quote:

---

Also (as some have suggested) we have never included legal pressure as a criteria to include or remove content from our data base

---

quote:

---

The system maintenance has nothing to do with any "upper-level manager reaction", as upper-level management doesn't manage the forums. Rather, I understand it is a project that IAMSKINZ has had planned for some time

---

quote:

---

Periodically, LS feels it necessary to restructure their support forums. Among other things, it allows them to clean up all those pesky threads that they see as a bother and unworthy of their exalted attention or perhaps throw a bad light on certain subjects. (book burning)

---

It was nothing more than a mistake and was corrected as soon as the research team was made aware of it.

quote:

---

The Support forums are just that, technical support for the software. There are other, better venues for discussing general issues.

---

If users refuse to take responsibility for their actions then why should we help them over and over (at our own risk) to get rid of spyware that had they taken responsibility and learned how to properly use their computer they wouldn't have?

What we should be debating here is how to help users take responsibility for their actions and, therefore, how to be responsible computer users. The entire focus of this thread is wrong. It not only encourages, but blesses irresponsibility of the user. I cannot condone that. Encouraging and blessing irresponsiblity in any area of life, as Eric constantly asks us to do in respect to how users interact with their computers, encourages lack of responsibility in other areas of life. We don't encourage people to drive automobiles when they don't know the traffic laws. We have classes to teach people proper, safe driving. The same applies here. We should be talking about how we get mandatory classes for all new computer users and how we set up licensing of computer users. This is where the discussion becomes meaningful. Ideas about how anti spyware vendors can avoid lawsuits from adware companies is just a waste of time, futile in the long run, and a deadly distraction from the real issue.

Attempts to finesse an effective AND lawsuit-proof set of spyware/adware/malware criteria are doomed, and we are better off, based on the "I know spyware when I see it" concept, either (a) providing generic uninstaller tools with all the disinfection power of contemporary antispyware, or (b) relying on groupthink definitions of spyware a la SpamNet or the new MS thing, or (c) employing a lawsuit-proof underground free software equivalent to today's antispyware options.

said by Taranis17:

---

This sounds to me like ad-supported shareware. A fine line, to be sure, but completely different from the definition of adware itself, who's primary purpose is to display advertising for it's parent company.

For example, a screesaver that has embedded advertising within itself from it's corporate sponsors to support its distribution is not adware.

If said screensaver came bundled with BonzaiBuddy, a completely separate program who's sole purpose is to display advertising to support it's role as distributor of that screensaver, then I would say the screensaver is not adware, but it's bundled program sure is.

---

said by Taranis17:

---

This follows along the lines of my statement above. Such a program I would expect to be bundled with that screensaver. It's sole purpose is to serve up ads, in whatever form. To show that it embeds advertising in other programs outside of it's bundled application (the OS, IE, whatever), just makes it that much more notorious.

To be clear, if I downloaded a browser toolbar for its supposed functionality and it hijacks my homepage and runs a separate executable on my PC regardless of whether I'm using the browser or not, it's adware, because regardless of the "fuctionality" I found desireable, the obvious intent of such software is to pepper me with advertising.

---

"* displays third-party advertising in pop-ups and windows that the software opens on the users' desktops and which are not part of internet content that users directly choose to visit or view without first providing sufficient notice and choice to users and securing their full, meaningful, and informed consent, or without offering users a means for permanently removing or opting out of the advertising short of purchasing a "pro" version of the product and/or incurring a fee."

"* embeds third-party advertising banners or messages within other programs or within elements of the operating system itself without first providing sufficient notice and choice to users and securing their full, meaningful, and informed consent, or without offering users a means for permanently removing or opting out of the advertising short of purchasing a "pro" version of the product and/or incurring a fee."

quote:

---

Either way, that's a lot of compromised computers.

---

said by B:

---

Not true. HijackThis is one of the least understandable applications a novice can run, and yet thousands of people seek it out. Why? Because it's purported TO HELP! Harry damn well is going to be willing to Google, particularly if it's a click away in a link from The Generic Uninstaller. If people won't even do that much, then I don't particularly care, since the whole premise of "I know it when I see it" is that the users are in control.

---

said by B:

---

That's ridiculous. It's immediately clear to Harry that he uses (or doesn't use) AIM, or a particular web browser, or a particular piece of shareware, or a particular e-mail program, even though they display ads. But he may notice that "SooperShopNSaveBigCash", which ALSO "displays ads", is NOT a program he uses. So Harry will KNOW what he wants to keep and what he may not want to keep. The principle of "I know it when I see it" holds.

---

said by B:

---

No. I don't want to narrow the list. That's the point! (For The Generic Uninstaller scenario at any rate.)

---

said by B:

---

And as noted above, I give Harry a little more credit than that, particularly since he's motivated to get rid of the crap and since he's learned he can't necessarily trust ANY of the antispyware vendors to do their jobs.

---

said by B:

---

Perhaps you misunderstand me. There are no distinctions in how the applications are presented.

---

said by B:

---

I dunno -- I kinda think Harry should know what software he's chosen (or not chosen) to install, and to make an informed decision about what he wants to keep. I really don't think it's that hard for him. And I know a lot of Harrys.

---

said by B:

---

More simply, if the majority of spyware includes uninstallers that CAN be trusted, then that information alone is quite valuable to me -- it certainly makes things easier. How can I know which ones to trust? Is that covered on one of your SpywareWarrior pages?

That's why even if all The Generic Uninstaller does is link to spyware-producer-supplied uninstallers that the TGU folks have determined actually uninstall properly, that's a big help right there. Please don't tell me that being selective in that context is problematic too! Will there be arguments over what "uninstall" means?

---

said by B:

---

Ah well, I'm already tired of this... which is why your unflagging persistence in this field is so admirable, whether or not I agree with you.

---

quote:

---

Actually, I think you need to go the opposite direction here. EULAs and "user consent" are the key, and if you don't nail that issue you'll never get to the rest of your criteria.

---

quote:

---

Legislation governing EULA's would be extremely helpful.

---