Sunbeltblog comments
Why not pre-install CWS et al?
Ask pays better commissions I guess.
What this country needs is a good 5 cent commmission
Wow, I'm almost speechless.
I did notice that Kim Kommando no longer advertises SpySweeper. Could be she started to notice there was too much slime coming from Webrot.
An acquisitions broker recently asked me if there was anyone I wouldn't sell my product to. I now have a new answer.
Bill
Hey back off Alex, ASK.com is a fine search engine.
Up your google
Granted, I'm a little cranky today but I'd feel the same way if it was Google or Yahoo's Toolbar.
1) Users are requesting trial software not a toolbar or Search Assistant.
2) Default options are Opt-in
It's just wrong.
ROTFL
An antispyware offers a spyware
Dan,
Do we need to drudge up history on Ask.com? Furthermore I tend to agree with Bill, it does not matter what product it is...by default webroot is opting clients in.
That's a very basic betrayal of trust. It is fine if you've partnered with someone for promotional purposes or what have you, but all installed extras should require a user checking the option for install...
Fwiw, this is old but something one may want to read.
www.sunbelt-software.com/ihs/alex/aj.pdf
(It should be noted that Ask has done a lot to clean up things.)
I'm a paid (thru '0
SpySweeper user and I'm very happy with it. That said, this is BS. I hate seeing all this bundling of toolbars into software. Now if it's freeware and you have to opt-in, then I'm cool with that. I definitely don't expect it in something I would pay for.
Ancient history in my books. 
The reply fwiw was: http://kirks-anti-spy.blogspot.com/
The net net of the report was to recommend that our products be either removed from detection, or set to "ignore" by Sunbelt.
Inasmuch as none of these products includes highly objectionable or malicious functionality,
displays pop-ups or banner ads directly on users' desktops, or tracks users' online activity, the
Sunbelt Software research team recommends that each of the above products be classified as a
"Potentially Unwanted Application," with a Threat Level of "Low" (coded in the CounterSpy
database as the numerical value “5”).
Currently, the Recommended Action assigned to such low risk threats is "Ignore"
-Kirk
Hey Kirk,
Good to see you. I have noticed you've made an effort to clean up some of the really deceptive partners that used vulnerabilities and drive bys downloads. You may say it's ancient history but given the history don't you think you should be making an effort to stay clear of any agressive installs like this?
As I have said, the main reason I find this dialog objectionable is because it's an opt-in by default. The Ask.com Toolbar and Search Assistant, like it or not, is a very significant change to a system!
This dialog comes after multiple other dialogs which appear after a user clicks for a "Get Free Scan". It's highly likely that users will be in a hurry to get through these dialogs and not understand what they're installing. It also seems like the requirement that "You must be 18 years of age in order to agree to this contract and download this product." be more visible.
IAC has so many reputable companies in its stable that it's a shame that historical mistakes of your adware products continue to taint the other ventures.
Bill
I'm with Bill and Alex on this one.
For starters, an ASC bundling spyware is bad enough (and a pretty damn good reason to avoid them like the plague), but having such pre-checked, instead of opt-in, is going way too far IMHO.
Lest us not forget, some of us recently had a go at CyberDefender for (amongst other things), not having their OWN toolbar opt-in.
Last month I personally observed -- and recorded in video and packet logs -- multiple instances of an IAC partner using a banner-switcher to promote IAC toolbars. Scenario: User gets infected with spyware. User visits a web site with a banner ad. Spyware swaps out the banner ad, shows an IAC banner instead.
So, in response to Kirk's claim that IAC's bad pratices are "ancient history," I emphatically disagree. And I have the documentary evidence to prove it.
But that's not all. I know at least one top-tier security firm that, during 2007, saw an IAC toolbar installed through a security exploit. As you'd expect, they have the documentary evidence (screen-capture video) to prove it.
The short of it is: IAC's toolbars remain unwanted by many users, and that's why IAC and its partners continue to have to stoop to such levels to get this software onto users' PCs. I'm with Bill in concluding that IAC's best response would be to close down this ill-advised line of business.
