how-to block ads
|
Bobby_Peru
Premium
join:2003-06-16
1 edit | Re: "Our sleazy affiliates did it..." This is very reminiscent of SpamCop members successful effort to hold Echostar Communications Corp / Dishnetwork responsible for the deluge of UCE concerning their products and services, back in 2000-2001, though the present circumstances are much more nefarious, complex and damaging.
The usual (corporate) pathology was exhibited back then too:
1) Denial of existence of a problem.
2) In the alternative, if the alleged situation even exists, it's not a problem.
3) In the alternative, if the alleged situation even exists, and it is even a problem, it's not our problem.
4) In the alternative, if the alleged situation even exists, and it is even a problem, and even if it's somehow our problem, why should we really care.
5) In the alternative, if the alleged situation even exists, and it is even a problem, and even if it's somehow our problem, and even if we should somehow care, we can't do anything about it anyway.
6) In the alternative, if the alleged situation even exists, and it is even a problem, and even if it's somehow our problem, and even if we should somehow care, and even if we can do something about it, it will take a very very very long time.
LARTS (email, postal, and phone) were aimed directly at the apparent TOP of the profit path, Echostar/Dish. It seemed to be successful, relatively quickly.
They were told that they would be held accountable for the actions of those below them (no matter what they choose to call them: distributors, affiliates, partners...). They were told to immediately inform those below them to immediately cease and desist, and to immediately include strong contractual protections against any such future actions. They apparently were convinced that continuing their actions was less beneficial than the risk of the potential promised actions.
While the present situation is much more complex, the damages are also much greater.
Like you have said, "plausible deniability" attempts are employed, but something is always being PUSHED. There is the clear path to at least one direct benefactor to go after, and that is whatever product/service/company is being "crapwarevertised"!
If they do not want the potential negative effects of campaigns similar to SpamCop members and EchoStar, then they likewise need to quickly hose themselves off by reigning in whomever they are paying for their "Advertising".
Side Note: It may seem like quibbling, but consider that we are falling into a trap with the almost reflexive use of the term "consumer". That is exactly all these folks see every even somewhat sentient being, exactly what their dangerous and damaging activities are all about, and exactly how they desire us to also view ourselves, always (Security, 'tinfoil hats' and all, will take on a new meaning when Sony aims to beam sights, sounds into brain succeeds). The very dangerous thing is, it appears to be working quite well. How about more use of "Web surfers", instead? I may be wrong, but do think it is an important part of the battle.
[edit: Doctor Four  , stop reading my post previews!  . Hey, how about Rule #1?]
--
**~~Infected/Hijacked? FAQ~~~Protect/Secure Your Box/Data FAQ~~~Security Forum FAQs~~** | |
|  eburger68
Premium,MVM
join:2001-04-28
1 edit | Re: "Our sleazy affiliates did it..." Bobby:
You wrote:
said by Bobby_Peru :Side Note: It may seem like quibbling, but consider that we are falling into a trap with the almost reflexive use of the term "consumer". That is exactly all these folks see every even somewhat sentient being, exactly what their dangerous and damaging activities are all about, and exactly how they desire us to also view ourselves, always (Security, 'tinfoil hats' and all, will take on a new meaning when Sony aims to beam sights, sounds into brain succeeds). The very dangerous thing is, it appears to be working quite well. How about more use of "Web surfers", instead? I may be wrong, but do think it is an important part of the battle. Excellent point, and one that I, too, am most concerned about, as I think it important that we not be reduced to our roles as consumers. We are people, we are citizens, we are users, we are Netizens, we are web surfers.
I try to use a varied number of these terms when describing the victims of spyware and adware, because they are surely more than just "consumers." In many cases, even if they are "consumers," they were unwilling "consumers."
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
| | | |
|
