Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker in Security http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r10812385 en Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:34:40 EDT Sun, 29 Nov 2009 05:34:40 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10822024 eburger68 : Hi All:

As you know, I've been looking into the ebates.com domain and how it's being used by the MoeMoneyMaker software. So far as I can tell, the ebates.com domain is not used by that application in any way that IE-SPYAD could affect -- meaning, that it isn't being used for drive-by-downloads, pop-ups, or other forms of obnoxious market/advertising.

Given that the ebates.com has only a very limited *functional* connection with the MoeMoneyMaker software, the only thing being accomplished by loading it into the Restricted sites zone is to interfere with the use of the domain by folks who actually want to use the services there. I have no interest in interfering with the use of those services by people who voluntarily choose to do so.

Thus, in the next update what I will do is move the ebates.com domain (and only that one domain) to the "Not for Everyone" and disable it by default. It will still be in the IE-ADS.REG file (which is the installer), but users who want to restrict that domain will need to enable it themselves -- it will not be installed by default.

If, down the road, I see evidence that the ebates.com domain is being used for drive-by-downloads, pop-ups, or other undesirable activitiy, I will add it back into the main list, where it will be loaded by default.

The IE-SPYAD ReadMe contains instructions on how to customize the IE-ADS.REG file and even built your own custom blacklist.

If you have any questions about IE-SPYAD or how this change will work, please let me know.

Best,

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10822024 Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:56:13 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10821736 B :
I don't "do" IE zones, but I could have sworn someone posted about a GUI-based zone maintenance program a long time ago... If it's open source you could just wrap it around Eric's list, no?

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10821736 Mon, 19 Jul 2004 20:23:22 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10821392 eburger68 : keith2468:

Thanks for taking an interest in this.

The interface itself needn't be naything flashy or fancy. It will have to display domains in an easy-to-use list, allow users to build a custom white list and black list that can be preserved across updates, handle updates (both additions and removals to the main list) gracefully, and will need to offer users an optional "Not for Everyone" list from which domains can be enabled and disabled. Plus, it will need to handle several quirks in the way IE creates keys and sub-keys for domains and sub-domains.

So, the real difficulty in writing this thing is going to be working out a system to juggle all the different classifications of domains and user preferences.

Best,

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10821392 Mon, 19 Jul 2004 19:45:01 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10820634 keith2468 : - Hi Eric, I have 3 friends that I think are maybe between contracts. I'll see if any of them are interested and feel up to volunteering for this. The thing is, most of their work has been mainframe, although they have all taken at least some PC software courses.

- If anyone else knows a programmer who may be interested, maybe put them in touch with Eric. It is a good cause. Something to put on their resume, that can be made to fit on a diskette or a CD, that is well known, and that they can quickly demo to a potential employer.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ+Submit suspected malware+Security FAQ)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10820634 Mon, 19 Jul 2004 18:26:00 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814819 Mele20 :
said by EGeezer See Profile:

said by mele20 in »Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker
:

As for my berating people, I haven't done that.


said by same post:

Many of you in this thread are witchhunters and fanatics.


Thanks for making my point ;) Hope you get to feeling better ...


How did I make your point? I stated a fact not an opinion. Only opinions can berate. Facts are facts.

BTW, I hope YOU feel better soon so your mind is working more clearly. :)
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814819 Mon, 19 Jul 2004 02:24:10 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814494 eburger68 : Joe:

One minor clarification:

You wrote:

said by jpeachman See Profile:
Um, how would this work? If IE-SPYAD users are blocked from going to ebates.com, how would they see the notice there advising IE-SPYAD users on how to unrestrict ebates.com?


IE-SPYAD places domains like ebates.com into the Restricted sites zone. Once placed in the Restricted sites zone, web sites cannot use certain technologies like Java, ActiveX, and scripting. The sites themselves are generally still accessible; it's just that certain parts of the web site may be "broken," as it were, depending on the nature of the content.

This is what Mr. Isolani was complaining about: that users were attempting to use services at ebates.com and that those services were broken because they were dependent upon technologies denied to sites and domains in the Restricted sites zone.

Best,

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814494 Mon, 19 Jul 2004 01:10:36 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814401 eburger68 : Keith2468:

I appreciate your opinion that I am doing the right thing in seeking input on the ebates.com issue. If we have minor disagreements on the specifics of certain issues, I certainly don't regard that as anything other than what it is: a disagreement on certain specifics.

You also wrote:

said by keith2468 See Profile:
Anyways, good luck. I'm going to keep using your product even if you don't feel like updating your user interface.


OK, it's not so much that I don't "feel like updating" the IE-SPYAD user interface (in fact I've long recognized that a nicer interface would help users), it's more that I'm limited in what I can do. I am not a programmer, thus I'm limited to batch files and Reg files that I create myself.

As has been apparent for over a year now, the batch file/Reg file installation and management methods have their limits, esp. given the nature of the things users are now demanding. The batch file/Reg file format is creaky, but there's little I can do about that myself.

When I first created IE-SPYAD four years ago, it was a simple, small Reg file list coupled with a ReadMe. I had no idea that: a) it would become so popular that I would be releasing new versions 4 years later; and b) the nature of the list would become so involved that a whole separate interface would become required for optimal use.

In other words, IE-SPYAD has simply grown far beyond what I expected it to be. If I could create a special interface for it, I woud do that tomorrow, but I can't. Perhaps someone with an interest in IE-SPYAD and some basic programming skills would be kind enough to offer a hand. Until then, I'm stuck with batch files and Reg files.

Best regards,

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814401 Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:54:55 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814372 EGeezer :
said by mele20 in »Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker
:

As for my berating people, I haven't done that.


said by same post:

Many of you in this thread are witchhunters and fanatics.


Thanks for making my point ;) Hope you get to feeling better ...
--
Save us from those who seek to solve problems they haven't defined but treat them gently because sometimes they may really have something.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814372 Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:49:59 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814235 Mele20 : My actions are consistent with my words. I have not always used Proxo nor I have I always used FF but I didn't get any spyware during the years I used IE and no Proxo. I even had AOL dial up for two years and managed to stay clean then too. I do not use a software firewall and haven't for over two years. When I stopped using a software firewall, I had W98SE and had no hardware firewall. Everyone here predicted dire consequences. Ha! I was just fine. I do have a router now but if I didn't I would just tie XP down so that it doesn't need a firewall. I know how to do it and may do it anyway as I don't really care about networking the two computers. This way I can tie my W98SE box back down securely so I don't need even the router as I am not happy with the router.

I could easily turn off Proxo and use IE with complete confidence that I will not get any spyware. I use Proxo not for its security but because it stops gif animation which I hate as it triggers a migraine headache and I use it because it blocks ads. As for FF, I use it because it has tabbed browsing and other features I like. The better security is nice but that is not why I use it and Mozilla. I don't like IE. If I liked it I would use it. I could turn off my AV and not be concerned about getting viruses either.

As for my berating people, I haven't done that. Rather I have been berated for stating some obvious facts that some of you don't like to hear. I fail to see what my signature has to do with any of this. It regards survival of the individual spirit in the bleakest of circumstances and I am a survivor although, thank God, not of the Nazi death camps. I know that for instance you people in this thread can try and hurt me as much as you wish but I will survive because you cannot take from me my attitude ...you cannot defeat and break my spirit just as the Nazis could not break Victor Frankl's spirit. They took everything from him but the one truly important thing and that they could not take...his mental attitude in the face of such immense monstrosity and horror.

I have never advocated that users not learn about safe hex and that includes using safe browser settings and installing MS security patches, not using file and print sharing, etc.I have also never said users shouldn't come here to ask for help if they got infected. I simply think they do not need to rely on all these antispyware applications so they can continue their bad behavior that landed them in this forum in the first place. I believe they should modify their behavior so they don't need all these applications. I believe that business owners have some rights and that it is not the fault of the business owner if the computer user thinks he can have his cake and eat it also which is what many of you seem to believe is true. That is never true. You have the right to a different philosophy of life but while you accuse me of being rigid and wanting everyone to be like me you are doing exactly what you accuse me of and so is Eric.

I could refute every single thing you and eburger have said but it is a waste of my time. Many of you in this thread are witchhunters and fanatics. Eric is very emotionally involved in his witch hunting and he is very irrational on this subject. No wonder Mr.Isolani hasn't come to this thread and didn't bother to try and engage Eric in meaningful dialog. I suspect Eric that you started this thread not to get meaningful input since you have demonstrated that you cannot handle input that doesn't agree with your viewpoint without flaming the poster rather it seems obvious at this point that you started this thread for the purpose of getting other witchhunters to agree with you so you would feel justified in continuing your witchhunt and you could pat yourself on the back and tell yourself how "fair" you have been with eBates.

BTW, Eric I have read all your papers on privacy, etc. and I have always admired you until today. I will never forget how much help you and R2 gave me when I was trying to get corrupted SunJava installs off my 98SE box sometime back so your need to flame because I don't agree with your witchhunt surprises and saddens me. I am a premium member at Computer Cops and I go there every day, I am a senior member of Wilders Security and post there everyday. I also read the Net Integration forums several times a week. I test my knowledge by analyzing Hijack This posts before the experts see them and then compare to see how I am doing. I do quite well. I am well aware that spyware can be nasty but I still contend that this is due primarily to users thinking that computers are toasters and even when they rudely learn differently they, for the most part, refuse to change their behavior so that they can be safe without the need for all these antispyware applications,etc.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10814235 Mon, 19 Jul 2004 00:29:49 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10813793 keith2468 : Eric, clearly we are not connecting. Someone new to the forum would find it hard to believe we are both against people and companies being victimized by other people and companies on the Internet.

For the third time you are doing the right thing looking at the original product. Whereas those of us just helping limited numbers of other people can reasonably rely on the opinions Google turns up, as a publisher of a widely advertised and widely used product you have to do your own research, or at least confirm that the research google turns up is current and not just a repeated opinion from a third site. And that is what you are doing, the right thing, looking at the product and talking to its vendor, and doing your own research.

Anyways, good luck. I'm going to keep using your product even if you don't feel like updating your user interface.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ+Submit suspected malware+Security FAQ)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10813793 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:27:18 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812909 EGeezer : Mele20 See Profile,Your actions are not consistent with your words. You use programs like proxomitron and firefox to provide security for your system against malware and silent downloads, yet condemn others who choose to use security applications - except those you use.
said by from »Re: Common Tracking Cookies...

I don't have to worry either way because I don't see any ads or popups because everything is filtered through Proxo. I could use Proxo to change all cookies to session only, to block, to fake, whatever if I wished.

Following your logic, if you practiced safe browsing you wouldn't go to sites that left undesirable items on your system. If you really believed what you say, you would be using no security applications or settings and relying only on your browsing habits and a simple firewall that blocks unsoolicited inbound requests.

Eric's application rules are consistent with many other product creators who consider the ebate/MMM. If a user wants to trust a site listed in IE-Spyad, it is a trivial process do make that change. If you don't like IE-SPYAD, don't use it. Implying to users in a security forum that they only need use caution in browsing is irresponsible;

said by »Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker

they usually arm themselves with such applications as Adaware, etc. when what they should be doing is altering their behavior so that they don't need any anti-spyware applications.


Ill-mannered, personally disparaging, and assumptive language berating people you don't know is not consistent with good manners, social awareness or professional standards or those of this forum, let alone what one would expect of a person who claims a Ph.D. It demonstrates a high level of disregard for others, and disparaging them unnecessarily demonstrates a poor attitude toward others who are doing their best to be responsible.

I recommend you read your own sig and adjust accordingly.
said by sig:
Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny."


I also recommend you give the same deference to others you ask for yourself; reread your words in
said by »Re: SpywareBlaster 3.2 keeps crashing... :

Why you feel you need to ridicule me because I did not like KIAV 5.0 personal (you like ADS tags on all your files fine...I don't) and prefer another OS than the one your family likes is something I don't understand. Care to enlighten me as to why you are so hostile?


Try giving the freedom and attitude to others that you seem to advocate for yourself. You'll be the happier for it. :)
--
Save us from those who seek to solve problems they haven't defined but treat them gently because sometimes they may really have something.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812909 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:37:23 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812792 suzi : Mele20 said:
quote:
They almost never take any personal responsiblilty for what has happened. They want a quick fix and then they go back to the very same behaviors that got them the spyware the first time. Yes, they usually arm themselves with such applications as Adaware, etc. when what they should be doing is altering their behavior so that they don't need any anti-spyware applications. It is frightening to see the number of people who would rather blame a business that has done nothing illegal for their woes because they refuse to look within themselves to find the real culprit.


That seems like a rather backward viewpoint to me. Using tools like IE-SPYAD to prevent spyware/hijacking *IS* taking personal responsibility. You seem to overlook the fact that spyware/adware uses *deceptive* methods - burying the EULA's, bundling with other applications, to *trick* uneducated web surfers into downloading their crapware.

It would be like saying it's my own fault for buying a faulty product even though the salesperson gave me a phony sales pitch and lied about the product. I don't think so.

I'm taking personal responsibility for the safety of my computer by using SpywareBlaster, SpywareGuard, IE-SPYAD, Ad-aware, Spybot Search & Destroy. Not doing so would be like going having unprotected sex with someone diagnosed with AIDS. The internet is full of exploits, spyware, malware, trojans and so on. Not having protection is foolish.

Eric Howes said:
quote:
Look through that paragraph again, Mele20. It is logical nonsense; complete and utter poppycock.; BS on stilts.


I agree 100%.
--
aka Suzi, Spyware Warrior]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812792 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:23:08 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812778 jpeachman :
said by novaflare See Profile:
If im not mistaken ebates.com it self isnt blocked its the domains for mo money maker that are blocked. If ebates is blocked unblock it and block only the mo money domains.

There may be other sites that are distributing MoMoneyMaker (either directly or bundled with ad-supported software), but I don't think there is a separate MMM website. I understand Eric's question pertains to the blocking of ebates.com as a means of restricting MMM, since I believe MMM connects to ebates.com in order to function.

Joe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812778 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 21:21:53 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812539 eburger68 : keith2468:

You wrote:

said by keith2468:
Who is being unfair now? Even witchhunters cared about the facts, but only certain facts. They were selective, unfair, didn't consider the alleged witch's viewpoint, and didn't listen to what the witch had to say, unless it could be interpreted as a confession.


Keith, we have seen a wide variety of facts posted in this thread. We've had critics of the program and the company as well as defenders. We've had people picking out particular facts where they find them as well as reporting their own experiences with the program, the company, and its services. Thus, your assertion that the "witch's viewpoint" hasn't been considered here is utterly baseless -- completely without merit, and utterly indifferent to what has actually transpired in this thread. In fact, earlier today I emailed Mr. Isolani and invited him to contribute to this thread.

If you'd care to contribute to this inquiry into ebates.com and its software and services, I'd be more than happy to consider what you have to offer. But to dismissively wave off what other people have posted already as a "witch hunt" doesn't do justice to the contributors or what they've offered.

said by keith2468:
The simple fact of the matter is that the posts by the folks I am labeling witchunters look so see what other anti-spyware products have labeled the suspect product as -- which is how a mob behaves. Individual examination is replaced by group-think. The person is guilty because a lot of people think they are guilty. That is pretty much the definition of mob mentality in this context.


Did you look carefully at the pages that people linked to? If you did, surely you would have noticed that those pages are chock full of information about the program and the company, all relevant information for us to consider here. That is not groupthink.

said by keith2468:
If we want to be responsible we should have as clear a definition of what is and is not spyware.

The guy at MoeMoneyMaker shouldn't have to ask what he needs to do to get off the restricted list. He should be able to read it.


Did you even look at the links to information and policies about IE-SPYAD that I MYSELF posted? If you did, surely you would have noticed that those pages clearly spell out the targeting criteria for IE-SPYAD and AGNIS (my other block list). Most other reputable anti-spyware vendors publish extensive targeting criteria as well.

Moreover, I pointed ebates.com to just those pages. And as I reported in the first post of this thread, Mr. Isolani essentially ignored all that in his response to my reply, not even bothering to address the targeting criteria or attempting to explain why his company's software didn't qualify ebates.com for targeting.

said by keith2468:
Also, where do you read that I'm proposing a completed list? If a point needs to be expanded, by all means jump in with the expansion. If an additional point is required, make it.


First off, I did not imply that your list was complete. In fact, the reason that I responded was that I recognized it as incomplete, and I wanted to point that out.

