Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Major Advertisers Caught In Spyware Net 144

theodp writes "BW reports on Fortune 500 companies' use of adware - Sprint for its PCS phones, major banks peddling Visa cards, Sony and retailers including Circuit City. And Mercedes-Benz before the company, fielding complaints, put on the brakes. So far, law enforcement has mostly targeted the transmitters, but NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is threatening to hold accountable household-name advertisers that use adware networks. No longer, says Spitzer, can companies play dumb."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Major Advertisers Caught In Spyware Net

Comments Filter:
  • excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

    by choongiri ( 840652 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:00PM (#12911036) Homepage Journal
    quite simply, the only way we will see the end of adware and spam is if they stop being profitable. this is excellent news, and i sincerely hope goes ahead with his threat.
  • So, if I want to harass my competitors, I can release spyware with their ads on it or pay for spyware distribution in their name? This would subject them to needless prosecution and distraction?

    The transmitters can easily be traced. It is much harder to trace the source of the ads themselves. For civil suits, the "preponderance of evidence" might be a pretty weak standard because there is not much to go on to discredit the prosecution. Of course IANAL...
    • Yep. Go ahead and misuse your competition's trademarks without a standard disclaimer who those marks belong to. :-)
    • So, if I want to harass my competitors, I can release spyware with their ads on it or pay for spyware distribution in their name? This would subject them to needless prosecution and distraction?

      The transmitters can easily be traced. It is much harder to trace the source of the ads themselves. For civil suits, the "preponderance of evidence" might be a pretty weak standard because there is not much to go on to discredit the prosecution. Of course IANAL...


      I would imagine that you would run into huge issues
      • My point is simply that it would be fairly easy to frame someone for this sort of offence. Sure it would be illegal, but if the other guy is convicted or settles, then it becomes harder to find the resources to figure out who actually paid for the spyware.

        Remember when someone managed to get Verisign to send them Microsoft's private keys by posing as Microsoft? This sort of framing is not entirely improbably....
    • Not really - the AG would simply follow the money, right back to you. Spizer is going after willful ignorance, namely when you suspect there's a problem but chose just not to investigate it too closely thus remaining willfully ignorant.
    • And which laws, criminal or civil, fully or partially, account for frame-ups anyway? Innocent until proven guilty isn't exactly a well implemented doctrine ;)
    • by artemis67 ( 93453 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:26PM (#12911164)
      Can't companies already commit crimes in the name of their competitors? So, what's so special about the online world that is suddenly going to embolden people to commit federal crimes?

      Don't you think that if someone is misrepresenting Proctor & Gamble, the NY AG is going to go straight to P&G and get their full compliance in solving the crime?

      And for the companies commiting the fraud, is it really worth putting their entire company on the line over a stupid adware stunt?
      • It is not a question of the "online" world per se but rather a question of how easy it is.

        Most reputable companies won't do this for any number of reasons including risk and the fact that one can't pull lots of stunts like this and remain focused on your own core competencies. So I don't expect that such would be widespread.

        But it could be done too readily IMO. And competitors are probably not at the top of the list. Disgruntled employees or former employees, unhappy customers, etc. could cause substan
      • This is simply a way to stop the primary defense of corps: that our policy does not allow such actions, the contracted third party was not following policy,therefore the third party is to blame, not us.

        Much of the outsourcing of major firms appears to be outsource risk. Walmart outsources janatorial servie, therefore Walmart is not liable for the fact that illigal aliens are cleaning thier stores, or the fact that thier demand for illigal alliens increases the demand for coyote, which increases cross bor

    • by bani ( 467531 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @07:50PM (#12911480)
      It is much harder to trace the source of the ads themselves.

      No it is not. Follow the money trail. Search warrants and subpoenas on bank records, etc.

      Money talks, and in this case it leads law enforcement right to the doorstep of the exact source responsible for the ads.

      Someone has to pay the transmitters after all. They don't work for free.
    • So, if I want to harass my competitors, I can release spyware with their ads on it

      So, if I want to harass my competitors, I can telemarket their ads to the "Do Not Call" list?

