FTC Shuts Down Pop-Up Extortion Firm 472
An anonymous reader writes "The FTC has shut down D Squared, a company that's been spamming via the Windows Messenger Pop-Up Service. In some cases, ads would pop-up every 10 minutes, and only advertised a $30 product that disabled similar pop-up ads. The FTC is slamming the extortion gauntlet on them. Interestingly, the FTC only caught onto all this because one of their own commissioners was among those getting spammed."
one of their own commissioners... (Score:4, Insightful)
There's a lesson for us all, there.
Not quite right. (Score:4, Insightful)
No it's not. I use Safari (Mac OS) and Mozilla (Linux/Windows) for all my web browsing. And I use Trillian, Gaim, or Fire for IM.
So no, POP-UP Advertising is deifnetly not a fact of life. It's just that too many people are unaware how easy it is to get away from.
Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:5, Insightful)
If someone dumps raw sewage in the streets, the cops will take them away. If someone plays their boom-box too loud in my neighborhood, they will eventually be fined. So why do we allow billboards, huge store signs, and ads on cars, busses, and park benches to pollute our visual environment?
I should be able to go for a walk or ride my bike outside without having to endure constant sales pitches, without having huge logos and brand names all over the place. Don't you agree? Is some corporation's desire to sell a product really more important than our desire of a peaceful environment?
If I stood outside your house all day shouting "Buy My Product!!!" over and over you'd get kind of angry wouldn't you? So why don't you get angry when corporations do the same thing via huge billboards? What exactly is the difference?
RTFA (Score:2, Insightful)
Targets (Score:4, Insightful)
Rus
Re:It's a temporary restraining order.... (Score:4, Insightful)
No offense, but I don't want to be partially responsible when someone abuses something I have written. Sure, you will say, "write better software" but the thing is, even perfectly written software, when used for something it was not designed for, can have bad effects. Should we blaim the person who wrote ping if it is used in some sort of denial of service attack?
What took so long? (Score:5, Insightful)
Read the title. "FTC Shuts Down Pop-Up Extortion Firm" This is a firm in the United States with one heck of a business model. If what they're doing isn't illegal, it needs to be. The idea that a company could do this for so long and scam so many people certainly doesn't prove the effectiveness of our system to me. Something needs to change.
I hope we all do some research and think twice the next time we hit the polls. Matters like these are the responsibility of many various lawmakers. Let's hope they can earn all those figures and get some work done at the same time. Sure it's difficult, but suck it up for once.
Re:AOL reconfigures your system... ok, fine (Score:1, Insightful)
That way, you only get calls from the 50% of the people who are so stupid as to click "OK" without reading the message, instead of the 100% of the people in your building you are too stupid to understand that glitches occasionally happen and e-mail might not be available for 1 minute of the day.
Yeah, you geniouses, tell me glitches don't happen "if you're a good sysadmin". Great, thanks. Would it sooth the super-geeks I had said "glitches occasionally happen when using M$ servers"? Fine, pretend that's what I said.
Re:No, it does not (Score:3, Insightful)
Not that I totally disagree with you in this instance, but one could also say, "why the HELL do users allow these packets from the internet, as they are a LAN service only, is beyond me". I'd rather have the freedom to decide what I can do with my connection than have someone else "secure" it for me.
Re:Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Humans have free speech
2. Corporations are legally human
3. ???
4. PROFIT! (Seriously. If you can declare a personal income of several billion a year, YOU TOO can engage in free speech.)
Re:No, it does not (Score:3, Insightful)
The NET family of commands are more useful than just popup messages.
It's not up to the ISP to block ANYTHING. What's inside those TCP or UDP packets is none of their fucking business.
Re:Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:4, Insightful)
The difference with pop-up ads, is they are unwanted, and cannot be ignored... If I go to a website with pop-ups, and I don't like them, I can never come back... but with this pop-up advertising, they were there, without any action on my part, and directly interrupted me.
Re:It's a temporary restraining order.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:3, Insightful)
People complain all the time. Perhaps you are unaware of software like pop-up blockers, spam killers, and TiVo?
"Why do we allow this tresspass into our daily lives?"
They're not boring into my skull, they're throwing up info where I might see it. Ultimately, it's still my choice to watch the commercial or go take a leak. It really isn't that big of deal.
"Why is it considered acceptable to allow companies to push products in our faces every second of every day?"
Don't confuse branding with advertising. I have a few major name brands on my desk right now. Aquafina, Dell, HP, IBM, etc. They're not bombarding me. They are recognizable because they are unique objects. So yeah, I see branded stuff all the time, but bombarding would be an exaggeration. Maybe if the dell logo on my laptop lit up and blinked or something.
"Why don't we have laws against advertising?"
They have regulations about advertising. A couple of months ago I caught a story on TV about an area of New York where they cracked down on storefronts with overly obnoxious signs. Awnings could only be so far out, only so many symbols could be used etc. So yes, there are practical limits to advertising.
The reason why it's not illegall altogether is because advertisements are passive. You are not strapped to your seat with your eyes forced open. Besides that, those advertisements are the reason you're able to get on here and post your knee-jerk rant.