Second, as for making my own points, I have -- not only here in this very thread, but in numerous other threads posted on this forum (have you read my review of the FTC Spyware Workshop, which contains lengthy, extended discussions of all of these issues? -- see: »FTC Spyware Workshop: 1st Impressions ), in web pages on my web site (see: »https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/junkware.htm ), as well as in my submissions to the FTC (see »https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/ftc···ents.htm and »https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/dbd-anatomy.htm ).

If I'm reluctant to take up that more general set of issues here, it is because I think it best to try to get to the heart of the more immediate and pressing questions that I've laid out in this thread.

said by keith2468:
Explict permission isn't the same as notice. Notice means announcing you've done it or are about to do it. Whereas permission means asking the user up front each time if you may do it.

And you don't have carte blanche permission if you have to ask for permission each time. Carte blance is like a blank cheque for the other party to fill in whatever they want -- without coming back for permission.


You missed my point here. My point was that your standards end up swallowing themselves. All the reputable anti-spyware apps that I know of would easily satisfy standards 1-5 that you offer. They would also meet standard 6, however you want to couch it, because they offer users a list of apps that they propose to remove, give the users the option of selecting or de-selecting each one, and even provide extended information about the application and the reasons for detection and removal. By your standards (that is, if they're going to be consistent from anti-spyware apps to regular apps like MoeMoneymaker, which also remove applications), this notice, choice, and consent (permission, in short) is all that is needed. We don't need a definition of "spyware" if the user has been given notice, choice, and consent and permission has been secured to remove those apps. If you still insist that the anti-spyware apps do need to limit themselves to detecting and removing only "spyware," then that same or a similar standard must apply to apps like MoeMoneyMaker, because it doesn't make any sense to limit the range of apps that Ad-aware or Spybot can remove while not limiting the range of apps that MoeMoneyMaker can remove.

said by keith2468:
Good point. I invite you and others to answer this -- I'm just starting the list.

I'd suggest the answer has to apply to preventative measures as well, because otherwise the spyware will simply be packaged with anti-spyware.


I've already answered it -- just below the portion of my post that you quoted. I said:

said by Eric L. Howes:
What if there is a significant base of users out there who essentially say, "We'd like to load a block list or program that restricts or blocks ebates.com (or claria.com, or whenu.com, etc.), no matter what the 'experts' say." Are you suggesting that other people like JavaCool or I ought not be able to build such preventative measures like SpywareBlaster or IE-SPYAD simply because the domains and ActiveX controls we target (per user demand) don't fit the standards you've outlined above? That would be a strange notion of "permission" and "choice" indeed.


In other words, I don't think these absolute standards should apply to preventative measures. I would argue that it would be both good manners and in the interests of users for targeting criteria to be published and generally adhered to, but to prohibit the building of block lists or other preventative measures because they target things outside an "officially acceptable" list of "spyware" domains or programs would effectively be telling users, "You have no right to access and use preventative measures to establish control over the use of your computer as you see fit if those preventative measures don't fit 'official standards.'" And that hardly squares with any notion of individual choice or responsibility that I know of.

As for your whitelist suggestion, this is covered in the IE-SPYAD ReadMe:

»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/res···pyad.txt

See the section titled "How can I save my "disabled" entries?" I've been trying to figure out some way to incorporate this into the batch file installer without making things more confusing, esp. since the usual practice of IE-SPYAD users is to delete the old version and download the new version when updates are available. In other words, it's a matter of coming up with a set of suggested procedures for using the whitelist and preserving it across updates.

Best,

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812539 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:51:47 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812523 CajunTek : My only comments here..

Well said CJ and Well done Eric..
--
Lost in Texas]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812523 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:50:17 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812444 CalamityJane :
said by eburger68 See Profile:


* When users look for guidance in a security forum such as this one, they are exercising individual responsibility, and for them to clean their computers they must have access to assistance from forum regulars who actually care helping them with their problems, not sneering at them or condemning them for being "dumb," "ignorant," and "lazy." (Just what was it you thought we did in this forum anyway? Give certain users privileged with knowledge an experience a platform from which to scorn and spit on the ignorant, unwashed masses?)
Amen, Eric!!

And I am among many of those helping those users, here and the other mentioned forums in addition! And you are doing the same with not only your users you help but with IESPYAD. My experience, and I'll bet it is yours, is that most folks, after such an episode, are anxious to have instructions and help on how to prevent future occurances.

IESPYAD is at the top of the list of recommended programs. Your diligence in researching all of those sites (My God! How do you do it???) is appreciated by all of us. The victims and the helpers. :)

For most it is their first introduction to the need for PC security and the path to gaining greater knowledge on how to keep safe!!

[edit] spelling typo
--
It takes a disaster to make a woman out of a female

Gladiator Security Forum


Proud Member of ASAP (Alliance of Security Analysis Professionals) »www.a-sap.org/]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812444 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:40:52 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812385 novaflare :
said by jpeachman See Profile:
said by novaflare See Profile:
how about this a compramise.
The source/sources for mo money maker stay in ie spyadd by default but with your blessing ebates.cm adds a nice notice to iespyaddusers who wish to download mo money maker that they need to ither disable or uncheck/add this(these) url(s) to a exclude list to download and install mo money maker.
This way those who truely want to download mo money maker can do so and they will have the instructions on how to do so in plain english.

Um, how would this work? If IE-SPYAD users are blocked from going to ebates.com, how would they see the notice there advising IE-SPYAD users on how to unrestrict ebates.com? Or am I misreading your suggestion? If the notice is instead on Eric's site, they could read it (if they happened to notice it at the time), but would they remember it if they subsequently decided to use ebates?

Joe

If im not mistaken ebates.com it self isnt blocked its the domains for mo money maker that are blocked. If ebates is blocked unblock it and block only the mo money domains.
posted to soon
ment to add
ive not used ie spyad my self
--
new 3d chat comunity at »planetvirtuel.com
my site »spellbound.valshea.com/news.php]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812385 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:34:42 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812383 sybille :
said by keith2468 See Profile:

We should construct our software to accomodate users and their desire to access particular suspect sites, and still protect them against the other suspect sites they don't want.

Ad-aware, Spybot S&D, and Spamcop.net all allow me to easily ignore or whitelist what they consider to be hazards or hazardous sites.



IE-SPYAD does include a readme that gives users explicit instructions as to how to remove any sites the reg file blocks. Online version at »https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/res···pyad.txt

Questions addressed in this readme, among others:

"One of the web sites that I normally visit isn't working right. How can I remove it from the Restricted sites zone?"

"How can I tell which entry is causing a problem with a web site?"

Maybe it is not as easy to read a readme as it is to click on a GUI or an "I accept the EULA" button, but it's more instructive. Once the user learns the principles, not only is it very easy to use IE-SPYAD but he or she is better equiped to use the internet responsibly.

pollux44
Who didn't know what IE zones were before using IE-SPYAD

(edit for clarity)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812383 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:34:30 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812355 jpeachman :
said by novaflare See Profile:
how about this a compramise.
The source/sources for mo money maker stay in ie spyadd by default but with your blessing ebates.cm adds a nice notice to iespyaddusers who wish to download mo money maker that they need to ither disable or uncheck/add this(these) url(s) to a exclude list to download and install mo money maker.
This way those who truely want to download mo money maker can do so and they will have the instructions on how to do so in plain english.

Um, how would this work? If IE-SPYAD users are blocked from going to ebates.com, how would they see the notice there advising IE-SPYAD users on how to unrestrict ebates.com? Or am I misreading your suggestion? If the notice is instead on Eric's site, they could read it (if they happened to notice it at the time), but would they remember it if they subsequently decided to use ebates?

Joe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812355 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:30:54 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812239 keith2468 :
quote:
there seems to be little point in arguing with a company whose business by design relies on predatory behaviour.

"How can we get off your blacklist?"

"Well, just change your entire business model, ditch all your existing parasitic products and replace them with software people *want* to use. Or why not forget the software and become pig farmers instead?"


Going past the rest of the post to just this section, I think this would be so wrong a way to do business.

There is the assumption that the otherside is somehow not worth talking to. That any discussion would be an argument (when we can only control whether we ourselves argue).

There is the connotative term "predatory", and they could equally use the same term back on us -- and we could have hurt feelings all around, and still be no closer to a solution. After all, which side is it that wants to cause real injury to the other side? Clearly we want true malware makers and distributers to go out of business if they won't change their ways.

The other side knows that some people want their products, and we all know there is no product that everyone wants.

As for becoming pig farmers, I don't want to insult pig farmers or any kind of farmers, but there are a lot of people who belong in different fields (and this is perhaps most common in law enforcement, where certain sorts of people become obsessed with power and authority, hence the intensive personality tests most police departments give in an attempt to keep those sorts of people out, then they become security guards or whatever).

Correcting a few fine points in company policy, or dropping an unacceptable business partner does not necessitate changing lines of work.

If it did, we'd have no businesses period, of any type, because no business owner is immune to mistakes.

I assume the objective is to safeguard users and facilitate their safe and easy use of the Internet. I think we need to keep that end goal in mind.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812239 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:15:29 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812208 novaflare : how about this a compramise.
The source/sources for mo money maker stay in ie spyadd by default but with your blessing ebates.cm adds a nice notice to iespyaddusers who wish to download mo money maker that they need to ither disable or uncheck/add this(these) url(s) to a exclude list to download and install mo money maker.
This way those who truely want to download mo money maker can do so and they will have the instructions on how to do so in plain english.
--
new 3d chat comunity at »planetvirtuel.com my site »spellbound.valshea.com/news.php]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812208 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:10:51 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812197 eburger68 : Mele20:

I'm going to keep my reply short, because there's so very little to respond to. Your point about individual responsibility can be reduced to this:

said by Mele20:
This sums it all up. I believe that individuals should take personal responsibilty for their actions. The antispyware vendors, including yourself, do not feel this way. With the exception of true drive by downloads (which is virus/trojan like and should handled by AV vendors), a user has only his or herself to blame if they get spyware on their computers. It is ethically wrong to expect businesses to mollycoddle lazy, confused, ignorant, etc. users! I am continually aghast at all the people who come running here upset because they got some adware/spyware on their computers. They almost never take any personal responsiblilty for what has happened. They want a quick fix and then they go back to the very same behaviors that got them the spyware the first time. Yes, they usually arm themselves with such applications as Adaware, etc. when what they should be doing is altering their behavior so that they don't need any anti-spyware applications. It is frightening to see the number of people who would rather blame a business that has done nothing illegal for their woes because they refuse to look within themselves to find the real culprit.


Look through that paragraph again, Mele20. It is logical nonsense; complete and utter poppycock.; BS on stilts.

What you're essentially saying is that this demand for "individual responsibility" is so strict, so high that even when users realize they might have made a mistake, they cannot resort to an anti-spyware program or seek the help and advice of others. Just how such a moral prohibition squares with "individual responsibility" is beyond me, because any reasonable definition of "individual responsibility" would have to allow users the ability to take corrective action (such as with an anti-spyware scanner), to get help in order to take corrective action (such as from a forum like this one), and even take preventative action (such as by using a program like SpywareBlaster or a block list like IE-SPYAD).

How else would allow users assert this "individual responsibility"? By cowering in the darkness after they've been hijacked by spyware, mumbling to themselves in eternal penitence, "I will not be a dumb, ignorant, lazy user anymore. I will not be a dumb, ignorant, lazy user anymore..."?

* When users resort to anti-spyware scanners, they are exercising individual responsibility, and for those anti-spyware scanners to work, they've got to target applications that may be installed on users' hard drives without their full knowledge and consent.

* When users load a block list like IE-SPYAD, they are exercising individual responsibility, and for that block list to work it must target domains associated with known purveyors of this kind of software.

* When users look for guidance in a security forum such as this one, they are exercising individual responsibility, and for them to clean their computers they must have access to assistance from forum regulars who actually care about helping them with their problems, not sneering at them or condemning them for being "dumb," "ignorant," and "lazy." (Just what was it you thought we did in this forum anyway? Give certain users privileged with knowledge an experience a platform from which to scorn and spit on the ignorant, unwashed masses?)

And as per usual, this minor disquisition on "individual responsibility" has almost nothing to do with actual responsibility -- it was simply a transparent apologia for corporate misbehavior. This kind of sleight of hand is what I usually find when someone goes off on "individual responsibility" -- responsibility is only for the little people; the big boys are excused for some strange reason.

Finally, I must add that I find it surprising that you've been in these forums as long as you have without having learned some of the more salient facts about the latest varieties of spyware/adware or having let that knowledge get in the way of your misplaced demand for "individual responsibility." To wit: how is it that you demand average users exercise this high standard of "individual responsibility" when even expert users struggle with this stuff, so much so that average internet users have not a chance when faced with a "crapware" industry that:

* morphs its installers almost daily;

* exploits known security holes in MS software to insinuate itself on PCs;

* uses confusing and even fraudulent means to trick people into clicking boxes (e.g., pop-ups posing as MS updates and even system error boxes; pop-ups with X icons that don't close the box but instead launch installers, etc.);

* disguises its crapware offerings as "anti-spyware" programs;

* provides uninstallers that actually install more crapware;

* locks users out of the system settings that could be used to repair the damage;

* blocks the download of "anti-spyware" programs that could be used to fix the problems.

If you doubt me, spend some time over at SpywareInfo or ComputerCops or Net-Integration going through HijackThis! logs -- I think you'll quickly discover that the problem with "spyware" is much worse than allow here. We're not dealing with a few bad apples here that can be handled by AV programs.

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812197 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 20:09:24 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812024 keith2468 :
quote:
It is ethically wrong to expect businesses to mollycoddle lazy, confused, ignorant, etc. users! I am continually aghast at all the people who come running here upset because they got some adware/spyware on their computers. They almost never take any personal responsiblilty for what has happened. They want a quick fix and then they go back to the very same behaviors that got them the spyware the first time. Yes, they usually arm themselves with such applications as Adaware, etc. when what they should be doing is altering their behavior so that they don't need any anti-spyware applications. It is frightening to see the number of people who would rather blame a business that has done nothing illegal for their woes because they refuse to look within themselves to find the real culprit.


I'm not going quite that far. But I do agree with Mele on those points I said above that I agree with.

I do believe people should be able to quickly remove what they install on their computer.

And hiding some functions deep inside an EULA, while publishing others on the download page, or getting blanket consent for doing something unrelated, is not professional.

In order to have a good public image, we as a profession want to exceed minimum legal standards when we can. And I think a lot of what most of us call malware makers are not doing that.

That said, we shouldn't make life hard for those computer users who actually want special deals and don't care if some little application watches where they surf to so it can give them those deals.

We should construct our software to accomodate users and their desire to access particular suspect sites, and still protect them against the other suspect sites they don't want.

Ad-aware, Spybot S&D, and Spamcop.net all allow me to easily ignore or whitelist what they consider to be hazards or hazardous sites.

This is merely a suggestion for improvement. With software I'm not paying for, and that I'm voluntarily choosing to run, I can't really complain about the lack of a function.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ+Submit suspected malware+Security FAQ)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10812024 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:51:13 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811937 jpeachman : I think the gist of the original question posed in this thread is, "Should ebates.com be included in IE-SPYAD's list of blocked sites (and why or why not)?" The ebates.com site itself is legitimate and well-behaved, so the simple and direct answer seems to me to be "no". Where the waters are muddied is in the behavior (actual or potential) and distribution of MoeMoneyMaker. I don't know the nature of the relationship between ebates.com and TopMoxie (the maker of MMM), but if they're not one and the same (and I see no indication that they are), then I presume there is some sort of financial arrangement whereby ebates.com pays TopMoxie either a one-time fee when a user installs MMM (and perhaps carries it through to setting up their ebates account), or some sort of commission on actual sales generated through MMM. As a company with other "products" besides MMM, TopMoxie and those bundling TopMoxie programs with their adware-supported programs (Grokster et al.) seem to engage in more questionable behavior than I attribute to ebates.com itself.

Which leaves the original question. If the (potentially) objectionable behavior is related to TopMoxie's MMM and to sites other than ebates.com who include it in their bundled software or distribute it by other, more unethical means, should that result in the blocking of ebates.com as a means of containing/disabling MMM? If a program like SpyBot or Ad-Aware wants to offer to remove MMM (but not restrict access to ebates.com), I have no problem with that, and it sounds like Mr. Isolani from ebates.com is OK with that too, but TopMoxie (who stands to lose income) may not so happy with that prospect. The wording in ebates' T&C seems to discuss potential conflicts with "another savings tool", which makes sense in that two different affiliates can't both be getting the click-through commissions on a sale; thus, it's not compatible to run MMM along with a conflicting shopping tool. However, the actual wording about removing or disabling software that might nullify the function of MMM is broad enough to clearly include programs such as Ad-Aware and Spybot, which it should not, as those programs are never run "accidentally." Hence my earlier interest in whether there is any evidence that this actually happens. I think it may be a case of an overly-broad clause in a EULA that does not reflect the true intent or behavior of the company, and if that is the case, I would urge Mr. Isolani to get that language clarified.