Come on folks SS is a business and with software sales on the decline they have have to make their $'s somehow
Bogging people's machines down with rubbish isn't a good way to make friends of make $'s 
In reply to
Bill's comment as why Kim Kommando has stopped selling spysweeper, perhaps she has had teh same problems as me
For some time I have been an affiliate of webroot and sold spysweeper
When webroot ran their own affiliate scheme I sold between 50 and 100 copies every month with no effort. Infected users downloaded a working free trial copy, liked it & it cleaned up a lot of the spyware ( not all but a lot )
When they changed affiliate management to OneNetwork and updated spysweeper sales suddenly dropped to nothing
I doubt if I am the only person this happened to and is likely to be one reason why sales dropped and they went with this crazy idea of bundling a toolbar to & search enhancement to get a few more pennies in commissions
I would suggest they look to the problems with the affiliate network, which they deny have any problems and see why sales have gone through the floor
Almost the same number of users are downloading a trial copy but not buying full version. that tells me either spysweeper doesn't work or the affiliate network isn't as easy for users to follow through the sales so they don't bother or the sales just are not being tracked
Ben,
As always, if ever you would care to start sharing information with me, I would be happy to shut down any rogue advertiser you allegedly have discovered. It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I can't take any action without the information.
It's an open offer.
To state that advertising through adware and non-consensual installs are IAC's PRACTICE is way out of line. We do not tolerate either.
-K
I recently renewed my subscription to SpySweeper (prior to reading about Alex's criticism of them), and ever since then, my Internet connection was sluggish and unresponsive at best. I had to shut it down completely to get a decent speed back, and even now it slows things down when it does its regular sweeps.
Whatever they're doing over there, it's not winning them any converts on the consumer front, and this bundling is just one more example. I'll uninstall it at the end of my subscription cycle and install a better suite--I hear Alex's company is into that sort of thing.
"To state that advertising through adware and non-consensual installs are IAC's PRACTICE is way out of line. We do not tolerate either."
Not really that out of line Kirk. Ask.com breached public trust. That means that Ask.com has the onus to prove to us (the consumer) that you've really changed your habits.
It is also a problem that you still have an affliate program in place that is allowing non-consensual installs. Whether or not Ask.com tolerates it, it is happening. Which means that there is a problem in your program...one that still violates the public trust.
This installer bundle is part of that problem. Your business partners should never make your product opt in. That should be a very basic demand by ask.com to PROVE good faith to your consumers.
Kirk:
I would have no substantial difficulty in finding and documenting ten examples of IAC toolbars promoted by ten different spyware programs on ten different days. Unlabeled full-popup ads (not disclosing what spyware caused the ads, specifically contrary to recent FTC authority), banner-replacing ads, you name it.
How many of these do you propose that I write up and send to you? I could work on this full-time for a week and still not find all the incidents.
It's just not tenable to ask that independent security researchers become IAC's free compliance department. Why should we do this?
Fact is, IAC has bought millions of dollars of advertising for its toolbars, without spending enough time, energy, or money on verifying how the ads appear or, crucially, whether the ads are shown through spyware. That's short-sighted, reckless, and ill-advised.
My suggestion to IAC: Cancel all the advertising for all IAC toolbars, until such time as IAC can reasonably assure that IAC is not advertising through spyware.
Hey Kirk do you have a sits vac for someone to actually monitor your affiliate programme ?
To The Captain,
Is that you Kirk? If Webroot's sales are on the decline as you suggest, IMO they'd be better off looking at *why* their sales are dropping and fixing that instead of doing something dumb like bundling a toolbar that has a dubious reputation. JMO.
I just tested it and it's worth noting that the Ask Toolbar does not uninstall when SpySweeper is uninstalled.
Yea, but it's a huge step forward that they now have an entry in the Add/Remove Programs applet.
Much better than the "oh yea, if you want to uninstall our app, contact us for help" method.
(Do I need my sarcasm sign?)
Bill
Here's a thought, computer users should be smart enough to uncheck the option. If you don't read the pages of the software installing, then you're not doing yourself any favors. You need to responsible for the software that you install. That's the bottom line. If you cannot pay attention enough to read a screen then you're just opening yourself up to be infected.
Toolbar, eh. Ask.com toolbar isn't all that bad. MAYBE they've had problems in the past, they certainly do not now. Ever consider the fact the installations are separated thus separate entries thus separate uninstalls? Oh that's right you didn't think that one through did you?
