Aureate question - A gentler, kinder version?
John Fitzsimons
>Perhaps this type of question is better asked in another newsgroup,
A better group would probably be alt.privacy.spyware
>however there has already been substantial discussion here about
>Aureate/Radiate.
>I am trying to make a slightly more palatable version of my program
>that would replace the current version of Aureate/Radiate's software
>with an older version that does not do the offensive spying and
>tracking. This would theoretically allow the software to continue
>displaying ads. What I want to know is:
>--Does such a version of Aureate/Radiate's software exist?
Not AFAIK. Older versions are even worse than the current versions.
>--Where can it be found?
>Thanks in advance for your input,
I am pretty sure all Radiate programs, past and present, are spyware.
Regards, John.
Follow ups set.
--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://www.alphalink.com.au/~johnf/
Alun Jones
> On Sun, 06 Aug 2000 20:43:32 GMT, See...@nat.ure (Joren) wrote:
> >I am trying to make a slightly more palatable version of my program
> >that would replace the current version of Aureate/Radiate's software
> >with an older version that does not do the offensive spying and
> >tracking. This would theoretically allow the software to continue
> >displaying ads. What I want to know is:
>
> >--Does such a version of Aureate/Radiate's software exist?
>
> Not AFAIK. Older versions are even worse than the current versions.
In fact, Aureate's advertising model - paying for eyeballs and clicks -
_requires_ that they count when each advert is displayed in each program
(read: how long, and when, you use the program), and when you click through
an advert (read: which products and adverts entice you). Further, to
provide adverts for apps that don't require you to be connected to the
Internet, they pre-cache adverts, and transmit eyeball and click counts,
whenever you open IE. Their payment model actually _requires_ a lot of such
identifying information to be collected, and the fact that IP is used means
that it's fairly easy to tie the collected information to particular users,
should they wish to do so.
The most important issue, as far as privacy is concerned, is whether users
are informed and allowed to grant or deny consent at any time. In itself,
it's no more innocuous than the "fill out this form and stand a chance of
winning a truck" booth that pops up on regular occasions in the local mall -
and in fact, it could be _less_ of a pain, in that it actually provides you
- guaranteed - with something of value (the use of the software). Where
Aureate et al go wrong, of course, is in their lack of informed consent.
Alun.
~~~~
--
Texas Imperial Software | Try WFTPD, the Windows FTP Server. Find us at
1602 Harvest Moon Place | http://www.wftpd.com or email al...@texis.com
Cedar Park TX 78613-1419 | VISA/MC accepted. NT-based sites, be sure to
Fax/Voice +1(512)378-3246 | read details of WFTPD Pro for NT.
Dick Hazeleger
Some remarks on your posting:
> In fact, Aureate's advertising model - paying for eyeballs and clicks -
> _requires_ that they count when each advert is displayed in each program
> (read: how long, and when, you use the program), and when you click
through
> an advert (read: which products and adverts entice you). Further, to
> provide adverts for apps that don't require you to be connected to the
> Internet, they pre-cache adverts, and transmit eyeball and click counts,
> whenever you open IE. Their payment model actually _requires_ a lot of
such
> identifying information to be collected, and the fact that IP is used
means
> that it's fairly easy to tie the collected information to particular
users,
> should they wish to do so.
Sounds like you actually defend the Aureates of the Internet, but to me they
still are tracing me and I don't want that and so think many others."The
part "If they like to so" bothers me... first how do we know they already
don't do this? Second, would they tell us? I don't think so!!
> The most important issue, as far as privacy is concerned, is whether users
> are informed and allowed to grant or deny consent at any time. In itself,
> it's no more innocuous than the "fill out this form and stand a chance of
> winning a truck" booth that pops up on regular occasions in the local
mall -
> and in fact, it could be _less_ of a pain, in that it actually provides
you
> - guaranteed - with something of value (the use of the software). Where
> Aureate et al go wrong, of course, is in their lack of informed consent.
Ah, you fill out these forms? I wouldn't touch a form like that even if I
could win Earth and all on it. I disagree that private information could pay
a program, not even the source of all MS Software could pay that price for
me, I thinks it all comes down to: "choices" and that all "prospect users"
of their software should be given a fair chance to choose whether they will
"Jump in" or they want to "Opt Out". I agree with you that information is
crucial and that many "Spyware-firms" failed to give that information.
Only now, after quite some "bad press" and the oppsition here on the
Internet some of these companies started to give the information *before*
the rubbish is installed.
A German Magazine had this month an article about spyware, for the TimeSink
robot they calculated that the amount of ads it gathers in one week from
their server was enough to make a ISDN connection - with no other traffic
than the TSADBot traffic - busy for seven minutes!
As Genna Reeney wrote in earlier postings here and in ACF, it's not only the
intrusion in the privacy, it's about using the users internet connection,
using system resources and making systems unstable.... Think about it, are
these programs realy *that* valuable? IMO Not!!
Regards
Dick Hazeleger.
Alun Jones
> Sounds like you actually defend the Aureates of the Internet, but to me they
> still are tracing me and I don't want that and so think many others."The
> part "If they like to so" bothers me... first how do we know they already
> don't do this? Second, would they tell us? I don't think so!!
Please be careful to discern what it is that I am defending. I am defending
the business model of allowing the end-user to exchange something of value
with the software vendor. In most cases, the end-user exchanges money for
the use of a piece of software. In this model, the end-user exchanges some
privacy for the use of a piece of software. I see no problem in this model,
as long as the end-user is aware of what is being exchanged.
