Now it is Computer Cops Turn

http://www.dslreports.com/speak/print/default;12774274

Arlo Gilbert is a webmaster of a porn site?

Go to http://www.google.com

Type in: hooper idownload

Then look through the results. You'll find one that has him saying he'll give $50 for anyone who can find a mistake on www.idownload.com (plus much more)

 

Like Ronjor says, It ain't over til it's over! In the meantime, Keye-U and Zhen-Xjell, you have certainly kept us up with all the info!!

Keye-U, your 'way' of showing exactly what happened with the program in question, is all over the 'net! Just showing each step so graphically, really makes even a newbie understand how insidious the program and others like it can be!! Very ingenious of you!!

Zhen-Xjell, you, too are keeping everyone informed and it makes me glad to see that the people and the sites are pulling together - talking and showing people exactly what is going on.

I am wondering how many other companies, like idownload/isearch are watching, learning from their mistake - hopefully they are suprised 'we' are standing together and not just giving in - that we are serious about keeping control of OUR own computers.

Thanks for keeping us in the loop, I have to admit I follow every link you give, did they have any idea what commotion they would cause!!

Marja
~Cheering for everyone involved!!~

 

hi, Pete is it OK to ask if you use the paid version of Adaware? i ask because i use the free version and think your view is a little harsh considering as morally Lavasoft is a good company and it seems that a company with questionable morality leads to an honorable company being bashed. that's the view of someone who uses the free version, if i used the paid version then i fully understand your view .

what i don't understand about all this is it would be so easy to call it questionableware or EULAware, defining questionableware/EULAware as follows

• software with a hard to find, hard to understand EULA
• often the end-user has unknowingly agreed to something they otherwise wouldn't have if they had been given the oppotunity to read/understand the EULA
• very difficult to uninstall with normal methods
• identical to spyware in all, but name, because of the difficultly with the EULA

.
then i think the important bit should be this - the spyware scanner should present the user the EULA from the software in question giving them a fair opportunity to read and appreciate what they agreed to when they installed the software. a glossary could also be included

 

Interesting really...but I don't think the majority of users will read it, will find it annoying and time consuming. I would.

there is only one thing you can do...just don't download anything you see or think you want just in real life you cannot purchase everything you want or think you want cause a lot of times you actually don't need it to stay alive or whatever :lol

I read two/three days ago a thread here stating that a scanner should look for words in the eula that could be indicating the program COULD be malwarelike...again a nice feature but way too much possibilities of false positives...

anyway I hate eula's ...

 

http://www.justblowme.com/printthread.php?t=15907

Arlo Gilbert, the CEO of iDownload, discusses this little "game" of "finding errors" on the iDownload domain with the "office"?

Shouldn't they discuss about more important business issues?

Also, this proves that Hooper is, in fact, Arlo Gilbert, CEO of iDownload.

Also, nick3131 should've won around $2000 from Hooper by now (I guess he is unwilling to follow through with his promise)

 

i don't think anyone would be expected to read it, it's just a way around the law. if someone had one of those infections they would know about it, and realise the scanner was presenting them the oppotunity to get rid of it. one of the points being - it's surely fair as it would be just about the only way they could rid themselves of the infection because the company which wrote the software hasn't given the user the chance to uninstall it with one of their own products. they do have uninstallers, but they don't work!!!

the spyware scanners could also have a new name - spyware scanners and uninstallers

 

Sure - no, I don't. I use the free version. The fact that the issue affected both pay and free users only makes it worse.

I don't consider it harsh at all.

Evidently, your definition of "a morally good company" and mine vary widely. I don't consider a company who doesn't let their customers know what's going on - ask their customers for their input and support on what course they should take openly and before any changes are made - or even allow posts critical to the decision to remain up - to be a "morally correct company"

Do you want the company that you may be depending on for scumware-detection to make silent decisions behind your back about what they'll detect and not detect? Do you want them to make those decisions based upon a simple "cease&desist" letter from anyone's attourney? (IF that's what happened?)

