FTC Shuts Down 'Pop-Up Trapping' Sites 442
Masem writes: "The FTC today ordered the shutdown of 5,500 sites owned by John Zuccarini, all of them the so-called 'typo' sites that common mis-entered URLs for popular sites (such as Annakurnikova.com); when the user visits these sites, their back button behavior in most popular browsers is modified as to open multiple pop-ups featuring ads for adult entertainment and gambling sites when pressed, and uses other technology to basically 'trap' the browser until the entire application has to be closed. While some sites are still operating, the FTC is going to take this matter to court, which may decide exactly how much control a web site can take over the end browser using JavaScript and ActiveX. CNet has the full story." Le Marteau contributes a link to the same story at the Washington Post.
Thank God! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Thank God! (Score:4, Funny)
But seriously, I for one am glad the federal government is on top of this case. Just think of all the shoppers out there who were innocently looking to buy cupcakes online [ftc.gov] and got drawn into this insidious web of browser betrayal.
Now, could they do something about my problem? Every time I buy a new car, the trunk turns out to be mysteriously stuffed with black 30-gallon trash bags full of child pornography, gambling tokens, and a substantial fraction of body parts that somebody must be missing...
The FTC, not the FCC ... (Score:3, Redundant)
Re:The FTC, not the FCC ... (Score:3, Informative)
Welcome to the ephemeral web, I guess. I wish the editor would at least *tell* us that he is changing history, otherwise taniwha's post makes little sense.
Re:The FTC, not the FCC ... (Score:2)
hmmm.... (Score:2, Funny)
Well, it is a start I guess...
Uh huh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you the one clicking on them?
Blah blah blah... "IE sucks cuz I can turn off popups in Moz..."
whoa....not at the top of my list (Score:2, Interesting)
Try explaining to your boss why the firewall detected all these adult site alerts when all you were trying to do was look for Dana Bourgouis guitars...
Or your wife/girlfriend for that matter.
RB
Re:whoa....not at the top of my list (Score:2)
not that she's incapable, but as far as she cares, the server room is 'the place where if i go in, the internet stops working!'.
-sam
Wow! (Score:4, Interesting)
This type of advertising only frustrates users and creates animosity between advertiser and potential customer. This is an obvious and sometimes extreme nuisance, having to shut down your broweser at times!
Alienating your audience is not a good business practice.
Re:Wow! (Score:5, Insightful)
The guy was only exploiting a system that pays money based on "impressions" or "exposures." He set up traps that generated as many ad exposures as possible, but it made no difference to him whether the ads made a possitive impression on anyone.
This is why most of the ads were for porn, since he needed advertisers who didn't check what the presentation of their ads would look like or the nature of the site itself. Outside of porn, few advertisers are that lax any more. I'm sure that, given a choice, even porn advertisers would want a "friendlier" presentation than this guy gave them. But they don't care enough to even check. In the mean time, this guy was raking in a hundred or more ad exposures per victim.
Re:Wow! (Score:2, Offtopic)
I'm sorry this sounds like an ad. I don't work for them and if I was trying to make money from this post, I'd have created a referral-kickback link.
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Insightful)
Has anyone else noticed that their special deals are always about to expire in the next day or two, and yet the offer itself doesn't change for weeks on end. Maybe someone should get them on deceptive advertising?
Re:Wow! (Score:2)
I asked because I saw the same type of fraud on store.apple.com.
Make it too costly for them (Score:2)
Not a DoS or anything. Just pulling the ads repeatedly to drive up their bandwidth. Maybe we can take them from 14th place to first for a bit without giving them a dime to cover it.
Re:Wow! (Score:4, Interesting)
I complained to the people manning the X-10 booth at CEDIA (Custom Electronics Design & Installation Asssociation - home theater and whole house electronics) convention. I tried telling the booth weasle how hated their ads are, and the smug jerkwad just kept repeating how many million "page views" they kept getting. I told them they could just as effectively get their logo tattooed on frat boys ass cheeks and pay them to drive around mooning people. Or use a soldering iron to burn the logo into a 2" by 4" and run around wacking people in the face with it.