> Ah, you fill out these forms? I wouldn't touch a form like that even if I
> could win Earth and all on it.
But are you suggesting that noone else should be allowed to fill out those
forms to "win a truck/boat/house" in return for demographic information?
> I disagree that private information could pay
> a program, not even the source of all MS Software could pay that price for
> me, I thinks it all comes down to: "choices" and that all "prospect users"
> of their software should be given a fair chance to choose whether they will
> "Jump in" or they want to "Opt Out". I agree with you that information is
> crucial and that many "Spyware-firms" failed to give that information.
Again, you are extrapolating your own personal value of your privacy and
assuming that, were people adequately informed, they would also feel the
same. I know people who are quite well aware of the privacy they are giving
away, but like to receive a regular bunch of junk in their mailbox because
it makes them feel like they are meaningful to somebody. There are
similarly people who would not pay $25 for a piece of software, but would
gladly allow the intrusion of adware into their privacy in order to get that
same software for free.
What I defend is the rights of both vendors and end-users to engage in such
a business arrangement; what offends me is when vendors do not provide
reasonable information to their end-users, or when vendors are either
incompetent or malicious enough to not provide an adequate way for an
end-user to back out of the arrangement.
> Only now, after quite some "bad press" and the oppsition here on the
> Internet some of these companies started to give the information *before*
> the rubbish is installed.
Again, please be careful about what is important bad press, and what is
merely people trying to impose their own ideas of the value of privacy on
others who may value their privacy somewhat less. I don't give my phone
number to Toys R Us when I buy toys for my child - but I don't regard this
request in itself as an evil act.
> A German Magazine had this month an article about spyware, for the TimeSink
> robot they calculated that the amount of ads it gathers in one week from
> their server was enough to make a ISDN connection - with no other traffic
> than the TSADBot traffic - busy for seven minutes!
So there's another cost the end-user trades in for the right to use the
software - seven minutes out of 10,080. You may value that highly, but
again, that's a very subjective valuation.
> As Genna Reeney wrote in earlier postings here and in ACF, it's not only the
> intrusion in the privacy, it's about using the users internet connection,
> using system resources and making systems unstable.... Think about it, are
> these programs realy *that* valuable? IMO Not!!
I'm sorry, but I disagree. The issue is not about an intrusion into
privacy, or about wasted bandwidth, or reduced stability - it is about
whether or not _information_ has been exchanged sufficiently to the point
that the end-user can make an informed judgement as to whether the value he
gains through use of the software is worth the value he loses through loss
of privacy.
Your privacy is of value to you - and to many other companies. You claim
that your privacy is too valuable to exchange for any software under any
purpose; however, I don't feel you have sufficiently authoritative an
argument to assert that same value applies to everyone else.
Dick Hazeleger
> But are you suggesting that noone else should be allowed to fill out those
> forms to "win a truck/boat/house" in return for demographic information?
No, I just give *my* opinion !
>
> > I disagree that private information could pay
> > a program, not even the source of all MS Software could pay that price
for
> > me, I thinks it all comes down to: "choices" and that all "prospect
users"
> > of their software should be given a fair chance to choose whether they
will
> > "Jump in" or they want to "Opt Out". I agree with you that information
is
> > crucial and that many "Spyware-firms" failed to give that information.
>
> Again, you are extrapolating your own personal value of your privacy and
> assuming that, were people adequately informed, they would also feel the
> same.
And so are you, you are doing the same, but from another point of view. If
this is still the "freespeech" forum it used to be I think I'm allowed to
post my thoughts about what *you* write as much as you are to react on
that... Fair?
> I know people who are quite well aware of the privacy they are giving
> away, but like to receive a regular bunch of junk in their mailbox because
> it makes them feel like they are meaningful to somebody. There are
> similarly people who would not pay $25 for a piece of software, but would
> gladly allow the intrusion of adware into their privacy in order to get
that
> same software for free.
I know of people who kill for money, but that doesn't justify the act...
doesn't it?
>
> What I defend is the rights of both vendors and end-users to engage in
such
> a business arrangement; what offends me is when vendors do not provide
> reasonable information to their end-users, or when vendors are either
> incompetent or malicious enough to not provide an adequate way for an
> end-user to back out of the arrangement.
If it is a fair business arrangement and they are properly warned about
consequences... no problem, but why do you think the term "spyware" is in
the name of this NG?
> Again, please be careful about what is important bad press, and what is
> merely people trying to impose their own ideas of the value of privacy on
> others who may value their privacy somewhat less. I don't give my phone
> number to Toys R Us when I buy toys for my child - but I don't regard this
> request in itself as an evil act.
May I ask what your expertise is to judge about what is important 'bad
press' or not? The fact that you run a software company? Please get me
right, I welcome the point of view from a software developer / distributor,
but there is another side to this: the consumers point of view, a point of
view I miss in your posting.....
>
> > A German Magazine had this month an article about spyware, for the
TimeSink
> > robot they calculated that the amount of ads it gathers in one week from
> > their server was enough to make a ISDN connection - with no other
traffic
> > than the TSADBot traffic - busy for seven minutes!
>
> So there's another cost the end-user trades in for the right to use the
> software - seven minutes out of 10,080. You may value that highly, but
> again, that's a very subjective valuation.
