Spyware in Opera?
Glenn Shaw
Research Corporation, see www.grc.com), I came across a thread asking how
to stop pop-ups and pop-unders like the infamous X10 ads. After mentioning
that Opera 6 has a built-in pop-up blocker (and proudly proclaiming that I
use Opera 6.01), one of the respondents snidely suggested that I dump
Opera in favor of Mozilla, calling Opera "the spyware with the built-in
browser" and suggesting that it contains the infamous Cydoor spyware.
I'm using Opera 6.01 for Windows in ad-supported mode. Does it contain
spyware? A quick scan with AdAware 5.71 says it doesn't, but I'd like to
be sure.
(And Mozilla? Sorry, I don't use beta software for daily tasks. ^_~)
Regards,
Glenn Shaw
Indianapolis, IN USA
Using Opera 6.01 for Windows on Windows 98
Some people call me... Tim
>While I was perusing grc.privacy (a private newsgroup maintained by Gibson
>Research Corporation, see www.grc.com), I came across a thread asking how
>to stop pop-ups and pop-unders like the infamous X10 ads. After mentioning
>that Opera 6 has a built-in pop-up blocker (and proudly proclaiming that I
>use Opera 6.01), one of the respondents snidely suggested that I dump
>Opera in favor of Mozilla, calling Opera "the spyware with the built-in
>browser" and suggesting that it contains the infamous Cydoor spyware.
>
>I'm using Opera 6.01 for Windows in ad-supported mode. Does it contain
>spyware? A quick scan with AdAware 5.71 says it doesn't, but I'd like to
>be sure.
No, there is no spyware in Opera. The respondent has been
misinformed. All Opera's ad code was written in house. Opera's ads
are served by Cydoor, but not by using Cydoor's software. You can
read more about Opera's privacy statements at
<url:http://www.opera.com/privacy/>. The protocol for the ad code is
fully documented at <url:http://www.opera.com/docs/acp/> (and this
information has been verified by independent users).
--
Tim Altman
roy...@myrealSP-AMbox.com
No SP-AM is good spam.
Richard Grevers
said...
> While I was perusing grc.privacy (a private newsgroup maintained by Gibson
> Research Corporation, see www.grc.com), I came across a thread asking how
> to stop pop-ups and pop-unders like the infamous X10 ads. After mentioning
> that Opera 6 has a built-in pop-up blocker (and proudly proclaiming that I
> use Opera 6.01), one of the respondents snidely suggested that I dump
> Opera in favor of Mozilla, calling Opera "the spyware with the built-in
> browser" and suggesting that it contains the infamous Cydoor spyware.
>
> I'm using Opera 6.01 for Windows in ad-supported mode. Does it contain
> spyware? A quick scan with AdAware 5.71 says it doesn't, but I'd like to
> be sure.
>
the assertion that Opera is spyware is completely unfounded and verging
on libellous. Opera has the most explicit documentation on its ad
delivery system (not ne byte of which was written by cydoor) of any
adware software provider, and extensive packet-sniffing by skeptical
users has confirmed that Opera behaves exactly as Opera AS. claims.
Matthew Winn
> In article <Xns91F25F04AD2...@193.69.113.75>, Glenn Shaw
> said...
> > While I was perusing grc.privacy (a private newsgroup maintained by Gibson
> > Research Corporation, see www.grc.com), I came across a thread asking how
> > to stop pop-ups and pop-unders like the infamous X10 ads. After mentioning
> > that Opera 6 has a built-in pop-up blocker (and proudly proclaiming that I
> > use Opera 6.01), one of the respondents snidely suggested that I dump
> > Opera in favor of Mozilla, calling Opera "the spyware with the built-in
> > browser" and suggesting that it contains the infamous Cydoor spyware.
> >
> the assertion that Opera is spyware is completely unfounded and verging
> on libellous.
And if you do, let us know how he responds. Phrases like "the spyware
with the built-in browser" suggests this is a person who has already
made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused by the facts.
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
Glenn Shaw
> Richard Grevers wrote:
>>
>> I hope that you will return to this thread and reply to this person
>> that the assertion that Opera is spyware is completely unfounded and
>> verging on libellous.
Done, and done. :)
> And if you do, let us know how he responds. Phrases like "the spyware
> with the built-in browser" suggests this is a person who has already
> made up his mind and doesn't want to be confused by the facts.
Apparently. He even tried to support his claim with the following URL:
http://spychecker.com/cgi-bin/spybase.pl?Opera
which doesn't work -- all I get is a "Could not connect to remote server"
error from Opera. Even going to the root domain fails. :(
As for "sh0rtie", apparently it's "put up or shut up" -- in this case, I
put up and he shut up: no response from him as of yet.
Here's hoping that I sent him running with his tail between his legs. >:)
--
Some people call me... Tim
Please see
<http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&threadm=p638atg39b35hgj752iroaki00npoe9f3v%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Den%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26selm%3Dp638atg39b35hgj752iroaki00npoe9f3v%25404ax.com>
for a previous discussion about spychecker.com (and some other web
sites listing Opera as spyware).