Unclear on the concept does not seem to even come close to describing these morons. We have to do something more.
Re:Wow! (Score:2)
And I thought X-10 was bad!
So did I.
But then I thought: while you and I hate them for their annoying advertising barrage, we have been satisfactorily indoctrinated that:
as well as dozens of the usual time-proven suggestions that if you get $PRODUCT that sexy attractive young women will find you irresitably sexy and attractive.If the message was delivered, then despite your protests, you can expect more of the same annoyance.
Re:Wow! (Score:2, Funny)
ok, I can think of some that might like it. (Score:2)
I've heard that some people pay to be abused, humiliated and embarassed. What better way to get all of that than to have your six year old daughter open one of these sites in front of your wife who never thought well of that internet thingy?
It's a joke. I hate spam, porn and this Zuchinni loser.
Still, for reasons posted above, I worry about this shutdown. Should the govenment shutdown web sites that simply take advantage of a crummy browser on a single crappy OS, and thus give official government protection to those products?
Re:Wow! 1st amendment rights... (Score:2)
The defendents argument might be taken from the same precedent which allows "freedom of speech" to include the invasiveness of phone solicitation, granted the phone solicitation doesn't automatically cause your phone to ring over and over until you listen to the message all the way through (a la Homer's Happy Dude scam in the Simpsons), but constitutionally, where does is the line drawn between the right of someone to make a sales pitch to someone who breaks into your house and harrangues you until feign death?
Re:Wow! 1st amendment rights... (Score:5, Insightful)
-- United States Supreme Court, Rowan vs. U.S. Post Office, 1970
FTC, not FCC (Score:2, Redundant)
I was curious when they became involved with net traffic.
another step towards the ruin of the web. (Score:3, Insightful)
The proper way to fix this is to fix the browsers so they don't allow this to happen.
FCC, stay the hell out of the net.
Re:another step towards the ruin of the web. (Score:2)
Default browser configurations should not be vulnerable to a DoS attack that has been widely exploited against web users for years. Good defaults are more important than configurability, especially when your target market includes people who don't want to look through thousands of options to find a combination that fixes the problem without breaking legitimate uses of JavaScript.
In other words, if you could convince me that it's not the government's responsibility, then I would argue that it's the browser maker's responsibility rather than the user's.
Re:another step towards the ruin of the web. (Score:4, Interesting)
Fortunately, what's happened isn't that the government has decided to regulate javascript, the FTC is just making a reasonable application of existing laws against deceptive business practices. What we're seeing here is legal action against deceptive practices. We are not seeing action to outlaw the use of a particular technology, or any restriction on your right to write and distribute any sort of javascript tool that you like. What we are seeing is a crackdown on a business practice that was already unethical and illegal.
Be very wary of falling into the trap of thinking that adding 'and do it with a computer' to the end of some already common thing makes it new and different. That's what Amazon did (We're going to keep our customers address and credit card number in a rolodex 'and we do it with a computer') and we all hate them for it.
Also be wary of falling into the trap of thinking that because the Internet is international no one can exert any authority over it. While it is certianly true that the US FTC has little to no authority over what foriegn companies do with offshore servers, there is still a responsiblity to put a stop to illegal actions when you are able to do so.
Re:another step towards the ruin of the web. (Score:2)
Re:another step towards the ruin of the web. (Score:2)
>against deceptive trade practices. These `typo' sites are
>exactly that
Perhaps there are legal precedents (I guess now there certainly is one) but I don't agree that typo sites are deceptive trade practices. If I'm trying to go to Google and I wind up at Goggle.com - which by the way is exploiting the typo - there's no way I'm going to mistake that for the actual Google site. Likewise, if I'm trying to visit Anna K's site and I wind up at a page that pops up 20 adult ads, it's unlikely I'm going to think that my future wife is running a porno business
It's one thing to manufacture some soda, name it Caca-Cola, and try to pass it off as The Real Thing. Setting up a website and profiteering off of people who [can't spell|make typos] is different, though. You aren't advertising your "product," you aren't trying to deceive anyone, you're just profiteering off of accidents.