Read carefully, ISDN = High Speed traffic, most of us aren't using these
types of connections, 28K8, 33K3 and 56K6 is still commonly used, so the
time it takes to download the amount that is downloaded on an ISDN
connection will only be more; not much to you of course... you don't have to
pay the telephone bill of that surfer at the end of the month! So who is
subjective here?
> > As Genna Reeney wrote in earlier postings here and in ACF, it's not only
the
> > intrusion in the privacy, it's about using the users internet
connection,
> > using system resources and making systems unstable.... Think about it,
are
> > these programs realy *that* valuable? IMO Not!!
>
> I'm sorry, but I disagree. The issue is not about an intrusion into
> privacy, or about wasted bandwidth, or reduced stability - it is about
> whether or not _information_ has been exchanged sufficiently to the point
> that the end-user can make an informed judgement as to whether the value
he
> gains through use of the software is worth the value he loses through loss
> of privacy.
I didn't expect you would, on the other hand lots of us here DO! I have
another question for you; you write "it is about whether or not
_information_ has been exchanged sufficiently to the point that the end-user
can make an informed judgement" an informed judgement... informed by who?
The software distributors that wouldn't let us know what was going on in the
first place? I think they have had that chance, don't you agree?
> Your privacy is of value to you - and to many other companies. You claim
> that your privacy is too valuable to exchange for any software under any
> purpose; however, I don't feel you have sufficiently authoritative an
> argument to assert that same value applies to everyone else.
And who has "sufficiently authoritative" to do so? You? Where were you when
this whole thing started some six, seven months ago? I can tell you what I
was doing, but I know for sure you're not interested.
I think this little discussion shows clearly where both of us stand in this
matter, I leave it to the NG to judge.
Regards
Dick Hazeleger.
Alun Jones
> > Again, you are extrapolating your own personal value of your privacy and
> > assuming that, were people adequately informed, they would also feel the
> > same.
>
> And so are you, you are doing the same, but from another point of view. If
> this is still the "freespeech" forum it used to be I think I'm allowed to
> post my thoughts about what *you* write as much as you are to react on
> that... Fair?
Definitely - but you are treading very close to the edge of suggesting that
your opinion should be foisted on others who have not made an opinion of
their own. I'm partly playing Devil's Advocate, and suggesting that not
only is your opinion not the only one, it is not even any more right than
several other opinions.
> > I know people who are quite well aware of the privacy they are giving
> > away, but like to receive a regular bunch of junk in their mailbox because
> > it makes them feel like they are meaningful to somebody. There are
> > similarly people who would not pay $25 for a piece of software, but would
> > gladly allow the intrusion of adware into their privacy in order to get
> that
> > same software for free.
>
> I know of people who kill for money, but that doesn't justify the act...
> doesn't it?
The argument in question is not over killing for money, it is about whether
a user has the right to exchange some of his privacy in return for the use
of some software. You seem to be suggesting that you've decided it's not
right for a user to choose to give up some privacy in return for 'free'
software. [It's not really free, I know, but it has the perception of being
free to users who do not value their privacy highly]
> If it is a fair business arrangement and they are properly warned about
> consequences... no problem, but why do you think the term "spyware" is in
> the name of this NG?
Well, duh. It's clearly because there are any number of implementations
that have _not_ adequately informed their users of what payment they are
truly making. I'm just as upset over those as you are - but I don't take
that to mean, as you seem to, that _all_ adware is spyware. Presumably,
some form of adware _could_ come along that allows its users to make an
_informed_ choice to exchange privacy for software use. The fact that it
hasn't happened yet, does not preclude it from happening in the future - I'm
all for attacking the current crop of adware for its lack of information,
but let's attack it for that, and not simply declare that all programs
displaying ads are somehow evil.
> > Again, please be careful about what is important bad press, and what is
> > merely people trying to impose their own ideas of the value of privacy on
> > others who may value their privacy somewhat less. I don't give my phone
> > number to Toys R Us when I buy toys for my child - but I don't regard this
> > request in itself as an evil act.
>
> May I ask what your expertise is to judge about what is important 'bad
> press' or not? The fact that you run a software company? Please get me
> right, I welcome the point of view from a software developer / distributor,
> but there is another side to this: the consumers point of view, a point of
> view I miss in your posting.....
You forget - not only am I a software developer, I am also a software
_user_. For instance, I use this news reader, I use an email client, a
graphical shell on an operating system, a word-processing package, etc, etc.
I also deal on a daily basis with a large number of users. By "important
bad press", I mean that which is truthful and not paranoid rantings - "all
adware that will ever be created is bad", for instance, is bad press for the
adware industry, but not important, to my mind, because it is wrong. "I
don't/won't use adware" is hardly that bad of a press, but it is important,
since it is truthful. "All adware currently in circulation is bad" is
important bad press, because it is (TTBOMK) true.
As you say, it's all my own opinion. But then, I'm the one saying "users
should be allowed to decide", and you seem to be suggesting that users
should not.
> > > A German Magazine had this month an article about spyware, for the
> TimeSink
> > > robot they calculated that the amount of ads it gathers in one week from
> > > their server was enough to make a ISDN connection - with no other
> traffic
> > > than the TSADBot traffic - busy for seven minutes!
> >
> > So there's another cost the end-user trades in for the right to use the
> > software - seven minutes out of 10,080. You may value that highly, but
> > again, that's a very subjective valuation.