I see the actual behavior of MMM as being much like SideStep in the travel-shopping arena, with the apparent exception that SideStep is no longer bundled with anything else. I believe Ad-Aware no longer detects SideStep, and SpyBot has moved it from automatic inclusion in the things it blocks to not being selected by default. That could be the way things will move with MMM, too, though clearly I'm speculating, as MMM is still bundled with other things right now. But again, as I noted earlier in this thread, I'm not necessarily troubled by that, depending on the actual presentation of the bundle. Users who choose to use adware-supported programs may be getting exactly what they're "paying" for, as long as everything is spelled out pretty clearly; when it isn't, I place more blame on those distributing the entire bundle, whose responsibility I think it is to make clear what users will be getting when they accept the main program's EULA.

In the end, this remains less clear than I would wish, but I still lean toward not including ebates.com in any blocklist, except perhaps as an optional extra (as Spybot does with SideStep). While it appears to be easy enough for "regular users" to uninstall MMM if they don't want it (not only through the standard Add/Remove Programs dialog, but also apparently right from within MMM's own Preferences), they might have no clue as to why it no longer worked or they couldn't get to ebates.com if they or their "computer-expert friend" used a large blocklist like IE-SPYAD. Of course, most of the people using this forum would understand what to do (and most probably wouldn't use MMM to begin with) if ebates.com is included in the restricted sites zone through IE-SPYAD.

Joe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811937 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:39:38 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811891 keith2468 : I'm sorry if I offended you by association Eric, but I'm the kind of person who speaks his mind. I'm a programmer, analyst and project leader, and I've posted before about IT professionals and companies in the security field posting how-tos on viruses and trojans publicaly, and how that makes it look like they are trying to drum up business by creating problems for potential customers.

So don't think I'm treating the anti-adware anti-spyware IT any differently than I treat other IT specialties.

There are some people making products in our field, professionals or amateurs, or marketing guys, who are not acting professionally. That happens in all fields. And in a real profession their colleagues are supposed to root them out.

We are a new field that doesn't yet have a strong established sense of ethics. That doesn't mean we are all corrupt, but we have to speak out.

Look at a typical EULA for a software product: we generally don't even promise a full refund if our products don't work, we seldom accept liability for any problems we cause others.

------------------------
quote:
It's rather irresponsible to stand in the middle of a thread in which people have been picking over the particular facts regarding a piece of software and the company behind it and charge people with a "mob mentality or witchhhunt mentality" -- which suggests that the people in this discussion don't care about the facts.


Who is being unfair now? Even witchhunters cared about the facts, but only certain facts. They were selective, unfair, didn't consider the alleged witch's viewpoint, and didn't listen to what the witch had to say, unless it could be interpreted as a confession.

The simple fact of the matter is that the posts by the folks I am labeling witchunters look so see what other anti-spyware products have labeled the suspect product as -- which is how a mob behaves. Individual examination is replaced by group-think. The person is guilty because a lot of people think they are guilty. That is pretty much the definition of mob mentality in this context.

The witchfinder types do not go, as you have done, and check out the original product for themselves. I think you are doing the right thing on this Eric.

If we want to be responsible we should have as clear a definition of what is and is not spyware.

The guy at MoeMoneyMaker shouldn't have to ask what he needs to do to get off the restricted list. He should be able to read it.

Regarding the specific definition of permission for installation, the nitty gritty of the specific words is for open for discussion. To say it isn't decided yet, that it isn't fully described, is to echo what I said when I said,
quote:
Here's a start at a list.


Certainly having a product hidden on page 8 of the EULA, when the other products are listed on the advertising and download page, isn't being clear.

Yes it is much more complicated. Nobody said being responsible would be easy. But if we want to be responsible we'll have to come up with a definition and make it public.

Why assume that the minimum legal standard for general contracts is the standard that would apply for permission?

There are various standards of conscent for special circumstances, like "informed conscent" for medical procedures, "parental conscent", and I imagine there are lots of other standards. And of course these vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.

We simply need an industry standard for consent for installation.

quote:
Congratulations. You've just legitimized CoolWebSearch (or at least most variants of CoolWebSearch), not to mention Lop.com and a whole host of other obnoxious spyware/adware that currently afflict users.


quote:
I'm thinking if a product meets all of these requirements it is clear cut it shouldn't face sanctions:


Do they meet all of the points, or just some of them? And when a CWS version does meet all of our requirements (whatever we come up with), it shouldn't be on the list.

Also, where do you read that I'm proposing a completed list? If a point needs to be expanded, by all means jump in with the expansion. If an additional point is required, make it.

quote:
unless you're going to argue that apps like MoeMoneymaker ought to be given carte blanche to uninstall any app they feel like (so long as notice is provided),


quote:
(6) doesn't remove or disable other products without specific explicit permission from the computer user.


Explict permission isn't the same as notice. Notice means announcing you've done it or are about to do it. Whereas permission means asking the user up front each time if you may do it.

And you don't have carte blanche permission if you have to ask for permission each time. Carte blance is like a blank cheque for the other party to fill in whatever they want -- without coming back for permission.

quote:
And what about prevention programs and block lists like IE-SPYAD? It's one thing to target and remove apps that have already been installed on the user's hard drive (willingly or not), but would these standards apply to preventative measures as well?


Good point. I invite you and others to answer this -- I'm just starting the list.

I'd suggest the answer has to apply to preventative measures as well, because otherwise the spyware will simply be packaged with anti-spyware.

said my mers2
quote:
Just a note to say thank you, Eric, for your work on IE-SPYAD. The fact that you've opened this thread also shows you care about the quality and accuracy of your program.


I agree. I should have put the following up top in my post so it wouldn't have sounded so harsh.

quote:
Again, I use Ad-aware, SpywareBlaster, SpywareGuard, Spybot S&D and IE-SpyAd. But as with Spamcop.net, which I also use, I would love to be able to consistently count on these products being fair in their treatment of non-customers.

It is good that Eric has sought opinions on the issue of MoeMoneyMaker.

----------------
Spamcop.net lets me and other users easily whitelist email addresses, patterns of email addresses beginning from the right, and domains.

This removes a lot of pressure on Spamcop from mail list companies.

Maybe this is the most practical answer for the time being.

How much effort would it be for IE-Spyad to keep a record of which sites the user changes from restricted to unrestricted, so that it would not switch those sites back again with the next install?

One way would be a user interface that listed the sites or allowed search for the sites or products, and removed the domain from the restricted site list -- that way the IE-SpyAd product would know the user had wanted to remove the site from the restricted list.

IE-SpyAd could then keep track of those sites the user had unblocked by using its own part of the registry, or in a configuration file.

This would reduce the impact of a difference of opinions between IE-SpyAd and the user. The vendor of the suspect software could simply instruct the user on how to whitelist the specific site.
------------------
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ+Submit suspected malware+Security FAQ)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811891 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:33:05 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811835 Mele20 :
said by eburger68 See Profile:
keith2468:
But the standards you've offered up here would only give the spyware/adware industry permission to continue their business as usual -- which would be a godsend for them, but a nightmare for consumers.
Best,
Eric L. Howes


This sums it all up. I believe that individuals should take personal responsibilty for their actions. The antispyware vendors, including yourself, do not feel this way. With the exception of true drive by downloads (which is virus/trojan like and should handled by AV vendors), a user has only his or herself to blame if they get spyware on their computers. It is ethically wrong to expect businesses to mollycoddle lazy, confused, ignorant, etc. users! I am continually aghast at all the people who come running here upset because they got some adware/spyware on their computers. They almost never take any personal responsiblilty for what has happened. They want a quick fix and then they go back to the very same behaviors that got them the spyware the first time. Yes, they usually arm themselves with such applications as Adaware, etc. when what they should be doing is altering their behavior so that they don't need any anti-spyware applications. It is frightening to see the number of people who would rather blame a business that has done nothing illegal for their woes because they refuse to look within themselves to find the real culprit.

With the exception of a few graduate level courses in computer usage back when I was getting my Ph.D. in the late 60's-early 70's, I never touched a computer until six years ago when I was old enought to be able to go to a new free program for 55+ persons who wanted to learn about the internet. I bought my first computer a year later. In over 5 years of using a computer daily (on "dreaded", "awful" AOL dialup for two years), I have never gotten any spyware. If I can easily avoid this...I who am statistically in the age group of true "dummies" when it comes to computers, I who did not grow up with them, never used one at work, etc. if I can easily avoid spyware so certainly can other more computer savvy users!

This trend of blaming someone else for your own shortcomings is killing our nation. Wake up, take responsibility for your actions. If you don't want spyware practice safe hex at all times. If you don't know what that is then learn. Don't use Internet Explorer. Use Firefox or even Netscape, etc. If you don't want to read a long Eula for something you are thinking about installing or you can't understand the Eula...then the obvious thing to do is to not install that software! Use something like Ad/subtract if you don't like ads. I could go on and on but I think I have made my point. eBates does not force you or trick you into installing MMM. They even have a simple, easy to understand EULA. Yeah...it may be long but by what right do you have to insist that a business have a short Eula because you have a poor attention span or are lazy and don't want to read it? Don't install it in those circumstances! Don't use a computer if you are not willing to LEARN how to use it properly and responsibly.

"Buyer Beware" connotes a different world ...a better one I believe...where each person takes personal responsibity for their actions or non-actions and who exercises prudence in their behavior on the internet and elsewhere. I am not siding with the adware/spyware vendors or their opposites. I understand that we need, as a society, to provide help and protection to those who, for whatever reason, cannot be responsible for themselves. I also understand that we must provide protection against illegal, criminal activities by others. In all other instances though, I do not agree that users should be excused from personal responsibilty nor do I believe that these users should be able to go on witch hunts against businesses which are acting within legal bounds simply because they are so morally lacking as to be either unwilling or no longer able to take personal responsibility. If some businesses are very close to the edge of criminal behavior but avoiding legal sanction and causing much woe to RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUALS then in that instance the proper response is not witch hunting but dialog as a society and eventual passage of new or amended laws to address the problem.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811835 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:26:05 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811704 bobince :
quote:
Am I mistaken in targeting it in my Restricted sites list?


No, not at all. eBates has NOT changed.

TopMoxie variants including eBates, WebRebates and the WebSearch hijacker are still installed silently, without any notice to the user let alone consent, by third-party applications and even other spyware programs (eg. currently the FavoriteMan parasite). This is just unacceptable.

keith2468 wrote:

quote:
I think it has been pretty well substantiated by those who have installed it that it only gets installed with permission.


Sorry, but you're very wrong.

There are currently paths to TopMoxie that have no EULA in them at all (even if you consider those novel-length EULAs legitimate at all, which I don't). There are even paths to install that begin with exploitation of an IE security hole. This is plain common-or-garden criminal activity.

quote:
(b) the allegation that MMM doesn't have a standard add-remove function that works (and is that allegation currently true)?


Depends. I'm not aware of this being true for the eBates-branded variant of TopMoxie, but certainly many of the other variants have had non-functional (or more often non-existent) uninstalls.

Mele20 wrote:

quote:
I know I will be crucified for having said this.


Well, you could perhaps be considered a little naive. The TopMoxie-based programs (including eBates) have a long history of stealth-installs and undesirable behaviour, and show no sign of changing.

quote:
I was crucified when I defended Jamie Rosen for wanting to know how to get his company off AdAware's Blacklist.


Similarly, whilst Comet Cursor was initially reasonably innocuous (annoying only for the damnable drive-by-downloads), they soon added features which opened adverts and leaked browsing information to Comet, thus fully earning the "spyware" moniker.

Whilst I won't defend the unresponsive period Lavasoft went through (which had negative effects for many, besides the targeted vendors), there seems to be little point in arguing with a company whose business by design relies on predatory behaviour.

"How can we get off your blacklist?"

"Well, just change your entire business model, ditch all your existing parasitic products and replace them with software people *want* to use. Or why not forget the software and become pig farmers instead?"]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811704 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 19:06:57 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811295 mers2 : Just a note to say thank you, Eric, for your work on IE-SPYAD. The fact that you've opened this thread also shows you care about the quality and accuracy of your program.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811295 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 18:08:40 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811150 eburger68 : novaflare:

You wrote:

said by novaflare See Profile:
Looks like they are targeting those who most likly cant afford to take legal action against them and who they think will cave and just do as requested and remove their spyware from their lists.


I hope that's not the case, and I don't know if it is.

In fairness to ebates.com, Mr. Isolani did say that they're actually more concerned about IE-SPYAD than the removals by anti-spyware applications. As he explained it (or at least as I understood his explanation), the removals are clean for the most part, causing no problems to people who actually want to use the ebates.com service.

IE-SPYAD, by contrast, can interfere with the use of the service by people who want to use the service -- if, that is, they don't remove the ebates.com domain from the Restricted sites domain, which is easy enough to do.

Best,

Eric L. Howes ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811150 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:45:12 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811067 novaflare :
said by SnowyOne See Profile:
"Of course some of these products deserve the treatment, but the fact that there might be some witches does not mean we should burn everyone Ad-aware or Spybot or PestPatrol or some other Witchfinder General labels a witch."

you left out symantec, kephyr & sophos

»Ad-aware 01R301 03.05..2004

»www.spysweeper.com/ebates-removal.html

»www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/e/eb···aker.asp

»sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/adwa···xie.html

»www.kephyr.com/spywarescanner/li···ex.phtml

»www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyse···esa.html


Looks like they are targeting those who most likly cant afford to take legal action against them and who they think will cave and just do as requested and remove their spyware from their lists.
--
new 3d chat comunity at »planetvirtuel.com my site »spellbound.valshea.com/news.php]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10811067 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 17:29:22 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810842 eburger68 : keith2468:

said by keith2468:
I think it has been pretty well substantiated by those who have installed it that it only gets installed with permission.

And complaining about a program opening pop-ups to provide the user information the user has requested -- pop-ups like this are one of the functions web browsers are supposed to provide (for crying out loud).


No, I'm sorry, but this has not been established. The program may have secured something that qualifies for a minimally legally necessary form of permission, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us have to regard this minimal level of permission as indication of actual knowledge and meaningful consent. More on the issue of permission and consent below.

said by keith2468:
What I see that is objectionable is:

(a) the anti-spyware paragraph in the contract (and has the function be actually implemented in the software?), and


I don't particularly care whether it has been implemented or not. The company saw fit to include that onerous clause, and we ought to take them at their word that they reserve the right to execute that clause. It's certainly the case that the company itself would not tolerate an equivalently onerous clause in a contract offered them based on the flimsy excuse that it hasn't been used in the past. If it's there, that's reason enough to shun the company.

said by keith2468:
(b) the allegation that MMM doesn't have a standard add-remove function that works (and is that allegation currently true)?


It does have an uninstaller that can be run from Ad//Remove Programs -- this I can confirm.

said by keith2468:
I've got to agree with Mele that this so-called anti-spyware industry has a lot of mob mentality or witchhunt mentality, with people who have no first-hand knowledge of the product, who maybe have remotely coached people in removing the software manually from remote computers of unknown status and history.

Of course some of these products deserve the treatment, but the fact that there might be some witches does not mean we should burn everyone Ad-aware or Spybot or PestPatrol or some other Witchfinder General labels a witch.

These outfits aren't impartial and disinterested. They are either making money by making products that find alleged spyware, or they get a sense of deep personal fulfilment by making products that find alleged spyware. And, it is not their fault, but they don't have sufficient funding to do their own proper research on each of these suspect products nor to keep that research up to date.


It's rather irresponsible to stand in the middle of a thread in which people have been picking over the particular facts regarding a piece of software and the company behind it and charge people with a "mob mentality or witchhhunt mentality" -- which suggests that the people in this discussion don't care about the facts. Moreover, you've impugned the good work of countless individuals behind the many anti-spyware products on the market (both freeware and commercial), and you did this without pointing to so much as the slightest bit of evidence to back up that very serious charge.

