Slashdot Log In
A Day in the Life of a Spyware Company
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Sun Jul 09, 2006 01:26 AM
from the get-rich-quick-schemes dept.
from the get-rich-quick-schemes dept.
prostoalex writes "Business Week has a detailed expose of Direct Revenue. The article has some juicy details on the everyday workings of a spyware outlet, talks about the the business model and advertisers who funnel cash to Direct Revenue, and even mentions Direct Revenue's anti-spyware achievements (the company's installer blasted away competing spyware apps, so that the user's computer wouldn't be overwhelmed with redundant pop-ups)."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
A Day in the Life of a Spyware Company
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 215 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
oh, I wouldn't be talking about redundancy (Score:5, Funny)
It's the same article in a different place.
Additionally, it's in a different place, but it's the same article.
"Anti-spyware Achievements"? (Score:5, Interesting)
The crack dealer on one side of the street achieved a victory against crime today when he killed the competing dealer on the other side.
I very much doubt that their reasons for blasting away competing apps were for the benefit of the user. Most likely, they don't want the user's computer to slow down enough for them to notice and do a spyware sweep.
Re:"Anti-spyware Achievements"? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Anti-spyware Achievements"? (Score:4, Insightful)
(https://customer.lylix.net/aff.php?aff=006)
Also do remember that they are in the business of making money, not of causing problems for the user (that, to them, is merely an unfortunate side effect) - likely some people at that job slept easier knowing at least their software did one useful thing.
slashdot giving us the spyware experience (Score:4, Funny)
Missing important details (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.sigsegv.cx/)
Re:Missing important details (Score:5, Informative)
(http://slashdot.org/)
It shows the address of these folks on page 2 as 107 Grand Street, New York, NY [google.com]. Pulling up Google Earth it looks like you can find these folks at 40 deg 43'15.8N 74 deg 00'04.9W.
Not that I would suggest anything as childish as signing these folks up for free advertisements or any such thing. Just seems like since these folks are digging through everyone else's privacy I'm sure they wouldn't mind having their company address a matter of well known public record.
Re:Missing important details (Score:5, Funny)
(https://customer.lylix.net/aff.php?aff=006)
This is Slashdot - all we really need is their IP address
Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Hmm. (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.bobkmertz.com/)
Actually, who needs this? Windows has this feature built right in.
Well then (Score:4, Interesting)
- Cingular Wireless
- Vonage
- Kazaa
- JP Morgan Chase
- Delta
- Travelocity
- Priceline.com
All companies that will no longer have my business, ever. (not that Kazaa would anyways)
I just wish I had the complete list
QA for a spyware company? (Score:5, Funny)
(http://www.steelsnowflake.com/)
Isn't having a quality assurance branch for a spyware company kind of an oxymoron?
That's like having an "ethics department of sudan" or "NSA oversight committee".
Sigh...
How can they do this? (Score:1)
The IMPORTANT part of the article: VONAGE! (Score:5, Informative)
It is the companies which employ them.
The article glosses over that with only slight mention. . .
As a victim of the Aurora trojan on a Windoze box I became intimately aware of Direct Revenue and the damage they have caused to many people. Until this article, however, I always assumed they were supported by pr0n sites and spammers.
Instead it turns out Vonage is their main customer!
It's bad enough that Vonage plasters their annoying ads all over the net, and plays their annoying jingle on every channel of TV. Obviously, though, that is not sufficient. They must also use spyware to hook customers and violate more US and International laws.
Vonage has a history of this type of illegal behavior (in chronological order):
1. Its Chairman, Jeffrey Citron, was charged by the SEC with Securities violations due to illegal trades, while he was Chairman of Datek Securities, before starting Vonage.
2. Vonage has consistently engaged in anticompetitvive behaviour against its competitors by blocking SIP calls, and locking down their devices to prevent customers from using the devices with competitors.
3. Vonage has consistently engaged in deceptive advertising when selling their equipment and services by not disclosing that the equipment is not really owned by the consumer (it can't be unlocked to work with other providers).
4. Vonage has consistently engaged in deceptive marketing by convincing customers to LNP port their existing phone number to Vonage when the LNP port could not be done. Even though Vonage could not port the number due to lack of a CLEC in their area code, Vonage reps would tell the customer it could be done "soon".