>
> Read carefully, ISDN = High Speed traffic, most of us aren't using these
> types of connections, 28K8, 33K3 and 56K6 is still commonly used, so the
> time it takes to download the amount that is downloaded on an ISDN
> connection will only be more; not much to you of course... you don't have to
> pay the telephone bill of that surfer at the end of the month! So who is
> subjective here?
I pay my phone bill - and I'm aware (having lived in England most of my
life) that some people have to pay per minute on all calls. Again, as long
as the user is fully informed, what is your problem? The user gets to
choose whether or not to install the software, and as long as they are
informed as to what the software does, are you _really_ going to tell them
they have no right to choose to run such software? That's what it sounds
like you're saying.
Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of Conducent/TimeSink, in fact as a
shareware developer, I've been repeatedly spammed by them even after
requesting that they stop. My personal opinion is that they probably don't
care about your resources or privacy, but that doesn't affect my belief that
an adware scheme that sufficiently informed its users prior to intallation,
and allowed correct removal, would be acceptable.
> I didn't expect you would, on the other hand lots of us here DO! I have
> another question for you; you write "it is about whether or not
> _information_ has been exchanged sufficiently to the point that the end-user
> can make an informed judgement" an informed judgement... informed by who?
> The software distributors that wouldn't let us know what was going on in the
> first place? I think they have had that chance, don't you agree?
I think the systems currently in the market are screwed up, yes. But I
_don't_ see that as proof that there can never be a workable adware
solution. Are you saying that adware should be universally dismissed
without even checking to see that it informs you of what it's going to do,
and then does only what it says it will? If so, then I'm afraid you're not
going to convince me (or, I hope, others) to give up the concept that adware
would allow impecunious users to sell something they value less than money
in exchange for software.
> And who has "sufficiently authoritative" to do so? You? Where were you when
> this whole thing started some six, seven months ago? I can tell you what I
> was doing, but I know for sure you're not interested.
I claim that each individual person is sufficiently authoritative to decide
whether to give up or retain his privacy, and to whom. I claim further that
noone else has that right to decide on someone else's privacy. Are you
trying to say that the user has no right to decide when to give up his
privacy? You certainly sound like it, in which case you're asserting that
you have more rights to control someone else's privacy than they do - such a
stance is no better than that of the spyware producers, IMHO.
> I think this little discussion shows clearly where both of us stand in this
> matter, I leave it to the NG to judge.
Since you've proven incapable of (or unwilling to) understanding my
argument, I don't think it does clearly show where we stand - to summarise
in a single sentence my position:
I believe that only the end user has the right to determine whether to keep,
or release, his personal information, and further that he has the right to
determine what he will barter for in exchange for that information, and with
whom he will exchange it.
Perhaps you'd care to summarise your position?
med...@shore.net
> Well, duh. It's clearly because there are any number of implementations
> that have _not_ adequately informed their users of what payment they are
> truly making. I'm just as upset over those as you are - but I don't take
> that to mean, as you seem to, that _all_ adware is spyware. Presumably,
> some form of adware _could_ come along that allows its users to make an
> _informed_ choice to exchange privacy for software use. The fact that it
> hasn't happened yet, does not preclude it from happening in the future - I'm
> all for attacking the current crop of adware for its lack of information,
> but let's attack it for that, and not simply declare that all programs
> displaying ads are somehow evil.
Why are you saying that it hasn't happened yet?
http://www.quotetracker.com - it is adware, it is not Radiate or
Conducent, it shows ads - period, it does not send any information
about the user out - unless the user volunteers it. Look at the
Privacy statement on the site.
Bluebeard
poor reflection on a software author/developer. You know perfectly
well that the FTC, among others, have concluded that Internet privacy
statements are totally inadequate, and large corporations are
scrambling like mad to write statements that will keep the U.S.
Congress, much less the other regulators, at bay. The so-called "safe
harbor" opt-out approach on disclosure of private information taken by
the U.S. has been accepted by the European Union, but if they find out
the uselessness of this approach so far, they'll slap sanctions on
U.S. Internet exchanges so fast it will make your head spin. Companies
like Radiate, Doubleclick and the others involved in once duping the
consumer are now paying the price with an explosion of anti-adware,
firewall, ad-blocking and proxying software, simply because they
violated a simple principle of the marketplace called trust. I doubt
they will ever be given the chance to win it back. Oh, we don't do
that ___________! Well, really.
Bluebeard.
med...@shore.net wrote:
>
> Alun Jones <al...@texis.com> wrote:
> > Well, duh. It's clearly because there are any number of implementations
> > that have _not_ adequately informed their users of what payment they are
> > truly making. I'm just as upset over those as you are - but I don't take
> > that to mean, as you seem to, that _all_ adware is spyware. Presumably,
> > some form of adware _could_ come along that allows its users to make an
> > _informed_ choice to exchange privacy for software use. The fact that it
> > hasn't happened yet, does not preclude it from happening in the future - I'm
> > all for attacking the current crop of adware for its lack of information,
> > but let's attack it for that, and not simply declare that all programs
> > displaying ads are somehow evil.
>
med...@shore.net
me a liar?
Bluebeard <blue...@highseas.mil> wrote:
> The fact that you believe the privacy statement on the Internet is a
> poor reflection on a software author/developer. You know perfectly
> well that the FTC, among others, have concluded that Internet privacy
> statements are totally inadequate, and large corporations are
> scrambling like mad to write statements that will keep the U.S.