In searching for previous discussions on this topic, I ran into
some misinformation at spywareinfo.com in their privacy policy
<url:http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html>.
<blockquote>
SpywareInfo discourages the use of the Opera browser due to their
business relationship with the Cydoor spyware company and instead
encourages you to use one of those listed above. In any case, we're
not sure how to block cookies with this browser.
</blockquote>
I'll do my best to straighten them out.
Dag Olav Norem
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
> On 17 Apr 2002 14:10:05 GMT, Glenn Shaw <tog...@tcon.net> wrote:
>
> >Matthew Winn wrote...
> >
> >> Richard Grevers wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I hope that you will return to this thread and reply to this person
> >>> that the assertion that Opera is spyware is completely unfounded and
> >>> verging on libellous.
> >
> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
&threadm=p638atg39b35hgj752iroaki00npoe9f3v%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%
3Fhl%3Den%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26selm%
3Dp638atg39b35hgj752iroaki00npoe9f3v%25404ax.com>
> for a previous discussion about spychecker.com (and some other web
> sites listing Opera as spyware).
Seems Google is having problems with the groups, I don't get any respons
from the server.
While we are on the subject, does anyone know what happened to the
discussions on the spyware site on the Infoforce domain? I don't remember
the URL's, but last time I tried to go there the links were dead. There were
some very interesting discussions between the maintainer of the site (Giles
Lalonde, aka MotherDawg) and some of you guys.
I used to point people that had questions about Opera and spyware to those
discussions and ask them to make up their own mind.
Dag Olav
Opera Software
Some people call me... Tim
wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 11:53:07 -0400, Some people call me... Tim
><add...@in.sig> wrote:
>> On 17 Apr 2002 14:10:05 GMT, Glenn Shaw <tog...@tcon.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Matthew Winn wrote...
>> >
>> >> Richard Grevers wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> I hope that you will return to this thread and reply to this person
>> >>> that the assertion that Opera is spyware is completely unfounded and
>> >>> verging on libellous.
>> >
>> Please see
>> <http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
>&threadm=p638atg39b35hgj752iroaki00npoe9f3v%404ax.com&rnum=1&prev=/groups%
>3Fhl%3Den%26ie%3Dutf-8%26oe%3Dutf-8%26selm%
>3Dp638atg39b35hgj752iroaki00npoe9f3v%25404ax.com>
>> for a previous discussion about spychecker.com (and some other web
>> sites listing Opera as spyware).
>
>Seems Google is having problems with the groups, I don't get any respons
>from the server.
I just got there without a problem....
>While we are on the subject, does anyone know what happened to the
>discussions on the spyware site on the Infoforce domain? I don't remember
>the URL's, but last time I tried to go there the links were dead. There were
>some very interesting discussions between the maintainer of the site (Giles
>Lalonde, aka MotherDawg) and some of you guys.
I'm really not sure what happened. He was quite convinced that
Opera was spyware, no matter how much evidence we showed him to the
contrary.
I've actually run into another site with misinformation,
<url:http://www.spywareinfo.com/>. Their privacy statement
<url:http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html> recommends not to use
Opera and one of the forums
<url:http://www.spywareinfo.com/yabbse/index.php?board=9;action=display;threadid=130;start=0>
(last three posts on this page and continuing on the next page) has
some misinformed users. I'm trying to set them straight at this very
moment.
Any help you could give me on this one would be much appreciated,
Dag Olav.
Some people call me... Tim
wrote:
>While we are on the subject, does anyone know what happened to the
>discussions on the spyware site on the Infoforce domain? I don't remember
>the URL's, but last time I tried to go there the links were dead. There were
>some very interesting discussions between the maintainer of the site (Giles
>Lalonde, aka MotherDawg) and some of you guys.
After looking around a bit today (and I didn't look very hard,
mind you), I found two web sites that listed questionable information
about Opera.
<url:http://www.tom-cat.com/tomcat.html> lists "Opera 5"
<url:http://www.tom-cat.com/cgi-bin/spybase/spybase.cgi?view_records=1&name=^O|^O&re=1&sb=4&so=ascend&nh=7&mh=1>
as "suspected" spyware (definition at
<url:http://www.tom-cat.com/spybase/spylist-faq.html#suspect>. I
e-mailed them
<url:http://www.tom-cat.com/spybase/spylist-faq.html#contact> with the
following:
<blockquote>
Dear Webmaster,
The purpose of my e-mail is to address the listing of the Opera
browser as "Suspected" spyware. According to the definition of
"suspected" spyware on your web site, "some question remains as to
whether or not the collection of personal information and/or user
tracking is performed at times when the program is not in use since
the adware modules are capable of independent spyware activity
(although not [yet] caught in the act of such behavior), and/or there
is some question regarding the way in which third parties handle a
user's information once it falls into their hands." What attempts
have been made to answer these questions? What information is
necessary to answer these questions?