      It's not competitors companies should be worried about, it's resellers. How much trouble do you think Pfizer would be in if they had to account for every advert for their product?
    • yeah, just like when Sun/IBM went round spraying "Microsfot Ownz j00" on the US's national monuments

    • can't this be considered as money laundering? i live in the philippines and we were just lifted from being a blacklisted country by the fatf (Financial Action Task Force.) anyway, major countries that probably are supporting these are members of the fatf, can't their money be tracked and have their accounts suspended and even confiscated because of this? if not, i just find this blacklisting more of a political clout than actually preventing illegas instances such as these (i mean did the us pass a law a
  • by advocate_one ( 662832 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:06PM (#12911068)
    That's making many advertisers nervous, though they insist they work with subcontractors and often don't know about any adware use until they get a complaint.

    "There's plausible deniability at each tier," said Chris King, product marketing manager at anti-spyware vendor Blue Coat Systems Inc.

    to put it politely... bollocks... they subcontract it, they are responsible for it... they can't fob off the responsibility to the subcontractors... they are responsible for making sure that their subcontractors do it legally and ethically...

    • IANAL, but couldn't the corporation still be held liable? I bet that these subcontractors are not violating their contracts, if the corporation are serious about not being involved in these activities, I'm sure they'll add clauses to the contracts the subcontrators sign, explicitly forbidding them from engaging in those practices. Otherwise they are tacitly endorsing it by not expressly forbidding it. Plus, it would have an added benefit for the corporation to be able to shift liability to the subcontrac
    • by bckrispi ( 725257 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:23PM (#12911150)
      Companies normally *do* hold subcontractors responsible for how they market their products. But those subcontractors may sub the work out to another company, who subs it out to another, who subs it out to someone who has a couple million email addresses. The Spammer is seldom just a one-off from the producer.
    • In most cases, companies are held responsible for acts by subcontractors. This is why they make sure their subs have insurance, licenses, bonding, etc and are generally reputable. Especially when it comes to toxic waste disposal, the company will thoroughly investigate whoever hauls their waste, since they will be held responsible when it turns up on a beach somewhere. I don't see why illegal advertising would be treated differently by the legal system.
    • 'Plausible deniablity' doesn't mean quite what it sounds like in that quote -- in this case, 'plausible deniability' means a situation specifically set up so that any denial is 'plausible', Mr. King is not making any claims on the actual plausibility of their claims.

      Here's another example, said on Slashdot occasionally: "I run an open WiFi network so that I can have plausible deniability for everything that goes across my Internet connection".

  • by Kagura ( 843695 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:09PM (#12911081)
    Unfortunately, unless some other big names in law jump on this, we won't see anything more of this after this article. This won't be the first time something like this happened.
  • "Follow the money" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by PornMaster ( 749461 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:09PM (#12911085) Homepage
    The concept of "follow the money" unfortunately works way too well. Whether it's funding adware asshats or terrorist organizations, in order to cripple the bad guys, cutting off funding works wonders.
    • The concept of "follow the money" unfortunately works way too well.


      Unfortunately? Unfortunately because it reflects badly on human nature? Unfortunately from the point of view of adware asshats or terrorist-funders?
  • by Hulkster ( 722642 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:10PM (#12911088) Homepage
    Ben Edelman [benedelman.org] has been writing about *&^%$#@! spyware for quite some time and not only provides information and actual video's of how these guys operate, but also untangles some of the financial backing of the companies and VC who are behind 'em.

    The Big Green Guy ought to pay a visit to the spyware companies and do a World Wrestling Federation Hulk Drop [komar.org] on 'em! ;-)

  • Trust no one. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Recovering Hater ( 833107 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:11PM (#12911093)
    And people tell me that I am wrong for blocking all ads and javascript. All cookies get flushed on exit. The internet was forever changed for the worse when commercial interests moved in. It was only a matter of time befor the seduction of easily available consumer tracking got the best of even so called respectable companies. Mod this poster +5 tin-foil hat. But at least it's better than being +5 asshat advertiser or +5 sucker with spyware riddled pc.
    • Re:Trust no one. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by flood6 ( 852877 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:57PM (#12911311) Homepage Journal
      The internet was forever changed for the worse when commercial interests moved in.

