 |  | 
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: Spwware/Adware: Who cares; I want neither said by TK Junk Mail  :Actually I don't care how they delineate one from the other because I want neither. And I want my anti-(spy/ad)ware tool to delete both types. Setting up rules that differentiate one from the other just means that the spyware vendors will put together a 20 page EULA during install that meets the legal requirements to be called adware. A pox on both their houses. -- Join Red Room Forum
My Web Page HERE HERE! I am with this man! We don't care what it's called, it's still CRAP. | |
| | | 
dadkins
Merry Whatever
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA
 ·Comcast
| Re: Spwware/Adware: Who cares; I want neither LOL! I've been grouping it all together and calling it what it is for a while - crapware! Ad/spy/malware = crapware. 
--
Think outside the Fox... Opera | |
| | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: Spwware/Adware: Who cares; I want neither said by dadkins :LOL! I've been grouping it all together and calling it what it is for a while - crapware! Ad/spy/malware = crapware. Good call! That's the main crux of the post we have made but Mr. A doesn't seem to grasp this. | |
| | | | 
NyQuil Kid
8f The Nyquil Kid
join:2001-01-06
Brick, NJ | Isn't it called "VISTA" (Virus, Infections, Spyware, Trojans, Ad-ware)? 
[8F] The NyQuil Kid | |
| | 
a
@qwest.net
| get over it already, »www.microsoft.com, under Popular Downloads click on Windows AntiSpyware (Beta)
click yes, click continue, click on download, click on save to desktop, click on run, click on next, choose update microsoft antispyware, click on next, click on install then click on finish, if you require more assistance than this then you have no business sitting in front of a computer... | |
| | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
edit:
October 27th, @03:15PM
| Re: Spwware/Adware: Who cares; I want neither said by a :get over it already, » www.microsoft.com, under Popular Downloads click on Windows AntiSpyware (Beta) click yes, click continue, click on download, click on save to desktop, click on run, click on next, choose update microsoft antispyware, click on next, click on install then click on finish, if you require more assistance than this then you have no business sitting in front of a computer... ... We know this Sherlock, that's wasn't the reason for the post to have you tell us to get spyware removers, we have them already. It's the point that they are still trying to get people to accept this crap by calling it a different name. Oh, and just so you know, I am a PC tech, I think I know what I am doing, but thanks for your worthless input. | |
| | 
r81984
Tough to beat.
Premium
join:2001-11-14
Morgan City, LA | If they did that then you would know it was being installed and you can stop it. | |
| | | GardenHose
join:2003-11-14
Branford, CT | Re: Spwware/Adware: Who cares; I want neither And what if it's bundled with some other software? | |
| | | |
Cheese
Premium
join:2003-10-26
Naples, FL
clubs:
| Re: Spwware/Adware: Who cares; I want neither said by GardenHose :And what if it's bundled with some other software? Depends on who you ask, some will still use the software, others will stay clear of it. | |
| | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by GardenHose :And what if it's bundled with some other software? Two keywords on the EULA are "Third Party"
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | 
Combat Chuck
Too Many Cannibals
Premium
join:2001-11-29
Erie, PA
| said by TK Junk Mail :Actually I don't care how they delineate one from the other because I want neither. And I want my anti-(spy/ad)ware tool to delete both types. Setting up rules that differentiate one from the other just means that the spyware vendors will put together a 20 page EULA during install that meets the legal requirements to be called adware. A pox on both their houses. Fine, but that's your choice. Some people are fine with having their actions tracked in exchange for some service and as long as they are informed (adware) who is anyone to decide for them.
As far as the 20 page eula, if you see a twenty page eula that's a pretty good sign that you don't want to install that software.
--
HOLY CRAP, LIONS! | |
| | RogerB34
Premium
join:2004-07-01
San Diego, CA | Block third party Cookies in IE and you won't have a Spyware/Adware problem. | |
| | | 
sweintz
Premium
join:2002-03-01
Hamden, CT
| Re: Spwware/Adware: Who cares; I want neither said by RogerB34 :Block third party Cookies in IE and you won't have a Spyware/Adware problem. Um, no.
Most adware/spyware has nothing to do with cookies, 3rd party or otherwise. | |
| | gg5
join:2005-10-09
| No need for definition "Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy & Technology two years ago... stated the biggest obstacle to crafting effective anti-spyware laws was getting everyone to agree on what spyware is."
Actually, no. The main obstacle is that lobbyists, for both scumware makers and mainstream software companies alike, will prevent any effective legislation being passed, because it migh restrain them from making money.