> Congress, much less the other regulators, at bay. The so-called "safe
> harbor" opt-out approach on disclosure of private information taken by
> the U.S. has been accepted by the European Union, but if they find out
> the uselessness of this approach so far, they'll slap sanctions on
> U.S. Internet exchanges so fast it will make your head spin. Companies
> like Radiate, Doubleclick and the others involved in once duping the
> consumer are now paying the price with an explosion of anti-adware,
> firewall, ad-blocking and proxying software, simply because they
> violated a simple principle of the marketplace called trust. I doubt
> they will ever be given the chance to win it back. Oh, we don't do
> that ___________! Well, really.
>
> Bluebeard.
>
> med...@shore.net wrote:
>>
>> Alun Jones <al...@texis.com> wrote:
>> > Well, duh. It's clearly because there are any number of implementations
>> > that have _not_ adequately informed their users of what payment they are
>> > truly making. I'm just as upset over those as you are - but I don't take
>> > that to mean, as you seem to, that _all_ adware is spyware. Presumably,
>> > some form of adware _could_ come along that allows its users to make an
>> > _informed_ choice to exchange privacy for software use. The fact that it
>> > hasn't happened yet, does not preclude it from happening in the future - I'm
>> > all for attacking the current crop of adware for its lack of information,
>> > but let's attack it for that, and not simply declare that all programs
>> > displaying ads are somehow evil.
>>
Genna Reeney
news:IZ%j5.451768$MB.68...@news6.giganews.com...
|
| The argument in question is not over killing for money, it is about
whether
| a user has the right to exchange some of his privacy in return for the use
| of some software. You seem to be suggesting that you've decided it's not
| right for a user to choose to give up some privacy in return for 'free'
| software. [It's not really free, I know, but it has the perception of
being
| free to users who do not value their privacy highly]
Hi Alun -
I think that Dick and you actually agree on a fundamental point which has
gotten lost in this discussion. There is insufficient information for the
end-user to make an informed, thus intelligent decision. What you disagree
on is the path to take given the current state of affairs.
A great many people prefer to err on the side of caution, foregoing adware
programs of the spyware variety. Whether for privacy concerns or system
instability worries, it is not a bad solution, particurlary when there are
so many freeware, shareware and commercial alternatives.
That is not to say that adware is not a viable entity. It is, but only if
(and that is apretty huge if, IMO) there is proper and complete disclosure
of the program's functions. There are static adware programs that do not
require an Internet connection. My guess is that they probably do not
generate as much income as the programs that can provide accurate figures to
the advertisers. That is the programmer's choice.
In the end, I think that many end-users see adware as inherently deceptive,
passing off as freeware when it isn't quite that. This is especially true of
spyware programs, which have the ability to gather information, whether they
have done so or not, without the end-user's knowledge. And the current crop
of ad-delivery programs render systems unstable, a very big minus in my
book.
There are those for whom privacy is not a concern. To those, all adware
programs which utilize an Internet Connection are a viable alternative. But
there will be onlookers shaking their heads at the trend...
| You forget - not only am I a software developer, I am also a software
| _user_. For instance, I use this news reader, I use an email client, a
| graphical shell on an operating system, a word-processing package, etc,
etc.
| I also deal on a daily basis with a large number of users. By "important
| bad press", I mean that which is truthful and not paranoid rantings - "all
| adware that will ever be created is bad", for instance, is bad press for
the
| adware industry, but not important, to my mind, because it is wrong. "I
| don't/won't use adware" is hardly that bad of a press, but it is
important,
| since it is truthful. "All adware currently in circulation is bad" is
| important bad press, because it is (TTBOMK) true.
You have a good point.
Not all adware is bad. But you know what I find interesting? Not very many
programmers who have chosen the adware route have come out in defense of
adware.
I actually think that there is room for responsible adware programs. It
certainly has the potential to serve both authors and end-users by providing
a large number of programs without cost to the public. But if the
programmers do not require ethics from their distributors, who else is going
to do it?
--
Cheers,
Genna
********************************************************
Pricelessware picks available at:
http://www.sover.net/~whoi/Priceless.html
http://home.att.net/~willowbrookemill/pricelessware.html
Frequently requested games available at:
http://home.att.net/~willowbrookemill/gameslist.html
Alun Jones
> Not all adware is bad. But you know what I find interesting? Not very many
> programmers who have chosen the adware route have come out in defense of
> adware.
Much of the adware I've seen is slapped into already-existing shareware,
presumably the authors are merely looking at it as an extra revenue, without
having considered the deleterious effects on their users. For me, I can't
see adware as being something I'd ever use, either as a user or as a
developer. It's a support nightmare that I'm not willing to undertake. But
the flip-side of that is that I am essentially denying my users the ability
to use my software "free" with their privacy being the only thing exchanged.
So far noone has complained, and I doubt I'll lose any sleep over it, but
it is something that I _considered_. I doubt that too many adware authors
have really thought out what they do when they add the adware libraries into
their software.
> I actually think that there is room for responsible adware programs. It
> certainly has the potential to serve both authors and end-users by providing
> a large number of programs without cost to the public. But if the
> programmers do not require ethics from their distributors, who else is going
> to do it?