      I doubt you really believe this. The big money is what brought the innovation. I'm sure there will be people lined up to tell me about how great it was when they used baud or Mosaic or whatever, or how anything new is just "fluff" (I'll agree with the "fluff" thing to some extent), but most reasonable people will agree that the internet has vastly improved. You can still do all the things you used to love "way back when". So many non geeks can do what they want now, too.

      As you mentioned, you can dump nearly all trace of the advertising junk that exists now.

      Non-geeks in oppressed countries that now have the tools to post, read, and exchange information online; they may not have been able to do this before the big cash brought the big innovation. Housewives with a coughing child can look online to see information that can help them decide if they need to take their child to the hospital.

      So many of these things are supported by advertisements or other corporate interests. I'm not one of the "don't block ads" people, I block anything that blinks or slows browsing, but you have to acknowledge the benefit the capitalist interest brought - I'll certainly admit the harm it's brought. But overall, the good outweighs the bad.

      • I doubt you really believe this. The big money is what brought the innovation.

        It's what also brought malware, zombie spam networks, massive and continual and widespread attacks, phishing, nigerian scams, and a zillion other things we are constantly deluged with. These things are primarily driven by commercial interests. And there's virtually no law enforcement and no regulation over any of it. It's the wild west for corporations to exploit at their leisure.

        So I can honestly say I really do believe the
        • malware, zombie spam networks, massive and continual and widespread attacks, phishing, nigerian scams

          Those aren't commercial. Those are criminal. I'm not going to argue that criminals are not doing damage to the internet and it's users. I think you missed the point.

          Maybe you're into that kind of thing though.

          Snide comment. Nice touch.

          • No, you missed the point.

            The point being, corporate interests are driving criminal activity.

            Corporations pay spammers to spam form them.

            The spammers pay criminals to infect and backdoor computers for them so they can spam.

            The criminals write viruses, worms, malware, backdoors, keyloggers, root scripts, etc. They portscan and bruteforse ssh on massive scales (I have seen 200+mbit ssh bruteforcing traffic).

            Follow the money. Massive corporate $$ has turned the internet into a cesspool of attacks and compr
      • ...I doubt you really believe this. The big money is what brought the innovation. I'm sure there will be people lined up to tell me about how great it was when they used baud or Mosaic or whatever, or how anything ...

        Nearly all the innovation that happened on the net, happened BEFORE the commercial interests noticed it. When it comes to worthwhile innovation, as opposed to just "innovation of some sort" the fraction gets even higher, probably over 97%.

        Commercial interests were quite active in PUBLICISIN
      • No. I do believe it. Corporate greed has added some value true, but mostly big corporations brought the greed that spurs zombie networks, spam, malware and all manner of junk we have to be aware of now. The average housewife user you mentioned are the very ones being afflicted the most by adware, malware, spam, and all manner of phishing techniques rampant in the nwo of the net. Just because I am geeky enough to be free of these things doesn't mean an average user is. If they were then would we have zombie
    • Your ID calls you a "Recovering Hater." I'd say you still have a long way to go in your recovery.
  • YES (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Elliot Spitzer is a bad mother fucker.
  • by demonic-halo ( 652519 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:17PM (#12911120)
    This happened to our company numrous times. We use a variety of advertising agencies like comission junction, doubleclick.com, etc... We basically don't really know what they're doing most of the time, we just give them a tracking code and a URL to lead customers and calculate how many leads per $$$ they generate.

    Alot of the times, many of these sites like Comission Junction, just empowers members to post our links whereever. They just take our links, add their tracking code and URL to it, and give them to their members to include on their website. These members sometimes will result in dubious behavior to generate hits, and will often use ways to force the links on you. I'm sure you probably see those "Free" something that tell you to click on a dozen link before they send you the free iPod or something, then afterwards, find some trick to get out of sending you that iPod. Others sometimes use adware and other malicous software methods.

    Sometimes we see certain agencies generate such good results, we give them even more money. We don't realize they're doing wrong until we start getting complaints. I've witness things such as our ads being included in adware (like Gator), porn sites, spam mail, chat bots, etc...

