posted.
