Norton/Symantec sells out

Discussion in 'other security issues & news' started by Fly, Feb 3, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    No opt out? If that's true then it'll be a public relations disaster for Symantec.:doubt:

    Also bearing in mind that Norton comes pre-installed on many new systems,there's going to be a whole new generation of Ask crapware users that are blissfully unaware!
     
  2. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Ah, i guess you self- identified yourself into that, since i wasn't quoting you. Then i am sorry. It *is* my firm opinion, that consumers that let everything to the vendor and don't worry as long as it works and shows no sign of disturb, are brain-dead sheep... Just like you think others are paranoid. IF there is any regulation today, it's after decades of consumer bitching about more info on labels, right to return a product etc. If they weren't bitching, we 'd be in the same situation as in my grandpa's era. Thinking about it, even spyware, if it wasn't for AVs to flag it, wouldn't bother most people out there nor hinders their use of PC... It's just that there is someone to tell them about it (AV) that makes spyware a problem... It's INFORMATION that makes the difference is what people think.

    It's a joke, but since you don't want to take it as such, it's also a probability. You know in such forums there are product resellers, fanboys, employees...

    Fine with me. Fact is, that as mentioned, i am one of those that have a principle/ideology difference about it. And people can call me paranoid all they want, i will keep saying and protesting, since, in the representative type of democracy we have today (not direct democracy), this is my only democratic right left.

    The Ask agreement, is part of the lack of information and control. It's all about not controlling. They can put whatever they want, either branded as "Ask" either as "Norton" (while being ask in reality) and you can only say "I hope not!". And the final user won't even see it coming. He will buy "Norton" , he won't have an idea of what's inside, he will see only "Norton Safe Search feature"...

    But, in all this, i can tell you one thing. Despite what the current dinosauring, arteriosclerotic dinosaur of politicians are doing (= nothing), one day, there WILL be legislation and control over software sales too. Why? Because i see that many of my fellow students are more aware of the problematics of software and that they are pissed off too. And one day, my generation will be the 60 year old, arteriosclerotic in the goverment and will do something about it. Maybe i will be an old man by then, but at least , my grandchildren will be able to know what exactly they 're buying when they buy a software and what to expect from it.

    If you want something to happen tomorrow, you have to start raising your voice about it TODAY.

    What brought the US economy down (and world in conseguence), is that nobody was bitching about how the "free market" was "too free". It's all about MENTALITY. The Norton deal, is part of a wider mentality and problem, just like the part in which the US banks were loaning and investing "air" was part of bigger problem, called completely wild free market, with no surveillance. If the market was more controlled, the banks wouldn't have imploded. At the same way, if there was softare regulations, we wouldn't be insulting each other here. Nor will there would be anyone saying "I HOPE that Norton won't." or "What do you make out of this?" or "Will there be an opt-out"? We would KNOW what to expect, what the final user will see written on the box and end of story. While in this moment, i am not even sure if "Ask" will appear anywhere in Norton box or program

    And consumers should have the right, as happens with other products to make an "informative choise". Just like i have the right to see that my corn flakes have genetically modified corn or that my steak was raised in the Netherlands, i should also be aware that i buy "Norton that though contains also ask.com technology".

    To this, i find morally disgusting the alliance with Ask.com and the fact that they use you to make 1 more $, for a product you already paid for its service.

    As you said, it sucks to be me. And it sucks to be you too, because, unlike selling without regulations, that little has to do with democracy, but more with anarchy, bitching about a practice , is my democratic right.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2009
  3. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    My dear co-forumer, english isn't my native language. What do you understand from this dialogue:

    What i understand, is that currently, the plan is to have it "enabled" by default. Note that they are paid 1$ per installation (not per product sold). Meaning, that in order to get the 1$, the user must actually install the toolbar. Opt-out = no $.

    I also believe, that if users protest, there is still time to change it into opt-out at LEAST.

    They have the time to "measure user reactions".
     
  4. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    A little quote to refresh your memory:
    But apology accepted. Also thus far you're apparently able to make your point without being a jackass; try to do it more often. You're welcome to protest whatever you want. Do keep in mind, however, that applying simplistic labels onto people who disagree with you is not only detrimental to your cause, but often inaccurate as well.
     
  5. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Let me refresh yours too, in what you said, because you quoted all your post, except for 1 line, after quoting me:

    To which i then replied....


    You mean like "paranoid"? or "people who get their knickers in a twist whenever one of their programs so much as pop up a firewall prompt"?

    Which were basically your arguments.
     