    It's really hard to hard to control the means our ads get distributed using 3rd party agencies. But we're sort of forced to rely on them since we're a small company with little know how in advertising. It's much easier to pay other people do the work and focus on developing a good product.
    • by rhizome ( 115711 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:23PM (#12911151) Homepage Journal
      >It's really hard to hard to control the means our ads get distributed using 3rd party agencies.

      What you describe is willful ignorance. You know the problem exists but you just push the blame down the chain. This whole issue could be avoided if you put some care into the contracts you sign. It's probably better than getting sued by the NY Attorney General.
      • It's probably better than getting sued by the NY Attorney General.

        Or worse, charged criminally with Computer tampering in the second degree [davismccownlaw.com], New York's law that covers minor computer tampering. "Section 156.20: A person is guilty of computer tampering in the second degree when he uses or causes to be used a computer or computer service and having no right to do so he intentionally alters in any manner or destroys computer data or a computer program of another person."

        That's a class A misdemeanor in

    • by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:42PM (#12911244) Homepage

      And why don't you know what the subcontractors you're using are doing? I know that, in every other industry that subcontracts work, the general contractor is ultimately responsible for the work. If they don't know what the subcontractor's doing, they get dinged for that on top of the actual faults in the work. Perhaps, if you don't have the expertise to ride herd on your subcontractors yourself, you should begin doing what construction and other general contractors do and write clauses into your advertising contracts that provide for big, nasty penalties for subcontractors who use adware/spyware and make those subcontractors liable to you for any problems they cause that cause you any liability, plus requires the people you hire to include indentical clauses in their contracts with anyone they subcontract out to as well (with likewise nasty penalties for failing to do so). Then enforce those clauses strictly. If the agency balks, take your business elsewhere because that's a sure sign they are doing something underhanded and don't want to be nailed down on it.

      • Read the comment again: it isn't his subcontractors that are the problem, it's Commission Junctions. It's *their* responsibility to ensure that *their* subcontractors are following the rules that are laid down is his company's contract with them. Chances are, he doesn't even have access to find out who the subcontractors are, so couldn't find out what they're doing even if he wanted to. Which also prevents this from being willful ignorance, I believe (in response to another poster).

        You also seem to have
        • It is subcontractors that're the problem. Multiple layers of subcontractors are standard in the construction industry, and always it's the general contractor that's responsible. He's responsible for making sure his subcontractors do the work right within the rules, and if they subcontract out he's responsible for their subcontractors. If there's a problem the general contractor's the one on the hook, and if he didn't write contracts to keep the subcontractor chain on the hook with him that's too bad for him

    • 4 words: willful ignorance, due dilligence
      1. Nobody is forcing you to advertise on the net (which even in 1999 was already the LEAST effective means of advertising, and has gotten worse in terms of credibility, results per dollar spent, etc)
      2. Nobody is forcing you to use the agencies you mentioned. Its not hard to check [justfuckinggoogleit.com] out the people you're dealing with. That you don't is the hallmark of the wilfully ignorant who don't do their due diligence
      3. Contrary to what you state, its very easy to control how your ads get distributed - just put in a clause that provides financial penalties if they use adware/spyware. Agencies that won't agree to that are obviously not going to make the short list. That you are so desperate that you go with someone who won't agree to such terms is a sign that your business plan is doomed.
      It's much easier to pay other people do the work and focus on developing a good product.
      What good is it developing a good product if, by the time you get to market, you've already pissed off every possible consumer?
    • It's not hard to figure out that Commission Junction and its members might employ unethical practices. There are hundreds and hundreds of messages about it all over the internet. I'm sure a quick Google would turn up plenty.

      Finding a reputable company to do business with is as simple as asking another company you know, trust, and respect who they place ads with. Even easier is to contact the site you want to advertise on directly. Often it's cheaper, too.

      And the line about being a "small company with
    • No matter what your business, when it comes to any task that must be accomplished, you must pay for it to be completed correctly one way or another. If not, you'll pay for it to NOT be completed correctly.

      Take IT for example. If you, the business manager don't know IT, you need to pay someone to do it. Of course, you need to know enough about it to hire the right person. If you don't, you need to pay someone that knows enough about it to ask the right questions and get the person you need.