Keith, at this point in time there are rogue apps aplenty on the Internet -- so many, in fact, that anyone doing work on an anti-spyware program of any kind does not need to go on a "witchhunt" to scare up targets to remove from users' hard drives. They are bountiful and plentiful. Indeed, you yourself as much as acknowledged this when you claimed (again, without evidence or examples of any kind) that these companies and individuals lack the funding to do "proper research" or "keep that research up to date." So which is it? Are they on a "witchhunt" or are they struggling to keep up with the flood of malware?

You go on to offer some potential standards that would presumably mark a product as "legitimate":

said by keith2468:
Here's a start at a list. I'm thinking if a product meets all of these requirements it is clear cut it shouldn't face sanctions:

(1) asks for permission to install,


What counts as permission? What are the requirements? When do we decide that permission has been secured? Are there particular standards for the display of notice and disclosure? Is sticking a 9000 word EULA in front of bewildered users in confusing circumstances sufficient to gain permission? How about if that EULA is displayed in a "keyhole" text box (2 lines visible at a time) recessed into the background of a web page, with light yellow font on light blue background? (And, yes, I've seen programs that use this kind of notice/choice arrangement.)

I'm sorry, but the issue of "permission" is much more complicated than you've let on here. Indeed, by this vague, lax standard, almost the entire adware/spyware industry would be legitimized (which is just what they want).

As I said above, the industry itself wants to argue that it must meet only the barest minimum of a legal standard. The problem with that is that those minimal legal standards for notice, consent, and choice were crafted with the idea that the LAW itself ought to intervene only in the most egregious, outrageous cases. The thinking behind these kinds of minimal legal standards is that the market itself ought to be able to handle the less egregious cases. And part of the market's response to this kind of software has been anti-spyware programs that consumers can use to defend themselves. To take that minimal legal standard -- which again was crafted with the idea that the market itself could shoulder a substantial part of the job for protecting users -- and argue that it ought to be sufficient for anti-spyware vendors is to turn the law on its head.

It is well and appropriate that we would have higher standards for notice, choice, and consent when deciding what to target in anti-spyware software because we are interested in serving consumers to ensure that their actual, meaningful permission has been secured -- not the minimal, legally sufficient level of permission.

said by keith2468:
(2) has a standard add-remove function that works on computers that don't have pre-existing problems, or has some other published easy method of removal


Yes, that's a good standard, but I would point out that the adware/spyware industry objects even to this.

said by keith2468:
(3) doesn't carry out spying in the sense of reporting back information on totally unrelated computer activity (unless the user is prominently told about this (i.e. on the same page with the product features, not buried on page 8 of the EULA; or a list of installed software in plain text in a problem report email asking permission for the email to be sent.)

(4) doesn't secretly add features like a spam relay or open proxy to the user's computer


Congratulations. You've just legitimized CoolWebSearch (or at least most variants of CoolWebSearch), not to mention Lop.com and a whole host of other obnoxious spyware/adware that currently afflict users. You did this by falling into the "if-it-doesn't-spy-it-ain't-spyware" trap. See my "10 Myths About Spyware" for a rebuttal to that and several other canards regarding spyware:

»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/ftc···tm#myths

said by keith2468:
(5) provides some indication that it is the product creating the activity it creates (i.e. if it adds extra advertising, it should have its name or logo in the window where the user can see it, or in the system tray (or maybe in an activity log).)


Again, a good standard, but it doesn't apply to browser hijacks. When CWS hijacks your page page, CWS could well argue that they meet this standard because they're sending you to one of their web sites, the URL for which shows up in the address bar.

said by keith2468:
(6) doesn't remove or disable other products without specific explicit permission from the computer user.


Again, this takes us back to the whole question of what constitutes sufficient permission and consent. And might I point out that under this last standard, the activities of most anti-spyware products would be perfectly appropriate -- because major anti-spyware scanners (like Spybot, Ad-aware, Spy Sweeper, et al) clearly flag and explain the products they remove, offering the users a choice to proceed with the removal or to decline the removal. Indeed, under this last standard that you offer the entire question of what standards anti-spyware ought to be held to when targeting apps for removal becomes wholly moot -- irrelevant -- unless you're going to argue that apps like MoeMoneymaker ought to be given carte blanche to uninstall any app they feel like (so long as notice is provided), yet anti-spyware vendors must be held to a much stricter set of standards when targeting and removing apps.

And what about prevention programs and block lists like IE-SPYAD? It's one thing to target and remove apps that have already been installed on the user's hard drive (willingly or not), but would these standards apply to preventative measures as well? What if there is a significant base of users out there who essentially say, "We'd like to load a block list or program that restricts or blocks ebates.com (or claria.com, or whenu.com, etc.), no matter what the 'experts' say." Are you suggesting that other people like JavaCool or I ought not be able to build such preventative measures like SpywareBlaster or IE-SPYAD simply because the domains and ActiveX controls we target (per user demand) don't fit the standards you've outlined above? That would be a strange notion of "permission" and "choice" indeed.

My ultimate point here is that the issues are much more complex than you've let on. You're right: we do need standards of some sort. But the standards you've offered up here would only give the spyware/adware industry permission to continue their business as usual -- which would be a godsend for them, but a nightmare for consumers.

Best,

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810842 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:54:59 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810660 SnowyOne : "Of course some of these products deserve the treatment, but the fact that there might be some witches does not mean we should burn everyone Ad-aware or Spybot or PestPatrol or some other Witchfinder General labels a witch."

you left out symantec, kephyr & sophos

»Ad-aware 01R301 03.05..2004

»www.spysweeper.com/ebates-removal.html

»www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/e/eb···aker.asp

»sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/adwa···xie.html

»www.kephyr.com/spywarescanner/li···ex.phtml

»www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyse···esa.html
--
Dave said "By the way, 4294967295 is just another way to write -1". ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810660 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 16:26:58 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810377 keith2468 : I think it has been pretty well substantiated by those who have installed it that it only gets installed with permission.

And complaining about a program opening pop-ups to provide the user information the user has requested -- pop-ups like this are one of the functions web browsers are supposed to provide (for crying out loud).

What I see that is objectionable is:

(a) the anti-spyware paragraph in the contract (and has the function be actually implemented in the software?), and

(b) the allegation that MMM doesn't have a standard add-remove function that works (and is that allegation currently true)?

I've got to agree with Mele that this so-called anti-spyware industry has a lot of mob mentality or witchhunt mentality, with people who have no first-hand knowledge of the product, who maybe have remotely coached people in removing the software manually from remote computers of unknown status and history.

Of course some of these products deserve the treatment, but the fact that there might be some witches does not mean we should burn everyone Ad-aware or Spybot or PestPatrol or some other Witchfinder General labels a witch.

These outfits aren't impartial and disinterested. They are either making money by making products that find alleged spyware, or they get a sense of deep personal fulfilment by making products that find alleged spyware. And, it is not their fault, but they don't have sufficient funding to do their own proper research on each of these suspect products nor to keep that research up to date.

I think that is needed are some sort of IT and advertising ethical standards on what the companies can and cannot do without facing sanctions by anti-spyware companies.

That is where society will eventually go on this. Rather than each of us having our own "laws", with some laws being thought up after-the-fact (ex post facto), we organize in advance and agree on laws/regulations and a range of penalties that apply to everyone.

Is the time right for such regulations (either consensus and voluntary, or legislated)?

Or will we have to go through another 5 to 10 more years of anarchy?

Here's a start at a list. I'm thinking if a product meets all of these requirements it is clear cut it shouldn't face sanctions:

(1) asks for permission to install,

(2) has a standard add-remove function that works on computers that don't have pre-existing problems, or has some other published easy method of removal

(3) doesn't carry out spying in the sense of reporting back information on totally unrelated computer activity (unless the user is prominently told about this (i.e. on the same page with the product features, not buried on page 8 of the EULA; or a list of installed software in plain text in a problem report email asking permission for the email to be sent.)

(4) doesn't secretly add features like a spam relay or open proxy to the user's computer

(5) provides some indication that it is the product creating the activity it creates (i.e. if it adds extra advertising, it should have its name or logo in the window where the user can see it, or in the system tray (or maybe in an activity log).)

(6) doesn't remove or disable other products without specific explicit permission from the computer user.

Of course any program can have bugs, and if the program violates one of these points due to a bug, the vendor should have a week or two to remedy the situation.

Again, I use Ad-aware, SpywareBlaster, SpywareGuard, Spybot S&D and IE-SpyAd. But as with Spamcop.net, which I also use, I would love to be able to consistently count on these products being fair in their treatment of non-customers.

It is good that Eric has sought opinions on the issue of MoeMoneyMaker.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810377 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:46:08 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810075 suzi : Mele20 wrote:
quote:

What is not clear to me is what are these "bundled" installs eburger is objecting to? There certainly aren't any on the eBates site so why in the world punish eBates for what? Quite frankly, I'd like to see eBates sue eburger just as I thought Jamie Rosen should have sued AdAware. I think eBates would win. Nothing is put on your box at eBates without your express consent and the terms of the agreement you consent to are very clear and easy to understand. You have only yourself to blame if you install the software and then it uninstalls some other software on your system. You were told very clearly before you gave consent that this might happen and you consented to it. Legally, eBates is in the right here and eburger and Adaware, et al are in the wrong. That is all there is to it.


First of all, I have never used ebates and never will. Any company that engages in or supports unethical behaviour such as drive-by installs and bundling of adware/spyware disclosed in an obscure EULA deserves to be blacklisted and targeted in my opinion.

Sophos Anti-virus actually considers ebates a trojan:
»www.sophos.com/virusinfo/analyse···esa.html

quote:
Troj/Ebates-A is a backdoor Trojan which runs in the background and allows unauthorised remote access to the computer via a network. The Trojan may also display browser popups related to web advertising.


This link has info about applications which install ebates money maker.
»forums.spywareinfo.com/index.php···opic=393

Forum/web postings from people with ebates problems:
»www.wilderssecurity.com/showthre···?t=37472

»www.argusleader.com/wiseguys/art···04.shtml

»www.help2go.com/postp19102.html

Ebates is also connected with BookedSpace, another adware program known to cause pop-ups and track users.

»experts.about.com/q/2094/3309239.htm
»www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/b/bo···_bs2.asp
»www.kephyr.com/spywarescanner/li···ex.phtml

»www.doxdesk.com/parasite/BookedSpace.html

quote:
BookedSpace may download and install third-party software as directed by its controlling server. The later variants have been seen to install the BargainBuddy, nCase, MySearch/MyWay, TVMedia, DownloadWare and TopMoxie/eBates parasites.


Those links contain enough evidence to convince me that ebates is appropriate to include in IE-SPYAD and to be targeted by Ad-ware and other adware/spyware removers.

Companies that engage in these unethical practices have no regard for computer users. Their only concern is making money at any cost. Even if the ebates.com site itself does not download adware/spyware, it is guilty by association in my opinion.

And to suggest that ebates sue Eric Howes is ridiculous and irresponsible. The use of IE-SPYAD is completely voluntary. As stated previously, the ebates.com domain can easily be removed from the restricted list.

Since you mentioned Comet Cursor, I will address that briefly. Comet Cursor was at one time notorious for drive-by downloads. I was one of its victims. It made me so angry that I became interested in the fight against spyware/malware. I had a series of emails with Jamie Rosen, which remain posted on my website, in which he used every possible argument to justify the software's behavior.

Mele20,if you choose to support unethical companies such as ebates, that is certainly your right. I do not understand your position and probably never will. ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810075 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 15:01:02 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810026 sivran : I haven't been to this site, and after reading this thread, I never will. Based on the license agreement and behavior described here, and despite Mele20's objections, Eric is completely justified in refusing to remove ebates from IE-Spyad.

IMO, this is just as bad as CWS. CWS may be the bear that flattens you with a single slap, but this is more like the king cobra hiding in the rice paddy, ready to bite you.

And now I must go to update IE-SpyAd on my machines that do have it, and install it on the ones that don't. ;)
--
TCPA - the ultimate spyware.
Kerio 2.1.5 - My favorite firewall :)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10810026 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 14:53:20 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10808339 eburger68 : Hi All:

Thanks once again for the informative posts. I'm still looking into the exact functional connection between MoeMoneyMaker and ebates.com.

Mele20: you asked about the bundled installs, questioning whether these really do exist. In fact, they do exist -- I've got the ebates/TopMoxie software on my computer right now through one of those bundled installs.

I installed one of the screensavers from topeleven.net. It dumped SuperBar, 180/n-case, MyWay/MySearch, and WebSavingsfromEbates on my drive in addition to the screensaver. The executable that I downloaded to install the screensaver was actually a stub installer that itself downloaded a number of other installers, including one for WebSavingsfromEbates. Both topmoxie.com and ebates.com were used during the installation process (as were a number of other domains for the other software from other vendors). Reportedly users can encounter the ebates/TopMoxie software in other software packages, too, including Grokster and Popups Nuker (incredibly enough) to name a few.

Since the initial installation, I haven't seen any other traffic -- esp. browser related traffic -- to/from ebates.com, but then I don't often visit shopping sites. (Any kind soul want to fund a shopping spree on my part for testing purposes?) 180/n-case occasionally interrupts my surfing with pop-up windows from merchants. And strangely enough, at one point last night the WebSavingsfromEbates.exe executable actually disappeared -- removed from the hard drive. Are contextual advertisers now uninstalling each other's software?

I will continue to test this ebates/TopMoxie software, and I would certainly appreciate more information from others who might have it -- esp. about the functional connection between ebates.com and the software.

Mele20: let me address a few of your other claims and points.

First, as to whether bundled installs represent an acceptable, "consumer-friendly" installation method that actually provides users with adequate notice, choice, and consent, I will have to disagree with you here. In fact, consumers do find this installation method enormously confusing, because it is used to spring software on them that they never expected or expressed a desire for. Not surprisingly, it is used primarily by unscrupulous software vendors who surely know that their software, which would otherwise not be wanted by consumers, can be installed on consumers' PCs only via some installation method predicated on high-pressure, mildly coercive and deceptive tactics.

These vendors claim -- and apparently you agree -- that as long as they stick a EULA in front of users -- no matter that the thing is a 6500 word, 28 page monstrosity that only a practicing attorney could ever hope to read productively, and that this EULA is presented along with three of four others of equal or greater length in high pressure circumstances when consumers least expect to encounter a EULA for completely unrelated third-party software that they had expressed no interest in -- that such is sufficient to secure consent.

I think that is utter nonsense, and that the software vendors who engage in those kinds of installation practices are not interested in assuring that the user has actual knowledge of the software being installed on the PC; they are interested only in maximizing their installations, the consumer be damned. That they would compound the offense by burying onerous license terms, such as have been highlighted in this thread, within a EULA that they surely expect few users to ever read is even more damning.

If you want to defend that kind of unethical practice, that's your business. But you'll not persuade me that such installation practices actually provide users with adequate notice, choice, and consent. And might I point out that if you are going to stake out the "it-was-in-the-EULA" position to defend these kinds of installations, then you'd better be prepared to go to bat for the rest of the adware/spyware industry as well, including 180/n-case, Claria/Gator, WhenU, Look2Me, and a long line of other adware/spyware pushers who use EULAs during their installations -- both in bundled installs as well as drive-by-downloads.

Of course, such an apologia for the spyware/adware industry would be perfectly in line with your publicly expressed contempt for users and consumers...

said by Mele20:
Since when in our society have we decided that it is no longer "buyer beware" but that we must "protect" users from their own laziness and stupidty and we do this by blacklisting a business which is doing nothing wrong? (...) If they are too lazy to do this or are so dumb they cannot understand what they are reading when it is presented in a simple, clear fashion then they probably should not use a computer, use one only under the supervision of someone who can read and understand what they are reading, or accept the consequences of unprotected hex. The business which asked to place the adware/spyware on the users computer should not be punished because some users are unwilling to practice safe hex.


...a position that I find morally indefensible as it gives free license for unscrupulous business to exploit consumers' ignorance of computers and the law -- but, again, that's your choice, your business.

Second, but even this "it-was-in-the-EULA" position that you stake out isn't even consistent, because (as Cudni helpfully points out) you apparently think users who end up with ebates software on their PCs without their actual knowledge and consent ought to be held responsible for the terms of an unintelligible EULA, while the users who knowingly download and install IE-SPYAD ought to be excused, even though the EULA for IE-SPYAD is much shorter and more straightforward and the ReadMe that accompanies IE-SPYAD actually makes IE-SPYAD better documented than ebates software. (Did you take the time to read those, Mele20, before you urged ebates to sue me? The quote Cudni used comes from the FIRST post of this thread, in case you're still looking for it.) What should I make of someone who thinks EULAs provide businesses an acceptable, blanket defense against user complaints but not someone who provides a block list gratis?