Blessings,
Tim Altman
</blockquote>
As stated elsewhere in this thread, the privacy statement
<url:http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html> at
<url:http://www.spywareinfo.com/> "discourages the use of the Opera
browser due to their business relationship with the Cydoor spyware
company." Additionally, they are apparently "unaware" of how to
disable cookies in Opera. I e-mailed them
<url:http://www.spywareinfo.com/about.html> with the following:
<blockquote>
Dear Sirs,
I'm writing regarding the information in your privacy policy
about the Opera browser:
"SpywareInfo discourages the use of the Opera browser due to their
business relationship with the Cydoor spyware company and instead
encourages you to use one of those listed above. In any case, we're
not sure how to block cookies with this browser."
What exactly is the problem with Opera Software's business
relationship with Cydoor? No spyware is installed with Opera. No
personal information is collected when using the adware version of
Opera. All this information is fully disclosed at Opera's web site.
Please see
http://www.opera.com/support/supsearch/supsearch.cgi?options=index&name=570
for more information.
Cookies can easily be controlled via the Privacy Preferences
(File|Preferences) within Opera. Additional information about said
dialog can be provided upon request.
Blessings,
Tim Altman
</blockquote>
I'll let this group know about the outcome of both communiques.
I'm surprised that Opera isn't more proactive at addressing the
misinformation at such sites. Certainly such information is damaging
to Opera Software's public image. While I'm happy to help when
possible, contact directly from an Opera representative would most
likely make changes occur more quickly.
Rob Pitkin
<_anomalius_@o_p_e_r_a_m_a_i_l.com> wrote:
>
[SNIP]
>
>This is insane. Spywareinfo.com have no credibility what so ever. Not
>only can't they even figure out how to disable cookies in Opera - the
>site they link to as a foundation for their spyware claims actually
>says that:
>
>"Cydoor has cleaned up its act considerably since previous versions of
>its software. Previous versions left it up to the host application's
>vendor to disclose (or not) that Cydoor ad components were being
>installed, leading to a finger-pointing loop in cases where the
>software was not disclosed. Additionally, previous versions used a
>GUID to track individual users across multiple sessions. This has been
>removed from the current version, as verified by our tests and
>information on the Cydoor website. Cydoor's components now come with
>an uninstall feature that was not present in earlier versions."
>
>This is the link to "Cydoor spyware company":
>
> http://www.cexx.org/cydoor.htm
>
>This very site states the above -- that Cydoor no longer distribute
>spyware!
>
I *know* for a fact, Opera contains absolutely no spyware.
But have'nt you even thought of the possibility that the manufacturer
'Cydoor' might actually be stretching or twisting the truth even just a
little bit?, particularly given their past record of deceiving customers of
many types of adware and straight out, 'no holds barred', ''Spyware'?
I feel customers have a right to be concerned, but once they are informed
and shown the method used and the actual documentation, their minds are
always set at ease, honesty is always the best policy. . . . ;-)
>
[SNIP]
snm!
-
Rob Pitkin
&
Remember: "Silly is a state of Mind,
Stupid is a way of Life"!
by D. Butler
Some people call me... Tim
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
[...]
Sorry for replying to my own post, but I've received a reply from
http://www.spywareinfo.com/ that I'd like to share with the group....
My original message:
><blockquote>
>Dear Sirs,
>
> I'm writing regarding the information in your privacy policy
>about the Opera browser:
>
>"SpywareInfo discourages the use of the Opera browser due to their
>business relationship with the Cydoor spyware company and instead
>encourages you to use one of those listed above. In any case, we're
>not sure how to block cookies with this browser."
>
>What exactly is the problem with Opera Software's business
>relationship with Cydoor? No spyware is installed with Opera. No
>personal information is collected when using the adware version of
>Opera. All this information is fully disclosed at Opera's web site.
>Please see
>http://www.opera.com/support/supsearch/supsearch.cgi?options=index&name=570
>for more information.
>
> Cookies can easily be controlled via the Privacy Preferences
>(File|Preferences) within Opera. Additional information about said
>dialog can be provided upon request.
>
>Blessings,
>
>Tim Altman
></blockquote>
Their reply:
<blockquote>
Thanks for the information on how to control cookies in this browser.
I'll add this information.
About Cydoor and Opera, we're likely going to continue to disagree on
this. My answer to this is posted on the thread at the message boards
<url:http://www.spywareinfo.com/yabbse/index.php?board=9;action=display;threadid=130;start=0>.
Cydoor is a company that I'd like to see go out of business. To that
end, my position vis-a-vis Opera stands.
</blockquote>
It's unfortunate that the business relationship with Cydoor would lead
to such opinions/boycotts of Opera Software products.
Marco
news:hh7sbuslq0jmj7f9e...@4ax.com:
> I sincerely doubt he was being malicious.