This is the crux of my argument - there is a place for responsible adware
programs, but I haven't yet seen any widespread application of ethical
adware. I think Aureate and Conducent had a chance to provide rapid fixes
to their libraries and policies in order to quiet public discontent, but
they did not seize that opportunity, and now they have blackened forever the
name of adware - here, it's even referred to as "spyware", as if the sole
reason for its existence was to grab personal, private information. That's
somewhat like saying that the sole reason cars are sold is to make money for
the gas companies. Sure, that's an obvious side-effect, but the car
companies at least make a show of keeping fuel consumption down on some
models, to allow the driver a choice.
I've previously suggested that the best thing the adware companies could do
is document the standard of their data exchange formats, so that it would be
possible to monitor exactly what they are doing, and to provide correct
information on what is being collected, and how.
med...@shore.net
>
> The kinds of users who worry about spyware aren't going to accept that
> a program is safe just because the adware developers say it is. Any
> disclosure would have to be done by a trusted third party. Steve
> Gibson <http://www.grc.com> has it right when he says that there needs
> to be an independent ratings/evaluation system in place that people
> know they can trust.
>
> For myself I'd have to go a step further. I will never knowingly
> download or install advertising-supported software on my system until
> my privacy is protected by a federal privacy law that has some teeth
> and is _enforced_.
>
> IMO there's another element at work here. We're bombarded with ads
> every way we turn and whether we like it or not, and I think people
> are WELL beyond the fed-up stage.
It's really very simple. Medved QuoteTracker (http://www.quotetracker.com)
is an ad-supported program. The users do not have to pay to
download/install/run it - ever. You may mistrust it - but it expressly
does not send any private info out - I wrote it, so I know.
Any commercial program that is even close to what QuoteTracker does
will cost the user at least $20/month - or more. Some cost $200/month.
If you need something like QuoteTracker you have a choice - free w/ads,
or monthly fees. No one forces anyone. It's a choice. Get it now?
Dick Hazeleger
Thanks for your reply, IMO opinion (Yes again *mine* <G>) we don't *that*
much, in certain way we even agree.
You asked (bottom of the posting) for my statement in short, well here it is
1. I'm *definitely NOT * opposed to ad-ware.
2. I'm opposed to the privacy intruding, bandwidth spoiling, system unstable
making,
resources stealing kind of this 'software'.
3. I'm opposed to software distributors of 'spyware' that deceive their
customers
willingly or hide their intentions behind a curtain of legal blahblah
that no-one, except
those who studied law, can understand.
4. I believe in free choices, based on sufficient and honest information.
5. I am an advocate of the "static" ad-ware. The advert is built into the
application
and no internet connection is used, (whatever) data is transmitted to
whatever server.
6. Perhaps I'm old fashioned, but - if I find a program that is worth
keeping - I pay
for it with money, not with information about myself!
I hope this makes my point of view clear to you, now to your reply:
> Definitely - but you are treading very close to the edge of suggesting
that
> your opinion should be foisted on others who have not made an opinion of
> their own. I'm partly playing Devil's Advocate, and suggesting that not
> only is your opinion not the only one, it is not even any more right than
> several other opinions.
I think the readers the postings here are intelligent enough to select the
information they need from my or your postings and they are surely
intelligent
enough to see that I am showing the other side of the medal... Yes, you are
playing 'Devil's Advocate' but you did this already before I responded, so
don't blame me, it's your original posting that caused my response... not
the
other way around.
> > > I know people who are quite well aware of the privacy they are giving
> > > away, but like to receive a regular bunch of junk in their mailbox
because
> > > it makes them feel like they are meaningful to somebody. There are
> > > similarly people who would not pay $25 for a piece of software, but
would
> > > gladly allow the intrusion of adware into their privacy in order to
get
> > that same software for free.
If their choice is based on properly given information, then it is their
absolute
right to do so, if the choice is based on deception and unreadable texts
then it
is IMO not an "afair business arrangement".
> > I know of people who kill for money, but that doesn't justify the act...
> > doesn't it?
>
> The argument in question is not over killing for money, it is about
whether
> a user has the right to exchange some of his privacy in return for the use
> of some software. You seem to be suggesting that you've decided it's not
> right for a user to choose to give up some privacy in return for 'free'
> software. [It's not really free, I know, but it has the perception of
being
> free to users who do not value their privacy highly]
Perhaps, who knows <G>; what I tried to say was that there *are* people
who would do anything for money or for saving it; but then there others too
and I think theirs is this NG!! Ah, now we're getting somewhere; at least
you
admit that (what we call) "spyware" isn't free!!
> > If it is a fair business arrangement and they are properly warned about
> > consequences... no problem, but why do you think the term "spyware" is
in
> > the name of this NG?
>
> Well, duh. It's clearly because there are any number of implementations
> that have _not_ adequately informed their users of what payment they are
> truly making. I'm just as upset over those as you are - but I don't take
> that to mean, as you seem to, that _all_ adware is spyware. Presumably,
> some form of adware _could_ come along that allows its users to make an
> _informed_ choice to exchange privacy for software use. The fact that it
> hasn't happened yet, does not preclude it from happening in the future -
I'm
> all for attacking the current crop of adware for its lack of information,
> but let's attack it for that, and not simply declare that all programs
> displaying ads are somehow evil.
Oh, sorry Alun, you really *did* misunderstood me there. For clearity: Not
*ALL* adware is spyware, "just" those that do those thing they haven't
told the prospect user of the software: Gathering information and sending it
to
marketing servers ("Content providers), usage of system resources, usage of
Internet connection bandwith and finally rendering systems unstable, this
all
as made clear before, without the prospect user giving his /. her absolute
permission to do this.
