bobince
join:2002-04-19
DE
| reply to Mele20
Re: Ebates Moe Money Maker
Mele20, there are many possible definitions of spyware. eBates does not match mine, because it I haven't seen it leak trackable information.
However, it does definitely match 'parasite', or 'unsolicited commercial software'. *You* may have installed it deliberately, but there are millions that *didn't*, of which Conkshell is just the latest.
The TopMoxie (eBates) software is installed not just by warning-free bundles with other applications, but also by exploitation of IE security holes. See also »www.benedelman.org/news/121504-1.html .
This is not acceptable by anyone's standards. |
|
Mele20
Premium
join:2001-06-05
Hilo, HI
| This is still the fault of the user. If the user had Firefox this wouldn't happen. It is NOT spyware. You can decline the download. You do have to be able to read though in order to decline it. Most everything people call spyware is gotten because they use IE. It is the users fault. DON'T USE IE! It is that simple.
--
The first and foremost function of our jurors is to protect private citizens from a tyrannical and intrusive government...Jurors are the last line of defense for liberty. Thomas Jefferson 1789 |
|
bobince
join:2002-04-19
DE
| I'm as much of a fan of Firefox as the next guy, but this reasoning is completely absurd, and shared only by CoolWebSearch themselves [some of whose exploits install eBates].
Their excuse on their 'help pages' is invariably "it's not my fault if Microsoft leaves holes in their browsers", which is about as convincing as "it's not my fault I robbed your house, your back door lock can be picked".
Exploitation of browser security holes is ILLEGAL. eBates are indirectly paying their affiliates for committing illegal acts. You CANNOT 'decline' a download that happens automatically due to security holes. Plus of course there is software that bundles TopMoxie without any notice whatsoever, let alone the opportunity to 'decline' it.
Non-IE browsers are not magically immune to security holes. CoolWebSearch have also used a Sun Java VM flaw in the past, which would happily work on Firefox, for example. Would the user be at fault then? |
|
Hickerx2
God Bless The U.S. Military
join:2001-03-04
Franklinville, NY
| reply to Mele20
said by Mele20  :This is still the fault of the user. If the user had Firefox this wouldn't happen. LMAO:D
--
Kerry for President? Is this Saturday Night Live?....whew!....it was only a bad dream |
|
markwp2001
Spreadhead
Premium
join:2002-05-25
Long Beach, MS
| said by Hickerx2 : said by Mele20 :This is still the fault of the user. If the user had Firefox this wouldn't happen. LMAO:D Too much Hawaiian kind bud, perhaps? 
--
Widespread Panic - when only the best will do |
|
EGeezer
Summertime -
Premium
join:2002-08-04
Country!
 ·Callcentric
 ·RoadRunner Cable
·AT&T CallVantage
| Crapware?
If a user knowingly chooses to download a program that can disable, uninstall, or delete any shopping or discount software that might, in the software maker's opinion, nullify the software maker's function, then I must regrettably admit the user deserves whatever problems they encounter when the vendor exercises such unrestricted options.
When the sole restriction is whether the software maker opines - without obligation to provide substantiation - that the applications are in their way, it generates an unacceptable situation for me.
Supporters have the right to tout the product. After all it's reasonable to conclude they may receive money from the vendor and could tend to feel quite strongly about keeping the product around so they can continue to collect.
I personally consider any application vendor that chooses to use security holes and insists on unrestricted authority to install, delete or remove programs at will as untrustworthy. I will treat them as such and will not knowingly support them with my purchase dollars, even if I have to pay more for product. Business and system integrity mean more to me than discounts.
--
N-X-211 ====== N-328KF |
|