And hey Alex, maybe you should consider trying to improve your product so it might actually challenge Spy Sweeper as an anti-spyware product. Makes me wonder you're doing for your company if you've got all this time to blogging and more importantly installing your competitor’s trial software. Perhaps a CEO should work on his own company instead.
Oh and one last note Alex, weren't you the guy who left his enterprise contacts up publicly so that other companies could raid it? Again, maybe you should get your ship right before trying to bomb competition that is clearly out of your league. Or does not sneak into your pathetic blog bad about other companies marketing scheme?
I work for a company that sells about 15-20 copies of Spy Sweeper a day. I end up installing about 75% of those copies. When I get the opportunity I try to get people to buy Spyware Doctor instead, the only other product we offer in our store. While Spy Sweeper is somewhat effective at detecting spyware it sucks at just about everything else. I dont know if it's from bloat or bad code or both but every machine it gets installed on take twice as long to boot. I have had to fix multiple issues related to internet connectivity that were caused by Spy Sweeper. There have been other issues, such as, lock ups and blue screens of death. Spy Sweeper needs to tweak its software a great deal and maybe then it will not need a toolbar to sell.
As far as CounterSpy goes I can't say much about it because I haven't spent any time using it other than 1 trial install that I never paid any attention to. Although CounterSpy seems to be a bit bloated as well.
"Here's a thought, computer users should be smart enough to uncheck the option."
Mm, the most convenient excuse adware companies have been wheeling out for years as a lame excuse for pre-ticked checkboxes.
Here's a thought, why don't you pause to consider that in a multiple payload of adware, system pauses while a ton of crap downloads combined with the user frantically clicking on things to make them go away (while good old pre-ticked boxes are lurking out of sight underneath casino popups) usually results in accidental installs.
Pre-ticked boxes are the tool of Satan.
"If you cannot pay attention enough to read a screen then you're just opening yourself up to be infected."
...are you getting this from the Adware Excuse Book 101? Putting the emphasis on end users to "read screens" is all well and good, but seeing as how EULA are universally derided for being crap - especially in the field of Adware and Spyware - this second "excuse" doesn't hold much water either.
Heard it all before, sorry.
"Toolbar, eh. Ask.com toolbar isn't all that bad. MAYBE they've had problems in the past, they certainly do not now."
...."certainly", eh? That's bold of you. How could you know this for sure unless you, you know, worked for them? Got something you'd care to disclose? Because I don't understand how anyone, anywhere, could ever say something like that in relation to a specific company or product without actually knowing what's going on behind the scenes. It only takes one install to blow your claim. Just one.
"Ever consider the fact the installations are separated thus separate entries thus separate uninstalls? Oh that's right you didn't think that one through did you?"
....perhaps because we don't understand what you're typing?
"Makes me wonder you're doing for your company if you've got all this time to blogging"
.....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA LAME.
There's NOTHING finer than someone resorting to lame duck "counterpoints" involving "well, why the hell are you doing all this unimportant blogging anyway". Also smells like a desperate attempt at trying to stifle the subject at hand.
It betrays a key lack of understanding with regards both what the blog itself is trying to do - get the word out on issues relating to spyware and adware, which (last time I checked) it seemed to be doing, and also serving as a promotional tool for Sunbelt software as a whole, which - my, my - it does as well. The sunbelt blog is a highly respected and valuable source of information on all things spyware. It articulates issues and alerts the community at large.
"and more importantly installing your competitor’s trial software."
....AKA, more importantly stop writing about webroot immediately! Sorry man, but please don't assume your lack of interest in a topic automatically means nobody else is either. It's just coming over - once more - as if you have some not-very-well-hidden vested interest in the discussion here.
Lots of people have written about this, and I nearly blogged it up before Alex did. I can only assume you'd have turned up on my blog and said the same (lame) things?
"Perhaps a CEO should work on his own company instead."
...oh my, more HAHAHAs. Here was me thinking building up a blog from scratch thats now used as a news source, information tool and method of shutting down hackers and scams - with a great big sunbelt software logo at the top - was INDEED "working on your own company".
Clearly, there's a lot here you just don't get.
"Again, maybe you should get your ship right before trying to bomb competition that is clearly out of your league. Or does not sneak into your pathetic blog bad about other companies marketing scheme?"
....I'm just going to come right out with it. Do you work for Webroot?