      In your case, th
  • by Jackie_Chan_Fan ( 730745 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:21PM (#12911142)
    :) It just seems that it is always him, and his people taking a stand and going after things with a clear sense of right and wrong, concerning matters of corperate abuse.

    Or atleast he's the only one who gets press when doing so. Either way.. Go get em Spitzer.

  • by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara.hudson@b ... m ['hud' in gap]> on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:29PM (#12911174) Journal
    FTFA:
    Some advertisers defend the practice.

    "It is just a marketing tool that we use," said Expedia spokesman David Dennis.
    So, maybe we can use the same line of reasoning for a DDoS of Expedia - "Its just an anti-spyware/adware measure that we use."

    I swear, do companies go out of their way to hire the lowest-IQ, most mouth-breathing knuckle-dragging, slope-foreheaded idiot they can find to be company shill^Wspokesman, or is it a side-effect of the job?

  • by ImaLamer ( 260199 ) <john...lamar@@@gmail...com> on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:30PM (#12911180) Homepage Journal
    Considering the software that often uses bundled adware and spyware is questionable at best (Kazaa at one time, other - more bogus - P2P software bundles) I wonder how much these Fortune 500 companies have funded even dirtier scams.

    You know someone who has clicked a "free screensaver" or "system performance" pop-up before only to get trojans and adware. Does Circuit City endorse these scams on user intelligence? [Oxymoron I know]

    Let's not even mention Compaq who bundles WeatherBug [symantec.com] on their new machines!

    Is it always going to be "us" versus the corporations? And why do I feel more libertarian and less "liberal" everyday?

    I guess the solution is simple - start a list of people to boycott based on their aggressive advertising.
    • I've already started doing that with my circle of friends. I don't go to Wal-Mart, Circuit City, use MSFT (*sighs* other than windows...be gentle...) products, I don't go to Target either. I'm afraid that sometime soon though, I won't have anywhere left to shop!!!

      A.A
    • You know, it would be nice if we tried to solve the problem by concentrating on the factors that acutaly cause harm rather than trying to put everything we don't like into the evil class.

      There are things about malware that are very bad. They install without the users knowledge. There is no obvious way to remove the software. If the software is removed, there is often a backup that gets reinstalled, a la IE. There is no indication in the pop up windows about where they originate. If the software is re

      • Not all UCE should be treated as spam.

        Ok, I agree, but not for the bogus reasons you gave.

        Not all UCE is spam, but it's gotta be over 99%. Spam is UBE. Unsolicited Bulk Email. Doesn't matter if it's commercial or not (although most is.)

  • AH the tried an true method that always works.

    To kill the snake one only needs to find the head and remove it from the body.

    The only questiosn left then is who cleans up the mes when it is all over with?
  • About friggin time. I see so many companies I used to consider legit that I now hae to question whether I should do business with them any more. Spam from the University of Phoenix, Bank Cards from legit companies being peddled via spam, and ad ware. This stuff has to stop.
    • Why don't we (as techies) get off our asses and force everyone to use authenticated SMTP?

      Then spam would drop, and rather quickly.

  • by AFCArchvile ( 221494 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:36PM (#12911203)
    But the last straw came a year ago when the pop-ups began plugging such household names as J.C. Penney Co. and Capital One Financial Corp., companies McMann expected to know better.

    So this person expects Capital One, a company known for making the corniest commercials on TV, and a participant in the national scheme [pbs.org] pushing limitless interest rates and exorbitant fees, to not engage in adware? I'd expect Capital One to be one of the FIRST and BIGGEST users of adware, popups, and direct marketing.

    They put David Spade on our television screens two years longer than necessary; that alone is evil enough!

  • by adam31 ( 817930 ) <adam31.gmail@com> on Saturday June 25, 2005 @06:37PM (#12911214)
    I feel like he should walk around with a mask and fluorescent yellow-and-orange spandex and wear a cape with a Red E emblazoned within a square... That guy is like the last real American hero.

    Although, I doubt he could actually bring successful legal action against the 'household-name advertisers'... hopefully the threat is enough to choke off the money flow. Who cares about all the spigots when you can shut down the water main?