No? It is fairly clear that he does not *want* to be informed or to
correct his misinformation - clearly ignoring any evidence that attempts
to do this. This statement is significant:
"Cydoor is a company that I'd like to see go out of business. To that
end, my position vis-a-vis Opera stands."
He has openly stated here that he wants Cydoor "out of business".
--
Marco
Cognitive dissonance due to reality conflicting with this post
may cause your brain to ache.
Some people call me... Tim
>Some people call me... Tim <add...@in.sig> wrote in
>news:hh7sbuslq0jmj7f9e...@4ax.com:
>
>> I sincerely doubt he was being malicious.
>
>No? It is fairly clear that he does not *want* to be informed or to
>correct his misinformation - clearly ignoring any evidence that attempts
>to do this. This statement is significant:
>
>"Cydoor is a company that I'd like to see go out of business. To that
>end, my position vis-a-vis Opera stands."
>
>He has openly stated here that he wants Cydoor "out of business".
We're talking about different people. Batboy's reply was to the
original poster and my reply was to him. A separate part of this
thread is talking about spywareinfo.com, where the quotes you're using
are coming from.
Anyway, just because the gentleman at spywareinfo.com would like
to see Cydoor go out of business doesn't mean he's being malicious.
If I said I'd like to see Microsoft go out of business, it doesn't
mean that I'm personally trying to do it.
Rob Pitkin
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
>On Wed, 17 Apr 2002 21:40:29 -0400, Some people call me... Tim
><add...@in.sig> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
> Sorry for replying to my own post, but I've received a reply from
>http://www.spywareinfo.com/ that I'd like to share with the group....
>
[SNIP]
>--
>Tim Altman
>
It looks a hell of a lot to me, like he is wearing "blinkers", Tim?
what can we do with people, who are deliberately harming Opera like that?
Matthew Winn
> Anyway, just because the gentleman at spywareinfo.com would like
> to see Cydoor go out of business doesn't mean he's being malicious.
> If I said I'd like to see Microsoft go out of business, it doesn't
> mean that I'm personally trying to do it.
(As far as I know) you're not spreading lies about products associated
with Microsoft. If you were, and if those products suffered reduced
sales as a result, the affected companies could certainly claim they
suffered loss resulting from malice.
--
Matthew Winn (mat...@sheridan.co.uk)
Some people call me... Tim
Pitkin) wrote:
>It looks a hell of a lot to me, like he is wearing "blinkers", Tim?
> what can we do with people, who are deliberately harming Opera like that?
In a way, I think his point is valid. He is boycotting Opera for
their business relationship with Cydoor. He is *not* saying that
Opera is spyware.
This would be similar to boycotting a retail store because makeup
they carry is tested on animals.
Some people call me... Tim
wrote:
However, I believe it would be necessary for the person to know
they are lying. It didn't seem like the person originally referred to
in this thread knew what they were talking about.
Oscar Jacobsson
"Some people call me... Tim" wrote:
> After looking around a bit today (and I didn't look very hard,
> mind you), I found two web sites that listed questionable information
> about Opera.
[...]
I also did a search on Google and found two Swedish websites claiming that
Opera "installs spyware". Luckily, I managed -- after some correspondence --
to persuade both of them to remove their statements. The first one was easy;
the second one wasn't easy at all.
Operas co-operation with Cydoor -- a company infamous for their spyware --
certainly doesn't help. ("Guilt by association" is inevitable.) Then there's
the mix-up of "adware" and "spyware". Add to this the FUD spread by
anti-spyware sites such as <http://www.tom-cat.com/spybase/>.
An "independent webpage", set up by a user, refuting the BS would help a
lot -- definitions, facts, testimonials and examples of packet sniffer-data.
It would mean a lot of work though. Unfortunately, I really don't think I
have the expertise needed. Someone else, maybe?
--
Oscar Jacobsson
Haavard K. Moen
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
> In a way, I think his point is valid. He is boycotting Opera for
> their business relationship with Cydoor. He is *not* saying that
> Opera is spyware.
>
> This would be similar to boycotting a retail store because makeup
> they carry is tested on animals.
But if this store stops testing on animals and actually clean up their
act, shouldn't they be praised for this? What would be the point in
boycotting someone for something they stopped doing a long time ago?
Some people call me... Tim
Some people call me... Tim
<livin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Operas co-operation with Cydoor -- a company infamous for their spyware --
>certainly doesn't help. ("Guilt by association" is inevitable.) Then there's
>the mix-up of "adware" and "spyware". Add to this the FUD spread by
>anti-spyware sites such as <http://www.tom-cat.com/spybase/>.
I actually just received an e-mail back from them:
<blockquote>
There has always been a debate among users regarding Opera's status,
as Opera's own privacy policy is very clear on the gathering and use
of a user's personal information. The status of "suspected" in Opera
version 5, however, is applied not to Opera itself but to one of their
advertising partners - Cydoor. Through our correspondence with
Cydoor, several of their claims are not reflected in the installation
of this program (in addition to many of the other programs with which
Cydoor advertising components are bundled). Therefore this program is
assigned a status which reflects "some question regarding the way in
which third parties handle a user's information once it falls into
their hands".