5. Vonage deceptively operates a web site at Vonage-Forum.com. Only recently has a notice gone up that the site is not operated by Vonage. The site, however, uses the trademarked Vonage name and logo, and has Vonage ads on it.
6. The whole Vonage IPO stock fiasco: not surprising if you noticed item #1.
If Vonage doesn't qualify for U.S. Federal Prosecution on at least ONE of these items something is clearly wrong with our legal system that supposedly was fixed after Enron/Worldcom.
Re:The IMPORTANT part of the article: VONAGE! (Score:4, Informative)
They sold you a device designed to work with their service. What law requires them to provide support to you in using that device outside of hte parameters for which it was designed and sold? You are free to modify your device all you want, but they are not responsible for helping you or fixing it if you make it unusable.
It was sold for the purpose of connecting to the Vongage service, and no representation was made that it can be connected to other services (at least, I can't find any in the materials I got with my adapter). If anything, they are up front about it. You are still free to modify it if you want, but they are not required to help you, nor are they required to make it easy for you. If you want an unlocked adapter, you need to search out and buy an unlocked adapter.
This one may have some merit, but in order to really prosecute it, you would need to establish that it is company policy, not simply the actions of individual customer service reps.
Just because a site uses the official name and logo doesn't mean that it is operated by those people, especially if they have a notice saying that they aren't. Advertising also does not equal ownership. Vonage puts ads on a lot of sites that they don't own, operate, or control.
I read the prospectus, and it was rather clear from the information provided that it would not do all that well. That is the fault of the people who either bought the stock without reading the prospectus, or who bought it in spite of all of the warnings. Those who made legal commitments to purchase stock but then wanted to back out after seeing the drop in price still have that legal obligation to purchase the stock.
Of the items you listed, you have at most one valid point. Perhaps you might reconsider a lot of your position.
Ironic or am I being pickey (Score:2, Insightful)
is it just me (Score:1)
Like Norton isn't making money off of it... (Score:1)
Why is spyware not illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Tuesday January 16 2007, @03:06AM)
When you go to many websites, such as Amazon or Adam & Eve, you can expect as much privacy as in a local mall. But if someone were to follow you around from store to store, at that point it would be stalking.
Now when that "someone" (spyware company) breaks into your property (your computer) to install something without your consent (spyware programs), it's beyond just your typical stalking and into spying. Add to the charge that this "person" didn't have permission to enter your property in any way and you can add breaking and entering to this.
To run this program that you didn't consent to having uses power you are paying for. If it causes your system to crash, if you are someone who can't fix it, you've got to pay someone to repair it for you. Money out of your pocket. Theft. At the least of your own time to fix it.
When you go to a porn site, you usually have to click something saying you are at least 18 or of legal age to view sexually explicit material, and that you consent to doing so. If you were to sit a minor in front of the computer, or were to allow a minor to be nearby while viewing said material, you've commited an offense for which you could be required to register as a sex offender. But yet porn pop-ups happen on sites that aren't sexual in nature, sites that kids sometimes visit. The spyware company is giving no notice whatsoever that sexual material is about to pop up, no chance to consent or for children to be removed from the room first. Would this not be a violation of federal laws by the spyware companies by exposing minors to sexual material?
So I repeat, why is spyware not illegal?
$%*&^! web-designer BS (Score:1, Offtopic)
(http://www.baronams.com/staff/coats/)
You know what really grinds my gears? (Score:3, Interesting)
(http://subxero.phatcode.net/)
I see a lot of computers with spyware. Most, if not all, of the computers that I fix have been completely demolished by malware, spyware, adware, and just general crap. A lot of times, it's from user ignorance (the kind of people that don't even skim EULAs). However, many times, it's from them visiting a website that looks just fine, and the website using some kind of hole in IE to screw over the viewer.
So I must ask, how is exploiting security holes a legal business method? It's obvious that most spyware-creating companies use this tactic, since it's obvious that no one in their right minds would accept spyware voluntarily. Since many times it is known (through thorough searches and whatnot) who created the spyware with which one's machine is infected, I find it hard to believe that no serious legal action has been taken up with these companies.
