FTC Bars Popup Backdoor Ads 348
zanderredux was one of several readers to note that the FTC has banned backdoor popups. This is the result of the D Squared case that we've heard a bit about in the past. The case also restricted them from sending IM ads as well.
Banned? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Banned? (Score:2)
Hmmph. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hmmph. (Score:5, Insightful)
this single ruling has had a huge effect already.
Re:Hmmph. (Score:2)
second class citizens (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:second class citizens (Score:3, Informative)
Oh, and for those of you who don't want to click through to that article, here are the names of the three Democrats that helped kill that bill (we expect this kind of behavior from anyone with an R after their name, right?):
Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach)
Jackie Speier (D-San Francisco)
Michael Machado
Re:second class citizens (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:second class citizens (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Hmmph. (Score:2)
Mostly b/c it only applies to the US.
-nB
Re:Hmmph. (Score:2)
Re:Hmmph. (Score:5, Insightful)
Messenger (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Messenger (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Messenger (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Messenger (Score:3, Funny)
(BTW, I'm no Microsoft fanboy. However, I do think SP2 is a positive step forward for platform with regards to security).
Re:Messenger (Score:2)
Re:Messenger (Score:2)
Re:Messenger (Score:3, Insightful)
First, the messenger service can be useful when it's not being abused, so if you have a firewall blocking incoming traffic from the Internet you can continue using the messenger service inside your network.
Second, a hardware firewall keeps unwanted traffic off of the local network.
Third, if you have the messenger service turned off, I can still send network traffic to your computer that will be received on the messenger port and will then give me total control of yo
Re:Messenger (Score:3, Interesting)
1. Find a link to it (SP2Torrent.com is one, IIRC)
2. Download it
3. Install it
4. Reboot
5. Curse because something broke, or it hosed your system
6. Undo the damage (ranging from uninstalling SP2, to reinstalling Windows XP and all applications, and possibly recreating documents)
Re:Messenger (Score:2)
Re:Messenger (Score:3, Interesting)
IIRC, the recommended setting is 'manual' and not 'disabled' as Norton AV depends on the messenger service to issue its popup warnings. Either way, you may want to cons
And why should they do that? (Score:3, Funny)
OS's should ship set to auto-update, and people smart enough to not like that can turn it off.
This would be a victory -- (Score:5, Insightful)
It gets even worse when you consider the fact that US law has little effect on operations from other countries. So...
Welcome to the nanny state (Score:4, Insightful)
It's not a victory for technology, nor for freedom.
What we have here is an network facility that was implemented badly (ie. without default access controls), and instead of the manufacturers getting their wrists slapped by the user community for inept design, the courts are brought in and it's turned into yet another thing for the state to regulate.
It happens to be an MS problem in this case, but the issue is of much wider concern. You really don't want the state brought in when the problem is just a symptom arising from a technical fault. If you do, pretty soon the nanny state is tucking you up in bed every night
Govn't does some good? (Score:3, Insightful)
Go FTC (i feel sick now)
Popups are dead... (Score:5, Interesting)
Every major browser now blocks the web variety (including IE, thanks to XP SP2). Microsoft also finally decided disabling Messenger and adding a firewall to their operating system was a good idea. Pity it took them so long to realise this.
And now, just for good measure, they're illegal too.
I say, good riddance.
Re:Popups are dead... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Popups are dead... (Score:4, Insightful)
Spam started out, how many years ago on Usenet(?) and despite the millions companies spend making software to block, and the millions of man hours it takes up to script them out and off our networks, that the chance of making a few hundred still shunts our efforts since these guys won't stop sending.
It'll just take time. But like the television commercial of today they'll be ranging far into the future.
We need to start stopping these guys at the gates earlier.
Messenger service is fun (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing like watching an entire department power cycle their machine because they received
"An error has occured at 0x8000000C. Please reboot your system."
Re:Messenger service is fun (Score:4, Funny)
In school, we did some statistics stuff in excell, and the lesson was boring like hell. A guy in front of me played Doom 2 in a window and still kept on with the statistics. So I decided to make some fun of my own. I wrote something like:
"System message: Out of memory, please close the application."
The guy looked around a little stressed and closed Doom 2. After a while I have sent another message:
"I SAID YOU HAVE TO CLOSE THE FUCKING APPLICATION!"
This time the guy looked so scared, I couldn't hold the laugh.
Yeah, the messenger was fun. I will take a minute of silence for him.
Re:Messenger service is fun (Score:3, Funny)
Funny watching 30 people suddenly lose mouse focus in their FPS games.
Funnier still if you set your computer name to someone doing poorly in the game.
Yea.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Ads were "an annoyance you have to deal with in a free society," lawyer Anthony J. Dain is quoted as saying.
Bearing in mind that advertising something on the TV or radio and crawling into someone's house through an open window and pinning a flyer on the fridge are not the same thing...