Maybe the reason I think the scenarios are different is that one's proactive and the other's passive... Regardless, I don't see why this is the government's business.
Shaun
hey, he is trying... (Score:5, Funny)
Hey, give the guy a break, he's trying. He closes down most of his sites, but whenever he hits the "back" button they all start up again. Those damn javascript-based admin tools...
Later reported: (Score:2, Funny)
In an ironic twist of fate, when Zuccarini attempted to take down his 5500 sites, 72,296 new sites were instantly spawned. When he tried to remove those, 9,375,012 more were created. The FTC suggests he reinstall brain 1.0
Neverending popup... (Score:4, Funny)
I think the troll link "comp-u-geek.com" (DON'T GO THERE!) does that...
but sites still exist (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:but sites still exist (Score:2)
it's a shame that after all this time we finally have a decent set of publishing functionality (dhtml/javascript) that's available and consistent (w3c) across many platforms, but that that same functionality is being killed by idiots like this that just want to make a quick buck. it's a public nuisance and should be outlawed, then maybe the rest of us can go back to doing somthing useful.
now what was i doing?
good! I've always hated Zuccinni (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously. There's a fine line between
I've seen a few sites who grab a typo site and just use it to promote their own (not indecent) site, but also provide a link on their site to the site that "you might have wanted" instead. I think that's fair enough, no big harm there, but to intentionally trap people. Wow. I never thought I'd be praising government intervention on the internet...
Re:good! I've always hated Zuccinni (Score:2)
Re:good! I've always hated Zuccinni (Score:2)
Does all this really work though? (Score:5, Interesting)
Who is falling for all this and patronizing the sites that trap you like this?
Re:Does all this really work though? (Score:2)
Well, I'm not a big fan of the word addict, but I gotta assume that people with at the least a "problem" with porn and/or gambling are doing the work, wouldn't you think?
It's hard for normal people like us to imagine, but yeah, I gotta assume there are people out there for whom a porn or gambling pop-up is basically like sitting a needle full of smack in front of a junkie.
And yes, it's very sad.
Pay attention! (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does all this really work though? (Score:5, Funny)
Horny people who don't type well?
Fix this At Browser (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fix this At Browser (Score:5, Insightful)
- JoeShmoe
Re:Fix this At Browser (Score:2)
Re:Fix this At Browser (Score:4, Informative)
You can get some documentation on Mozilla's configurable security policies here [mozilla.org], and you can also test the new hidden pref to prevent web pages from opening new windows while they are loading or while the user is leaving the page [google.com]. Note that the new hidden pref is still buggy: it catches some things it shouldn't, such as clicking a javascript: link in a page while the page is still loading [mozilla.org], and fails to catch cases like onmouseover and onfocus.
OmniWeb for OS X fixes this elegantly (Score:2, Informative)
"Allow Pop-Up Windows Only When Link is Clicked On" (or something similar)
Which means, it'll only pop up a window if and only if you click on something deliberately.
Nice. Very, very nice.
psst, Mozilla on Linux. (Score:2)
I've only been using Mozilla for a week or so, but I'm impressed, and imagine this is not a problem. Featurs such as right click, "block this image" to kill add.doubleclick.whatnot are very cool. It looks good and works great. Java is back on and I don't fear it will be able to replace system files. Blocking images is tricky, but I've been seeing fewer adverts and more real content. Bassed on that, I imagine the fix is already in and this is an M$ specific problem.
That makes the implications worse. Does this mean that anything that makes MSIE do unexpected things can be shut down by the Feds? As M$ careens further and further into it's own little propriatory world, who's to say they won't put up yet more "standards" that make innocent sites look bad to M$ users, who then pull their hair out and curse the site. Is this an old pattern emerging again?!
