Re: spy/adware

From: Bruce Chambers (bruce_a_chambers_at_h0tmail.com)
Date: 12/26/04 

Date: Sun, 26 Dec 2004 12:51:42 -0700

Bill wrote:

>
>
> That was my point. Along with the fact that *sometimes*, even if you *do*
> read things you're agreeing to *carefully*, you can still get screwed over.
> I don't know why, but for some reason I had expected AOL to be more
> forthcoming about what they were about to install on my machine.
>

        Why such an expectation, though? AOL's business model is predicated
upon exploiting their customers' lack of technical understanding. Given
that, why expect them to be any more ethical than any other such business?

>
>
> So what you're saying is, that there's really no way of knowing what *else*
> will be included with any particular download, from any particular vendor,
> so long as they have wording like that in the TOS/EULA?
>
>

        That's pretty much it, yes. Sometimes EULAs ans TOSs have deliberately
vague passages for legitimate reasons, such as a company's inability to
predict the future or the urgent need for "hotfix" or a security patch.
  In such a case, getting your permission, in advance, to change their
software simply isn't always practical. Unfortunately, less scrupulous
businesses also use these "loopholes" to their own advantage, as well.

>
> But I *did* read it/them.

        And you are to be commended for so doing. Unfortunately, that TOS was
written in such a manner as to almost guarantee that your eyes would be
glazed over by the time you came to the relevant passages. There was a
whole lot of extraneous verbiage included, probably at the insistence of
an attorney or two. I found the relevant passages not because I read
the TOS in its entirety, but because I searched for words like "add,"
"change," "modify," and "software," etc.

> And I wouldn't even have cared if AIM had at
> least given me the option *not* to install Viewpoint Media Player, or at
> least make me aware that it was coming with the software whether I wanted it
> or not. *That's* what bugs me.
>

        Perfectly understandable. The practice _is_ despicable.

> I'm not real big on legislature, but there should be some kind of
> International law that requires *all* vendors to disclose just *exactly*
> what changes their software will make to one's machine. And it should be
> *obvious*. Not buried in some, "We reserve the right to do whatever we
> want, whenever we want" clause.
>
        
        I understand your feelings, but I doubt that such legislation would
really do much good; most people won't read the warnings and
disclosures, anyway. Governments really can't - nor should they even
try, to my way of thinking - protect people from themselves. People, in
general, need to learn to be responsible for the consequences of their
own actions and decisions. (This isn't pointed at anyone in particular;
it's just a general observation.)

        Besides, on exactly whom should the legislative authority fall? The
Internet is multi-national. Most software is sold internationally;
which country's laws should pertain? The United Nations lacks the
authority to govern how the hundreds of companies within each of its
member nations conduct business.

        I feel that the most effective way for consumers to bring companies
like AOL into line is for consumers to "vote with their wallets." When
a company engages in business practices that you don't like, simply take
your business elsewhere. If enough people start doing this, companies
will eventually learn what does and does not hurt their bottom line.
Sadly, though, this relies upon the existence of a well-informed and
pro-active general consumer market - something I doubt we'll ever see. 

-- 
Bruce Chambers
Help us help you:
http://dts-l.org/goodpost.htm
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having 
both at once. - RAH