Third, as to the charge that I haven't "shown this business consideration and benefit of the doubt," just what did you think was going on in this thread? Why do you think I started it? Why do you think I solicited the opinions and views of you and others like you?

Folks, I am continuing to look into the functional connection between the ebates/TopMoxie software and the ebates.com domain. If there is some way that I can offer protection to unwitting users of the MMM software while not interfering with the use of the ebates.com service by *willing* users, I would be more than happy to do that. But in order to make that decision I need good information. If there is doubt, then I will err on the side of caution and opt to protect users first, as that is the primary function of IE-SPYAD and because the ebates.com domain can easily be removed from the Restricted sites zone by users who want to use the service.

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10808339 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 10:35:26 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10808076 Doctor Olds : 3. The Program is only available via access to the Ebates Web site (»www.ebates.com). You must have Internet access and an email address to be eligible to receive the privileges and benefits of membership. Ebates is not responsible for your inability to connect to the Internet, log into the Ebates Web site, or access your Ebates account.

Tell them to leave you alone as it's not their responsiblility. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10808076 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 09:30:58 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807904 Mele20 : I don't understand what you are saying. eburger68 See Profile hasn't shown this business consideration and benefit of the doubt so why should eBates be kind to him?

I don't see that quote that you have taken out of context from eburger. Could you point me there?

What is not clear to me is what are these "bundled" installs eburger is objecting to? There certainly aren't any on the eBates site so why in the world punish eBates for what? Quite frankly, I'd like to see eBates sue eburger just as I thought Jamie Rosen should have sued AdAware. I think eBates would win. Nothing is put on your box at eBates without your express consent and the terms of the agreement you consent to are very clear and easy to understand. You have only yourself to blame if you install the software and then it uninstalls some other software on your system. You were told very clearly before you gave consent that this might happen and you consented to it. Legally, eBates is in the right here and eburger and Adaware, et al are in the wrong. That is all there is to it.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807904 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 08:35:52 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807633 Cudni :
said by Mele20 See Profile:

All users have to do in order to not get MMM on their boxes is read before they download. If they are too lazy to do this or are so dumb they cannot understand what they are reading when it is presented in a simple, clear fashion then they probably should not use a computer, use one only under the supervision of someone who can read and understand what they are reading, or accept the consequences of unprotected hex. The business which asked to place the adware/spyware on the users computer should not be punished because some users are unwilling to practice safe hex.

By the same token everything balances out because if they users can't read and understand...
said by eburger68 See Profile:


1) The IE-SPYAD ReadMe, which includes instructions on resolving conflicts and removing specific entries from the Restricted sites zone to allow web sites to work:

»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/res···pyad.txt

2) The license for IE-SPYAD, which clearly warns of restricted functionality at targeted domains:

»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/license.htm

3) The targeting policy for IE-SPYAD which, so far as I can see, clearly includes ebates:

»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/tar···licy.htm

In his reply to my email, he essentially ignored all that and went on to claim that my Restricted sites list is more consumer unfriendly than his company's adware, incredibly enough, and again asked that ebates.com be de-listed. My reply to that was, of course, tart.



Should eburger68 See Profile fire off an email to other side because his users are complaining that even though using restricted sites list they got infected by spyware. Would he be given the same consideration and benefit of the doubt :)

Cudni
--
Would you Adam and Eve it?
Help yourself so God can help you..it does exactly what it says on the sig]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807633 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:39:01 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807622 jpeachman : I've been an occasional ebates user for several years, and tried the MoeMoneyMaker software briefly. As other posters have noted, you absolutely do not need to have MMM in order to get ebates' functionality, and I know firsthand that the company itself does pay out the promised rebates. I haven't used MMM in quite awhile now, so it could have changed, but my experience was that it did not pop up what most of us would think of as a "traditional" popup window; rather, it displayed its own small program window with info on discounts available when it detected you browsing an affiliated site. It displayed no "malware" characteristics at all, and uninstalled fine when I decided I didn't need its "help". (I removed it not because of problems, but as I typically do a lot of looking before buying, and am often looking on behalf of someone else and will not ultimately be the one making the purchase at all, I found it somewhat annoying that MMM kept popping up, even when I was just doing research).

I understand the concerns expressed by others that the MMM T&C has a clause relating to disabling other programs that interfere with MMM. It's been far too long for me to remember whether there was any such clause back when I used it (yes, I generally do read those things before installing!), but I'd like to know if there is any evidence that anything actually gets deliberately disabled by this software. It's troubling to contemplate, but I suppose that if other software is deliberately targeting MMM, they may feel justified in "protecting" themselves. That could open a whole can of worms. So again I'd ask, is there any evidence that anything actually does get disabled by MMM?

The other thing of obvious concern is that apparently MMM is distributed with some bundled installs. Again, AFAIK, the program itself is reasonably well-behaved, and properly uninstallable through Add-Remove Programs. When software is clearly labeled as adware-supported, I don't know that there's really anything unethical going on when something like MMM is included in the bundle, particularly as it is readily uninstallable (unlike some things). If users don't pay attention to what they're installing, I have only limited sympathy when they claim ignorance about what shows up on their machine. I'm not including any drive-by installs or truly undisclosed programs, but when things are properly disclosed up-front, well, that's the price of using ad-supported software. On the ebates.com site itself, the program is available, but there's certainly nothing sneaky going on there. If the makers of Grokster or whatever else MMM might be bundled with don't provide all the disclosure they should, I think that's primarily their fault and responsibility, not necessarily ebates'.

I do know that if you want to be credited by ebates for shopping without using MMM, you have to start at the ebates.com site. It seems reasonable that to get credit through MMM, the program probably still needs to connect to ebates to record the transaction. The potential problems that I see relate specifically to MMM more than to ebates.com in general. So I guess the bottom line, in this case, is whether it is warranted to block access to ebates.com, when the site itself does nothing untoward, and when using its functionality does not depend on the installation of MMM. Personally, I guess I'd say "no", but it's far less black and white than I wish it were.

Joe]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807622 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:34:46 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807594 Mele20 : I don't mean to be hard on you only. IMO a site that does not force spyware on you without your consent should not be blacklisted by you, Adaware, Spybot, etc. Since when in our society have we decided that it is no longer "buyer beware" but that we must "protect" users from their own laziness and stupidty and we do this by blacklisting a business which is doing nothing wrong?

This reminds me of an ugly incident when the owner of Comet Cursor was trying to get off AdAware's black list and they would not tell him what he had to do. I thought it awful they wouldn't be specific so he could get off their list. I got banned from their help forum because I stood up for him ..not for Comet Cursor but for the owner's right to know exactly what he needed to do to get off the black list. I saw firsthand how irrational these antispyware groups can be. Here was someone actually wanting to change and instead of helping him AdAware spit on him and on me for pointing out their rabidness and irrationality as it should be obvious that what antispyware groups should want most is to get companies on the blacklist to reform their behavior.

Now I am seeing something similar. I repeat: eBates has done no wrong because they don't force the install on anyone who doesn't agree to it. They make it very clear what you are agreeing to. You do not need to install the software to use eBates or to get the rebates and that is made clear. So, I believe that any antispyware outfit who has eBates on a black list is wrong to take such action. I'm sorry Eric, but saying that users get confused by bundled installs, therefore, it is ethically correct to blacklist the business in question doesn't cut it. That is a poor excuse for trampling on the rights of this business.

I know I will be crucified for having said this. I was crucified when I defended Jamie Rosen for wanting to know how to get his company off AdAware's Blacklist. No one seemed able then to see the ethical aspects of this. People think it is perfectly ok and even admirable to trample on the rights of others simply because they don't like the way they do business even though they are doing nothing illegal.
All users have to do in order to not get MMM on their boxes is read before they download. If they are too lazy to do this or are so dumb they cannot understand what they are reading when it is presented in a simple, clear fashion then they probably should not use a computer, use one only under the supervision of someone who can read and understand what they are reading, or accept the consequences of unprotected hex. The business which asked to place the adware/spyware on the users computer should not be punished because some users are unwilling to practice safe hex.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807594 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 06:18:43 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807396 Mele20 : Fatwallet deals are NOT available on Dell Dimensions which is what I bought. So that would be worthless to me.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10807396 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 04:28:40 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806836 B :
As far as I know, FatWallet's FatCash rebate program is a squeaky clean alternative. Dozens of participants, including Dell, Computers4Sure, and lots of others.

There is NO software involved.

»fatwallet.com/cashback/

I think there are also other alternative programs.

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806836 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:58:33 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806759 EGeezer :
said by SnowyOne See Profile:
Dig a little deeper into MMM.

"By agreeing to Ebates' terms and conditions, you also agree to the terms and conditions of Ebates' Moe Money Maker™ software provider "TopMoxie"".

»sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/adwa···xie.html


Snowy, great find!

Here is some more on MMM.
»www.pestpatrol.com/pestinfo/m/mo···aker.asp

Bazooka weighs in on MMMm.
»www.kephyr.com/spywarescanner/li···ex.phtml
said by from Kephyr:

Ebates Moe Money Maker is bundled with file sharing programs such as Grokster. A sign of infection is an error message at startup saying "WJView ERROR: Could not execute Main: The system cannot find the file specified".


Ad-Aware added MMM to their detection in July 2003 - see
»www.lavasoft.de/news/product/july.shtml

And the page referenced by SnowyOne See Profile
»www.ebates.com/terms_conditions.jsp

where ebates says
said by agreement:

By agreeing to Ebates' terms and conditions, you also agree to the terms and conditions of Ebates' Moe Money Maker™ software provider TopMoxie.


From the Argus Leader(Sioux Falls SD) article;
»www.argusleader.com/wiseguys/art···04.shtml

said by article:

Another program I can't delete with the Add/Remove Programs tab is called Web Savings from Ebates. I have deleted this file, but when I try to delete from the Add/Remove Programs, it gives me the following message: ERROR: Could not execute Main: The system can not find the file specified.

I'm hoping you might be able to assist me in the matter.

Answer: Web Savings is a classic Adware program that will disable or uninstall any other product or software tool that might interfere with the operability of the "Moe Money Maker" software in a manner that might jeopardize the ability of Ebates to earn you cash-back discounts or coupon savings offered by Ebates.

By installing the "Moe Money Maker" software, you authorize Ebates to disable, uninstall or delete any application or software that might nullify its function and put you at risk of losing the cash-back savings that "Moe Money Maker" software is designed to earn you.

Ebates' "Moe Money Maker" is bundled with file-sharing programs such as "Grokster."


Eric may refer the guy to Symantec, Lavasoft and kephyr.

Could ebates just want to pick a small guy to wheedle and intimidate? If so, Symantec, the 800 pound Gorilla of the security products industry may be interested in the case.

It doesn't make sense to berate Eric for having Ebates in his block list when other well-known security app providers also consider the program(s) undesirable. Personally, I don't care to do business with entities that encourage the use of applications that do what MMM does and under licensing Ts & Cs that allow disabling or removing users' legitimate applications. There are many companies who do business without pushing software and licensing agreements I find of questionable function and operation. I will use them.
--
Save us from those who seek to solve problems they haven't defined but treat them gently because sometimes they may really have something.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806759 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:42:56 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806644 John_W : I use Ebates all the time and have had MoeMoneyMaker installed at one point.

You don't need to install the software to use Ebates.

And if you do decide to install the MMM download on your computer, the only thing it does is give you a nice little pop-up when you enter a merchants site that says "you are now saving x%" The pop-up disappears and the MMM program reports back to ebates that you actually did buy something and how much it cost.

Never had a problem uninstalling it. Never had a problem with SPAM after installing it. I actually find it a convenient little service.

I think I've had more problems with certain cookies placed on my computer.

Over!! ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806644 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 01:24:28 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806421 SnowyOne : Dig a little deeper into MMM.

"By agreeing to Ebates' terms and conditions, you also agree to the terms and conditions of Ebates' Moe Money Maker™ software provider "TopMoxie"".

»sarc.com/avcenter/venc/data/adwa···xie.html
--
Dave said "By the way, 4294967295 is just another way to write -1". ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806421 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:40:52 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806391 B :
said by Mele20 See Profile:
Well that is interesting but it still doesn't answer the question here. Is MMM installed even if the user unchecks the box and says no to the installation. I know that on Firefox it is NOT installed if you say no at least that was the case last November, December, January when I used the site. So, unless the site is now forcing downloads on FF/Mozilla it is not spyware on those browsers.

On IE the question still hasn't been answered. Does the user have to give consent to the download of MMM or does it install anyway even though they say no? I can't answer that because I don't use IE. Someone who does should test it. If the user must give consent then it may be slimy stuff to some but not to others who find it useful and it is not in the category of something that installs after you have explictly denied it permission to install. Only in the latter case should eBates be placed in the restricted zone IMO.

Quite frankly, those IE users should just get a more secure browser and use Proxomitron. Perhaps it was Proxo that prevented it and not FF.


I understand that you like using ebates, which is fine, but how can you argue that a site which regularly pushes spyware, in any form, for any subset of its visitors, or for ANY susceptible browser, should NOT be blocked by a spyware-blocking list?

Edit: Just noticed that this is probably a moot point, since Eric says it's not browser-based.

-- B
--
In a realm outside causality and function]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806391 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:35:40 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806341 PinHead : Maybe they need a new classification after reading paragraph 20.

Licensed software breaker/uninstaller.

Didn't Microsoft get in trouble for this type of behavior once?

Ebates has been on my uninstall list for quite some time. Leave them on yours. If you receive another email, just reply with his paragraph 20.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806341 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:27:20 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806328 eburger68 : Mele20:

So far as I know the issue isn't drive-by-downloads from the ebates.com web site. The problem is the bundled installs, which so many users find inherently confusing -- and this is the same installation method that Claria, WhenU, and so many other adware makers use. Unwitting users do wind up with MMM installed on their systems because of these bundled installs.

My question is what does the MMM software do with the ebates.com domain after the software is installed, if anything?

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806328 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:24:16 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806302 mers2 :
said by Doctor Four See Profile:
The behavior of their MoeMoneymaker software is a lot
like that of RadLight's DivX player, which would remove
Ad Aware from your system if it found it installed. It was
for that reason that RadLight's software was blacklisted
by SpybotSD, and the same sanction ought to apply here as
well.

Agreed. Anything that attempts to disable security software deserves to be blacklisted.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806302 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:18:49 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806287 Doctor Four : The behavior of their MoeMoneymaker software is a lot
like that of RadLight's DivX player, which would remove
Ad Aware from your system if it found it installed. It was
for that reason that RadLight's software was blacklisted
by SpybotSD, and the same sanction ought to apply here as
well.
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806287 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:15:39 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806236 Mele20 : Well that is interesting but it still doesn't answer the question here. Is MMM installed even if the user unchecks the box and says no to the installation. I know that on Firefox it is NOT installed if you say no at least that was the case last November, December, January when I used the site. So, unless the site is now forcing downloads on FF/Mozilla it is not spyware on those browsers.

On IE the question still hasn't been answered. Does the user have to give consent to the download of MMM or does it install anyway even though they say no? I can't answer that because I don't use IE. Someone who does should test it. If the user must give consent then it may be slimy stuff to some but not to others who find it useful and it is not in the category of something that installs after you have explictly denied it permission to install. Only in the latter case should eBates be placed in the restricted zone IMO.

Quite frankly, those IE users should just get a more secure browser and use Proxomitron. Perhaps it was Proxo that prevented it and not FF.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806236 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:06:32 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806212 keith2468 : What we have are the problems of:

1. The different levels of invasiveness of malware all being lumped together.

Is eBates currently as bad as CWS? Is eBates as bad as a keystroke logger or remote access trojan?

Not *could* eBates install a keystroke logger on your machine -- because MS or Mozzila or Sun could do that too -- but do they?

Of course with a freeware product, how much manpower is there for the additional work of classifying sites.

2. A difficult user interface for IE-SpyAd.

You have to manually uninstall the old IE-SpyAd using a DOS interface before using the DOS interface to install the new version.

You have to manually remove any restricted sites you want to use from the MSIE Restricted Zones every time you upgrade IE-SpyAd.

Of course with a freeware product, how much manpower is there for the additional work of improving the user interface.