I've heard that M$'s crappy software was powerful, but this is too much.
Re:Fix this At Browser (Score:2)
FWIW, the only time I've seen this implemented to a fully irritating degree was the home page of Rev Don Kool (a notorious web troll on comp.unix.*).
Oh, and as has been pointed out, several browsers have options to limit this behaviour, such as Konquerer. I'm sure someone could get a comprehensive list together of which browser do and don't have some support for disabling openWindow()
Why does the govt. have to regulate this? (Score:2)
Was it Konquerer that put a similar feature into their browser? If so, big huge kudos to them.
Regardless, I don't see Microsoft champing at the bit to reduce end-user annoyance over this, and I'm surprised, because I can't imagine how the IE team can browse the web without getting fed up with that crap and saying "fsck (or maybe chkdsk) it! I'm going to "innovate" a way to stop this!".
- StaticLimit
Re:Why does the govt. have to regulate this? (Score:2)
Re:Why does the govt. have to regulate this? (Score:2)
I doubt it. The W3C pays very little attention to privacy and security in most of their recommendations. The fact that web sites aren't allowed to look into an <iframe src="http://www.amazon.com"> and pull out your name from the "welcome" message is not standardized anywhere, and in fact each browser has slightly different rules about what things you can pull out of and push into frames whose content is from another web site.
The W3C's ignoring security has also led to some holes that affect multiple browsers, such as web sites being able to find out [mozilla.org] whether a link is marked as visited using CSS. Yes, your boss could point you to a web site that creates invisible links to the last 200 slashdot stories, quietly counts the number that are marked as visited, and reports back to your boss how much
Re:Why does the govt. have to regulate this? (Score:2)
Re:Why does the govt. have to regulate this? (Score:2)
Arguing this is like arguing what Code Red/Nimba is just an IIS issue. Sure IIS should be more secure, but there's still a malicious intent. The same for this. Sure, the "don't close from JavaScript" feature shouldn't be on by default, but there's always going to be a hole somewhere in all browsers. This kind of behaviour should not be allowed.
Re:Why does the govt. have to regulate this? (Score:2)
Re:Why does the govt. have to regulate this? (Score:2)
Why does the government regulate noise? Can't you invest in better insulation for your home?
The reason is simple. It is cheaper to have a cop fine one thousand offenders than to have one billion consumers invest is an expensive technological solution.
The issue here is not innovation but nuisance. What is bad about nuisance, by definition, is that it forces you to chose between suffering it and paying something to get rid of it. An innovation that removes a nuisance does not improve your quality of life. It merely restores it. Thus having a free arm race between nuisance makers and anti-nuisance solution makers is a waste of intelligence and money that are better spent on something that actually makes life better. That is something every town council understands, and that is why nuisance is regulated.
The only difference here is that the internet allows people to be a nuisance from a greater distance. That makes it apropriate for federal rather than local regulation.
Re:Why does the govt. have to regulate this? (Score:2)
Seriously... (Score:2)
I thought the FCC was there to regulate certain things... like radio, and television (as it's broadcast, and involves many public concessions to work, right-of-way, etc).
How can they dicatate what a website can do? Sheesh.
Yep. (Score:2)
Having the FTC do this is an entirely different matter.... it makes much more sense.
5500 Sites! Curious. (Score:3)
Where is he buying his domains from?
What OS is he using?
Sounds like alot of work for popup sites, he must be making damn good money after lawsuits.
Re:5500 Sites! Curious. (Score:4, Informative)
The site www.annakurnikova.com is running Apache/1.3.6 - 448 user - IKM 11211999 (Unix) on FreeBSD.
They go on to say the netblock he is using belongs to CWIE LLC.
Some might argue (Score:2)
Bitching aside, this decision is a Good Thing. It forces people who deliberately break something to think again. This might not be terribly popular, but who cares. This decision will do more to stop terrorism on the Internet than all the marketroid sponsored carp ever will. It will genuinely have a positive impact on how the Internet is seen and used. And that may be the best thing that has happened in a VERY long time.