I added "freeware version" to our description of Opera 5 in our
database to help eliminate any confusion betweed this and the "paid
version" which is completely adware free.
Also, upon discussion with other members of our support team, I will
soon be appending the following to our description of "suspect" found
on the Spyware List FAQ page: "and/or the terms of use or privacy
policy of either the software vendor, its advertising partner(s), or
any involved third party is vague in describing what actions will take
place during installation and use of the program." Just thought I
would mention this since you will find a change from what you quoted.
</blockquote>
It seems like they don't understand that Opera doesn't install
Cydoor. Additionally, it would be "helpful" to have the added
information about the debate included in the entry for Opera, instead
of just available via private e-mail. I'll see if they will consider
such changes.
Rob Pitkin
<livin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
A good idea Oscar, but really if the person were doing a truly un-biased
evaluation of Opera the information about Opera's association with Cydoor
is available, via the archives or a simple question here or Opera itself,
I am nearly sure they would have received numerous e-mails already
asking just this question, so if they were really concerned and not just
going by past rumours and suspicion or really bothered to find it,
the info is there! There are probably at least 5-6 users that have that
document URL handy. All they have to do is ask some-one,
who really knows; *an Opera user* . . . . . (snm ;-)
It might not be a bad idea for Opera to display the link a bit more
prominently, on the 'Home' or 'Entry' page or somewhere EZ 2 C ;-)
CU . . free . . . .
Oscar Jacobsson
"Rob Pitkin" wrote:
> >An "independent webpage", set up by a user, refuting the BS would help a
> >lot -- definitions, facts, testimonials and examples of packet
sniffer-data.
> >It would mean a lot of work though. Unfortunately, I really don't think I
> >have the expertise needed. Someone else, maybe?
>
> A good idea Oscar, but really if the person were doing a truly un-biased
> evaluation of Opera the information about Opera's association with Cydoor
> is available, via the archives or a simple question here or Opera itself,
> I am nearly sure they would have received numerous e-mails already
> asking just this question, so if they were really concerned and not just
> going by past rumours and suspicion or really bothered to find it,
> the info is there! There are probably at least 5-6 users that have that
> document URL handy. All they have to do is ask some-one,
> who really knows; *an Opera user* . . . . . (snm ;-)
Yes, but people searching for "Opera" and "spyware" on Google would more
easily find the correct information from an independent source if there were
such a webpage; it would compensate tom-cat.com's FUD. Something like
<http://www.searchengineworld.com/opera/free.htm#item36>, but a bit more
extensive would help a lot. Information about the ad module on Opera's
website is unfortunately not as credible as information from an independent
source, and this newsgroup isn't exactly easy to find either.
> It might not be a bad idea for Opera to display the link a bit more
> prominently, on the 'Home' or 'Entry' page or somewhere EZ 2 C ;-)
That's also a good idea; a bit like Morpheus did, a big fat "ADWARE - NOT
SPYWARE" logo on the front-page.
--
Oscar Jacobsson
Oscar Jacobsson
"Some people call me... Tim" wrote:
> I actually just received an e-mail back from them:
[...]
> It seems like they don't understand that Opera doesn't install
> Cydoor. Additionally, it would be "helpful" to have the added
> information about the debate included in the entry for Opera, instead
> of just available via private e-mail. I'll see if they will consider
> such changes.
It really bugs me that they apparently list Opera as "suspect" only because
of unsubstantiated rumours circulating on the net. None of them has analysed
Operas network traffic. Checks made by users have, on the other hand,
revealed that the ad module works exactly as the company has stated. They
will never remove Opera from the list -- no matter how much evidence we
present, or how many e-mails we send -- because they're clearly incapable of
admitting a mistake. Jackasses.
--
Oscar Jacobsson
Rob Pitkin
<livin...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
[snip]
>> It might not be a bad idea for Opera to display the link a bit more
>> prominently, on the 'Home' or 'Entry' page or somewhere EZ 2 C ;-)
>
>That's also a good idea; a bit like Morpheus did, a big fat "ADWARE - NOT
>SPYWARE" logo on the front-page.
>--
>Oscar Jacobsson
>
Yes, exactly so, but there again we run into the same dilemna as other
suggestions. We have a newsgroup 'Wishlist', but just 2 days ago,
two of us were told that, we had to submit ideas through support?
(There was a suggestion about 'auto e-mail checking')
But if there is no consensus of it's desireability,
how will we know how many people are in favour of this new idea?
And how will Opera know, that a lot of us want it?
I think it's that old NDA cultural paranoia thing again!
Eric
message was sent 4/19/2002, it had the subject line:
Re: Auto-Check incoming e-mail?, Please, Help.(not 4 me ;)
and it was sent by Tim Altman.