----------

I'd say leave eBates on your list, since it wants permission to disable anti-spyware software, but look into improving the user interface.

One person's spyware site is another person's valued bargain.

It is a matter of individual tastes and values. It is a shame if people stop using IE-Spyad just because they can't figure out, or can't be bothered, customizing the list to allow a few favored sites on.

I use IE-SpyAd, I think its terrific, but there is always room to improve something. Just is there the resources, that is the question.
--
(Virus&Hijacking FAQ+Submit suspected malware+Security FAQ)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806212 Sun, 18 Jul 2004 00:02:22 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806113 SnowyOne : Alessandro must be one very busy email sender these days.

»www.spysweeper.com/ebates-removal.html

»www.pestpatrol.com/PestInfo/e/eb···aker.asp
--
Dave said "By the way, 4294967295 is just another way to write -1". ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10806113 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:46:03 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10805959 sheepexplode : Eric,
If I was in your position I would not have even responded to their email and just forwarded it to my lawyer. I think it would be interesting to see what Steve has to say on this.

Regards.
--
»Security »I think my computer is infected or hijacked. What should I do?]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10805959 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:22:22 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10805807 Mele20 : Yes, but you don't have to install it! At least you don't on Firefox. I used eBates and there was no spyware placed on my computer. The question here is whether or not IE allows this MMM to be installed even when the user says no to it and unchecks the box for the download. The MMM software is not necessary to use eBates and get your rebate. I unchecked that box and I got no spyware and the site worked fine although I had problems using the Dell store through eBates. Perhaps eBates caused me instability at the the Dell store because I didn't install the MMM software? I don't think so as Dell's site was already off line a lot that evening. The MMM software that has the spyware is for reminding the member to use eBates when purchasing on line. So, if you don't install MMM and MMM is not installed anyway even though you say no to it then how is eBates evil?
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10805807 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 23:00:32 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10805512 novaflare : The problem is this mo money software likly targets programs such as adaware spybot search and destroy and any other anti apyware app.
What if antiviri programs start to detect it as a virus or trojan will they then start targeting anti virus software as well?
What if the next versions of ZA kerio sygate norton and other software firewalls start adding anti spy ware rules to block these sorts of apps by default will ebates then add firewalls to their list of programs to criple and disable/uninstall?
The answer is yes they dont care if your computer is ruined as long as they get you to shop at one of their partner sites.
This makes it some of the worse malware out there because it opens you up to other malware.
Firewall or av gets cripled then you can and will get infected by the next worm or viri.
I consider my self to be a very safe surfer but no way would i run with out a fire wall or av.
--
new 3d chat comunity at »planetvirtuel.com my site »spellbound.valshea.com/news.php]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10805512 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 22:18:12 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10805352 Mele20 : I see your dilemma. I wonder if eBates has changed since I used it. I didn't install any reminder service. I recall seeing that although I didn't remember the name was Moe Money Maker. I just unchecked the box and it didn't install. If that installs on IE even after you indicate by unchecking the box that you don't want it, then that is deceptive, underhanded, etc. and you should be putting the site in the restricted zone if that is what is happening. If however, the site honors your decision to not install MMM as it did for me (but I was on Firefox) then I don't think it should be in the restricted zone unless you are later incessently urged to install MMM and the site makes it extremely difficult to refuse.


--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman but one thing: the last of the human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's destiny." Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10805352 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 21:49:12 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804997 eburger68 : Hi All:

Thanks for all the thoughtful and informative responses. If you read everyone's response carefully, I think you'll see the nub of the problem or dilemma that I'm facing. Here it is in simple terms:

1) On the one hand, ebates.com does offer services that some folks find useful, and in order for users to access and use those services in Internet Explorer, the ebates.com domain cannot be in the Restricted sites zone.

2) On the other hand, ebates does work with TopMoxie (topmoxie.com) to push the MoeMoneyMaker (MMM) software on users through bundled installs (just like Claria/Gator, WhenU, and the like). This MMM software can display popups on the user's desktop. Moreover, as some of you pointed out, a few of the terms of the license are, shall way say, onerous.

Let me be clear: there are other similar software programs that pay users for clickthroughs, viewing ads, or allowing clickstream data to be gathered for advertising purposes that I don't target because it's clear to me that the user must have gone to the web site and deliberately downloaded and installed the software (in other words, the software isn't being installed through drive-by-downloads or bundled installs, both of which are dishonorable, underhanded, coercive, and deceptive installation practices). And that's what sets MMM apart in my mind -- users who have no interest whatsoever in the software can wind up with this pop-up generating software on their systems.

The real question, then becomes this: what specific connection is there between the MMM software and the ebates.com domain? Does the MMM software use the ebates.com domain for pop-ups or other advertising? Does the software set ebates.com cookies on the user's computer? Or is the functional connection between the ebates.com domain and the MMM software negligible to nonexistent?

That's what I need to know at this point. Put another way: is targeting the ebates.com in the Restricted sites providing any actual protection to IE users who may see the MMM software installed behind their backs, or is it only interfering with the use of the ebates.com web site by users who are actually interested in using the service?

Best,

Eric L. Howes]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804997 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 20:54:25 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804625 Mele20 : Gee, couldn't you have linked instead of posting the entire agreement? :)

What is wrong with the agreement? I like eBates. JCPenney is one merchant you can get the extra discounts with and that is my favorite store. You can unenroll easily in the emails and you are really unenrolled. I got tired of the emails and had no trouble unenrolling. How can you complain about a site that hands you 2% of the purchase price for a Dell computer for just going through their site to make the purchase? The only complaint I have is that it was very difficult, as I said, to get the Dell store to not keep crashing and it crashed when I went to it through eBates and was very unstable going to it directly but it didn't crash.
Now if eBates has some scam where it deliberately crashes the merchant's store so you can't ever get the rebate promised then that is very bad but I have no evidence of that as the Dell site was down half that evening and very shaky when it wasn't down.

At one point, I called Dell and tried to make the purchase over the phone and the lady said I could even get the eBates over the phone but I couldn't use both coupons from eBay only one allowed. Both allowed only online.

What is this Moemoney something? I didn't install that and wasn't asked to and you still get your rebate. I never heard of the Moemoney thing until now. I was linked directly to eBates from the eBay site where I purchased the Dell coupons and I only had to provide an email address and then I was automatically linked to the Dell store. That Moemoney thing does look nasty but just don't install it. You don't need to use eBates until you are ready for your purchase and if the merchant is a member then you go to eBates after you have your purchase ready and you link to the merchant's store through eBates only for the length of time it takes to make the purchase. Then get rid of eBates cookies and later unenroll in the emails.

Edited: Ugh! I had that wrong 10% as the rebate in this post also. It's a 2% rebate.
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman
but one thing: the last of the human freedoms
- to choose one's attitude in any given set of
circumstances, to choose one's destiny."
Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804625 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:52:45 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804549 mers2 :
said by eburger68 See Profile:
Hi All:

In his reply to my email, he essentially ignored all that and went on to claim that my Restricted sites list is more consumer unfriendly than his company's adware, incredibly enough, and again asked that ebates.com be de-listed. My reply to that was, of course, tart.

So, what I'm asking for is opinions and information on ebates.com, its software, and its services. What do you know about this outfit and its software? Am I mistaken in targeting it in my Restricted sites list?

Best,

Eric L. Howes

Since he refuses to answer legitimate questions and discuss the points you laid out I would change nothing. I personally don't have any experience with this site but when a party refuses to discuss specific issues and only gives demands it tends to verify they deal in adware/malware/spyware.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804549 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:38:53 EDT Where do I sign up? http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804523 SnowyOne : 20. In downloading and/or installing the Moe Money Maker Software, you agree to the following:
1)Ebates and its agents may pop up brief alerts when you can save money by shopping through Ebates or by using the Moe Money Maker Software. 2)Ebates may direct your traffic to the merchant of your choice. This may be done a)by presenting a choice in a pop up alert asking whether you wish to save by shopping through Ebates, thereby directing your browser through Ebates in order to ensure you earn a reward, or b)by automatically routing you through Ebates and automatically earning you a cash-back discount with no further action on your part being necessary. 3)Ebates may disable or uninstall any other product or software tool that might interfere with the operability of the Moe Money Maker Software or otherwise preempt or render inoperative the Moe Money Maker Software in a manner that might jeopardize the ability of Ebates to earn you cash back discounts or coupon savings offered by Ebates. In installing the Moe Money Maker Software, you authorize Ebates to disable, uninstall, or delete any application or software that might, in Ebates' opinion nullify its function and put you at risk of loosing the cash-back savings that Moe Money Maker Software is designed to earn you. 4)If you would like to utilize another savings tool, you can simply uninstall the Moe Money Maker Software before installing a competitive application. The Moe Money Maker Software can be easily uninstalled through the standard 'add or remove programs' control panel, or through the Moe Money Maker's preference settings.
--
Dave said "By the way, 4294967295 is just another way to write -1". ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804523 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:35:29 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804516 EGeezer : Aloha Snowy,

I did indeed read it. It was lengthy, but uses the more "plain english" legalese and is broken out into itemized paragraph format as opposed to the unformatted cryptic crap.

for instance, if you look at item 20 in Terms and conditions, (»www.ebates.com/terms_conditions.jsp ) regarding Moe Moneymaker, it clearly states

said by T&Cs:

Ebates may disable or uninstall any other product or software tool that might interfere with the operability of the Moe Money Maker Software or otherwise preempt or render inoperative the Moe Money Maker Software in a manner that might jeopardize the ability of Ebates to earn you cash back discounts or coupon savings offered by Ebates. In installing the Moe Money Maker Software, you authorize Ebates to disable, uninstall, or delete any application or software that might, in Ebates' opinion nullify its function and put you at risk of loosing the cash-back savings that Moe Money Maker Software is designed to earn you.


There's no doubt what it will do. Also no doubt that I did not choose to download it and would not use the service.

Edit - Eric, based on this alone, you are fully justified in including ebates in your list. disabling and uninstalling unspecified software on a user's system is unacceptable.

EG
--
Save us from those who seek to solve problems they haven't defined but treat them gently because sometimes they may really have something.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804516 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:34:23 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804458 Mele20 : What spyware? I used eBates when I bought my new Dell. You get an additional 2% off the price of the Dell ....that is if you first buy the coupons at Ebay so you can get 25% off your entire Dell purchase. The coupons come with the eBates rebate. You have to connect to Dell's store through eBates though so that eBates can see the purchase. So you get the Dell 25% off and the eBates 2% off. I had trouble connecting through eBates though to the Dell store and having the Dell store see the connection and I was working against a very tight deadline as the Ebay coupons are usually good for 24-48 hours only and I was down to the last ten minutes! The Dell site chose that evening to barely work and to be down much of the evening and my time to purchase with the coupons was getting less and less. Dell is one of many reputable companies that you can access through eBates for the additional discount.

I never got any spyware at ebates. I still belong and I am puzzled as to why you would target that site. Maybe I am missing something here but I think the site is very useful. The person on Ebay that I purchased the Dell coupons from got a bonus too because I did go and join eBates which I thought only fair as the Dell coupons saved me a bundle.

Perhaps I got no spyware because I connect through Proxomitron? I had no idea there was spyware there. What kind of spyware? I run Spybot regularly on that 98SE Dell box that I used to purchase this 8300 Dimension and it doesn't find any spyware. I also have Spyware Blaster but I was using Firefox for the purchase.

You said "certain parts" of eBates won't work with IE-SPYAD? Well, as I said I use Firefox and Mozilla not IE and I don't have your IE-SPYAD since I don't use IE. Perhaps, I did not go to the "nasty" parts of eBates on my Firefox? I haven't seen anything at that site that is suspicious...but maybe the nasties there work only on IE?

What exactly is the problem with eBates? I think it is a fine site. I guess I should go there on IE with Proxo bypassed and see what nasties it tries to install if any. If tries to install spyware then my opinion of it would change although not that much unless it can successfully install spyware even with Proxo and Firefox/Mozilla/Netscape/Opera being used.

Edited because I typed 10% thinking of one of the Dell coupons I had which was 10% off the total price. The eBates rebate was 2% of the total purchase price not including taxes paid. Sorry for that error! :(
--
"Everything can be taken from a man or woman
but one thing: the last of the human freedoms
- to choose one's attitude in any given set of
circumstances, to choose one's destiny."
Victor Frankl - Man's Search for Meaning
]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804458 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:24:48 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804398 SnowyOne : "The privacy and Terms and conditions seem to be written clearly and not purposely legalese as are some other sites."

C'mon Paul, give me a break here, you actually read this?:)?

Terms & Conditions, ELUA & Other Stuff
Please read this Member Agreement (the "Agreement") carefully before enrolling as a member of the Ebates Shopping Discount Program (the "Program") or downloading the Moe Money Maker™, a product of TopMoxie. This Agreement explains the terms and conditions governing membership in the Program (the "Program Terms and Conditions"), and it is your responsibility to read and understand them. By enrolling as a member in the Program (a "Member"), or by downloading, installing and/or utilizing the Moe Money Maker™, you agree to be bound by the Program Terms and Conditions. Enrollment is defined as providing Ebates with your valid email address and a password in which to access your account. Downloading, installing, and/or utilizing the Moe Money Maker does not confer the status of "Member" until the Moe Money Maker™ user completes the Enrollment process. By agreeing to Ebates' terms and conditions, you also agree to the terms and conditions of Ebates' Moe Money Maker™ software provider TopMoxie. For TopMoxie's complete terms and conditions, click here. Participation in the Program and its benefits are offered at the discretion of Ebates, and Ebates has the right to change the Program Terms and Conditions, in whole or in part, at any time with or without notice.

1. You must be an individual, 18 years of age or older.

2. Members must be human: no machines, scripts, or automated services may be used to accumulate any financial benefits derived from the use of Ebates. You may maintain only one account. Any duplicate accounts will be subject to cancellation.

3. The Program is only available via access to the Ebates Web site (»www.ebates.com). You must have Internet access and an email address to be eligible to receive the privileges and benefits of membership. Ebates is not responsible for your inability to connect to the Internet, log into the Ebates Web site, or access your Ebates account.

4. By agreeing to these terms, you also agree not to 'spam' unknown individuals by sending them unwanted emails to solicit their membership at Ebates. Refusal to abide by this or any other rules may result in Ebates stripping you of referrals and/or canceling your membership.

5. Members will be credited, subject to the terms and conditions enumerated in this Agreement, a percentage of the net purchases made by you at one of the online merchants affiliated with Ebates (an "Affiliated Merchant"). The percentage will be enumerated on the Ebates Web site as it relates to each Affiliated Merchant. The net purchase is defined as the total amount paid to the merchant minus tax, gift wrapping, shipping, promotional credits, returns, cancellations, and transaction fees or as the Affiliated Merchant defines on their respective Web site and as is enumerated in their respective Affiliate Membership and/or Operating Agreement document, whichever is less. All Affiliated Merchant Membership and/or Operating Agreements as they relate to their affiliate or partner programs with Ebates and which reside on the Affiliated Merchant's respective Web sites are hereby incorporated into this Agreement by reference.

6. As a Member, purchases made through Ebates Affiliated Merchants will be deemed a "Qualified Purchase" and will be subject to earn a discount if and only if all of the following criteria are satisfied: 1) "Cookies", both first and third party (if applicable), must be enabled on your Web browser. 2) All potential Qualified Purchases must begin by clicking on the Affiliated Merchant's link that appears on the Ebates Web site and being successfully connected to the Affiliated Merchant's Web site based upon that click. Individuals who download the Moe Money Maker may on occasion be excepted from the terms of section 6(2), as their browser will in some instances link directly to the merchant through the correct link. The Moe Money Maker is only a shopping reminder service provided by Ebates; for reliability of tracking we recommend you start your shopping trip at the Ebates.com website. 3) Ebates may, at all times, route your request for a merchant site through specific links, in order to assure that the sale can be tracked correctly. Any alteration of these links will invalidate your sale, which will not be deemed a Qualified Purchase. All purchases must be started and completed in one shopping session within the Ebates shopping program. If you start a purchase, then complete it in a different session, you will be ineligible for a rebate.

7. The determination of whether or not a purchase made through an Ebates Affiliated Merchant is a "Qualified Purchase" is at the sole discretion of Ebates.

8. "Account Activation" is completed upon the making of a Qualified Purchase at any Ebates merchant site. In case of return or cancellation, Ebates retains the right to reverse account credit.