Advertising is obnoxious a lot of the time. No offense, but your rant against it is quite nutty. Case in point:
"If someone dumps raw sewage in the streets, the cops will take them away. If someone plays their boom-box too loud in my neighborhood, they will eventually be fined. So why do we allow billboards, huge store signs, and ads on cars, busses, and park benches to pollute our visual environment?"
You're likening a billboard to sewage dumped on the street. A billboard does not pose a health risk. It is not dumped anywhere, a permit is required to put it up. There are regulations that govern how big the sign is, how bright it is, how blinkie it is, and even the words that are written on it are regulated. All that's being done is a sign is being placed where you might see it. You might even find useful information on it. It's there to look at, it's not forced upon you. It's not like somebody's standing outside of your house all day shouting "Buy My Product!" over and over, causing you to get kind of angry.
I'm genuinely surprised you were modded up here. If you'd left it at "why isn't advertising regulated to be less distrating?" I'd have been in full support of your statement. But, honestly dude, not knowing why a billboard is okay but shouting in front of somebody's house isn't?
Chill.
Re:No, it does not (Score:2, Insightful)
Cox cable blocks access to smtp ports, you suggest blocking more packets - its just a beginning of the "Great Firewall of the US".
Not A Good Idea(tm)
Sorry if I sound paranoid, I just tend to look at the slippery slope side of things.
Re:Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:3, Insightful)
You're taking free speech too literally. Obviously you've never seen sombody (or been) taken away for causing a public disturbance. Free speech isn't, and shouldn't be, absolute. Advertisers shouldn't have the right to pop whatever they want up on my computer screen any more than you should have the right to scream out loudly, obnoxiously, and continually in a public (or private and not belonging to you) space.
In the US, the first amendment uses the words "freedom of speech", but in no way defines speech, and in the same sentence limits the right of assembly with the term "peaceably". It could easily be argued (and has been in some cases) that certain things aren't considered "speech" depending on which definition you choose (there are 6 or more definitions depending on which dictionary you happen to look in), and that some things which are speech aren't considered protected under certain circumstances (i.e. you have the right to convey a message, but not necicarily in every forum and in any manner).
Outside the US there are many places where freedom of speech is not available, whether you're human or not.
This all manages to be the case independant of how much money you have.
Re:The lesson is... (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh please... (Score:1, Insightful)
Never seen one of these (Score:3, Insightful)
What do you want people that make toilets to handhold you also when you go take a piss? Might hit the floor and make a slick spot then go after the plumber or something.
Its called accepting responsibility, in this case for your network.
Re:one of their own commissioners... (Score:3, Insightful)
There's a lesson for us all, there.
Before we wander off into knee-jerk madness, let me remove the contextual spin from this. The actual quote is below.
I take this to mean that having a PERSONAL experience helped to raise the priority. I would be shocked to find out that a personal experience by one of the commissioners isn't worth at least thousand complaints from the user community. I can't think of one organization where this rule does not apply. Had the commissioner not encountered this personally, I think the priority would have still been raised with enough user complaints.Re:Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:3, Insightful)
If you're rich enough, you can dump raw sewage in the streets, or dump needles in the ocean, or dump toxic chemicals in the rivers.
If you're rich enough, you can drive down the street blasting ads, sales pitches, sound bites, corporate jingles, and not have to worry about anything.
If you're rich enough, you can fill every inch of the earth up with your important sales message.
Because after all, the economy is the most important thing in the world. If it wasn't for money, the earth would blow up tomorrow!!
There is a big difference... (Score:3, Insightful)
Checks are not percieved to be worth anything if there isn't money behind them. People know that and take steps to make sure that they are legit (requiring ID, not sending an item until the check has cleared, using check verification services). With money, people generally assume it's valid... and our entire economic system would collapse if too much counterfitting existed.
Re:Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:2, Insightful)
They should not be exploiting bugs in windows in order to display ads on my screen.
When I browse the web, I understand that a site may choose to show me an ad. I'm looking for content.
A winpopup is another matter entirely.
Furthermore, using these invasive, exploitive winpopups to advertise a product that BLOCKS winpopups is extortion.
it's "Pay us to stop doing this".
IT's not at all beneficial to society.
Security (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:3, Insightful)
You should do some quick cost estimation encourage someone in a decision making capacity at the company to consider whether the costs to the company in customer support and in lost customers possibly outweighs whatever advantage there is to the current design.
Aside from that, using pop-ups for navigation seems like an amazingly bad idea. But saying that probably would alienate the designers without changing anyone's mind. "costing the company money" is a much better business argument than "sucks".
Re:Thats what we get for tolerating advertisements (Score:3, Insightful)
Why do we allow fat people on a beach to pollute my visual environment? It's no more rediculous than your assertion that billboards and signs pollute your visual environment.
There's a difference between ligit advertisement and intrusive advertisements. It used to be just snail-mail junk-mail type spam. Then it was fax-spamming. Then it was email spam. I don't even know all the kinds there are now. I just heard about bluetooth messaging spam to cell phones the other day. it's insane. The point is, not all advertisements are bad. The bad ones are ones that use YOUR property and resources illegally.