> "Xavier Saint" opined:
>
> Here's a thought, computer users should be smart enough to uncheck the option.
Interesting how the self appointed "Saint" entirely skips the ethical question about opting people in to stuff they didn't ask for in the first place. Instead he offers the flimsy "blame the victim" excuse malware peddlers and spammers love to bring in and throws in the assertion that those who did not uncheck the boxes lack the intellect to do so. Of course this is an unsubstianted claim in disguise as a proven fact that does little to address the issue at hand.
> If you cannot pay attention enough to read a screen then you're just opening
> yourself up to be infected.
The interested reader may immediately spot the expression "be infected" that clearly conflicts with the attempt at defending the unsolicited installation of "goodies". This is a confirmation of the "blame the victim" attitude of the previous paragraph, as the self appointed "Saint" confirms that those goodies are not exactly kosher. But at the same time, knowing about the nature of these additions implies an amoral attitude that values revenue higher than the customer base this software is trying to reach.
> Toolbar, eh. Ask.com toolbar isn't all that bad. MAYBE they've had problems
> in the past, they certainly do not now.
Why do they not exhibit any problems anymore? Because some "Saint" says so? Or is there any evidence that would confirm this claim?
> Ever consider the fact the installations are separated thus separate entries
> thus separate uninstalls?
Where our anonymous poster pulled this " proven fact" from is unknown, because he refuses to back up his claims with evidence. Apart from that we still do not know why there are no problems with these toolbars anymore. So, as a summary, it is plain to see that the self appointed "saint" is trying to defend this practice of unsolicited installations, but lacks the arguments to counter the criticism about ethics. Instead he tries to sidetrack the discussion with ad hominem attacks and hopes he can get away with it.
> Oh that's right you didn't think that one through did you?
And yet another flimsy ad hominem attack as replacement for the lack of arguments.
> And hey Alex, maybe you should consider trying to improve your product so
> it might actually challenge Spy Sweeper as an anti-spyware product.
That silly attempt at sidetracking the discussion is entirely irrelevant to the question whether unsolicited bundles are ethical and respectful to prospective costumers.
> Makes me wonder you're doing for your company if you've got all this time to
> blogging and more importantly installing your competitor’s trial software.
> Perhaps a CEO should work on his own company instead.
The saint can continue bashing strawmen and pull ad honimem attacks all he want. All it does is make him look rather silly, because it clearly demonstrates the inability of addressing the question the outlined issue raises. Yet even worse, the "Saint" does not even see a problem here at all and firmly believes that his pointless attacks would do any good to a positive perceiption of "SpySweeper" in the public. Thankfully, the contrary is true: Now the customers can clearly see what they get in return for a payment and how much they are valued by this "company" and its associated partners.
>> "Here's a thought, computer users should be smart enough to uncheck the option."
That's another way of saying, "If the user is that dumb, they deserve to have their computer screwed up."
I really hope XSaint isn't a software publisher.
SpySweeper use to be a well respected program to have in ones armour when removing malware. Now it's more interested in money over users.
I'm afraid pre-checked or not; the bundled items should have never been included if webroot wanted to keep it's respect. Having "employee's" or "hardcore users" respond in the manner they have is very unprofessional and doesn't help webroot what so ever.
And as a matter of this blog or any blog covering this issue. If one makes security software or not, that is irrelevant.
Alex never went into great detail as he didn't need to. The image paints a thousend words regardless.
> To The Captain, Is that you Kirk?
No. Apparently there is another "TheCaptain" around (my off hours handle). That was not my comment.
> Xavier
Holy cow. I certainly hope that Xavier doesn't work for Webroot. Attacking Alex is totally uncalled for. We all know Alex and have tremendous respect for him and his accomplishments. Xavier is not in my camp and I absolutely do not agree with his comments. His statements should not even be further considered. Don't even waste your time.
This topic has gotten out of control. If anyone would like to discuss IAC's actual practices, what we actually do for advertising compliance, or to discover what I can't say publically regarding IAC's past (before my time), then I invite you to contact me directly to discuss.
-Kirk
klawrence at ask d0t com
914 826 2057
Cannot agree with Kirk Lawrence completely; Ask.com is still not white listed. They still practicing unsolicited installation;
The malicious app does not be white listed until proven to be trustworthy.
