Re: spy/adware

From: Bill (Bill_at_noemail.invalid)
Date: 12/27/04 

Date: Mon, 27 Dec 2004 09:13:20 -0500

In news:OCMtRR46EHA.2180@TK2MSFTNGP12.phx.gbl,
Bruce Chambers <bruce_a_chambers@h0tmail.com> typed:

> 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?

As I said above, I really don't know why I thought the way I did. Point
taken, however.

>> 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.

And I can understand leaving the TOS/EULA open-ended as it applies to
modifying or updating the program I bargained for (AIM). What I can't
understand is how they can get away with ... I don't know what you'd call
it...."stealth-bundling"? a completely seperate and distinct application
along with it. AIM is not dependant on Viewpoint Media Player to work
properly. One has nothing to do with the other.

>>
>> 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.

It's way past despicable. If what you say is true, (and I've no reason to
doubt it) there's pretty-much nothing stopping vendors from installing all
forms of nastiness on our machines because we "agreed" to it through the
vague terminology of the TOS.
>
>> 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.)

Generally, I agree with you. That's why I started the last paragraph by
stating that I'm not real big on legislature. But it's getting to the point
where something needs to be done about this crap. And I for one, like to
think I'm responsible for my own actions. But how am I supposed to make an
informed decision on whether or not I'd like to try an application, if the
company I'm getting it from isn't required to tell me *up* *front* just
exactly what (if anything) else I'm getting along with their program? I
read the TOS and the EULA for AIM, and it got me nowhere. How do you deal
with a situation like that? Do you use some kind of installation monitor?
Am I supposed to take a snap-shot of my system, then install the program,
take another snap-shot, and compare the two? I'm very serious about this.
How can one readily determine what's been added/subtracted from one's
machine after installing something like AIM? Because honestly ... I would
have never even noticed that Viewpoint thingy if it hadn't added itself to
the Control Panel and the Add/Remove programs list. I was just doing some
basic maintenence when I stumbled on it, and wondered how it got there. I
knew I hadn't installed it, so I checked the dates. Sure enough it
coincided with the AIM install. A quick trip to Google then proved I wasn't
the only one upset about this.

> 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.

I'm afraid you're correct. And as previously stated, AOL has one less
customer to serve it's ads to now. Not that AIM cost me anything in the
first place.

I appreciate your input on this, Mr. Chambers. And I'll look for any reply.
But is seems as though this thread is running far astray of any form of XP
issue, so I'll drop it after this. Thanks for allowing me to vent a bit.
:-)

Loading