 DeVore
join:2001-12-08
Madison, WI | reply to MNtech
Re: Charter installs Spyware at installation (cfd.exe) said by MNtech:
What you are stating is that this is you *think* the Broadjump says about the software. I did go there and read the site. The text states value added services. It does not go into details.
Good point. However:
said by MNtech:
I would love to see sniffed packets that are carrying personal information. Let's see.... Broadjump on Google...
It is all forums with people saying that it is spyware
However there are no links, but to other forums with people saying it spyware. No go. Sorry but without reputable documentation from a reliable source (somebody who has a reputation they don't want to loose) or packets sniffed off a network that I can go over I don't buy it. Charter simply has too much to loose and not enough to gain.
This strikes me as a bit naieve. Your point is that talk on discussion forums about something being spyware isn't sufficient evidence that said something actually IS spyware. Well, wy do you need anything more than a whiff of evidence to avoid something that you don't even need, especially given the fact of widespread use of spyware already? I mean, as I see it:
1. I don't need the program.
2. Some people say it's spyware.
Given both of these facts, wouldn't you rather err on the side of having nothing to do with this program?
Moreover, most folks would acknowledge the stuff on discussion forums is often more reliable than "documentation" such as white papers, marketing press releases, product websites, etc. I'd much rather trust someone's personal experience than what some faceless corporation is regurgitating.
said by MNtech:
Ok so we have a piece of software that according to you knows when you are at a shopping website and then tells the company (not the ISPs but Broadjump) that this user is visiting websites. Is that correct? So you are stating that it either records every website you visit and sends it out OR that it can tell the difference between a commercial web site and say Yahoo
Or Slashdot. In the case of the latter it would be to big to complex as the first discussion.
Nonsense. All it would have to do is to cross-reference the list of visited sites with a standing list of known commercial vendors. Poof - the company has a list of known commercial vendors you've surfed to.
said by MNtech:
If it is recording every website it should try to access the Internet every so many websites.
More likely that it accumulates the list and then sends the info in a short bust at startup. A simple text file with a list of visited sites can be highly compressed.
I think it's a fine line to walk between getting overly paranoid and being a little naieve. I really don't know whether the Broadjump client Charter wants to install tracks usage or not. I suspect that it CAN, but currently does not. Probably to keep the objections of customers down until the software is installed on a large number of folks' machines.
--
Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, by let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances - Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_ |
|
DeVore
join:2001-12-08
Madison, WI | reply to Workaround
said by Workaround:
What happens if the tech tries to stick the CD in the CD-ROM drive and it won't read? Seems to me it would be pretty easy to unplug the CD-ROM IDE cable before the tech comes out and just play ignorant as to why the CD cannot be read (assuming you know that they're under orders to try and install something).
Uhh - overly complicated. It's YOUR computer, YOUR house/apartment, and YOUR service. Tell the tecnician that you will not allow him/her to touch your computer. All they need to do is to verify that the modem is getting online, which can be done without a computer in the house at all.
--
Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, by let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances - Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_ |
|
DeVore
join:2001-12-08
Madison, WI | reply to MrFixit1
said by MrFixit1:
As per the AUP:
"Customer will not use, nor allow others to use, tools designed for compromising network security, such as password-guessing programs, cracking tools, packet sniffers or network probing tools."
I dunno about you, but I read this as: "I will not use packet sniffers to compromise Charter's network security."
It does NOT mean I am prohibited from running packet sniffers to see what's going on with my incoming/outgoing traffic.
The point of that clause is to prohibit activity that might compromise network security.
--
Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, by let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances - Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_ |
|
| reply to DeVore
said by DeVore:
This strikes me as a bit naieve. Your point is that talk on discussion forums about something being spyware isn't sufficient evidence that said something actually IS spyware. Well, wy do you need anything more than a whiff of evidence to avoid something that you don't even need, especially given the fact of widespread use of spyware already? I mean, as I see it:
1. I don't need the program.
2. Some people say it's spyware.
Given both of these facts, wouldn't you rather err on the side of having nothing to do with this program?
Ok I don’t get how you say that insisting on quantifiable repeatable verifiable evidence is naive. If anything it would be the opposite.