The scale is malicious-- Non malicious – can be considered to white list – white list. So I believe all the researchers agree with my scale of assessing a malicious product. So now the question to Krik, We really are interested to know where does your product fall in the above said scale?
I really appreciate the work done by Krik to improve the product.
I was going to respond, but...PG covered this well enough where I don't believe it's necessary.
Ignore Xavier, he's a Webroot employee. They routinely troll my blog. I work about 80 hours a week running a successful software company while maintaining a blog, both of which are passions of mine. I don't really care what WebRoot thinks of my blog, or my actions.
Let me say this about Ask:
Ask has had a history. That we know. But Kirk Lawrence, aka The Captain, has done an outstanding job of cleaning their act up. We have had our differences, but we respect the work they've done. and what he's done.
As for the issue of the toolbar being bundled with a product, it speaks for itself. And if you ask members of the security community, a number of whom have been in touch with me, the reaction to this move is one of surprise. If WebRoot is trying to position itself as a real security player, this type of thing is not helping. It would also help if they understood that IP numbers are tracked when visiting websites. It might help them do a better job of stealth posting.
You lot seem to making a big deal about nothing.. Must be a slow news day. Well I just wanted to let you know that ASK.com is a trustworthly and Im a loyal searcher.
I bet if this was Google you lot wouldn't even give a toss but because it's part of IAC your all up in arms.
Dan...? Have you read the comments. While the conversation has gone a bit more into the direction of IAC's specific actions, nearly everyone has stated that any opt-in installer is out of line.
If Web root had partnered with Google and this same installer was making the rounds the same people would be up here pointing out why this practice is flawed and a betrayal to your consumer base.
I don't think an opt-in installer is "out of line". It's soley up to the business what they do.
Regards,
I agree as well, its not out of line. Even with the default check boxes checked, one should have enough intelligence to simply uncheck the boxes. This is on a trial scan only version of the product as well, not one that is in the box.
With the many trials and downloads we do as a business, I often see this happening, especially with the goggle tool bar. Its always pre selected as well. However, I simply uncheck the box. Its not as if I am paying anything for the trial software, and I would assume to get targeted for ads, etc. To claim that this is devious, scandalous etc, seems to me an easy way to bad mouth a competitor in your market share.
I use Webroot products, and I also use Sunbelt, Trend and others. However, it always seems to be Sunbelt that is bashing on the competition for an edge. I really wish you would stop doing that Alex, it makes you look like a poor businessman and as my customers see it, I can't defend you.
Just my 2 digits.
You're a novice computer user trying to clean up a problem on your PC. You install web root and incorrectly believe you have to install the Ask.com offerings to utilize the trial software.
Or, you're buried beneath a pop up every five seconds and franticlly clicking next while you can see the pop up prompt.
You aren't paying attention and hit next, not recognizing that you are about to receive pre-selected software, that you did not want.
There are a host of ways for people to end up clicking on the "Next", without disabling the installation of the IAC software.
Not everyone is savvy at the PC. Not everyone understands how or why bundled installs exist. To make a blanket statement of "They should know better." Isn't fair.
Not every PC user has the same level of technical knowledge as those of us who read this blog.
Offering a bundled install is fine. Offering a bundled install that already has you opting in, is not. Allowing customers to actively choose what they want, instead of having to actively choose what they do not want, is a world of difference.
And this applies to all installers. I disagree with opt in, period. A company should respect its customers.
"John", "Leon", "Dan",
First, I'm glad to see that WebRoot employees are getting better about using anonymous proxies to post -- unlike Xavier Saint.
John -- you posted from IP number 200.83.4.5, a known IP number used to anonymize (and incidentally, a known spam IP).
Leon, Dan, you're both posting from IP 91.104.155.152. This is more than coincidental, as it is an anonymizing IP also used by spammers.
To surf competitors sites, planting fake comments, while doing such a pathetic job of covering your tracks, truly speaks not only to your incompetence with even basic security, but incredibly poor ethics. Please just stop reading my blog if it upsets you so much.
Alex
OMG CAN U READ TEH EMAIL HEADERS 2!!!!!!11111 RESEARCH FTW!!!!!1111
You guys are awesome!
l33tness posts from IP
209.120.188.68
And it's Justin Bertman, Webroot manager of threat research!
http://www.linkedin.com/in/jbertman
My New Bestest Friend Ever (next to RedsMnMs)!