9. Discounts awarded to Members are subject to adjustments for returns, cancellations, and other events. Such adjustments can be applied to Member accounts at any time by Ebates at its sole discretion. Should you disagree with any adjustments made to your account, your sole remedy is to withdraw from the Program.

10. You may be taxed on your accrual of discounts, depending on the amount of discounts you accrue and the tax laws of federal, state, and local jurisdictions. Ebates may choose to provide you with those notices to you on occasion. In all instances, you will be solely responsible for any and all tax liability arising out of your accrual or redemption of discounts.

11. The following purchases are not eligible for accrual or payment of discounts: Dell Computers: any purchase of Dell products and services in which the transaction is substantially completed by telephone or by a Dell salesperson. Priceline.com: only purchases of airline tickets and hotel reservations qualify for a discount. Prescriptions from all merchants are not eligible as well, due to Federal/State laws and regulations. Monthly Deliveries, such as Wine-of-the-month clubs and Pet foods, are not eligible for a discount unless all months are paid for up front through Ebates. Gift Certificates that are purchased at any of our merchants, with the exception of Spa Wish, are also not eligible for a discount. Referral and affiliate revenues will not include a percentage of monies placed in member discount accounts resulting from a special promotion. Most purchases that are picked up at a warehouse or a store location do not qualify for a cash discount.

12. It is your responsibility to check your account regularly to ensure that discounts have been properly credited and that your account balance is accurate. If you do not believe that a discount has been correctly credited to your accout you must wait at least 30 days but no more than 90 days after completing a Qualifying Purchase to contact Ebates Customer Care. Furthermore, all discounts earned by Members are subject to review. Necessary adjustments may be applied to Member accounts at any time by Ebates at its sole discretion. If you do not agree to adjustments made to your account, your only recourse will be to terminate your membership in the Program. Ebates reserves the right to terminate any account for abusive or fraudulent activity, or if the Member is no longer reachable at the e-mail address provided.

13. Ebates is not responsible for changes to, or discontinuance of, any Affiliated Merchant, or any Affiliated Merchant withdrawal from the Program, or for any effect on accrual of discounts caused by such changes, discontinuance, or withdrawal. Ebates is not responsible for changes to, or discontinuance of, any special offer or coupon code at an Affiliated Merchant site. It is the Member's responsibility to make sure that all specials are valid. If you choose to use coupons and specials that are not listed on the Ebates site, we cannot guarantee that you will be eligible to receive an Ebates discount on your purchases.

14. Money earned through the referral program will be paid along with regular discounts. Continued payments of referral monies will be made at the sole discretion of Ebates. The referral program may be ended, percentages reduced or the program modified in any way, at any point, and without notice, though all accrued referral monies will be paid in full if and when this occurs.

15. Accrued discounts will be dispersed to the Members on or around August 14th, November 15th, February 15th, or May 15th. In order for an accrued discount to be eligible for payment on the above dates, the Qualified Purchase must occur 45 days prior to the payment date (by June 30th for a August 14th payment, September 30th for an November 14th payment, December 31st for a February 15th payment, March 31st for an May 15th payment). Note that orders from Dell Home Systems (Computers), Dell Home Systems Software and Peripherals, and Dell Small Business will post to accounts immediately. However, due to the 45 day return policies of these merchants, discounts will become eligible to be paid out 75 days after purchases are posted to members' accounts. Qualified purchases from all other merchants which occur within the 45 day cutoff period will be paid on the payment date subsequent to the next payment date.

16. It is your responsibility to keep your account information current in order to facilitate the payment of your discounts. In the event that your information is not current at the time of payment, you forfeit all accrued discounts to Ebates.

17. Upon registration for the Program, you will select a password that will allow you to access your Ebates account (via the Ebates Web site) to verify transfers, check account balances, and modify your account information.

18. You must be logged into Ebates and enter your password to access your account. You may check your account status and recent earning history at any time you are able to access the Ebates Web site.

19. Ebates is entitled to act on instructions received under your password. For security purposes, it is recommended that you memorize your password, and do not write it down. You are responsible for keeping your email address, password, account numbers, and other account information confidential. Ebates is not responsible for any credits or debits made to your account by someone else who uses your password.

20. In downloading and/or installing the Moe Money Maker Software, you agree to the following:
1)Ebates and its agents may pop up brief alerts when you can save money by shopping through Ebates or by using the Moe Money Maker Software. 2)Ebates may direct your traffic to the merchant of your choice. This may be done a)by presenting a choice in a pop up alert asking whether you wish to save by shopping through Ebates, thereby directing your browser through Ebates in order to ensure you earn a reward, or b)by automatically routing you through Ebates and automatically earning you a cash-back discount with no further action on your part being necessary. 3)Ebates may disable or uninstall any other product or software tool that might interfere with the operability of the Moe Money Maker Software or otherwise preempt or render inoperative the Moe Money Maker Software in a manner that might jeopardize the ability of Ebates to earn you cash back discounts or coupon savings offered by Ebates. In installing the Moe Money Maker Software, you authorize Ebates to disable, uninstall, or delete any application or software that might, in Ebates' opinion nullify its function and put you at risk of loosing the cash-back savings that Moe Money Maker Software is designed to earn you. 4)If you would like to utilize another savings tool, you can simply uninstall the Moe Money Maker Software before installing a competitive application. The Moe Money Maker Software can be easily uninstalled through the standard 'add or remove programs' control panel, or through the Moe Money Maker's preference settings.

21. No discounts earned or granted under the Program may be assigned or transferred to any third party except as expressly permitted by Ebates in writing. The sale or barter of any such discount, other than by Ebates, is expressly prohibited. Accrued discounts do not constitute property, and are not transferable: (i) upon death; (ii) as part of a domestic relations matter; or (iii) otherwise by operation of law. Any discounts assigned, sold, or otherwise transferred in violation of the Program Rules may be confiscated or canceled. Any violator of the foregoing restriction is subject to account termination, deduction of discounts from his or her account, and/or liability for damages and litigation and transaction costs.

22. You authorize Ebates to disclose to third parties information you have provided, or information that Ebates has obtained about your Ebates account or shopping behavior: (i) to agents of Ebates or its affiliates, such as independent auditors, consultants or attorneys; (ii) to comply with government agency or court orders or requests; (iii) in providing aggregated and non-personalized marketing services for an advertising or merchant partner, or (iv) where it is necessary for redemption or transfer of your discounts. Further, you authorize Ebates to receive any account information from any Affiliate Merchant including, but not limited to information regarding the Qualified Purchase such as the products ordered, the order number, the time and date the Qualified Purchase occurred, the email address entered for the Qualified Purchase. You agree to hold the Affiliated Merchant harmless for any information disclosed to Ebates. If you choose to download the Moe Money Maker™, you allow Ebates to collect, use and sell non- personalized marketing information regarding your visits and purchases to internet commerce sites.

23. By signing up for membership at Ebates, you agree to let us email you shopping-related emails as well as communications related to your account administration (e.g. that we've added money to your account, that we are mailing you a check on a certain date, etc). You can opt-out to any of our marketing emails. We send three different types of shopping-related emails: The Savings Newsletter, Bonus Offers, and Specials and Coupons. Each of these must be unsubscribed to separately. You can easily unsubscribe to any or all three by going to your account page and hitting the 'click here to edit your profile' link. Alternatively, you can unsubscribe to any single type of mailing by following the unsubscribe link on it. Since we need to communicate account information with you (for example, if we mail you a check and it returns to us as having an incorrect address), you can not unsubscribe from these emails. Rest assured that we don't send account emails unnecessarily. If you don't wish to ever hear from us, even if just to hear that we tracked your purchase and awarded you a discount, you can close down your account by contacting customer service. But frankly we'll be quite offended.

24. THE EBATES PROGRAM AND THE MOE MONEY MAKER™ ARE BEING PROVIDED TO MEMBER "AS IS" WITH NO WARRANTY. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EBATES DISCLAIMS ALL REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, WITH RESPECT TO THE PROGRAM, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARISING FROM COURSE OF DEALING OR COURSE OF PERFORMANCE.

25. EBATES DOES NOT WARRANT, GUARANTEE, OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS REGARDING THE QUALITY OF, OR ACCURACY OF ADVERTISEMENTS FOR, ANY MERCHANDISE, PRODUCTS, OR SERVICES OFFERED OR PROVIDED BY AFFILIATED MERCHANTS OR SUPPLIERS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE PROGRAM. IN ADDITION, ALTHOUGH EBATES INTENDS TO TAKE REASONABLE STEPS TO PREVENT THE INTRODUCTION OF VIRUSES OR OTHER DESTRUCTIVE MATERIALS TO THE EBATES WEB SITE, EBATES DOES NOT WARRANT, GUARANTEE OR MAKE ANY REPRESENTATIONS THAT THIS SITE IS FREE OF DESTRUCTIVE MATERIALS. IN ADDITION, EBATES DOES NOT WARRANT THAT ACCESS TO THIS SITE WILL BE UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE, AND EBATES ASSUMES NO RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY DAMAGE CAUSED BY YOUR ACCESS, OR INABILITY TO ACCESS, THIS SITE., INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, YOUR INABILITY TO ACCRUE DISCOUNTS BY PURCHASING ITEMS WITH AN AFFILIATED MERCHANT.

26. IN NO EVENT WILL ANY OTHER COMPANY WITH WHICH EBATES HAS A CORPORATE PARTNERING RELATIONSHIP, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, CO-BRANDING, CO-MARKETING, JOINT DEVELOPMENT, A MERCHANT RELATIONSHIP, OR A SUPPLIER RELATIONSHIP (EACH A "CORPORATE PARTICIPANT") BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR NON-PERFORMANCE OF EBATES OBLIGATIONS. YOU AGREE NOT TO SUE ANY CORPORATE PARTICIPANT FOR NON-PERFORMANCE BY EBATES. IN NO EVENT SHALL EBATES BE LIABLE FOR ANY DAMAGES, CLAIMS OR LOSSES INCURRED (INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION COMPENSATORY, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, OR EXEMPLARY DAMAGES), HOWEVER CAUSED AND UNDER ANY THEORY OF LIABILITY ARISING IN CONNECTION WITH: (I) THE PROGRAM; (II) ANY FAILURE, DELAY, OR DECISION BY EBATES IN ADMINISTERING THE PROGRAM; (III) THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THIS WEB SITE; (IV) THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE MOE MONEY MAKER™ SOFTWARE INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO LOST PROFITS, LOST BUSINESS OR LOST OPPORTUNITY, OR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING LEGAL FEES, ARISING OUT OF SUCH USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE MOE MONEY MAKER™ SOFTWARE, OR (V) THE PURCHASE OR USE OF ANY MERCHANDISE, PRODUCTS, OR SERVICES OF MERCHANTS OR SUPPLIERS, EVEN IF EBATES, OR REPRESENTATIVES THEREOF, ARE ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, CLAIMS, OR LOSSES AND NOTWITHSTANDING ANY FAILURE OF ESSENTIAL PURPOSE OF ANY LIMITED REMEDY.

27. MEMBER AGREES TO INDEMNIFY AND HOLD EBATES, ITS PARENTS, SUBSIDIARIES, AFFILIATES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS AND EMPLOYEES, HARMLESS FROM ANY CLAIM OR DEMAND, INCLUDING REASONABLE ATTORNEY'S FEES, MADE BY ANY THIRD PARTY DUE TO OR ARISING OUT OF MEMBER'S USE OF THE PROGRAM, THE VIOLATION OF THESE POLICIES BY MEMBER, OR THE INFRINGEMENT BY MEMBER, OR OTHER USER OF THE PROGRAM USING THE MEMBER'S ACCOUNT, OF ANY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OR OTHER RIGHT OF ANY PERSON OR ENTITY, OR AS A RESULT OF ANY THREATENING, LIBELOUS, OBSCENE, HARASSING OR OFFENSIVE MATERIAL CONTAINED IN ANY MEMBER COMMUNICATIONS.

28. Ebates reserves the right to terminate the Program at any time with notice. This means you will have sixty (60) days from the date notice of Program termination is provided to Members to redeem discounts in your account. Notification of Program termination will be sent to the email address you provide to Ebates during the registration process. Ebates will not be responsible for failing to notify you of Program termination where such failure is caused by any reason outside the control of Ebates, including an error in your email program, an inaccurate email address, your failure to check for your email online, or your failure to inform Ebates of a change in your email address.

29. Ebates may modify this Agreement from time to time, with or without notice, and your continued participation in the Program after such modification shall be deemed to be your acceptance of any such modification. It is your responsibility to check the Member Agreement page of the Ebates Web site regularly to determine whether this Agreement has been modified. If you do not agree to any modification of this Agreement, you must immediately cease participation in the Program.

30. Membership in the Program is subject to the Program Terms and Conditions. Any failure to comply with the Program Terms and Conditions, any fraud or abuse relating to the accrual or redemption of discounts, or any misrepresentation of any information furnished to Ebates or its affiliates by you, or anyone acting on your behalf, may result in the termination of your membership in the Program, cancellation of your Ebates account and/or forfeiture of your accrued discounts.
Ebates reserves the right to close accounts that have been inactive for more than 12 months. We call these 'Dead Accounts'. Inactivity is defined as no tracked visits, either cookied or manually logged in. Any account that is closed will have all funds in it taken back by Ebates, and will no longer allow user login under that username and password. If there is over the minimal payout amount in a Dead Account, Ebates will attempt to contact the holder of the Dead Account. Remember, we'd much rather have a happy customer than a closed account. But if you haven't come by in a year, and no reply is received to our attempt to give you money within 30 days, Ebates will close the account and take back any funds therein.

31. All questions or disputes regarding the Program, including without limitation, questions or disputes regarding eligibility for the Program, or the eligibility of discounts for accrual or redemption, must be submitted in writing within 60 days of the qualifying transaction, to Ebates at: Customer Service, Ebates Inc., 185 Berry Street, Suite 4700, San Francisco, CA 94107-1739, or contact Contact Customer Care. Any such disputes shall be resolved by Ebates at its sole discretion. All interpretations of Program Terms and Conditions shall be at the sole discretion of Ebates. In the event that an error is made by Ebates, your sole remedy shall be the credit of the disputed discount to your Ebates account.

32. This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to conflicts of law rules. As a condition of the use of the Ebates website and service, you (the Member) agree to submit to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction of the courts located within the county of San Francisco, California and therefore agree to file any grievance or suit of any kind exclusively in the courts located within the county of San Francisco. If any provision of this Agreement is found invalid or unenforceable, that provision shall be enforced to the maximum extent possible, and the other provisions contained herein will remain in full force and effect. Ebates' failure to insist upon or enforce strict performance of any provision of the Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any provision or right. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as creating or constituting a partnership, joint venture or agency relationship between Ebates and the Affiliated Merchants or between Ebates and any other of its Corporate Partners. Neither the Affiliated Merchants nor any Corporate Partner shall have the ability to create any obligation on Ebates' behalf. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between you and Ebates with respect to the Program.

Version 2.0


TopMoxie End User License Agreement

This END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT (the "Agreement") contains rights and restrictions associated with use of the accompanying software, documentation and services (as may be upgraded from time to time, the "Software and/or Services"). By installing the Software you agree to the terms and conditions of this License.

1. Scope of Licensed Rights.

TopMoxie, Inc. grants you a non-exclusive license to install and use the current version of the Software and access the accompanying Services, free of charge, if your use of the Software is exclusively for your personal, non-commercial purposes.

2. License Restrictions.

When installed on your computer, the Software periodically communicates with our servers in order to update and monitor the Services. We may update the Software on your computer when a new version is released or when new features are added. These updates occur automatically. Notwithstanding the above, we have no obligation to make available to you any subsequent versions of the Software, and can at any time revoke this license and terminate the Services.

You may not modify, reverse engineer, decompile or otherwise disassemble the Software in any way. You may not create derivatives of the Software, and you agree not to attempt, or allow others to attempt to reverse engineer and/or modify the Software source or object code. Any and all modifications or enhancements to the Software shall remain the sole and exclusive property of TopMoxie. You further agree not to access or attempt to access the Software or Service by any means other than the interface provided by TopMoxie. You understand that TopMoxie, in its sole discretion, may modify, discontinue or suspend your right to access the Software/Service at any time.

The Software may not be leased, assigned, or sublicensed, in whole or in part. TopMoxie reserves all rights in the Software/Service not expressly granted to you in this Agreement.

Persons under the age of 13 may not license the Software.