  6. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Ah, I guess you self-identified yourself into that, since I never referred directly to you. Then I am sorry. I was merely referring to my knowledge of the existence of such people, but if you feel those descriptions fit you... ;)
     
  7. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Not exactly, you were replying, quoting me. :D I mean, if you were offended when i was talking about people in general without you even being part of the discussion, i guess, i was carried away too into thinking that since you were replying to me, you were implying that i was paranoid too. Well, i m happy i was wrong!

    Apology accepted!
     
  8. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Sadly, if my above repost of your direct quote does nothing to stimulate your conveniently selective memory, I fear I am at a loss at how a reasonable discussion with you should proceed.

    That is not to say, of course, that I was the only recipient of your attacks. You're right when you said you were talking about people in general as well. Hence my well-meaning advice to you that insulting and labeling others is a poor way of furthering your own cause.
     
  9. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Whatever. Verba volant, scripta manent. You surely don't apply well what you preach.

    P.S: You don't have to continue a reasonable discussion with me in particular. I know i don't have to continue with you. Even more, since your arguments are "people shouldn't be paranoid".
     
  10. Eice

    Eice Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2009
    Posts:
    1,413
    Oh my. Perhaps the professing of accepting my apology wasn't as sincere as I thought it was...
     
  11. andyman35

    andyman35 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2007
    Posts:
    2,336
    By that I mean that many new,shop-bought pcs come with Norton pre-installed therefore they'll also receive the Ask toolbar without ever having a say in it.Of course this won't be unique they've bundled garbage like AOL and realplayer for years.
     
  12. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    Ah, yes, the OEM machines. That's yet another area of complete abuse over the customer. You pay for a machine, preloaded with God knows what crap, for which you haven't even been asked for your consent, let alone read the EULA or be asked for custom installation.
     
  13. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    The crapware wouldn't be such a problem if Windows can completely remove all of its traces. As it is, their uninstallers are generally poor at removing the program's remnants.

    Technically, every user should read the EULA before they use their computer, so if they don't agree with it they can promptly return the computer. Such is not the case for the majority of the users, however. After all, no one would want to sift through those boring legal matters.
     
  14. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    (partial quote above)

    Zango whitelisted ? That's just insane !
    A couple of months ago, I performed some "grey area" searches, and I got some results that required the installation of Zango software, as I recall, it also came with an EULA ! They prey on people who try to get something that's just too good to be true, and who don't know what they are getting themselves into.

    I'm at a loss for words.
     
  15. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    Well, the end users are also responsible for their behavior. You can't just put all the blame to the companies because what they are doing is not illegal (presumably). For the most part, a user can choose to opt-out when installing a product that bundles a toolbar. Ultimately, the end user is the one allowing these (opt-out) toolbars to be installed.
     
  16. CountryGuy

    CountryGuy Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    139
    You are correct; However, this isn't a free product like Adobe Acrobat Reader. This is a product people pay a premium for, and now have to worry about extraneous add-ons being placed on their machine by something they paid for?? And the company paid to help protect the PC are also permitting software with dubious history (such as Zango)? I see a contradiction, and at the very least I don't see the consumer's protection being the focus.
     
  17. ambient_88

    ambient_88 Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Posts:
    854
    From what I've been reading, Symantec plans to embed the Ask engine into their Safe Search toolbar. That is, no opt-out. If that is the case, then the user cannot do anything; he or she will have to live it or move to another product. This scenario is the one that will cause much trouble; Symantec is probably thinking hard about it.

    However, should there be an option to opt-out, I don't see why there would be too much trouble. It's just a matter of reading the instructions correctly. It might be a bit of an inconvenience, but it's a decision Symantec made.

    Either way, it's here to stay (seems like it). A small percentage won't like this and might dump Norton forever, however, the majority will most likely not care, especially since it's the Safe Search toolbar that will be installed.
     
  18. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    You just have to see this on http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/ !

    The toolbar (not exactly sure which one) has Zango whitelisted, and Kephyr.com, which has an uninstaller for Zango software, is blacklisted !

    There is more, I suggest you visit the link and scroll down to: Here comes the Ask Toolbar again
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  19. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    As for those who want government regulations:

    I think that would be extremely unwise. Do you really want 'The State' to decide what software you are allowed to buy, run and create ? If you get that sort of control, it won't be long before that power gets abused.

    Current laws should be enough to deal with this sort of thing.

    The only way is for us and others to inform the public, and to take legal action when and where that is appropriate. (Example: I've seen copyrighted material offered on the internet, with the requirement to install Zango software prior to getting the material - of course, I have never downloaded Zango, so I can only guess what comes after you've downloaded the Zango software).
     