I am truly displeased to see even Firefox becoming a serious target for these jackasses. If Opera felt better (I have this thing about the "feel" of some programs that I can't explain) I might think about almost downloading it.
Re:You know what really grinds my gears? (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://www.p10link.net/plugwash/)
its not
It's obvious that most spyware-creating companies use this tactic, since it's obvious that no one in their right minds would accept spyware voluntarily
no afaict its thier redistributers (usually on some form of commission) who do so. Theese redistributors are much harder to trace and when you do they are the bottom of the pile and easilly replaceable anyway.
"When I find myself in times of trouble... (Score:1)
(http://www.gis.net/~cht)
Speaking words of wisdow, 'A-P-P-L-E!'"
OS X...because making UNIX friendly was easier than fixing Windows.
Why not go after the site operator or ISP? (Score:2, Interesting)
I mean, If an advertiser or client becomes a liability, wouldn't spyware go away on it's own without having to be illegal?
I'm sure this angle has been covered before.. but it's early and I'm still on my first cup of caffiene.
Companies have the right to advertise, but (imho)they don't have the right to install *anything* on your PC. (For that matter, what is acceptable advertising on the net?)
Why aren't they in a fed PMITA prison? (Score:2)
(Last Journal: Wednesday November 05 2003, @03:12AM)
Why aren't these guys in jail? Computer tampering is a federal felony criminal offense. If one of the infected computers ends up being a government machine, under the USA Patriot Act, this could be a capital crime. Why is the NY AG dicking around with some boneheaded civil lawsuit? They should march into the offices with federal marshalls and put these guys in chains.
suuuurre riiiight, whatever. (Score:4, Interesting)
(http://vftp.net/ | Last Journal: Saturday December 09 2006, @09:52PM)
How STUPID do they think we are? As an advertiser, you don't accidentally advertise for someone that's not paying you. When's the last time you saw a commercial on TV that the retailer denied they paid for? The spammers are charginng a lot for their service, and there is no shortage of customers, so I'm quite certain they are only spamming for paying customers.
More than likely these are cases where someone in marketing got the brilliant idea to advertise with spyware and started it without really letting their uppers know what the fallout was going to be. Then six months later when the CEO's in-box is piled high with complaints they deny they had anything to do with it.
Hose your PC for $30 (Score:3, Funny)
(http://www.abremod.com/)
Wow, I can save $30 by making my $500 PC unusable.
If I'm a Legit Business... (Score:5, Interesting)
(Last Journal: Thursday April 18 2002, @07:50PM)
...how can I prevent my ads from being served by spyware? How about a clause in my contract with the advertising company that says "Ads served by provider and any subcontractor will not be served by pop-up, and will only be served as the result of a user willfully navigating to a web page which serves ads, and may not be served as the result of any additional software installed on the user's computer. The definition of 'pop-up', 'willfully navigating' and 'installed' remains at the discretion of the customer, and we reserve the right to terminate this contract if the advertising agency is unable to assure us that it meets these criteria."
For some small business this wouldn't work too well, but if big companies started doing it, and it became standard operating procedure for corporations, it would help a lot. Suddenly, other advertisers will just stop dealing with these guys.
Nailing down the definitions is a bit tricky, and IIRC there was a case where some company sued over being designated as malware, so this approach isn't a cure-all. Going after the actual technical definition of something is a bit more effort, but it quashes the arguments of companies that might complain they are being singled out prejudicially.
Also, pornographers and other shady businesses will always do stuff like this, but at least we'll maintain the association of sleaziness with pop-ups and spyware, which is where it belongs.
Maybe we should give up on email and go to faxes. (Score:2)
(http://www.mysql.com/ | Last Journal: Wednesday December 27 2006, @03:53PM)
Personal email at one point was getting so bad that I was concidering telling people to send me a fax instead of an email.
I do have a fax machine so if it would come to that crunch, I have it in preparedness. It has an added bonus that people who send junk faxes can be easily prosecuted.
Why doesn't anyone hack the protocol (Score:1)
Re:how to stop them in 3 easy steps (Score:5, Insightful)
(https://customer.lylix.net/aff.php?aff=006)
find executives
kill them (or pay a crackhead to do it)
rejoice
Thus illustrating the old saying "for every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, neat, and wrong." When it becomes OK to kill anyone that does something you don't like, it also becomes equally possible that others will kill you when you do something they don't care for. But of course you're a good enough troll to know that already.