It's gutless (at best) - and I won't be recommending a gutless scanner to anyone.

Yeah, I already mentioned that in my post. Must've been too much work to change the wording for them. I hope to God they just weren't too stupid to think of it (ditto for the fact that they could have left it up to the user whether to include it or not, like SBS&D does).

That's my whole point - Lavasoft just doesn't care what their users' want. To them, your opinion and input are meaningless - because they don't want your opinion and input. They just want to do whatever they want to do (and they've always been like that), for whatever hidden reasons they have for doing so.

They don't feel like they owe us an explanation (never have).

And that's cool - it's their program.

It's my choice not to use it anymore - because I'd never use or recommend a program like that to anyone.

Speaking of which, I don't see any updates listed for AA since this debacle (and that's what it is) began. I wonder why that is?

Barring a complete, truthful explanation from Lavasoft about what really happened here - which we'll never get - harsh or not - that's how I feel about it. Pete

 

Pete, I have noticed the same lack of updates and have wondered if there is a connection in some bizarre way.

 

I bet there is a connection between the two. and I bet for even more money they surely have made a mistake and they realise it.

just my two cents.

 

hi Pete. i have conflicting views of what constitutes and how freeware and spyware scanners should be viewed. i think spyware scanners are more important, so i agree with you.

 

iDownload's Attorney Responds to CastleCops: http://castlecops.com/article-5793-thread-1-0.html

iDownload's response to Sunbelt: http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/idownloads-response-to-sunbelt.html

My un-official response:

Damn right.

WHAT?!

Which "large security firms"? Could be Kevin Mitnick's, or "iAntivirus".

Which industry and which leaders? Could be Saddam Hussein representing the American Justice Industry.

They recycled their responses. They are the same for both Sunbelt and CastleCops.

 

My mini-site has migrated: http://dustball.hollosite.com/

 

Hi Kye-U,

You've done some really good work on this issue! Good Stuff My Friend & Thank You kindly for being so helpful & dedicated to this cause/effort. You deserve a lot of credit.

It's Very Much Appreciated Indeed;

Steve

Ps. Nice new site, and Smart wording with the disclaimer BTW.

 

Thank you Dog ^_^

I think CastleCops, Spyware Warrior and Sunbelt deserve much more credit than I =)

But all the same my friend

http://dustball.hollosite.com/isearch/spyact.html

Seems like iDownload breaks a lot of these.

The following catch my eye(s):

(1) taking control of the computer by sending unsolicited material to others, diverting the Internet browser without authorization, using the modem or Internet to cause damage to the computer or to cause the user to incur unauthorized financial charges

A whole freaking spyware (ABetterInternet) was installed. How's this for bandwidth costs and "without authorization"?

(3) collecting personally identifiable information;

Example: Your IP Address...My IP Address was submitted to iSearch when I had it installed.

(6) inducing a user to install computer software through misrepresentation;

ABetterInternet was installed without my consent. Certainly this counts as "misrepresentation" as it did not present itself to me until I reset my computer.

(9) installing or executing additional software components with the intent of causing a person to use such components in a way that violates any other provision of this section.

ABetterInternet...

(2) execute any information collection program installed on such a protected computer, unless, before execution, the user has consented to such execution under notice requirements of this Act and such information collection program includes specified functions.

Patch.exe, ABetterInternet... these were both executed without my consent.

(2) include an option for the user to grant or deny such consent, or to abandon or cancel the transmission or execution of an information collection program

I saw no such option.

(3) include an option for the user to view a clear description of the types of information to be collected and the purposes for its intended use. Requires, if a user has consented, that an additional notice be sent if there is a material change in the way collected information will be used such that the use is outside the purpose set forth in the first notice.

No such option.

 

http://dustball.hollosite.com/isearch/licenseagr.html

iSearch's License Agreement.

Let me ask my little sister to use my computer for 2 minutes with iSearch installed...Again, the IP Address counts as a piece of "personally identifiable information".

WHAT IF THE 13 Year Old (or below) CAN'T READ?!