You understand that the Software is a voluntary software program, and you may uninstall it at any time by using the Windows add/remove programs function. However, by uninstalling the Software, you will be unable to access the Service.

3. Ownership.

You agree that the Software is licensed and not sold to you, and that the Software and Services are owned by TopMoxie, including all intellectual and property rights in the Software and Services. TopMoxie maintains all right, title and interest in and to the Software and Services at all times, and regardless of the form of media in or on which the original or other copies may subsequently exist. In addition, all content accessed through the Software is the property of the applicable content owner and may be protected by applicable intellectual property laws. This Agreement gives you no right to such content.

4. Trademarks and Logos.

TopMoxie is a trademark of TopMoxie, Inc. All other trademarks and service marks are the property of their respective owners.

5. Your Obligations.

You represent and warrant that you are the owner of the computer that you have authorized the download and installation of the Software, or the owner of the computer has authorized you to do so. You agree, with respect to all other users of the computer that you have caused the Software to reside, to (i) provide a copy of this End User License Agreement; and (ii) to obtain their consent to same before allowing them to use the computer to view Web sites on the Internet.

You agree not to use the Service to conduct any business or activity or solicit the performance of any activity, which is prohibited by law, or any contractual provision by which you are bound. You agree to comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations in connection with the Service. You agree that you will not use any robot, spider, other automatic or manual device or process to interfere or attempt to interfere with the proper working of our Web site.

6. Disclaimer of Warranty.

USE OF THE SOFTWARE, SERVICES, OUR WEB SITE, AND ANY CONTENT AVAILABLE THEREFOR IS AT YOUR OWN RISK. TOPMOXIE PROVIDE(S) THE WEB SITE, SOFTWARE, SERVICES, AND CONTENT ON AN "AS IS", "WHERE IS" BASIS WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED OR STATUTORY, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, ACCURACY, OR NON-INFRINGEMENT. THIS DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTY CONSTITUTES AN ESSENTIAL PART OF THIS AGREEMENT. TOPMOXIE MAKES NO WARRANTY THAT (i) THE SERVICES, CONTENT AND SOFTWARE ARE ACCURATE, TIMELY, UNINTERRUPTED OR ERROR-FREE; (ii) THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF THE SERVICES, CONTENT OR SOFTWARE WILL BE RELIABLE; (iii) THE SERVICES WILL IDENTIFY ANY IDENTITY THEFT, (iv) THE QUALITY OF ANY PRODUCTS OBTAINED OR PURCHASED THROUGH THE USE OF THE SERVICES, CONTENT OR SOFTWARE WILL MEET YOUR EXPECTATIONS; OR (v) ANY ERRORS IN THE SOFTWARE, SERVICES OR CONTENT WILL BE CORRECTED. The above exclusions may not apply in jurisdictions that do not allow the exclusion of certain implied warranties.

7. Links.

Our Web site or Services may contain links to Web sites operated by other parties. The linked Web sites are not under the control of TopMoxie, and TopMoxie is not responsible for the content available on any other Internet sites linked to our Web site. Unless otherwise stated, such links do not imply TopMoxie’s endorsement of material on any other Web site, and TopMoxie disclaims all liability with regard to your access to such linked Web sites. Your access to any other Web sites linked to this Web site is at your own risk.

8. Termination.

You may terminate this Agreement at any time by uninstalling and destroying all copies of the Software in your possession or control. The License will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with the limitations described herein. On termination, you must destroy all copies of the Software.

9. Limitation of Liability.

IN NO EVENT WILL TOPMOXIE, ITS EMPLOYEES, DISTRIBUTORS, SUPPLIERS, ADVERTISERS, DIRECTORS OR AGENTS (COLLECTIVELY "PROTECTED PARTIES") BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT DAMAGES OR OTHER RELIEF ARISING OUT OF YOUR USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE OR SERVICES INCLUDING, BY WAY OF ILLUSTRATION AND NOT LIMITATION, LOST PROFITS, LOST BUSINESS OR LOST OPPORTUNITY, OR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL OR EXEMPLARY OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES, INCLUDING LEGAL FEES, ARISING OUT OF SUCH USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, SERVICE OR WEB SITE, EVEN IF A PROTECTED PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES, OR FOR ANY CLAIM BY ANY OTHER PARTY. IN NO EVENT WILL TOPMOXIE’S MAXIMUM CUMULATIVE LIABILITY UNDER THIS AGREEMENT EXCEED $1,000.00.

Because some states or jurisdictions do not allow the exclusion or the limitation of liability for consequential or incidental damages, in such states or jurisdictions, TopMoxie’s liability shall be limited to the extent permitted by law.

10. Export Controls.

The Software and the underlying information and technology may not be downloaded or otherwise exported or re-exported (i) into (or to a national or resident of) Cuba, Iraq, Libya, Yugoslavia, North Korea, Iran, Syria or any other country to which the U.S. has embargoed goods; or (ii) to anyone on the U.S. Treasury Department's list of Specially Designated Nationals or the U.S. Commerce Department's Table of Deny Orders. By downloading or using the Software, you are agreeing to the foregoing and you represent and warrant that you are not located in, under the control of, or a national or resident of any such country or on any such list, and that you will otherwise comply with all applicable export control laws.

11. Governing Law.

TopMoxie operates its Web site and provides the Software and Services from our offices in California, USA. The laws of the State of California will govern this Agreement, without reference to conflicts of law principles. The United Nations Convention on Contracts for the Sale of Goods does not apply to this Agreement.

12. Arbitration.

Any claim or controversy arising our of or related to this Agreement, or the products or services we provide shall be settled by binding arbitration in accordance with the rules of the American Arbitration Association. Any such claim or controversy shall be arbitrated on an individual basis and shall not be consolidated with a claim of any other party. The foregoing shall not preclude TopMoxie from seeking any injunctive relief for protection of TopMoxie’s intellectual property rights.

13. Limitation of Support.

If you are using the Software free of charge under the terms of this agreement, you are not entitled to support or telephone assistance from TopMoxie.

14. Successor Agreements.

The terms of this Agreement may change in the future. TopMoxie will always post such changes on our Web site that can be accessed at »www.topmoxie.com/eula.htm.

You agree that after such notice, you consent to the successor Agreement, unless you affirmatively indicate to TopMoxie by email that you do not accept the successor Agreement. If you do not accept the successor Agreement, you should remove the Software from your computer. Failure to remove the Software from your computer indicates acceptance of the terms of the Agreement and any successor Agreements. Except as provided in this Section, this Agreement may not be revised except in writing signed by both parties.

15. General.

This Agreement, as modified from time to time as described above, and including the policies incorporated by reference, sets forth the entire understanding and agreement between you and TopMoxie with respect to the subject matter hereof. If any provision or provisions hereof shall be held to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the validity, legality, and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not be in any way affected or impaired thereby. TopMoxie shall not be liable for any delay or failure in performance under this Agreement or interruption of service resulting from acts of God, civil or military authority, war, labor disputes, materials provided by third parties, or any cause beyond the reasonable control of TopMoxie. You may not assign this Agreement without our consent

1) What data we collect and why

Our vision at Ebates is to maximize the rewards for all of our members and to provide them with as many benefits as possible. The first key way in which we provide value is to discount the commissions we receive from our merchants to you. Instead of keeping these funds for ourselves, we make our money primarily from marketing partnerships with our merchants, and advertising.

When first registering with Ebates, you will be asked to provide your name, address, income and age. This information helps us understand your interests and develop an understanding of what might appeal to you. Based on these demographics, we are able to determine what types of merchants and specials would benefit our members most.

When a member shops or visits one of our merchants, Ebates may track this information to have a summary of our member's buying interests. This information will be used by Ebates to make relevant and personalized offers to our members. As with any other information that you supply to Ebates, none of the information that we collect will be released in any personally identifiable way, only in aggregate or anonymous form.

2) How your information is used

We collect information to provide better, more relevant offers to you, whether it is targeted advertising, new merchants that we think our members may like, or choosing new partnerships.

3) Who sees your personal information

Only a very limited number of Ebates employees ever have access to your personal information. Primarily this information is accessed to provide customer service or to send you your discount checks.

We may use contractors or vendors to help us provide some of the services at our site. If we need to disclose personal information for them to provide the services, it is with the requirement that the information is kept confidential and is used only for those services.

4) How we keep your information secure

Ebates uses a secure, encrypted connection (called an SSL connection) on all pages where you transmit personal data to us. Whenever you access any of your account pages or change any of your user information, it is done over an SSL connection to Ebates. In spite of the fact that all important data is sent over an SSL connection, you may notice that on merchant pages, the "padlock" icon in the corner of your browser sometimes does not appear. This is a display issue only, and is caused by the fact that the merchant session is running inside a frame. Rest assured that any time you enter your credit card information at a merchant site, it IS an SSL connection secure connection.

Ebates fully GUARANTEES the use of your credit cards when shopping through Ebates at any of our affiliated merchants. If, as a direct result of your shopping through Ebates, someone uses your credit card information to make fraudulent purchases, Ebates will reimburse you for any costs the credit card company charges you. Please refer to the user agreement for complete information. Additionally, all of our database servers that contain customer information reside only on Ebates' physically secured premises or in our equally secured locations at our service provider.

5) Your privacy with Ebates

Ebates will never ask for your username, password or any other personal information in an unsolicited phone call, email or letter.

Further, any contact with Ebates customer service in which personal information is exchanged with a customer service representative will be used only for the purpose of satisfying that request. Any personal information you provide will not be recorded or used for any reason beyond that of the stated request without your consent.

6) Your privacy with our merchants and advertisers

Ebates contains links to various other sites. Each of these sites has a privacy policy that may differ from that of Ebates. The privacy practices of other websites linked to Ebates are not covered by this privacy policy.

Ebates will not disclose any of the personal information supplied upon registration to our merchants. The only information that may be shared between Ebates and one of our listed merchants is information that pertains to orders. Order information, including order numbers and amounts, may be available to either Ebates, the merchant, or third party affiliate program management companies for accurate discount tracking purposes. This information will not be released by Ebates to other parties unless required by law or to protect Ebates and its members from losses.

Ebates does not record any personal information passed from our members to our merchants, including credit card information or merchant passwords.

7) Our policies on email

Ebates does not support spamming by our members and we explicitly prohibit it in our member agreement. If you would like to report an incident of spamming, please contact abuse@ebates.com. We will investigate and take suitable action at our discretion.

We ourselves send out three kinds of emails. Our members may receive:
1) email essential to the maintenance of your account (most commonly when we need your address to mail you a check);
2) email notifying you about credits and debits to your account (most commonly when we credit you with a discount); and
3) email newsletters and special offers from Ebates and our merchants and other partners. You always have the option of opting out of types 2 and/or 3 here.

Please understand that, though we may have some small influence over our members, we fundamentally cannot control the online or offline actions of our members or other parties, especially when it comes to their use of email or participation in moderated or unmoderated newsgroups. While we will investigate complaints sent to abuse@ebates.com and take appropriate action with our members, we will typically not provide any information to third parties about our conversations with our members. We encourage people to resolve disputes directly with each other and discourage people from attempting to use Ebates to police their mailbox or newsgroup.

8) Cookies and how are they used

Cookies are small text files that a web site can write to your computer. We may use cookies to identify you and allow you to log in once to Ebates and shop without having to log in again. Cookies are also used by many of our merchants to identify you as an Ebates member.

Ebates requires its members to have cookies enabled in order to accumulate discounts.

9) Your choices and responsibilities

Periodically we may send you emails on new Ebates features or special offers. On every one of these emails you will be given the choice to unsubscribe from Ebates mailings. Choice of membership is yours at all times, and you are free to remove yourself as a member of Ebates at any time. Simply follow the directions in any of our emails.

You may also choose to what degree you would like us to contact you. When we ask for your account info, you may choose that we contact you with special offers, contact you about your orders, or not contact you for either.

It is the member's responsibility to update and maintain accurate contact information in their account. You can make changes by visiting your account page and entering corrections. Email and street addresses that are entered into a member's personal profile page are the addresses that will be used for all contact including the mailing of discount checks. Ebates is not responsible for checks that are sent to incorrect addresses, if the address in question was the address listed in that member's account at the time of issuance.

We will post all changes to this Privacy Agreement here at our site. Please check for revisions when you visit our site again so that you will always be aware of our policies and any changes that might occur.

10) Integrity

Having represented the People of the State of California collectively for ten years in a never ending fight for justice, the founders of Ebates know that your word is who you are and integrity is the cornerstone of any enterprise whether public, private or personal. As such, you have our word that we will protect your privacy and safeguard your shopping at all times.

Paul Wasserman
Alessandro Isolani

Co-Founders, Ebates
--
Dave said "By the way, 4294967295 is just another way to write -1". ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804398 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:16:39 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804363 novaflare : My thoughts is if it adds any thing to your computer that is not easy to uninstall that is spyware. And i would simply add their email to a filter and delete and bounce it with or with out a message as to why you are no longer accepting emails from their domain. Dont do as others have and give in to some scumware sites demands. As for the BBB ive seen how easy it is for a company to get listed as legit through the bbb
--
new 3d chat comunity at »planetvirtuel.com my site »spellbound.valshea.com/news.php]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804363 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:11:43 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804313 EGeezer : Hi Eric,

I looked at the site and it appears to be fairly legitimate, but I did not examine the "Moemoney" download or the website code to see if spyware is installed at any point.

The privacy and Terms and conditions seem to be written clearly and not purposely legalese as are some other sites. I noted a BBB logo, something not consistent with the usual round of spyware/crapware purveyors. Of course that doesn't preclude their from doing those things that fall into your criteria. It does, however provide some amount of visibility and method of pursuing complaints through a recognized organization.

Your terms of inclusion are clear, and describe in generic terms targeting activities and not people or businesses. If the user has a clear option to remove a specific site from IE Spy-ad block list, I see no problem here.

Your IE Spy-ad is actually less restrictive than Microsoft's own recommendations to set security high for all internet sites and add trusted sites to trusted zone. ( »www.microsoft.com/security/incid···ngs.mspx if M. Isolani asks ... )

EG
--
Save us from those who seek to solve problems they haven't defined but treat them gently because sometimes they may really have something.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804313 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 19:02:43 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804131 jaykaykay : You know my feeling, my having used your IE SPYADS for as long, long time. Any site that adds things to one's computer should be strung up to dry which is exactly what adding it to restricted sites does. It's too bad that Mr. Isolani felt upset about part of his program being broken and thank heaven for IE SPYADS and you for having made it that way...unless of course Mr. Isolani would like to explain, in detail, just exactly what parts of his program is broken and why he thinks it should be removed from the restricted list. ;)]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804131 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:30:47 EDT Re: Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804069 BlitzenZeus : Anyplace that tries to install malware on your computer needs to be blocked, period.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804069 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:21:51 EDT Opinions, please: eBates MoeMoneymaker http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804038 eburger68 : Hi All:

I'd like to hear your opinions about eBates/WebRebates MoeMoneymaker and the ebates.com site.

I received an email last night from Alessandro Isolani, President and CEO of Ebates.com. He reported that ebates has received a few complaints from users who downloaded and installed my Restricted sites list for Internet Explorer (named IE-SPYAD), which adds ebates.com to the Restricted sites zone. He claimed that users installed IE-SPYAD and then found that certain parts of the ebates.com site and its services were broken -- no surprise, because ebates.com had been added to IE's Restricted sites zone. Of course, he wants ebates' domains de-listed from IE-SPYAD, which can be found here:

»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/res···#IESPYAD

In my reply I pointed him to:

1) The IE-SPYAD ReadMe, which includes instructions on resolving conflicts and removing specific entries from the Restricted sites zone to allow web sites to work:

»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/res···pyad.txt

2) The license for IE-SPYAD, which clearly warns of restricted functionality at targeted domains:

»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/license.htm

3) The targeting policy for IE-SPYAD which, so far as I can see, clearly includes ebates:

»https://netfiles.uiuc.edu/ehowes/www/tar···licy.htm

In his reply to my email, he essentially ignored all that and went on to claim that my Restricted sites list is more consumer unfriendly than his company's adware, incredibly enough, and again asked that ebates.com be de-listed. My reply to that was, of course, tart.

So, what I'm asking for is opinions and information on ebates.com, its software, and its services. What do you know about this outfit and its software? Am I mistaken in targeting it in my Restricted sites list?

Best,

Eric L. Howes ]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,10804038 Sat, 17 Jul 2004 18:17:14 EDT