Alex
As I recalled, many of us beat up on Adobe when they included the Yahoo Toolbar along with Flash.
I don't remember anyone from Adobe taking it personally and in the end they saw that it was the wrong thing to do.
Bill
As a guy on the front lines cleaning the computers, I'll just say that I tried SpySweeper once, about three years ago.
I think Kirk is missing the main point though: opt-in is good, default to install is bad, regardless of other issues.
I remember a year or two ago Java or something equally ubiquitous was bundling Google Toolbar and Desktop Search - the toolbar was default to install and the desktop search was opt-in, as I recall.
Nobody made a fuss then. But then I for one considered Google Toolbar a Critical Update to IE 6 for a loooong time ...
Wow, 14 pages of employees if you click on the company name under the Experience section.
Surprised to see a couple good people I didn't know were in Denver. That leads me to believe this decision isn't supported by everyone in the company.
Interesting to find that I'm linked to all 140 employees by 3 degrees of separation or less.
Bill
Was wondering what the ip logs would reveal as I read down the comments.
My IP address is not an anonymizing IP, and is most certianly not used by spammers, as you put it.
Siteowner: Ok, it was (and I believe still is) on Sorbs. "John Harpner's" is certainly quite prolific: http://www.google.com/search?hl=...4.5&
btnG=Search If you're not a WebRoot employee or an IAC shill, let me know
Edited By Siteowner
my Dislike of toolbars is total i dont use them and i dont like them i have always believed they leave a hole for trouble to enter your system,
To see a pre clicked toolbar funtion on software annoys the hell out of me How Dare they assume i want their Toolbar,
Allow End users to choose by leaving the Box Unchecked
Once again I am disappointed. No one seems to remember that Webroot was not built on the back of Spy Sweeper. I guarantee you Webroot will be around longer than your sorry excuse for a sales promotion.
* An EULA is a legally binding agreement that ALL users should be reading before mindlessly agreeing to.
* I assume you all understand that when you purchase a car you pay cold hard cash (eventually) for your purchase. Do you also buy everything the dealer recommends, or do you pay attention to the salesman and opt out when you are prompted to opt in?
* The fact of the matter remains that we are a capitalist republic. Therefore, you truly can't fault a business when a clearly posted install message, which you CAN opt out of, is tossed aside by lazy users who refuses to read the BOLD print.
Would you ignore such a screen during an install? That is like running through the clearly visible orange construction cones and signs then hitting a dump truck. I assume any one who is willing to argue this down would also be willing to sue the construction company because they were building during rush hour. Therefore, you aren't worth my time.
BTW the few hours that ASK holds a user's information is nothing compared to the 18 months that Google does.
Compare the evils, no Business is a Saint!
RedsMnMs: I appreciate your post and that you are posting behind a real IP.
So, is this now WebRoot's official position?
Alex
"Once again I am disappointed. No one seems to remember that Webroot was not built on the back of Spy Sweeper. I guarantee you Webroot will be around longer than your sorry excuse for a sales promotion."
...are we now to assume that regardless of what back it was built on, it now RUNS on employees making lame digs, not-very-anonymous troll posts and poor excuses?
The people posting on here taking cheap shots are hardly representative of anything I'd associate with good branding practice and a general desire to make the best of the companies reputation.
"* An EULA is a legally binding agreement that ALL users should be reading before mindlessly agreeing to."
...round and round we go. EULAs suck and have a LONG way to go before they approach anything resembling common sense, certainly in the field of adware and spyware. I've seen installers with thousands upon thousands of words and then links to 4 or 5 seperate pages containing MORE agreements, installers that pop 4 EULAs in a row (all of which contradict the others), EULAs that tell you to "f*ck off", EULAs that refer to programs that aren't actually being installed, EULAs that use a level of not-very-plain English that would confuse a lawyer and much more besides...and that's when a EULA is actually presented in the first place, of course. Which leads nicely into...
"Therefore, you truly can't fault a business when a clearly posted install message, which you CAN opt out of, is tossed aside by lazy users who refuses to read the BOLD print."
Nice assumptions that people who get hit with spurious installs they didn't want are "lazy", "mindless" and whatever else you care to hurl at them. I can guess where this is going...