Re:how to stop them in 3 easy steps (Score:5, Insightful)
And for every truth, there's a way to simplify it to the point of idiocy. When someone's doing something that causes you a significant amount of hardship and is making money doing it, they aren't just "doing something you don't like".
That said, I think killing them would be a bit harsh (unless the spyware managed to lock up a computer doing something truly important, but taking a two-by-four to some non-vital parts of their body would be appropriate. That's about what most people would do to an adult they caught vandalizing their car.
Re:how to stop them in 3 easy steps (Score:5, Insightful)
(Last Journal: Friday May 05 2006, @11:53PM)
Long ago I stopped reading email bounce messages. If my email bounces, oh well. It's just lost. I get hundreds of bounces each day for emails that spammers sent in my name.
My email does bounce though, all the time. It bounces because everybody and their dog invents a brutal spam filter, each one differently flawed.
Just today I failed to communicate with somebody. Gmail sends from *.google.com instead of gmail.com, which is enough to bounce and/or silently delete the mail.
Even after filtering, much of the email I get is spam.
Lately, I don't even bother reading email that claims to come from banks that I actually do business with. Figuring out the legitimacy multiple times per day is too time-consuming.
Email is my primary communication method. It has been ruined. I can no longer rely on messages to be delivered and read. This has been a grave loss for me. I'm just one of many. So yes, the spammer should die. Humanity loses too much from this sort of behavior.
Dupe: First Paragraph of Each (Score:1, Interesting)
Yes [slashdot.org], here's some physical proof to save you all some time, but note the slight difference (you will see it because its the only bold text).
BusinessWeek [businessweek.com]: ( JULY 17, 2006)
Consumers have strong opinions about Direct Revenue's software. "If I ever meet anyone from your company, I will kill you," a person who identified himself as James Chang said in an e-mail to Direct Revenue last summer. "I will f------ kill you and your families." Such sentiments aren't unusual. "You people are EVIL personified," Kevin Horton wrote around the same time. "I would like the four hours of my life back I have wasted trying to get your stupid uninvited software off my now crippled system."
MSNBC [msn.com]: ( Updated: 5:51 p.m. CT July 7, 2006 )
Consumers have strong opinions about Direct Revenue's software. "If I ever meet anyone from your company, I will kill you," a person who identified himself as James Chang said in an e-mail to Direct Revenue last summer. "I will f------ kill you and your families." Such sentiments aren't unusual. "You people are EVIL personified," Kevin Horton wrote around the same time. "I would like the four hours of my life back I have wasted trying to get your stupid uninvited software off my now crippled system."
The text is exactly the same, only the date is different. Seems like this cover story that was either launched too early or it was an unintentional error. No big news here.
Re:how to stop them in 3 easy steps (Score:1)
http://mosnews.com/news/2005/07/25/spammerdead.sh
What, me worry? (Score:2, Funny)
(http://www.monash.com/blogs.html)
Spy vs. Spy!
Resolving the references in the title and content of this comment is an exercise left to the reader ...
Re:Dupe (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Oh, What Hath Marketing Wrought? (Score:5, Insightful)
(http://pietersz.co.uk/ | Last Journal: Wednesday May 04 2005, @05:22AM)
They were only copying what Xerox, Apple and others had already done.
If computers could only be used by people who knew how to administer the, then there would be far fewer computers in use. Most people do not want to learn about computers, they are not interested. Ease of use is necessary.
It is also perfectly possible to have an OS that is easy to administer and reasonably secure. I have friends who no absolutely nothing about computers who have no problems with Macs. My father finds Ubuntu easier than Windows (although I initially installed it for him and occasionally give him some help).
It is not ease of use that is the problem. It is bad design, poor implementation and simply not caring about security.
Re:Oh, What Hath Marketing Wrought? (Score:4, Interesting)
I agree.. (Score:1)
(http://seemymightyads.blogspot.com/)
Re:Dupe of Earl? (Score:2)
-1
Re:Oh, What Hath Marketing Wrought? (Score:2)
I thought that was the Mac. Or atleast that's what I have been told here.
If the revenue figures are right that's useless (Score:2)