how-to block ads
|
|
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
4 edits | reply to eburger68
Re: WhenU Enters the Anti-Spyware Market Hi All:
I want to offer some observations about certain aspects of this newly announced relationship between Aluria and WhenU -- observations that I think it important to bear in mind when considering the many issues at stake.
First, it's important to recognize that Aluria made not one but two decisions regarding WhenU. The first decision was to stop targeting WhenU in its definitions for Aluria Spyware Eliminator. This decision alone is controversial, but I think we can all recognize that it is appropriate for anti-spyware vendors to review the practices of the applications they target and, when appropriate, de-list applications that no longer merit targeting and removal. We can disagree about what applications ought to be de-targeted and the criteria to be used, and indeed similar decisions by other anti-spyware vendors like Lavasoft have caused controversy. Had Aluria decided only to de-target WhenU, we would no doubt be having a raucous discussion, but that discussion would concern the narrow issue of whether WhenU should be targeted by anti-spyware applications. But Aluria did something more than perform a routine review of an adware application and decide to de-target it.
The second decision that Aluria made takes us far beyond the narrow question of whether to de-target an adware application. It actually decided to partner with that same adware company and start distributing versions of its software through that adware vendor's advertising channels. And the minute Aluria did this, it immediately and irrevocably compromised the integrity of its first decision, for no longer can we regard the first decision as simply the kind of tough call that anti-spyware vendors have to make every day. Now we have to consider whether that first decision was made in the light of the potential financial benefits to Aluria. The second decision taints the first. And that brings me to my next observation.
Second, in making these decisions Aluria has done its customers, and indeed the entire anti-spyware industry, a grave disservice, because it has put itself into a completely untenable position. At bottom the conflicts of interest here are so serious that Aluria's trustworthiness as an anti-spyware vendor is completely and utterly compromised. And that has implications for Aluria's customers as well as the other anti-spyware vendors who continue to target Aluria's new business partner, WhenU.
There are several angles to look at when considering conflict of interest.
1) Aluria does regard adware applications as legitimate targets, as we've already seen in its detection of FlashGet on my own PC. This, by the way, puts Aluria into some kind of tension with its new business partner, WhenU, which told us at the FTC's Spyware Workshop this past April that there is a vast difference between adware, which is presumptively consumer friendly and legitimate, and spyware, which is not consumer friendly and therefore illegitimate (see WhenU's own summary of that position here: »www.whenu.com/pc_role_hearings.html ). WhenU appears to back away from that absolute distinction on another of its new pages, when it grudgingly admits that there are in fact illegitimate, non-consumer friendly adware applications (see »www.whenu.com/pc_adware_spyware.html ).
2) Given Aluria's willingness to partner with WhenU and use the adware model to distribute its anti-spyware application, we must now regard every adware application on the Net as a *potential* (note the emphasis here) partner of Aluria. And once adware applications become potential partners for Aluria, its definitions simply cannot be trusted.
At the very least, every decision by Aluria to de-target an application, as it did with WhenU, becomes immediately suspect, because we have to wonder about Aluria's financial interest in de-targeting that application.
By turns, every decision to continue to target an adware application is also suspect, because we have to wonder whether Aluria isn't simply protecting the market position of its business partner, WhenU, which competes for advertising and desktop space with the adware applications that Aluria targets.
Still worse, even if we do decide that Aluria is trustworthy enough to keep its financial interests out of the decision-making process about what to target and what to certify, Aluria has exposed itself to charges of unfair competition from other adware vendors. If Aluria, for example, were to suddenly announce that it was de-targeting Claria/Gator or Look2Me, could you really trust that such a decision had been made on the merits alone and not in response to threatened legal action by Claria based on Aluria's relationship with Claria's competitor WhenU? I think not.
No customer of an anti-spyware application should be put in the position of having to wonder about the integrity of the definitions used by that application, yet this is just where Aluria has put its customers.
Third, but the harm extends beyond Aluria's own customers. Aluria has effectively ripped the rug out from under the entire anti-spyware industry. Now every other anti-spyware vendor will have to worry that it will be exposed to charges of unfair competition based on those vendors' continued detection of WhenU, the business partner of a competing anti-spyware product. Aluria has effectively handed WhenU a powerful weapon to use against other anti-spyware vendors.
Other anti-spyware vendors could also be harmed indirectly, though. So tainted could anti-spyware vendors become in the eyes of consumers as a result of Aluria's actions that similar decisions made by other anti-spyware vendors to de-target adware applications might well be regarded by customers as equally suspect. In compromising itself, Aluria risks compromising the reputations of everyone else in the industry.
Indeed, Aluria's decision to cross over and partner with the very kind of company that anti-spyware vendors usually target has the potential to create a hornet's nest of suspicion, charges, and counter-charges within the industry. The primary victims of that kind of poisoned environment would, of course, be consumers -- the very victims of adware and spyware who are perpetually in need of trustworthy anti-spyware applications. (And I'd prefer not to even think about the possibility that this action might ignite an "arms race" of sorts among unscrupulous anti-spyware vendors to push their products through competing advertising channels.)
My apologies for the long-ish post, but the potential ramifications of Aluria's decisions need to be spelled out very clearly.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
 SpyPremium
join:2001-09-22
NE | said by eburger68:Indeed, Aluria's decision to cross-over and partner with the very kind of company that anti-spyware vendors usually target has the potential to create a hornet's nest of suspicion, charges, and counter-charges within the industry. The primary victims of that kind of poisoned environment would, of course, be consumers -- the very victims of adware and spyware who are perpetually in need of trustworthy anti-spyware applications. It's disgusting. It seems like something that Ashley from Privacy Tools would be doing. Here's a quote from that anti-spyware vendor to bring back memories.
Ashley said:
"And to be honest i'm even thinking of having some programmers write me some spyware. Yep, actual spyware to infect ppls machines. Why? Cus you all suck. I'm trying to work with you but you couldnt give a sh1t. So why try and work with the anti-spyware community when there only against you? You guys are against me so much that i'm going to start distributing spyware myself, its not hard. UNDETECTABLE stuff too To be honest theres probably more money in this then the actual spyware removal" | |
| reply to eburger68
In the last year or so I'll admit I've been slightly miffed that WinPatrol wasn't included in many of the Anti-Spyware program comparisons including Eric's.
WinPatrol works a little differently and so it's hard to compare apples to oranges with traditional Anti-Spyware scanners.
I just kept telling myself it was because WinPatrol was a utility that provides so much more then just protection from Spyware. 
Now, between all the trash that shows up on Eric's Rogue/Suspect Anti-Spyware list and situations like this I'm thinking I am glad we're not classified as Anti-Spyware.
Bill Pytlovany
BillP Studios | | |
|
|