What would *you* say, think when your compiler suddenly appears to
use your Inetrnet connection to do the things 'spyware' programs do? Or your
linker, or the seperately bought IDE? Or whatever programs you use for
development or distribution??? Now the "bad press", I don't know how
close you've followed publications about adware / spyware, but TMK PC-Mag,
ZDNet (TV), The Financial Times and many others (and several Computer-Mags)
have had articles about the 'hidden dangers' of software 'Paid by
Advertisements';
would you call that 'bad press' or not...I do!!
> As you say, it's all my own opinion. But then, I'm the one saying "users
> should be allowed to decide", and you seem to be suggesting that users
> should not.
I'm suggesting that *you* are a bit too much on the Adware distributors side
and I am opposing that and now we are discussing both our points of view,
that's the way *I* see this.
> > > So there's another cost the end-user trades in for the right to use
the
> > > software - seven minutes out of 10,080. You may value that highly,
but
> > > again, that's a very subjective valuation.
> >
> > Read carefully, ISDN = High Speed traffic, most of us aren't using these
> > types of connections, 28K8, 33K3 and 56K6 is still commonly used, so the
> > time it takes to download the amount that is downloaded on an ISDN
> > connection will only be more; not much to you of course... you don't
have to
> > pay the telephone bill of that surfer at the end of the month! So who is
> > subjective here?
>
> I pay my phone bill - and I'm aware (having lived in England most of my
> life) that some people have to pay per minute on all calls. Again, as
long
> as the user is fully informed, what is your problem? The user gets to
> choose whether or not to install the software, and as long as they are
> informed as to what the software does, are you _really_ going to tell them
> they have no right to choose to run such software? That's what it sounds
> like you're saying.
Now you're making my point: "as long as the user is informed properly". But
IS the user informed properly? Sometimes yes, most of the time: NO and then
I may worry. Alun, something in your whole style of writing bothers me: in
nearly every paragraph you try to put words in my mouth, intentions in my
writing *I* haven't used; perhaps you could stop doing so, this would make
the
discussion we currently have much easier and friendlier, IMO; this isn't the
run
for Office, this is a discussion and not a political debate!!!
> Don't get me wrong - I'm not a fan of Conducent/TimeSink, in fact as a
> shareware developer, I've been repeatedly spammed by them even after
> requesting that they stop. My personal opinion is that they probably
don't
> care about your resources or privacy, but that doesn't affect my belief
that
> an adware scheme that sufficiently informed its users prior to
intallation,
> and allowed correct removal, would be acceptable.
It gives you credit you withstanded their "offers". Yes, I think too they
don't
care whatever amount of resources they steal, but I don't like the idea that
we would have to buy a 1 GHZ system with 768 MB of RAM, a 40 Gig HDD
and a DSL connection to the Internet just because those jerks use up every
percent of resources they may lay their hands on.... And as a consumer I'm
entitled to worry about these things and to share my thoughts about that.
What
others do with them.... you'd have to ask them not me!!
> > I didn't expect you would, on the other hand lots of us here DO! I have
> > another question for you; you write "it is about whether or not
> > _information_ has been exchanged sufficiently to the point that the
end-user
> > can make an informed judgement" an informed judgement... informed by
who?
> > The software distributors that wouldn't let us know what was going on in
the
> > first place? I think they have had that chance, don't you agree?
>
> I think the systems currently in the market are screwed up, yes. But I
> _don't_ see that as proof that there can never be a workable adware
> solution. Are you saying that adware should be universally dismissed
> without even checking to see that it informs you of what it's going to do,
> and then does only what it says it will? If so, then I'm afraid you're
not
> going to convince me (or, I hope, others) to give up the concept that
adware
> would allow impecunious users to sell something they value less than money
> in exchange for software.
Again, I leave the final judgement to the sunscribers to this NG!!
> > And who has "sufficiently authoritative" to do so? You? Where were you
when
> > this whole thing started some six, seven months ago? I can tell you what
I
> > was doing, but I know for sure you're not interested.
>
> I claim that each individual person is sufficiently authoritative to
decide
> whether to give up or retain his privacy, and to whom. I claim further
that
> noone else has that right to decide on someone else's privacy. Are you
> trying to say that the user has no right to decide when to give up his
> privacy? You certainly sound like it, in which case you're asserting that
> you have more rights to control someone else's privacy than they do - such
a
> stance is no better than that of the spyware producers, IMHO.
Then so am I! Now you're contradicting things you wrote yesterday. And
again,
you put words inm y mouth and intentions into my writing I haven't used...
perhaps
in this case "The wish is the father of the thought"?
> > I think this little discussion shows clearly where both of us stand in
this
> > matter, I leave it to the NG to judge.
>
> Since you've proven incapable of (or unwilling to) understanding my
> argument, I don't think it does clearly show where we stand - to summarise
> in a single sentence my position:
May I turn this around, *you* aren't willing to see the points I've made,
yet in
other postings in this thread you sound different. Whether I'm incapable
isn't yours
to decide, but the NG. Now you are taking decissions for others..... this
truly
makes you trustworthy... I leave this to the NG as well!!
> I believe that only the end user has the right to determine whether to
keep,
> or release, his personal information, and further that he has the right to
> determine what he will barter for in exchange for that information, and
with
> whom he will exchange it.
