Security → Re: Yes, that PC cleanup app you saw on TV at 3 a.m...

It's worse than just that the software does what can be done for free. It's fraud, the capital F kind. It should anger you greatly that it goes on unchecked.

Sadly, when they do finally do get taken down by a class action, they just come back under a different name.

It doesn't anger me. I get angry at idiots who get snookered because they are too lazy to educate themselves about this or anything they get snookered on.

Why assume people are lazy?

Uneducated, yes. But judging from the training the schools in my area give, safety is barely even touched on. People who can type fast with their thumbs or use Facebook are presumed to be "experts" by other people who know no better, including the school board. Thought processes that make them all easy pickings for a whole host of scammers.

It's not just kids or recreational users - I know people who have worked in IT for companies for 10+ years who are utterly clueless when faced with a virus. Most are small companies, but even large companies and government agencies hire them. They do something all day that keeps them employed, but heaven knows what. I'd never hire them even though they're friends, but people do. It's the Wild West out there.

Unfortunately that's true. It always amazes me how many "computer professionals" haven't the slightest idea about how computers work. I'm talking about the fundamentals.

That sounds about right.

Well, maybe. But I think we ought to distinguish between "unable to recognize obvious crap when they see it advertised" and "unwilling to do their own software maintenance". The former seems to be an egregious failing, the latter is merely a sense of having something better to do.

(Car analogy for the latter part: I know how to do an oil change. I prefer to pay someone to change my oil.)

Well Yes Clickers are a big problem. And I have come across people who should know better. But they get a popup that says they are infected and they click scan and pretty much just let the crooks in the front door. As the moment they click scan the malware hijacks their PC and makes them pay to even access the internet again.

... and the television networks who allow these lies to be disseminated should be prosecuted for fraud right along with the perpetrators of the fraud.

Well, no, they wouldn't meet the criteria, strictly.

I'd vote for that. It's false advertising, and they're benefiting from it.

So when exactly did the Feds decide to stop enforcing truth in advertising laws? Or decide to let networks get away with things on cable channels they don't allow on the regular ones?

I smell lobbyists at work here ...

Truthful Advertising laws have become a pain to enforce. It is extremely painful when the whargarble freedom of speech whargarble tries to defer the lies as being the truth to some peoples.

Look at some ads. They get played for a couple of days with millions of views before being taken down. But without massive fines and then forcing an highly visible advertised apology for the lie, then you can lie your ass off in ads always.

*Does the product do what they say in the commercial? Sure, but only if you analyze it word for word.

*'Fee diagnosis'*. Is what its diagnosing actually bad? The satisfied customers claims are questionable for truth since they don't mention having to pay for a fix, speed up, along with saying that 'other programs' couldn't do anything.

Since Government allows companies to advertise one price, while at the same time having tiny disclaimer print that says that the price advertised is the base price.
In order to get the full capabilities of the product, you need to pay more.
'Product only finds nasties but you have to pay to remove the nasties.'
Internet for $20, but you have to rent the modem and pay a fee for hookup and pay 6 months in advance and service/speeds is never guaranteed.
A contract for two years.

»www.sba.gov/content/adve ··· ting-law

»business.ftc.gov/adverti ··· g-basics

Under the law, claims in advertisements must be truthful, cannot be deceptive or unfair, and must be evidence-based. For some specialized products or services, additional rules may apply.

It should be pointed out that unless the consumers instigates a claim of false advertising, the government doesn't care.
In some cases(against a mega corporation with expensive lawyers) the customer then has to prove with some documentation that the product is a lie as advertised.
ex: Those wrist bands that promised to cure your ails. The companies documentation had very weak science proof behind it and the band was more placebo than 100% science. Science on how the body reacts to the energy of the universe is still a young field of science.

)))
Saint Reagan removed the 'truth in news laws'(aka: foxnews ratings bread and butter). Which lead to the various TV news sources fudging the news in order to get higher ratings than the other newscasts, resulting in less educated people, resulting in massive ratings for honey booboo and people screaming about the guvment.
Even Canadas Republican Prime Minister has been constantly looking at nullifying the law too to allow suntv news to lie in the news, which is outside of their 'lieing commentary morans'. Lieing commentary is not violating the lie laws, since it is not news, even though its a regular daily program with the same host on the news channel and talking about the news while adding hearsay and quoting rightwing extremists.

There's always someone not as computer aware/literate that will pay, even for scareware drive-by malware installs. There was someone at work that paid the $50 for the scareware infection they had not once, but twice, to be sure the transaction went through. When I found out I of course advised immediately contacting the bank, and I took the system home and cleaned it. Many people seeing a scareware infection like that would be tempted to close it by clicking on the X in the upper right-hand corner, and even that can lead to an install (instead of closing it with Task Manager).