The post said
"The Opera newsgroups are not an official support forum. If you
*need* a response, please visit http://www.opera.com/support/ and file
a support request."
Whether that matches what he said is a matter of interpretation. Also, I
don't know that Tim is an Opera employee. Nonetheless, he DID receive the
above message suggesting he submit it through support, and namecalling won't
change that. If his interpretation is different than yours, that only
proves that at least one of you is human. :)
Eric
"batboy" <_anomalius_@o_p_e_r_a_m_a_i_l.com> wrote in message
news:8b65cugoi4e724ado...@4ax.com...
<snip>
> > Yes, exactly so, but there again we run into the same dilemna as other
> > suggestions. We have a newsgroup 'Wishlist', but just 2 days ago,
> > two of us were told that, we had to submit ideas through support?
> > (There was a suggestion about 'auto e-mail checking')
>
> Liar liar, pants on fire.
Some people call me... Tim
<elincol...@nospam.confluence.org> wrote:
>Relax, batboy. It would only be a lie if he had not been told that. The
>message was sent 4/19/2002, it had the subject line:
>Re: Auto-Check incoming e-mail?, Please, Help.(not 4 me ;)
>and it was sent by Tim Altman.
>
>The post said
>"The Opera newsgroups are not an official support forum. If you
>*need* a response, please visit http://www.opera.com/support/ and file
>a support request."
...which was in response to Wojciech's message
>Why isn't there any answer so far from Opera authorities...? :(
>I also consider it as an important issue; and what's the best, it's trivial to implement,
>so I guess it wouldn't be much effort for Opera ASA to do it. It can be added in any
>moment. Am I right? Will it be done?
where he is wondering why there is no response from Opera Software
about Rob's original post. I simply reiterated something that has
been said by Opera's representatives many times in these newsgroups:
if you *need* a response, you should contact support.
>Also, I don't know that Tim is an Opera employee.
I'm not.
Some people call me... Tim
On Sun, 21 Apr 2002 08:20:55 -0700, "Eric"
<elincol...@nospam.confluence.org> wrote:
>Relax, batboy. It would only be a lie if he had not been told that. The
>message was sent 4/19/2002, it had the subject line:
>Re: Auto-Check incoming e-mail?, Please, Help.(not 4 me ;)
>and it was sent by Tim Altman.
>
>The post said
>"The Opera newsgroups are not an official support forum. If you
>*need* a response, please visit http://www.opera.com/support/ and file
>a support request."
...which was in response to Wojciech's message
>Why isn't there any answer so far from Opera authorities...? :(
>I also consider it as an important issue; and what's the best, it's trivial to implement,
>so I guess it wouldn't be much effort for Opera ASA to do it. It can be added in any
>moment. Am I right? Will it be done?
where he is wondering why there is no response from Opera Software
about Rob's original post. I simply reiterated something that has
been said by Opera's representatives many times in these newsgroups:
if you *need* a response, you should contact support.
>Also, I don't know that Tim is an Opera employee.
I'm not.
Susan Jones
<hkm...@opera.invalid> wrote:
But they haven't stopped -- not if they still maintain a business
relationship with Cydoor. Even if Opera itself doesn't contain spyware
<and I know it doesn't>, the fact that they work with a company that
promotes spyware is in itself pretty reprehensible.
To continue the analogy above -- it's equivalent to a retail store
removing animal-tested makeup from their shelves, but continuing to
carry other products from the animal-testing manufacturer.
Eric
don't know whether or not Cydoor is still doing spyware or not, but if they
have stopped, Haavard's point would be relevant. Cydoor's business partners
could only remain logical targets as long as Cydoor (or the business
partner) continues the offensive practice.
Eric
"Susan Jones" <su...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:mo79cukn9m1ejak96...@4ax.com...
<snip>
Some people call me... Tim
<elincol...@nospam.confluence.org> wrote:
>I could be wrong, but I think Haavard was referring to Cydoor, not Opera. I
>don't know whether or not Cydoor is still doing spyware or not, but if they
>have stopped, Haavard's point would be relevant. Cydoor's business partners
>could only remain logical targets as long as Cydoor (or the business
>partner) continues the offensive practice.
According to http://www.cexx.org/cydoor.htm, Cydoor has stopped
their spyware business practices:
<blockquote>
The current version [of Cydoor's software] appears to respect the
user's privacy and informed consent. Therefore, we consider this
version most accurately categorized as "Adware". Older versions could
more accurately be considered "Spyware".
</blockquote>
Haavard K. Moen
wrote:
> >But if this store stops testing on animals and actually clean up their
> >act, shouldn't they be praised for this? What would be the point in
> >boycotting someone for something they stopped doing a long time ago?
>
> But they haven't stopped -- not if they still maintain a business
> relationship with Cydoor.
I was actually comparing it to Cydoor. I would like to see evidence
that Cydoor are involved in spying on users today. Bear in mind that
the site we are discussing here base their claims about Cydoor spyware
on another page which actually says that Cydoor have cleaned up their
act lately.