    • First, I wouldn't be too quick to label him a hero. He's got bigger plans in mind, like being governor of NY. A lot of these sorts of things are pure publicity stunts to get him name recognition.

      Second, his tactics for "doing good" are problematic at best. He is using popular sentiment to alter the meaning and scope of existing laws, often in ways that the authors of those laws never intended. In doing so, he's bypassing the checks and balances of our government. The judicial branch is supposed to en

      • Could you go into detail about how you feel Spitzer is effectively writing or rewriting laws?

        Maybe I don't have all the facts, but all I see is that Spitzer makes choices as to which laws he'll enforce more vigorously than others. I'm not saying that's right either, but since it's unavoidable under the current system, it's far more forgivable than what you're suggesting he does.
  • So far, law enforcement has mostly targeted the transmitters, but NY Attorney General Eliot Spitzer is threatening to hold accountable household-name advertisers that use adware networks. No longer, says Spitzer, can companies play dumb.

    Could this open some eyes and increase interest in alternative (Linux, Mac) offerings?
  • by bani ( 467531 ) on Saturday June 25, 2005 @08:05PM (#12911541)
    This is really no different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws.

    The laws on the books state prohibit a company sending faxes to someone who explicitly tells you not to.

    Yet we get deluged with hundreds of spam faxes a week. Over and over and over from the same companies. Many with blocked or deliberately falsified caller ID.

    Law enforcement doesn't stop junk faxers, I don't see why it will stop spammers.
    • by antispam_ben ( 591349 ) on Sunday June 26, 2005 @12:13AM (#12912464) Journal
      This is really no different than the widely-ignored anti-fax laws.

      The laws on the books state prohibit a company sending faxes to someone who explicitly tells you not to.


      It's worse than that. It's against the law if they don't have a business relationship. If explicitely told not to, the damages are triple.

      Yet we get deluged with hundreds of spam faxes a week. Over and over and over from the same companies. Many with blocked or deliberately falsified caller ID.

      Law enforcement doesn't stop junk faxers,


      HUH? From what I've read of the Junk Fax law, law enforcement has nothing to do with it. It was my understanding you can take a junk faxer to court, point out the law to the Judge and get $500 PER UNSOLICITED FAX (BEFORE you tell them to stop), or even $1,500 PER FAX if you (can prove you) had already told them to stop. This gives you a judgement against them - if they don't pay, you can get their wages garnished and have similar things done to get the money out of them. It sure seems worth it to me.

      Washington State passed a very similar anti-spam law a few years ago, and there was a news item where a recipient in Washington State got an out-of-state spammer to pay up as per the law.

      Why don't more people do this to junk faxers?

      Googling for junk fax law and a couple clicks brings up these pertinent links:

      The Junk Fax Law (portion of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991):
      http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/usc.htm [keytlaw.com]

      Example demand letter:
      http://www.keytlaw.com/faxes/demandltr.htm [keytlaw.com]

      In /. terms:

      1. Buy fax machine and dedicated phone line.
      2. Add "FAX: [fax phone number] (for C++ code only)" to webpage
      3. ...
      4. Profit $$$

  • by whoppers ( 307299 )
    The same thing is happening with the bandit signs you see along the roads in the public rights-of-way. Laws originally were enacted to go after the person placing the signs and since these are usually lower income/education folks, they line up for this type of work and the signs never stop.

    Now many states are starting to go after big-name homebuilders, one homebuilder in Florida was recently fined $49,000 for over a hundred signs.

    This NY AG guy seems alright to me.
  • He seems to really look out for the little guy.

    Plus he is perhaps the creepiest looking man alive. That is also cool.
  • Okay...so none of the companies funding this crap wants to take responsibility:

    "There's plausible deniability at each tier," said Chris King, product marketing manager at anti-spyware vendor Blue Coat Systems Inc.

    If they hire subcontracts to spend their advertising budget and don't want to know how the money is being spent, they deserve to get ripped off. I hope some of these guys just pocket the money with nothing more than a "Oh...yea...the ad's going out all over the internet...but..you don't REALL

The rich get rich, and the poor get poorer. The haves get more, the have-nots die.

Working...