I am asking for proof not accepting anybody’s work for it. Blindly accepting someone’s word for it now that would be naïve.
said by DeVore:
Moreover, most folks would acknowledge the stuff on discussion forums is often more reliable than "documentation" such as white papers, marketing press releases, product websites, etc. I'd much rather trust someone's personal experience than what some faceless corporation is regurgitating.
I think we have hit on your bias here. “faceless corporation is regurgitating.” I feel the same way about forums. I can’t evaluate the poster except by the words they type. That is not enough still no facts. And I personally would not recommend trusting blindly what you read in forums. “An open mind is like an open window. You still have to put up a screen to keep the bugs out.”
said by DeVore:
Nonsense. All it would have to do is to cross-reference the list of visited sites with a standing list of known commercial vendors. Poof - the company has a list of known commercial vendors you've surfed to.
But it is still maintaining a list on your computer. Care to guess how many retail sites are on the web? How many are indexed? This number goes up dramatically if you try to take into account direct linking. Also it would have to check fairly often for new sites to watch bla bla still more identifiable traffic. Again I have yet to see any evidence of this.
said by DeVore:
More likely that it accumulates the list and then sends the info in a short bust at startup. A simple text file with a list of visited sites can be highly compressed.
See above but add more traffic
said by DeVore:
I think it's a fine line to walk between getting overly paranoid and being a little naieve. I really don't know whether the Broadjump client Charter wants to install tracks usage or not. I suspect that it CAN, but currently does not. Probably to keep the objections of customers down until the software is installed on a large number of folks' machines.
And in my not so humble opinion you are looking at it the wrong way.
There is nothing that you are saying the software COULD do that any ISP can do now with out installing one bit of software on your computer. I am still trying to dig up a copy of the Broadjump software and get the answer. Not that I exspect that the next time this comes up to be believed however it will allow me to just say BS. Prove it because I have it and it has not tried send info to Broadjump. My point is simple PROVE it is spyware and I will agree with you in a heartbeat, until then with out a reliable source…..(shrugs) |
|
IMR00T
join:2002-11-16
Saint Louis, MO | reply to ollie232
Most broadband providers use that software...
-
»pub115.ezboard.com/fthechronicle···=8.topic
-
Broadjump is installed when you use the ez installer CD, which is not required to get the pipeline to work. Call your tech support and they can help you un install it if you don't know how to access your add / remove programs via the start menu. |
|
Reviews:
 ·Charter
| reply to ollie232
Get over it. They get kickbacks by the company who makes that software to install it on your machine. The company who makes/runs the software can then sell targeted ad space to website owners, just like doubleclick.net and such. Big deal. It is all over the place. Look in your cookies folder for a doubleclick.net cookie. I guarantee there will be one there (unless you run adaware every 20 minutes)
If Charter really wanted to track your internet usage and spy on you, they sure as heck wouldn't need to install anything on your client machine. They'd just do it from the comfort of their offices.
download adaware, use it regularly, and go about your business. I'm glad Charter is getting some cash from the company who makes that software. Maybe now they can add another OC3 somewhere it's needed.
Peace out.
[text was edited by author 2002-12-31 13:25:03] |
|
 hulltechPremium
join:2001-12-14
Sheboygan, WI | reply to ollie232
Alright, I know this topic is a bit old but when Charter comes out to do the install, do they honestly expect to get access to my computer? I'm going to have to switch to them within the next 2 weeks and right now I'm seriously debating going back to dial up before I do this if this is the case. I already have my doubts about Charter as it is from using it at my brother's house, this would be just another nail in the coffin when it comes to avoiding them.
--
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it! |
|
| They will "want" to, but if you have a nic installed and your system set up to get a IP via DHCP , they do not "need" to. They should be able to leave you your email settings and password so you can set things up yourself.
Be aware that if you do let them set up your computer and they screw it up , the form that you signed states that they are not responsible.
Having said that , I will also state that WI has some of the best techs in Charter , so the odds of a problem are slim .
The best bet is to do a full backup before they get there , and then restore it the way you want it .
Or get nasty and only have a Linux , Mac , or other unusual , to the average installer , system running .
Solaris would be a good choice , I think that would be a " No way am I touching that--It's not supported !" from any installer.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-04 10:26:26] |
|
|
|
hulltechPremium
join:2001-12-14
Sheboygan, WI
| said by MrFixit1:
They will "want" to, but if you have a nic installed and your system set up to get a IP via DHCP , they do not "need" to. They should be able to leave you your email settings and password so you can set things up yourself.
