Anty Spywear

  • Thread starter Thread starter rgspops
  • Start date Start date
this functionality (cookie scanning) isn't functional in the beta builds
distributed so far. It may appear in a later beta version.
 
good to know ... i wonder why MS didnt bother to highlight this in the UI
(somewhere).

here is what a simple user tried to do:

"i was wondering how Microsoft Spyware will compare to Adaware ... i
installed both ran both, Adware found tons of cookies, MS nothing. not
finding the information in the UI on how to control Cookies scanning and the
fact nothing in the UI suggests there is cookies scanning i made the simple
conclution - Adaware knowns what they are doing, Microsoft has no clue ...
Microsoft bought again the wrong technology"

hearing that its something in the works gives hope but for god sake, why
isnt this information being placed in an obviuse location? i am sure many
more people did the same test as i did ... stop shooting yourself in the
foot Microsoft.
 
We get about 3 posts a day in these groups with a similar "test result." My
impression is that they have a genuine techno-political issue with cookie
removal. The Giant product had the feature, and UI related to it is still
present in the beta product.

Microsoft isn't against ad-supported software. Neither are most users, as
long as there are some clear rules adhered to--for example, many folks are
just fine with the free version of Eudora. I don't know anyone who would
label that product as spyware--although folks definitely label Gmail as
spyware!

From there on out it gets fuzzier. The current versions of some "old-line"
spyware apps are getting pretty clear in their eulas, display a clear notice
in the window border about the source of the popups, and are generally
"honest" about their purpose and effect. Can Microsoft justify removing an
app which does nothing in an underhanded fashion and is removable by the
user without jumping through special hoops? Is the fact that the software
has no useful purpose other than displaying ads sufficient to justify
listing it in Microsoft Antispyware? What would a judge or jury say?

I think some such set of considerations is what is being worked out---it
wouldn't surprise me if the same cookie providers were used by both spyware
and legitimate applications--I doubt that this is an easy area to get right.

The most popular providers of cookie removal services, at the moment, are
both located in places where the legal system is less easily manipulated by
the spyware vendors.
 
See comment in-line.

Gr. Jan

Bill Sanderson said:
We get about 3 posts a day in these groups with a similar "test result."
My impression is that they have a genuine techno-political issue with
cookie removal. The Giant product had the feature, and UI related to it
is still present in the beta product.

Microsoft isn't against ad-supported software. Neither are most users, as
long as there are some clear rules adhered to--for example, many folks are
just fine with the free version of Eudora. I don't know anyone who would
label that product as spyware--although folks definitely label Gmail as
spyware!

From there on out it gets fuzzier. The current versions of some
"old-line" spyware apps are getting pretty clear in their eulas, display a
clear notice in the window border about the source of the popups, and are
generally "honest" about their purpose and effect. Can Microsoft justify
removing an app which does nothing in an underhanded fashion and is
removable by the user without jumping through special hoops?
Click to expand...
Is the fact that the software has no useful purpose other than displaying
ads sufficient to justify listing it in Microsoft Antispyware? What would
a judge or jury say?
Click to expand...

I would prefer that!
One checkbox to block all ads or when unchecked a checklist of the ads I
want.
I have that dream.....
 
OldBoy said:
I would prefer that!
One checkbox to block all ads or when unchecked a checklist of the ads I
want.
I have that dream.....
Click to expand...
How will you ever know what ads you want if you don't see them? <G>

I can understand wanting this--I'd probably like it too. However, I don't
think Microsoft can provide it. They are definitely using ad revenue
themselves to fund some of their development work--I suspect that work done
under the "MSN" division of the company all has a model of being at least
partially supported by ad revenue. Additionally, given their dominence in
the market, if they provided such a mechanism, I think there'd be a major
fuss in the courts---worldwide. I suspect that European corporations feel
the need to advertise just as much as American ones, and that neither would
be pleased.
 
Bill said:
I can understand wanting this--I'd probably like it too. However, I don't
think Microsoft can provide it. They are definitely using ad revenue
themselves to fund some of their development work--I suspect that work done
under the "MSN" division of the company all has a model of being at least
partially supported by ad revenue. Additionally, given their dominence in
the market, if they provided such a mechanism, I think there'd be a major
fuss in the courts---worldwide. I suspect that European corporations feel
the need to advertise just as much as American ones, and that neither would
be pleased.
Click to expand...

MSN is a problem and MSN are worldwide (MSN i every country
in Europe), beacuse of IE MSN have a advantage over other
advertiser and for sure they are trying to
make their commercials visible in the same way as MSN with
links and toolbars.

So MSN is a problem, I think it was 1995 when MS tried to
rule the world with MSN network.

Now when MS also getting into this antispyware business this
scenario can be really
scary if MS wants to control this with MSAS to benefit
themselves...............

We have within this Beta also noticed other interrests as
removing p2p apps and
disable of Giants cookie scan within MSAS.

Next scenario is also scaring if for example Lavasoft and
Spybot no longer can
make any profits out of their software, we then stands with
MSAS and nothing.

And about signatures I think this is ridiculous to not
showing them beacuse that
every company wich produce toolbars, links and even spyware
tests this daily and
they will for sure protest if they dont like MSAS removing
their software.
 
Bill Sanderson said:
How will you ever know what ads you want if you don't see them? <G>

I can understand wanting this--I'd probably like it too. However, I don't
think Microsoft can provide it. They are definitely using ad revenue
themselves to fund some of their development work--I suspect that work
done under the "MSN" division of the company all has a model of being at
least partially supported by ad revenue. Additionally, given their
dominence in the market, if they provided such a mechanism, I think
there'd be a major fuss in the courts---worldwide. I suspect that
European corporations feel the need to advertise just as much as American
ones, and that neither would be pleased.
Click to expand...
I believe European (EU) legislation tends to the opt-in option. It's however
a long and slow process:)
IE6's pop-upblocker comes to my rescue.....

Gr. Jan
 
OldBoy said:
I believe European (EU) legislation tends to the opt-in option. It's
however a long and slow process:)
IE6's pop-upblocker comes to my rescue.....
Click to expand...
The pop-up blocker doesn't stop ads that are part of the UI of the program
itself--such as those in Eudora, or MSN Messenger. I think we are going to
see more ads over time. Let's hope for creative solutions from
third-parties.
 
Back
Top