I'm happy, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Namely, You are connecting to THEIR machine.
Mail server administrators block spam because they are using their resources, why can't these people claim the same? After all, you're using THEIR resources, shouldnt they have the right to send any data on a connection that YOU initiated? (Though I realize you might not have intentionally made that connection; they can be sneaky, but the point remains.)
I just don't like regulation, If it's bad and wrong, it's the clients job to work with the received data. But noone's blaming Microsoft, Netscape, Mozilla, or Konq (and you really can't blame the last 2, they're implementing things to take care of this junk).
Target a solution, rather than the cause and punishment.
That's just my view.
Re:I'm happy, but... (Score:4, Informative)
Really? [google.com]
(and you really can't blame the last 2, they're implementing things to take care of this junk).
I don't know about Konq, because its authors chose not to release a version that runs on my platform of choice, but Mozilla doesn't yet ship to block pop-up advertisements (or even "hydras", the most annoying type) by default. It has a hidden pref [google.com] to disable the window.open() function while a page is loading or unloading, which should become a visible pref once bugs are worked out. I hope the pref is eventually turned on by default, at least for the case of hydras.
No. (Score:2, Insightful)
Mail server administrators block spam because they are using their resources, why can't these people claim the same? After all, you're using THEIR resources, shouldnt they have the right to send any data on a connection that YOU initiated?
No.
If I open cnn.com, I know what to expect when I get there, news. If my little sister tries to open up Britney Spears' webpage for info on Britney Spears, and lands in this guy's javascript porn-ad trap, not only is it a federal crime (she's 8 years old), but my little sister did not initiate the connection expecting the deluge of porn advertisements.
By the same token, Microsoft doesn't have the right to wipe my linux partition every time I visit their update site to patch winME.
Ashcroft's take? (Score:3, Offtopic)
Re:Ashcroft's take? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, but hacking your client to filter it is a DMCA violation.
Re:Ashcroft's take? (Score:2)
As long as they allow scripting... (Score:2, Interesting)
Now that Netscape is dead, the problems unfortunately remain. Browsers shouldn't have scripting embedded in them, period. If you like scripting, then you have to expect and put up with this crap. There's no way to legislate people to stop doing things like this.
The only way to stop them is to disable scripting on your browser. The more flexibility a program has, the less secure it is. Scripting adds almost no value to websites, and is now just a tool of marketers, used more against you than for you. They track you with it. They take over your web experience with it. They keep tabs on what you're doing... and sometimes even take over your machine when flaws are discovered and exploited. I have serious problems with other people running their code on my machine, and therefore disable all scripting.
Consequantly, I don't every seem to have any problems with pop-up windows, pop-under windows, "trapped" browsers, infinite-loop "back" buttons, etc.
Turn off scripting. Encourage websites to stop using it. The web is full of more than enough bloated crap already. While you're at it, get rid of flash, and all the rest of the plugins.
Re:As long as they allow scripting... (Score:2)
And yes, I use pop-up windows. I use them for useful purposes. To build web applications, not just fun toys to show pictures of my cat. Some of us want this functionality, use it responsibly, and understand the risks involved.
However, I agree with you to a point. Compromise. Don't be afraid to shut off scripting, but don't remove it completely. If you don't like it, then don't use it, but allow those of us who do like it and use it the ability to enjoy our web experience and use it for productive purposes other than just hitting refresh on Slashdot every 5 minutes.
This might slow the push for filtering? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:This might slow the push for filtering? (Score:5, Insightful)
People who are rabidly anti-filtering forget that for some purposes it is useful. Alcohol, cigarettes, guns, porn - all things that an age-filter is useful for. I can't watch my son every moment he's online. This prevents inadvertent finger presses more than deliberate ones, at least until they get to a certain age. When my son gets to that age, he and I'll talk.
Re:This might slow the push for filtering? (Score:2, Insightful)
Mandatory filtering software is bad.