Re:Yea.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Now.. (Score:3)
Re:Now.. (Score:2)
Only a marketer would think giving away ipods is a profitable business idea.
I just hope I get one before the pyramid collapses and the company folds.Uh oh (Score:5, Funny)
FTC? We don't need no steenkin' FTC (Score:4, Insightful)
But seriously, legislation in the US isn't going to stop the worldwide problem of popups and spam. What's needed is better *technical* solutions (like not having loopholes in IM clients for people like D Squared to exploit in the first place.
Hateful, tricksy popups! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmmm, what's the word I'm thinking of... Oh yeah... DUH! What I cannot believe is that marketing people think that popups are effective advertising! The only way they have to measure effectiveness is by click-throughs. Of course, many of these pop-up ads are graphically designed to be so misleading (looking like a window within a window, or a dialog box) that the general public will click the ad accidentally while trying to close it. All these accidental clicks apparently add up to a "successful advertising campaign" in the eyes of a marketing bobblehead.
Now, these guys using the windows messenger service can pop up a window that IS a dialog/messagebox, no matter what browser you use. Doesn't even matter if the browser is running, as long as you're connected to the internet (and running Windows). I'm glad that they're getting slapped.
On a related note, I wonder if Microsoft considered turning off the windows messenger service by default for SP2? Not sure what kinds of apps that would break, but it seems like it would be benefical to the majority of home users.
Re:Hateful, tricksy popups! (Score:3, Funny)
many people find that shoving a rather large stick with nails in it shoved up the bum of said marketers a very effective way of advertising their dislike of popups. although 99 out of a 100 marketers disagree, I condone this practice.
now where's me nails and hammer...
Re:Hateful, tricksy popups! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now does this mean what they are doing is morally correct? Well that is best left to a philosophy course.
Re:Hateful, tricksy popups! (Score:3, Interesting)
The person who can make spam and popups unprofitable will become rich himself!
Re:Hateful, tricksy popups! (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe it's off by default in SP1, but I'm not sure. Disabling the service causes no problems. The only reason it was enabled by default is that it can be a useful tool for network admins (sending out things like "The mail server will be rebooted in 1 minute"), and Microsoft wasn't at all concerned about the security issues of the service. It's been typical of Microsoft to open all ports and enable any possible form of communication, access, or remote control- just in case you need them, in order to avoid all situations where a person might get frustrated that their own computer won't let them do something.
Regional Internet Rules... (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't know, maybe that's a bad idea too.
Re:Regional Internet Rules... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well this all sounds well and good it is pretty impractical. There's no way that every country in the world is going to agree on anything, much less a law. Even if a lot of countries do agree on some kind of internet law, a lot of countries can't or won't enforce the laws.
Good. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not that this is going to do anything to prevent people from sending backdoor popups; nothing ever does. However, it does allow people to drop the hammer on those who continue this practice.
Some thoughts (Score:5, Informative)
A few things:
Numbers are wrong (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Numbers are wrong (Score:2)
annoying pop-ups (Score:5, Interesting)
Just as removal of your kneecaps with a cold chisel is an annoyance you're going to have to deal with shyster.
I hate pop-ups. As far as I'm concerned unless I _specifically_ open up something I don't want it buzzing me. Pop-ups are YOUR code running on MY computer without my authorisation. Under different circumstances that is a good way towards describing a worm.
Re:annoying pop-ups (Score:3, Insightful)
Ick. That's the problem right there. Ads are an annoyance you have to deal with if you want something free. I really can't complain too much about ads on TV because that's where they get their money to put the shows on. Just living in a free society, however, should not automatically require you to provide an audience to advertisers.
Re:annoying pop-ups (Score:2, Insightful)
I happen to want to run messenger because software on my home network uses it to notify me of issues like UPS battery problems and the like.
I can live without messenger, but just because I choose to run software on my PC doesn't give anyone the right to abuse it.
(microsoft security failures aside)
worthless (Score:4, Funny)
Not to mention X-10 softcore.
Unfair! (Score:3, Funny)
What I need now is a match to hang at the front of the house. So I'm just waiting for a decent front-door to popup...
Government's inability to comprehend (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Government's inability to comprehend (Score:3, Insightful)
However, once you outlaw a certain activity, few legitimate organizations that rely on protection under the law are likely to engage in that activity. A legitimate advertiser is less likely to sponsor back-door pop-ups if there's a chance for criminal charges, let alone conviction. By reducing the market for pop-up ad p
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Enforcing laws on the internet (Score:2)
Of course, chances are they'll sue anyway.
FTC fails again to protect consumers (Score:5, Interesting)
the easy part... (Score:2, Funny)
of course... (Score:3, Funny)
Re:of course... (Score:2)
The real reason that never caught on was the probability of physical assault.