The secondary obstacle is the dumb idea that to be effective against spyware/adware, a law must rely on defining spyware/adware. This misguided idea can only lead to legal quibbles over what category a program belongs in, and a law as useless as the fake anti-spam law.
What's needed is something much simpler. Let's have a law that makes three requirements for *all* software:
1. No installation without the computer owner's informed consent.
2. Full disclosure of exactly what the software does, in plain English, without the user having to read tiny print, interpret legalese, or link from one page to another.
3. An easy way to remove the software at any time, completely, including reversal of any changes it made to the system.
If these rules were applied to all software, there would be no lack of legal protection against the spyware/adware problem - without any need to define spyware or adware. | |
| | 
GeneStarwind
join:2001-12-13
Fairfax, VA
| Re: No need for definition It would be a good start, but disambiguation of those rules would be required. Those worthless spy/mal/scum/crap/shitware vendors have scores of people working for them to circumvent their software around any such otherwise-reasonable rules. All it takes is to adequately twist and exploit the non-specificities of them in their EULA, and their software's back on your computer with just as much ease, with or without your knowledge and consent. | |
| | AnnaS8
join:2005-05-26
Annapolis, MD
| said by gg5 :"Alan Davidson of the Center for Democracy & Technology two years ago... stated the biggest obstacle to crafting effective anti-spyware laws was getting everyone to agree on what spyware is." Actually, no. The main obstacle is that lobbyists, for both scumware makers and mainstream software companies alike, will prevent any effective legislation being passed, because it migh restrain them from making money. The secondary obstacle is the dumb idea that to be effective against spyware/adware, a law must rely on defining spyware/adware. This misguided idea can only lead to legal quibbles over what category a program belongs in, and a law as useless as the fake anti-spam law. What's needed is something much simpler. Let's have a law that makes three requirements for *all* software: 1. No installation without the computer owner's informed consent. 2. Full disclosure of exactly what the software does, in plain English, without the user having to read tiny print, interpret legalese, or link from one page to another. 3. An easy way to remove the software at any time, completely, including reversal of any changes it made to the system. If these rules were applied to all software, there would be no lack of legal protection against the spyware/adware problem - without any need to define spyware or adware. Amen | |
| | 
BronsCon
join:2003-10-24
Cleveland, OH | Define 'easy'. | |
| | 
Ark
join:2002-06-08
Hudsonville, MI
 ·AT&T Midwest
| Unfortunately (3) is somewhat impossible most of the time. Many regisitry keys a program may set under the current user will be entirely unavailable during the uninstall process for anybody but the user doing the uninstall, so you almost always leave orphaned registry entries for any other user that ran the program.
Sometimes a program will update a shared system file like msvbvm60.dll or some related OCX file. Deleting that file or downgrading the file to the original version may break other applications that where installed afterwards. It's not always desirable to rollback *all* changes, even if you try to keep track of install-reference counts. | |
| 
bigunk
Gort, Klattu Birada Nikto
join:2001-02-10
Santa Clarita, CA
·AT&T Yahoo
| Let's hit back with a Ralsky Remember what happened to Ralsky with all the scumware and spam he sent out? Remember how the tables were turned on him? Why not we create a white-hat 'bot net to nail the scumware players between the eyes? Really shut their networks down to the point they'll never be able to come up for air? Laws won't do it. Congress is worthless. And the only way to fight fire is with fire, not some legal BS that is basically saying to them, "Now now...you're not being nice. Don't you know that could annoy some people? Please stop." These scumbags couldn;t care less about laws or anything else.
Exposing and hitting them back harder is the proven method. Let's engage. | |
| | 
Vvian Kalyss
join:2003-10-14
Stage 5.0
clubs:
| Re: Let's hit back with a Ralsky A "shitlist" of known and proven vendors peddling such software would also be a good thing, link it up somewhere central so people can look and see who these turds are.
--
Mikami Vvian, resident Girlfriend of Steel, care of the Tokyo-3 Middle Daughters Club | |
| | | Timmn
join:2000-04-23
Tinley Park, IL | Re: Let's hit back with a Ralsky Well your "shitlist" might be a good idea except for one little problem, some of the makers of that particular kind of software will claim that they don't belong on that list and file suit in some court to get their name off the list. | |
| | | |
|
|
Great. We've Defined Spyware
Spwware/Adware: Who cares; I want neither
·
Not acceptable by any other name