  20. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    No, i don't want the State to say what software you are allowed to buy. Nobody asks that. Just like the state can't prohibit me to buy anything i want from the market. But the state should regulate, "labelling" and categorizing of products. For example, you put in your product "Ask technology"? Then specify it on the box. You want to name your product "freeware" while you have put adware inside? Pay the fine or change your official categorization to adware on your site. You have "freeware" that uses static add banner? Specify it on your site.

    What current laws? There aren't any! The current situation, is that the vendor may or may not put anything he likes in an EULA, and you will discover it or not, upon installation. Norton can bundle Ask in its toolbar and nobody will notice that the "Norton" toolbar has "Ask search" inside, which is 3rd party engine. Because there is no law that makes Norton refer that on the box he must explain that he uses 3rd party engine...

    Between the risk of state abuse and corporate abuse, i prefer the state abuse. At least politicians want to be re-elected and get out of office sooner or later.
     
  21. YeOldeStonecat

    YeOldeStonecat Registered Member

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2005
    Posts:
    2,345
    Location:
    Along the Shorelines somewhere in New England

    Most people never see that. Many of us computer consultants/networks consultants get stuck cleaning up the garbage of all this "install me too"-ware that is bundled with software now, because most end users don't pay attention.

    Look at all the junk installed with the usual free stuff such as Java, Shockwave, even Acrobloat alternative "FoxitPDF" is now bundling 2x things with it.

    With freeware, it's not soo so bad...one expects that they need support somehow. But with pricey pay for products that you already paid full retail price for...it's lame.
     
  22. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
     
    Last edited: Feb 11, 2009
  23. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    (partial quote above)

    There are laws. If they didn't exist, Microsoft wouldn't have a near monopoly.
    Of course, these laws vary by country. Buying software in the box, with a EULA inside which states that if you don't agree you should return the product to the vendor. Unpractical, and where I live most wouldn't accept such returns, and such EULAs are not legally binding (I think).

    I'm not saying that the laws are right, but these laws were not made by or for the average citizen. More of that will not improve the situation.

    And it's not just a matter of laws, it's quite often more about who can afford more and more expensive lawyers !

    And if you're thinking about special consumer protection laws, then consider this: what software vendor would accept returns ?? (tricky, since the software can just be copied)

    An example, just referring to your requirement of mentioning the ask.com toolbar on the box: other consumers would want other things to be specified on the box !

    I suppose I could type a lot more, but I'll leave it at this.
     
  24. Fuzzfas

    Fuzzfas Registered Member

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2007
    Posts:
    2,753
    I think the legislation and MS market position, is irrelevant to the final product control methods.

    Same here. Nobody accepts it once you brake the seal. Because all shops, have their own "rule" that says so. And practically nobody cares that what finally happens is that you can't return it, unless you make a legal battle that will last years and won't worth the money. Software is the only product that hasn't regulations on what information must be shown on the box and the only product that the "generic" laws are freely violated by shops, because nobody cares to apply product-specific rules. There are food-regulations. There are toy-regulations. There are machine-regulations. No software regulations.

    As for the EULA, it's not legislation. It's the result of the lack of interest for legislation. The EULA is practically a private contract between you and the vendor. Practically there is nobody that controls that.

    Instead they SHOULD be made FOR the average citizen!

    True! And this happens because there is no central control! A bad toy is controlled by the gov before it arrives the average Joe. A bad meat too. A bad machine too. They all must satisfy certain criteria. You can't sell frozen meat as fresh. Who controls what can be written on a box or in an EULA? Who controls if the software that circulates satisfies some minimum criteria, INCLUDING the right to know 3rd party software inside before you break the seal, if the EULA is clear or fraudolent or if the consumer can really return the box to the shop that has his own regulation "we don't accept opened boxes"?

    I 'm a consumer, it's not my problem to think what the vendor should accept. So basically, i must accept to be abused, because the vendor may otherwise be. I can return books that i bought, within 10 days, which theoretically i could have photocopied or photographed, but not software, because it can be copied. Poor book editors...

    THAT's WHY LAWS exist! For every product, there must be something. This "something" is decided by goverments. In USA genetically modified corn isn't big deal, in EU is must be mentioned. Maybe my proposal to mention 3rd party code on the box is wrong? Fine! Have a govermental commitee say what must be shown. But at least SOMETHING!

    I agree in that. I 'm tired.
     
  25. Fly

    Fly Registered Member

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2007
    Posts:
    2,201
    Fuzzfas, let's agree to disagree :)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.