Baffling contradiction (Score:4, Insightful)
Requesting clarification of
1 -- It is impossible to stop spam because US laws have no effect on other countries!!
2 -- US patent and copyright laws will stifle all humankind, because they are forced on or become de-facto standards in other countries!!
Please resolve contradiction and continue posting activity.
Thank you.
Re:Baffling contradiction (Score:2, Insightful)
a) The US is one of the biggest markets, if not the biggest market worldwide
b) Most of the stuff advertised with spam is "shady": porn, 419scams, viagra. Done by mostly "fly by night" companies.
c) Most of the stuff relating to patents and copyrights is done by normal, upstanding companies (RIAA and MPAA and their ilk notwithstanding but bear with me: they still have a pretty good image with the common man).
So, as soon as there are laws against it, the shady peop
Re:Baffling contradiction (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdot has no opinion. The readers of Slashdot have many opinions. Simply because you read them both in the same place does not mean everyone believes them both.
If however, you can find someone who does believe both, you should probably address your comments to them.
Re:Baffling contradiction (Score:3, Insightful)
1 -- It is impossible to stop spam because US laws have no effect on SOME countries!!
2 -- US patent and copyright laws will stifle ALMOST all humankind, because they are forced on or become de-facto standards in MOST other countries!!
And to complete the picture let's add that you don't want to move to those outlaw countries because life there sucks.
Re:Baffling contradiction (Score:3, Interesting)
TV next...? (Score:5, Funny)
The worst part is they seem to get more agressive towards the end of the movie. Once I saw like 15 pop-up ads before the cliff hanger ending last scene. When is the FTC going to outlaw this madness!?
Re:TV next...? (Score:2, Interesting)
A funny thing... (Score:3, Interesting)
I was even flamed a few times, on various internet forums, because I told people to, "Install a god damned firewall" to block these things. Not because of my tone, but because that obviously wouldn't work.
There are reasons why people use these tactics. There are enough idiots in the world that they work.
This is not a web popup (Score:4, Insightful)
"According to the FTC, the pop-ups sent by D Squared could appear even when a user was not actively web browsing."
No crap? All that does in the article is confuse the user. At one point in time, because the box is labeled "Messenger", the MSN messenger [msn.com] site said that they were "looking into claims of users using the Messenger Sevice for advertisments." It may still be on there, but I can't find it.
Am I the only one who's annoyed by people's ignorance?
Annoyance? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, and so is my foot in your face, buddy.
Precedent (Score:2)
Ads are an annoyance (Score:5, Insightful)
No.
Ads are an annoyance that you have to deal with in order to receive something else funded by those ads for free or cheaper than it would otherwise cost.
In this case, the pop-up ads were not subsidising anything else for the people that got them. They just appeared unwanted and unexpected. You expect ads on the TV, on the radio, on websites. In return you get free TV, free radio, free websites. What is the consumer gaining from these popup adverts.
Hell, even junk mail probably subsided the postal service, allowing stamps to be made a little cheaper.
The same theory should apply to spam. The recipient is not benefitting from the spam in any way. The spammers aren't subsidising their internet connection. It goes from Win-Win (free service for the consumer and products being presented to people for the company) to Win-Lose (products being presented to people, but nothing in return except a waste of time).
Go after their MARKET. (Score:3, Interesting)
Go after the viagra retailers, fine them ten times what it would cost to print an ad, leave it to the local jurisdiction to collect, and they'll be gone in a day.
Destroy the market. Don't waste time and energy on the people trying to make a buck from it. Destroy the market...
FTC has no teeth (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of things doesn't discourage the practice; exactly the opposite in that it shows there is no penalty for it.
As others have noticed, the practice is much more discouraged by the fact that so many people are now closing that loophole. But the FTC action achieved nothing.
Amazed and Confused? (Score:3, Informative)
Please note that we are talking about the messenger service running under Windows, not the Windows Messenger IM program or web browser popup windows.
Re:Huh? (Score:2)
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Huh? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Yippie! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yippie! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Yippie! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is an agreement between the FTC and D Squared, who along with not doing this annoying shit anymore has also agreed to not send spam via IM programs, and to have it's business practices monitored by the FTC for a period of 5 years.
You see, using an OS flaw to force ads upon people who aren't even surfing
D^2 should not have been banned (Score:4, Interesting)
My argument is that we institute legal processes to fix things only when we cannot fix them otherwise. For example, we have no way of keeping people from burning people's houses down, so we have the crime of "arson". If there was a simple spray for a house that made everything completely non-flammable, there'd be no reason to introduce the complexity and overhead of legalities.