If you (as an adult, fully capable of making your own choices in life) are not allowed to access something, be it filterred or shut down by law, then it is a restriction of your freedom. (If that's important to you.)
If you (as an adult/parent) choose for you and your dependants to not access something, that is a use of your freedom. (If that's important to you.)
And this makes money? (Score:2, Interesting)
The FTC regulates trade (Score:5, Informative)
The government isn't "getting involved in the internet" in any new creative way. They are just protecting consumers (us) from fraudulent illegal business practices
Next time get the FCC FTC thing correct before you post, it completely changes the context of the article.
disabling intrusive scripts (Score:2)
I can get a warning when I accept cookies if I want it.
I can even get a warning when I submit a form if I want it.
All of these are fairly trivial run-of-the-mill type web actions, but something as annoying & intrusive as creating pop-ups and altering my browsers history list cannot be disabled. When oh when are we going to see the ability to disable pop-ups & other intrusive/obnoxious script actions like this?
Re:disabling intrusive scripts (Score:2)
As soon as you upgrade to Mozilla 0.9.4 [mozilla.org].
unauthorised javascript (Score:5, Informative)
looking for a bug in some Javascript (we maintain
our own web browser), and after delving down
through the deliberately obfuscated javascript
code, it became obvious what it was trying to do:
it went through all links in the document, attaching
a javascript "front-end" to each link that did an http GET request
informing the remote site what had been clicked on,
before actually following the link. the technique
used seemed fairly dodgy (the request was purporting
to be for a non-displayed image), but it's interesting
to see what a fairly reputable site is prepared
to do in order to get as much information off you as possible (without your knowledge).
how reasonable is that? i don't like it, but is that sort
of subterfuge the kind of thing we'd like to stop too?
[PS. apologies if this appears twice - it looked like
had rejected the previous ones; and then the whole
server seemed to crash: what was going on there then?]
Couldn't have happened to a more deserving guy (Score:2)
Maybe if he's lucky Canter & Siegel will represent him.
It changed my Homepage (Score:2, Interesting)
Interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
This topic should clarify a lot of the hypocrisy among the /. crowd; What's *your* opinion on this issue? And how does that opinion compare to, say, what you would feel about the court shutting down your anti-Microsoft site?
Re:Interesting (Score:2)
No. Your right to swing your javascript stops where my browser's chrome starts.
Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
Fraud and criticism are different types of activities and they receive correspondingly different levels of First Amendment protection.
That's not hypocrisy, it's common sense.
Great News! (Score:2, Funny)
Since there are some days when I can't even spell my own name correctly this will help me out a lot. I know you've been there too. Too much alcohol, not enough sleep, and the caffine is taking its sweet time to kick in.
Now if they'd only come out with spell-check for the location bar in my browser I'd be set!
Goran
How is this different from e-mail spam? (Score:4, Insightful)
We deal with spam by first by black-holing rogue networks, then through government regulation, and perhaps occasionally through international pressure. Why are we skipping straight to government regulation for pop-up ads, rather than trying the black-hole approach first?
Be careful of the precedent this sets (Score:3, Insightful)
It's difficult to draw the distinction without getting into questions of intent, and that's dangerous territory. In short, be careful what you ask for when talking about typo sites.
It's not the FCC, it's the FTC (Score:2)
It's good to see that the FTC isn't totally out to lunch under the Bush administration. Usually, the FTC takes wimpy actions like asking somebody to cease and desist what they're doing. This is an unusually aggressive response.
I couldn't disagree more! (Score:2)
Yes, explicitly. I have installed a piece of software which has no purpose other than to let a web site control my browser... and now controlling my browser is illegal? Huh? If I didn't want to do it, I wouldn't have installed the software...
Re:I couldn't disagree more! with your disagreemnt (Score:2)
The implicit contract between web-user and web-server operator is that the latter takes control of the browser for the purpose of showing the former something that he or she may conceivably want to see. Ignoring this contract is an abuse. What is wrong in a government agency tracking and prosecuting abuse?