> Even if Opera itself doesn't contain spyware <and I know it doesn't>,
> the fact that they work with a company that promotes spyware is in
> itself pretty reprehensible.
How does Cydoor promote spyware?
Blinky the Shark
> On Sat, 20 Apr 2002 18:26:35 +0200, Haavard K. Moen
> <hkm...@opera.invalid> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 12:47:59 -0400, Some people call me... Tim
>><add...@in.sig> wrote:
>>
>>> In a way, I think his point is valid. He is boycotting
>>> Opera for
>>> their business relationship with Cydoor. He is *not* saying
>>> that Opera is spyware.
>>>
>>> This would be similar to boycotting a retail store
>>> because makeup
>>> they carry is tested on animals.
>>
>>But if this store stops testing on animals and actually clean up
>>their act, shouldn't they be praised for this? What would be the
>>point in boycotting someone for something they stopped doing a
>>long time ago?
>
> But they haven't stopped -- not if they still maintain a
> business relationship with Cydoor. Even if Opera itself doesn't
> contain spyware <and I know it doesn't>, the fact that they work
> with a company that promotes spyware is in itself pretty
> reprehensible.
Just ran across an interesting paragraph related to just this
issue on a site where I was reading about some new spyware that
*seeks out and disables AdAware* (which is quite an escalation in
the Spyware Wars, in my opinion, and which you might find
interesting in its own right):
"SpywareInfo discourages the use of the Opera browser due to their
business relationship with the Cydoor spyware company and instead
encourages you to use one of those listed above. In any case,
we're not sure how to block cookies with this browser."
(The document section has just outlined how to block off-site
cookies with IE and NS.)
Page is: http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html
Whether or not one agrees with the idea that being in bed with
Cydoor is a Bad Thing, one can hardly say that nobody out there is
taking note and speaking out accordingly, about that relationship.
--
Blinky
Peter Burkhard
> Page is: http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html
Stop with this verry old information - Marche 2001
Some people call me... Tim
wrote:
>Just ran across an interesting paragraph related to just this
>issue on a site where I was reading about some new spyware that
>*seeks out and disables AdAware* (which is quite an escalation in
>the Spyware Wars, in my opinion, and which you might find
>interesting in its own right):
>
>"SpywareInfo discourages the use of the Opera browser due to their
>business relationship with the Cydoor spyware company and instead
>encourages you to use one of those listed above. In any case,
>we're not sure how to block cookies with this browser."
>
>(The document section has just outlined how to block off-site
>cookies with IE and NS.)
>
>Page is: http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html
>
>Whether or not one agrees with the idea that being in bed with
>Cydoor is a Bad Thing, one can hardly say that nobody out there is
>taking note and speaking out accordingly, about that relationship.
Please see the rest of this thread for information about the
contact I had with the web master of that site....
Blinky the Shark
10196...@news.opera.no:
>>
>> Page is: http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html
>
> Stop with this verry old information - Marche 2001
"Yess sirr!" <snapping a salute> - Blinky, Aprile 2002
Blinky the Shark
news:fsndcu80n3chjgl08...@4ax.com:
Damn. I remember your postings, Tim, but when I ran across the
Spywareinfo site, yesterday, the name didn't ring a bell (I didn't
even remember that they were in this particular thread - I read a
lotta news), and I thought this was a separate instance of the
Cydoor issue being raised. My bad.
--
Blinky T. "looking for my hair shirt" Shark
Some people call me... Tim
wrote:
>Some people call me... Tim <add...@in.sig> wrote in
>news:fsndcu80n3chjgl08...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 24 Apr 2002 07:50:36 GMT, Blinky the Shark
>> <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Page is: http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html
>>>
>>>Whether or not one agrees with the idea that being in bed with
>>>Cydoor is a Bad Thing, one can hardly say that nobody out there
>>>is taking note and speaking out accordingly, about that
>>>relationship.
>>
>> Please see the rest of this thread for information about
>> the
>> contact I had with the web master of that site....
>
>Damn. I remember your postings, Tim, but when I ran across the
>Spywareinfo site, yesterday, the name didn't ring a bell (I didn't
>even remember that they were in this particular thread - I read a
>lotta news), and I thought this was a separate instance of the
>Cydoor issue being raised. My bad.
No problemo. ;) Just didn't want you to duplicate my efforts
needlessly.
Some people call me... Tim
wrote:
>Some people call me... Tim <add...@in.sig> wrote in
>news:fsndcu80n3chjgl08...@4ax.com:
>
>> On 24 Apr 2002 07:50:36 GMT, Blinky the Shark
>> <no....@box.invalid> wrote:
>
>>>Page is: http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html
>>>
>>>Whether or not one agrees with the idea that being in bed with
>>>Cydoor is a Bad Thing, one can hardly say that nobody out there
>>>is taking note and speaking out accordingly, about that
>>>relationship.
>>
>> Please see the rest of this thread for information about
>> the
>> contact I had with the web master of that site....