The problem is that this is not an insoluable technical problem. (I don't think that *spam* is an insoluable technical problem either, but at least it's *harder* to solve.) It is very, very easy to stop boxes from ever popping up. Microsoft screwed up, and it'd be easy for them to provide a download from Windows Update that disables the Messenger service. Instead, they've chosen not to do so. This is an easy, easy fix. If people's computers were being *compromised* (so that by the time Microsoft's update came in, the computer was already controlled by a hacker, and nothing could be done), there would be a different issue. Pop-ups? Just disable the damned thing.
The same goes for instant messenger messages (though to a lesser extent). It is *extremely* difficult to try to slip ads past our existing messaging services, which are both (a) centralized, and (b) unencrypted. If IP Foo using account Bar is sending messages to a thousand different people in a day, something is very clearly quite dubious about that person.
I really, really, really do not think that the FTC should get involved. I can understand people being pissed off, but the person to be pissed off at is Microsoft in the case of Windows Messenger and the instant message provider in the case of the instant messaging. One of the fundamental things that you have to do when you design a system is make it reasonably unpromising to abusers. That was not done in either case. It's not something that requires intervention from the FTC (unless they want to make a statement about how people should complain to Microsoft/whatever instant messaging company is involved).
I could even see the FTC working with the industry to try to set up a mechanism for identifying people using their software that requires updates and notifying those people. But trying to stop advertising by going after one company at a time is pointless, and a waste of my tax dollars.
Re:Yippie! (Score:5, Insightful)
Would you rather live in a country where food manufacturers could sell you contaminated foods, where chemical companies could poison the land that you live on, where oil companies could turn their backs on oil spills, or fill your mailbox with thousands of unwanted sales pitches? Or one where they couldn't literally get away with murder?
Remember, the only reason why regulation is necessary is because someone always abuses the system. If everyone could be trusted to act ethically then regulation wouldn't be needed, but everyone doesn't do that, do they?
Re:Yippie! (Score:3, Insightful)
This kind of idiotic regulation is what makes government grow and your taxes go up. Give it enough time and someone will create the technology to fix this with no government intervention. Less goverment is almost always good.
Re:Yippie! (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to go down that road then why not just lock up mass murderers and let burglars and fraudsters go unpunished. After all, one's not as bad as the other, right?
Less government is almost always good? Yeah, in a utopian world perhaps. But in the real world it doesn't work that way, does it? Someone always comes along and a
Re:Yippie! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yippie! (Score:3, Insightful)
If the majority of the public wants this kind of advertising stopped, then someone with authority has to step in and stop it, because the advertisers won't stop it -- because they have no ethics, or rather their ethics are defined by whatever they can get awa
Re:Yippie! (Score:2)
Yes.
Re:Yippie! (Score:2)
You could die.
Poison the land
You could die.
Oil Spills
Lots of cute fuzzy animals could die.
Mailbox full of unwanted sales pitches
You could be inconvenienced.
Get away with murder
You could die.
Out of the above choices I think I will pick the unwanted sales pitches. The other choices are not even comparable.
Furthermore I do not need the government to spend my tax money protecting me from small annoyances I can easily take steps to prevent myself. But then again there are lots
Re:Yippie! (Score:2)
If I don't want spam filling up my inbox, junk mail filling up my post box, text spams filling up my mobile phone, or calls and messages from telemarketers hogging up my home phone line then I shouldn't have to rely solely on their ability to follow some flimsy voluntary code of practice. Like I said before, there's alwa
Re:Yippie! (Score:3, Insightful)
But government regulation should only be a last resort. For when a person has no hope of protecting themselves and will suffer financially. Unsolicited faxes and cell phone calls are two examples.
Email spam, telemarketers, and junk mail are all annoyances I am willing to suffer. Lets educate society and advertisers by taking the responsibility upon ourselves to not purchase items advertised in this manner.
The messeng
Re:Yippie! (Score:2)
Corporations abuse the "system", and the "system" includes the act of regulation. If regulation solely did what it was intended to do, great, but what happens in practice is that regulation becomes a tool of the (wealthy
Re:Yippie! (Score:3, Informative)
I hate to break it to you, but suing a gun manufacturer because the gun was used in a crime has been done.
I can't remember the actual case, but there was one recently where a gun maker had a model that couldn't be safely loaded: due to a design flaw, you had to take the safety off to load the weapon. This flaw was know
Re:Yippie! (Score:2, Interesting)
Yeah, yeah... we all know you got your computer and instantly turned off that "messenger" service, so for you it doesn't matter if everyone in the world wants to send you this sort of spam.
But guess what? Not everyone does. The average computer user still uses internet explorer and doesn't even know what "windows update" is, let alone how to use it.
Thus, laws must be made to protect the general populace. Remember, that you and I are *excep
Re:Yippie! (Score:2, Funny)
This should be just as effective.
Corrected link (Score:2)
(Opera doesn't like when you 127.0.0.1 a ad website in your /etc/hosts files; it puts the advertisement URL in the address bar after a (very little) while...)