"Would you ignore such a screen during an install? That is like running through the clearly visible orange construction cones and signs then hitting a dump truck. I assume any one who is willing to argue this down would also be willing to sue the construction company because they were building during rush hour."
....I don't really see the similarity between dump trucks and construction companies and the source of the main frustration with pre-ticked checkboxes, which would be multiple install bundles that pop adverts and installer propts galore, many of which happen to be pre-ticked and so half the time those pre-ticked programs are installed while hidden under a deluge of garbage while the hijacked user is trying to shut everything down.
Pre-ticked boxes make it all too easy to install something via devious and malicious means. For example, if I sign up to an (otherwise legit) affiliate install program - say, a toolbar - and then distribute it via IM with, say, a clicker trojan (that automatically starts hitting "OK" to everything on the desktop after install, then that wonderful pre-ticked program is going to be given the green light to install with the end-user being given absolutely NO say in the matter.
"Therefore, you aren't worth my time."
You're very high handed, considering you're completely and utterly wrong.
While Alex takes the higher approach, I think I'm going to play with what was said here.
1. A five minute Google search proves EULA's are NOT binding contracts. My research is far from complete, but it seems as if EULA being enforced as a binding contract is still dependent upon the court you happen to be in and the circumstances surrounding that case.
2. When I purchase a car I am not watching my current car explode, a man kidnap my mother in it for ransom, or someone taking the plates off of my car and racing off down the street.
Yes, my examples are ridiculous but so are yours. There is no comparison to reading and understanding a EULA (in some cases while your computer is infected and going crazy) to purchasing a car.
Last time I purchased my car, the contract language was straight forward and it was quite easy to read.
EULA's are often presented in small windows, without a way to print them, and use confusing/contradicting language. Make a more accurate comparison next time.
3. You assume all users are computer savvy and NOT under duress. I can and WILL blame you for questionable business tactics, NOT your victims.
If the end user is always smart enough to catch and remove what they don't want, then ALL of those users clamoring for your product will catch AND check that box to get what they DO want. So, why not leave the boxes unchecked and avoid this kind of bad publicity?
Again, pick proper comparisons. Orange construction cones are something,nearly, everyone understands. There is a marked difference between the comparison you're trying to make and the reality of the situation.
Lastly, if we aren't worth your time, why are you here again?
Dammit, you beat me to it PG :P
Eula's have time and again been proved to be misleading misguided and mistaken,
they have also been proved to be outright con jobs excuses for dubious installs,
Why would any End user in their right mind trust a EULA from a company with a vested interest in installing software on their System they simply don't Require...
Another sock puppet called "RedsMnMs" entered the arena:
>
> No one seems to remember that Webroot was not built on the back of Spy
> Sweeper.
Maybe that is because its history is entirely irrelevant in this context.
> I guarantee you Webroot will be around longer than your sorry
> excuse for a sales promotion.
As there was no promotion for any product in this article, this prediction should not be too hard to accomplish.
> * An EULA is a legally binding agreement that ALL users should be reading
> before mindlessly agreeing to.
I find that "mindlessly agreeing to" remark very telling. This assumption of "mindless" customers is also well reflected in the "opt-out" process that is required for avoiding the installation of unwanted add-ons.
> * I assume you all understand that when you purchase a car you pay cold hard
> cash (eventually) for your purchase. Do you also buy everything the dealer
> recommends, or do you pay attention to the salesman and opt out when you are
> prompted to opt in?
I'm not clear about the purpose of this comparison, other than sidetracking the discussion with irrelevancies. Contrary to a software purchase, you pay for your car only *after* you have read and signed the contract. The follow up question does not parse to anything meaningful due to its ill-formed logical syntax, but from what I can gather it is both "begging a question" (=> like "are you still beating your wife") and a false dichotomy, that is pretending that there are merely two options to choose from, when in fact there are many more. Whatever it meant to say is not relevant as the initial premise "installing software equates to purchasing a car" has already been proven wrong.
> * The fact of the matter remains that we are a capitalist republic.
> Therefore, you truly can't fault a business when a clearly posted install
> message, which you CAN opt out of, is tossed aside by lazy users who refuses
> to read the BOLD print.