>
>Damn. I remember your postings, Tim, but when I ran across the
>Spywareinfo site, yesterday, the name didn't ring a bell (I didn't
>even remember that they were in this particular thread - I read a
>lotta news), and I thought this was a separate instance of the
>Cydoor issue being raised. My bad.
He just e-mailed me to let me know he updated the privacy policy
(http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html):
<blockquote>
In the Opera browser, these settings are located in File > Preferences
> Privacy Preferences.
Please be aware that SpywareInfo discourages the use of the Opera
browser due to this company's business relationship with the Cydoor
adware company and instead encourages you to use one of those listed
above. There is no spyware bundled with any version of Opera, but
using this browser nevertheless generates revenue for Cydoor. Buying
Opera merely encourages this relationship. This is unfortunate, and we
sincerely hope that the developers of Opera will reconsider this
relationship and find another advertising company to serve their ads.
</blockquote>
Haavard K. Moen
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
> He just e-mailed me to let me know he updated the privacy policy
> (http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html):
Did he explain what his problem with Cydoor is? And does he know that
if someone purchases Opera, Cydoor gets no more income from that
person - ad revenue or otherwise?
> <blockquote>
> In the Opera browser, these settings are located in File > Preferences
> > Privacy Preferences.
>
> Please be aware that SpywareInfo discourages the use of the Opera
> browser due to this company's business relationship with the Cydoor
> adware company and instead encourages you to use one of those listed
> above. There is no spyware bundled with any version of Opera, but
> using this browser nevertheless generates revenue for Cydoor. Buying
> Opera merely encourages this relationship. This is unfortunate, and we
> sincerely hope that the developers of Opera will reconsider this
> relationship and find another advertising company to serve their ads.
> </blockquote>
Rather than
"There is no spyware bundled with any version of Opera, but using this
browser nevertheless generates revenue for Cydoor. Buying Opera merely
encourages this relationship."
He might say
"There is no spyware bundled with any version of Opera, but using this
browser nevertheless generates revenue for Cydoor. Buying Opera means
less revenue for Cydoor."
:)
Nevertheless, he should check his facts.
Some people call me... Tim
<haa...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 00:11:15 -0400, Some people call me... Tim
><add...@in.sig> wrote:
>
>> He just e-mailed me to let me know he updated the privacy policy
>> (http://www.spywareinfo.com/privacy.html):
>
>Did he explain what his problem with Cydoor is?
In the forum postings referred to earlier in this thread, yes.
>And does he know that
>if someone purchases Opera, Cydoor gets no more income from that
>person - ad revenue or otherwise?
No, I'm not sure that he does.
[...]
>Nevertheless, he should check his facts.
He's very responsive to constructive criticism. If you think
it's necessary, e-mail him (admin at spywareinfo dot com).
Haavard K. Moen
<add...@in.sig> wrote:
> >Did he explain what his problem with Cydoor is?
>
> In the forum postings referred to earlier in this thread, yes.
Thanks for taking the time to bring this up with the people behind the
site, Tim. Sadly, they appear to have disabled posting. I would have
liked to point out a few wrong assumptions, as they still don't seem
to have gotten the point:
"Our official position remains that users should realize that by using
Opera, they are helping to generate revenue for Cydoor."
Two important points he is apparently missing:
1. Cydoor only get revenue from the ad sponsored version of Opera
2. There is nothing wrong with using Cydoor as long as they have
stopped creating spyware
Please see:
<http://www.spywareinfo.com/yabbse/index.php?board=9;action=display;threadid=130;start=15>
He seems to base his entire argument on:
"In past versions, this program was one of the worst of the ad
trojans."
"In past versions"...
He also writes that:
"This is a company whose product is considered spyware by just about
all of the major spyware/privacy web sites and activists."
He says this even after you quote the very site they use to back their
claims:
<http://www.cexx.org/cydoor.htm>
"The current version appears to respect the user's privacy and
informed consent. Therefore, we consider this version most accurately
categorized as "Adware". Older versions could more accurately be
considered "Spyware"."
Unfortunately, as I mentioned, I was unable to find a way to reply to
the thread listed above. Perhaps I overlooked something?
> He's very responsive to constructive criticism. If you think
> it's necessary, e-mail him (admin at spywareinfo dot com).
Someone might have to do this, but he has already been given evidence
that his assumptions are wrong.
Some people call me... Tim
<haa...@opera-dot-com.invalid> wrote:
>On Thu, 25 Apr 2002 23:43:31 -0400, Some people call me... Tim
><add...@in.sig> wrote:
>
>> >Did he explain what his problem with Cydoor is?
>>
>> In the forum postings referred to earlier in this thread, yes.
>
>Thanks for taking the time to bring this up with the people behind the
>site, Tim. Sadly, they appear to have disabled posting.
It looks like the thread has continued at
http://www.spywareinfo.com/yabbse/index.php?board=12;action=display;threadid=180.