IF PROPERLY INFORMED!! You did forget that crucial sentence this time!!
> Perhaps you'd care to summarise your position?
See above, at the start.
Final comment: It is absolutely *not* my intention to convince whoever, I
just
give my point of view and, as all points of view, it contains information,
information
intended to make the reader think it over. Perhaps most of the subscribers
to this NG
will say "ahh, rubbish, what the heck do I care about my privacy?" then that
*is* their
right to think, but perhaps a few will think it over and draw their own
conclusions based
on that information *and* the information they may get from other sources.
Regards
Dick Hazeleger
Dick Hazeleger
To keep it short: See my reply to Alun posted a few minutes ago.
Greetings
Dick
<Remainder snipped>
Bluebeard
a poor reflection on you as a developer because of the PREVIOUS lies
told to both folks like you and folks like me. I would not use or
recommend anything connected in the slightest way connected with
Radiate. I did not call you or am I implying you are a liar.
Bluebeard.
med...@shore.net wrote:
>
> Bluebeard - I am the author of this program - are you calling
> me a liar?
>
> Bluebeard <blue...@highseas.mil> wrote:
> > The fact that you believe the privacy statement on the Internet is a
> > poor reflection on a software author/developer. You know perfectly
> > well that the FTC, among others, have concluded that Internet privacy
> > statements are totally inadequate, and large corporations are
> > scrambling like mad to write statements that will keep the U.S.
> > Congress, much less the other regulators, at bay. The so-called "safe
> > harbor" opt-out approach on disclosure of private information taken by
> > the U.S. has been accepted by the European Union, but if they find out
> > the uselessness of this approach so far, they'll slap sanctions on
> > U.S. Internet exchanges so fast it will make your head spin. Companies
> > like Radiate, Doubleclick and the others involved in once duping the
> > consumer are now paying the price with an explosion of anti-adware,
> > firewall, ad-blocking and proxying software, simply because they
> > violated a simple principle of the marketplace called trust. I doubt
> > they will ever be given the chance to win it back. Oh, we don't do
> > that ___________! Well, really.
> >
> > Bluebeard.
> >
> > med...@shore.net wrote:
> >>
> >> Alun Jones <al...@texis.com> wrote:
> >> > Well, duh. It's clearly because there are any number of implementations
> >> > that have _not_ adequately informed their users of what payment they are
> >> > truly making. I'm just as upset over those as you are - but I don't take
> >> > that to mean, as you seem to, that _all_ adware is spyware. Presumably,
> >> > some form of adware _could_ come along that allows its users to make an
> >> > _informed_ choice to exchange privacy for software use. The fact that it
> >> > hasn't happened yet, does not preclude it from happening in the future - I'm
> >> > all for attacking the current crop of adware for its lack of information,
> >> > but let's attack it for that, and not simply declare that all programs
> >> > displaying ads are somehow evil.
> >>
med...@shore.net
any way with Radiate, Conducent, etc. The privacy statement
on the site is ours - not Radiate's or Conducent's.
>> >> > Well, duh. It's clearly because there are any number of implementations
>> >> > that have _not_ adequately informed their users of what payment they are
>> >> > truly making. I'm just as upset over those as you are - but I don't take
>> >> > that to mean, as you seem to, that _all_ adware is spyware. Presumably,
>> >> > some form of adware _could_ come along that allows its users to make an
>> >> > _informed_ choice to exchange privacy for software use. The fact that it
>> >> > hasn't happened yet, does not preclude it from happening in the future - I'm
>> >> > all for attacking the current crop of adware for its lack of information,
>> >> > but let's attack it for that, and not simply declare that all programs
>> >> > displaying ads are somehow evil.
>> >>
Bluebeard
changing privacy statements to comply with "current business
requirements" have caused all privacy statements to become suspect.
Like Radiate. Like the company selling its mailing list to stave off
bankruptcy, toys something, IIRC.
Bluebeard
> >> >> > Well, duh. It's clearly because there are any number of implementations
> >> >> > that have _not_ adequately informed their users of what payment they are
> >> >> > truly making. I'm just as upset over those as you are - but I don't take
> >> >> > that to mean, as you seem to, that _all_ adware is spyware. Presumably,
> >> >> > some form of adware _could_ come along that allows its users to make an
> >> >> > _informed_ choice to exchange privacy for software use. The fact that it
> >> >> > hasn't happened yet, does not preclude it from happening in the future - I'm
> >> >> > all for attacking the current crop of adware for its lack of information,
> >> >> > but let's attack it for that, and not simply declare that all programs
> >> >> > displaying ads are somehow evil.
> >> >>
Joren
<jo...@net2000.com.au> wrote:
>I am pretty sure all Radiate programs, past and present, are spyware.
I am sorry for my late reply - I did read all of the posts on this
thread and I appreciate the input. If I hear about a version of
advert.dll that doesn't "spy" I will let you know.
--Joren
--
Joren (J o r e n C o m b s a t h o t m a i l . c o m)
http://www.aardvarko.com/joren
????
If one would like to know when the computer is
accessing or sending
info when you are not aware of it, install
ZoneAlarm, from Zone Labs.
To find out if you have Aureate, install and run
optout.exe
by grc.com
For way more info and posts than you care to
read,
regarding spyware, check out news.grc.com
To find out what open ports YOUR computer may
have,
go to grc.com and run the "Shields Up" program.