Re: (Score:2)
An easy way out of this for IE and Moz (Score:4, Informative)
When you backclick or close, the next site(s) will attempt to pop up, but no further code will be loaded and hence the hell will eventually end.
I always click "work offline" before trying to exit or back out of any of these questionable sites now BEFORE the cascading crap starts...
New Browser Windows (Score:5, Informative)
Who needs these stupid features?!?! (Score:2, Flamebait)
The only detail I'm curious to know about this whole thing is... why the fsck did Netscrape and Mafiasoft put these alleged "features" into their defective browsers in the first place?! A back button should do what it says, namely, go BACK, not open 6.02x10^28 pr0n windows!
Shameless plug: I just use Opera. It costs money, which I gladly paid, because it actually WORKS unlike the previously mentioned excuses for browsers! Version 5.12 is great, as nearly all sites work the same as on the defective browsers--this includes online banking and bill-paying that didn't previously work with version 4.
And even if you don't use Opera... Friends don't let friends use Mafiasoft products!
If you use Mac use iCab/OmniWeb (Score:2, Informative)
access the referer
open new windows
move windows
touch the toolbar
write in the status line
create cookies
ask for cookies
access history
etc
You can prevent them from doing it with the click of a button. You can apply the settings to all web pages and choose sites where the filters won't be applied.
You can even decide what type of Javascript will be executed by turning on/off:
JavaScript 1.0
JavaScript 1.1
JavaScript 1.2
JavaScript 1.3
JavaScript 1.4
JavaScript 1.5
JScript
among many, many other things
It must be one of the most configurable browsers out there.
For general browsing it's extremely fast, small and flexible and cannot be beat at saving web archives. One word of warning though. It feels like a finished browser but is still in Preview. Make sure you don't have any duplicated Text encoders on your system.
For OS X iCab is still being primed. OmniWeb however, will give you enough control over popups.
Browser security has a technical solution-AdShield (Score:3, Informative)
Just like DeCSS (Score:4, Insightful)
I can't believe people are supporting moves to dictate what you are or are not allowed to express in a piece of code.
This functionality is, i'm sure, in the W3C standard for Javascript, so criminilizing this is pretty stupid.
Now, if your browser is engineered so poorly that it allows you no control over this behaviour - i.e. a site author is free to mess up your web browsing experience, shouldn't you ask the manufacturer of that browser to do something about it?
Don't restrict this guy from publishing anything he wants to on the web. The control over whether to view that content should be in the user's hands.
I know that M$ etc. would love to turn the web into a heavily regulated, TV-like environment where most content is approved and published by a few mega-corps, with government regulations on what is or is not acceptable, but that idea makes me sick to the stomach.
i mean, how hard would it be to have a preference setting for 'ask me before allowing javascript to open a new window'? Give the user a choice, don't make it a crime to write this type of application (for which there are many perfectly legitimate uses)
Making rules for what types of applications you may or may not publish on the web is surely a free speech issue.
'Sorry, window.open() is now a federal crime.' doesn't cut it with me.
The problem is with the tools that web browsers expose to site developers. The site developers should be free to put any tags they like up on the web.
This is why web browsers are free to ignore markup they do not support.
two words (Score:3, Interesting)
Very good... (Score:3, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)
Back button (Score:3, Interesting)
W00t! (Score:3, Insightful)
Registering typos is a smart, good thing (regradless of what you think =) but "trapping" is just plain WRONG.
I am pleassed to see this type of thing, assuming it actually gets implemented with some knowledge and thought.
Imagine surfing pr0n without holding your fingers poised over Alt-F4!
Oh, and to they guy who (anon) responded to my sig about being dyslexic as "we used to call you idiots who couldn't spell", I think we used to call folks like your mom "Dumb bitches who couldn't afford abortions"
Re:blah blah (Score:2)
Omniweb baby! (Score:2, Insightful)
Only downside is I can't do my banking with it, but other than that it's the perfect browser for me.