I assume the author is referring to the United States as "capitalist republic". According to Wikipedia, however, this definition is clearly wrong:
"The United States of America is a federal constitutional republic comprising fifty states and a federal district."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uni...i/
United_States
Additionally this paragraph contains a non sequitur: The question whether or not an installation message is legally binding is not a consequence of the form of government but the state's *legislation* regarding that matter. More interesting here is the reappearance of the "blame the victim" game, this time attributed as laziness. And still the Webroot sock puppet du jour cannot find anything wrong with opting people in to stuff they did not ask for in the first place.
> Would you ignore such a screen during an install? That is like running
> through the clearly visible orange construction cones and signs then
> hitting a dump truck.
That is another silly comparison, because it assumes that unwanted goodies are clearly visible as annoyance or hazard. But it is interesting to see this comparison in context with Webroot applications, in particular with the course of this discussion in one's mind. I take it as a clear recommendation against these products, because people have to be afraid of unwanted side effects if they don't pay close attention.
> I assume any one who is willing to argue this down would also be willing
> to sue the construction company because they were building during rush hour.
That is another non sequitur, because ignoring warning signs on a construction site and the rush hour in itself are not connected with each other. The same applies to the connection between the construction site and this discussion. Evidently there are people who both pay attention to warning signs and are willing to defeat this nonsensical argumentation presented by Webroot employees, which clearly invalidates this daring assumption.
> Therefore, you aren't worth my time.
Considering the army of sock puppets trying hard to defend their position it seems quite the contrary is true and that Webroot employees have a hard time of accepting positions that are contrary to theirs.
As a customer (though not of Sunbelt or Webroot) I believe that if Webroot wants to bundle other software packages with their product they are within their rights. However, by making the bundled software installed by default it leaves a bad taste in one's mouth and is not likely to gain a customer's confidence.
Making comments to a blog under pseudonyms (assuming that is true) and not very intelligent or constructive ones at that makes Webroot even more distasteful and untrustworthy.
I thank Alex for aiding me in my decision for when/if I replace ZoneAlarm, it will not be Webroot's software.
Most of the honorable employee's left Webroot long ago. Before all this crap.
If I am looking for a security product that is supposed to help clean up or at least tell me what is wrong with my "going crazy adware/junkware infested PC" the LAST thing I would need is ANOTHER already opted in add-on or toolbar.
HUH?
I'm looking for a couple security programs to fix my PC and protect it -- not a search toolbar. :|
While infected with all these popup generators, auto-downloaders, clickers, IE pages opening to unmentionable sites, re-directs and so on... the less extra buttons I have to click, EULAs to read through for extra added apps that come bundled with that I have to try to understand and except (or not) all while fighting the popups the better.
Most security comapnies KNOW that many users will click through anything without a thought.
(Sad but true-- this is one thing that helps security companies stay in business)
Users that are in a panic with their gackware ridden PC are not going to bother trying to uncheck "extra" things or read through "extra" EULAs while trying to install a security app that is SUPPOSED to be trusted not to install "other stuff".
JMO
Now brand new PCs are shipping with trial versions of Spy Sweeper which include the handy dandy Ask toolbar. I removed both from a Compaq PC that I pulled out of the box today.
I normally try and stay out of things like this however I have to ask this of the webroot staff.
lets assume you have children or a little brother or sister at home surfing the web. They find a website that allows them to create a "myspace" style profile, they love it and register.
Now what if there was tick box (pre-ticked) saying that as well as creating their profile they were also ok with passing their details on to a know paedophile ring, but dont worry cos there was a 150 page long EULA saying that this is the case.
Now assume that this check box came on the page 17 of a 57 page installation process.
You still think your kids/brothers/sisters would notice it and untick it? or are they lazy mindless morons too?
KiD why are you ranting here, email Webroot and see the reply.
Chris
Here the official position of my security forum.
Due to the default (pre-checked) opt-in of the Ask Toolbar and Search Assistant in SpySweeper, we don't provide support issues for SpySweeper anymore.
Current topics about the program are locked.
We are the opinion that such default pre-checked opt-ins don't belong in a securitiy related program, and this is an objectionable move by Webroot.
Smokey
Site Owner Smokey's Security Forums
What in the world is the Search Assinet? Also, it would be better if Webroot bundled the Yahoo toolbar with it...
Commenting by HaloScan