Be aware that if you do let them set up your computer and they screw it up , the form that you signed states that they are not responsible.
Having said that , I will also state that WI has some of the best techs in Charter , so the odds of a problem are slim .
The best bet is to do a full backup before they get there , and then restore it the way you want it .
Or get nasty and only have a Linux , Mac , or other unusual , to the average installer , system running .
Solaris would be a good choice , I think that would be a " No way am I touching that--It's not supported !" from any installer.
[text was edited by author 2003-01-04 10:26:26]
Thanks for the reply. I'll stick with telling them straight out, you are not touching my computer.
--
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it! |
|
 pit_viper1 Shot, 1 Kill, No Remorse, I Decide
join:2002-07-24 | We also have the self install option in Wisconsin now. |
|
hulltechPremium
join:2001-12-14
Sheboygan, WI | said by pit_viper:
We also have the self install option in Wisconsin now.
I doubt they will allow me to do that considering I need to get the initial cable service established also.
--
Life, liberty, and the pursuit of all who threaten it! |
|
| reply to hulltech
Heh you could just causally mention that you don't think the windows disks will work in your *nix box. He will not even want to power on your computer after that. (We as of yet don't support *nix). When someone from our LO came out he just took one look at the network got the modem power levels right made sure it blocked up with the network and split. End of story. (shrug) If you don't want the tech to touch your computer s/he probably won't. |
|
DeVore
join:2001-12-08
Madison, WI | reply to MNtech
said by MNtech:
Ok I don'tt get how you say that insisting on quantifiable repeatable verifiable evidence is naive.
I didn't say that. What I said was that it's naive to assume something is harmless until it's proven harmful, especially when circumstantial evidence suggests it's harmful. I said that it was naive to assume something is NOT spyware until it's proven that it is.
To make an analogy: Though I didn't order it and I don't need it, I receive a black box in the mail. There is nothing on this black box to say whether it's good or bad - that is, the maker of the box hasn't made it clear whether it's good or bad. A lot of my friends point at the box and say, "That box is bad news, man, get rid of it." But there's no quantified, repeated, verified evidence that suggests that it's bad.
What do I do with the package? I'd be naive to assume it's something good: #1 because I just don't KNOW what it is, and #2 because others have _suggested_ (not proved) that it's bad. Plus, #3, I don't need it anyway.
Same for the broadjump deal. If I can't determine with verifiable evidence that it's GOOD or BAD, and I see lots of Real People's comments that it's bad, I'm going to assume it's bad. And because I don't need it anyway, I'll stay away from it.
I'm saying I think it's naive to assume something is harmless until proven otherwise.
said by MNtech:
I think we have hit on your bias here. "faceless corporation is regurgitating." I feel the same way about forums.
Everyone has a bais. You're right, I'm baised against so-called "objective" information coming from a corporation that's competing for my dollars. I'd much rather get information from someone/thing that doesn't have a vested interest in the product.
said by MNtech:
And I personally would not recommend trusting blindly what you read in forums. “An open mind is like an open window. You still have to put up a screen to keep the bugs out.”
Funny, because I think you said above that you would blindly trust that something was harmless until proven otherwise.  Sorry, I know what you meant. I don't trust the forums blindly, but as a technical writer in a marcomm department I know that lots of PR/marketing types write the content you see on a business' Web site, whereas forums are often frequented by folks who actually DESIGNED the product. Trust which end you will.
said by MNtech:
And in my not so humble opinion you are looking at it the wrong way.
Prove it because I have it and it has not tried send info to Broadjump. My point is simple PROVE it is spyware and I will agree with you in a heartbeat, until then with out a reliable source..(shrugs)
We can agree to disagree then.  My point is that I think it's naive to assume something is harmless until proven otherwise, especially when the something in question isn't necessary to begin with. I will admit I'm baffled by your approach though: you're basically saying, "I see all of these people suggesting that this unnecessary piece of software might potentially be harmful. But I'm going to leave it on my computer, even though it's not necessary, and even though people are saying it's potentially harmful, because the maker of the product has not said it can be harmful."
--
Do not repeat the tactics which have gained you one victory, by let your methods be regulated by the infinite variety of circumstances - Sun Tzu, _The Art of War_ |
|
