SpyWare - Good to go?
I absolutely couldn't let some news I came across today pass without comment. There was a very interesting Wired article about how some people are essentially saying that SpyWare/AdWare is a fair trade off for free software. Hmmm, interesting perspective as I can appreciate the value of free software. I actually use many freeware applications in my day to day computing exercises. Some of them are very, very good. Oh, for the record, I realize and acknowledge that there is a difference between true AdWare and SpyWare. My issue lies in just how blurry the line is between these two categories of software. I'll leave it to you to decide for yourself how to classify the various software available.
Now, the big question I asked myself is, "Would I knowingly install a piece of software, containing SpyWare or AdWare, on my computer just so I could use the application?". Well, I've tried a ton of software in my lifetime. I've been computing since I was about 6 years old (or so). So that puts me in the range of a little over 20 years of experience with various applications/platforms, etc. In that time, I can't think of a single software application that was so absolutely "must have" that I would have traded my privacy (at the very least) and productivity to use it.
Now you may say, well, "As long as we're warned about it then it's not a big deal because we know about it and we're making a conscious decision to install it.". Ok, sure, I can buy the - you've been warned, the rest is up to you argument. To a degree this is true and I encourage everyone to read the license / privacy agreements that are available. However, when do you draw the line? Try actually consuming the license agreements that are bundled with the well known Grokster application... approximately 398 pages of text. Honestly, even if you have the time to read this kind of license agreement, can you honestly expect NOT to find something in those pages that you ARE NOT in agreement with? I'll lean towards my rejection of the license agreement in this case. What's worse is the software publisher is abusing our sensibilities by overwhelming potential users with so much documentation that inevitably the average use will simply click the "Ok" button and continue with the installation. Trust me, there are some seriously heinous clauses in the license agreement that you would NOT agree to if you able to actually read it all, and perhaps more importantly, could make sense of the terribly complex legalese that seems to plague virtually all license agreements. Anyone have a legal --> english translator? :)
Alright, rant complete. Bottom line - we live in a world of choice. So, why in the world would you settle for an application, loaded with SpyWare and/or AdWare simply because it's "free". Maybe you should define your version of free very, very carefully before installing that next software download. What are we saying by endorsing software developers/publishers who fill our computers with crap, especially the subversive garbage they add-on to try and justify you getting the software for free. Doesn't bode well for future software choices. Say no to SpyWare and AdWare and support the truly free software choices available. They are out there, you may have to look a little harder, but it's worth it. And hey, if you can't find one, maybe you can create one and share it with the rest of the world.
Reminds me of that cheeky catchphrase in Hackers - Hack The Planet!
Rock on and compute safely.
-- Riker --
Now, the big question I asked myself is, "Would I knowingly install a piece of software, containing SpyWare or AdWare, on my computer just so I could use the application?". Well, I've tried a ton of software in my lifetime. I've been computing since I was about 6 years old (or so). So that puts me in the range of a little over 20 years of experience with various applications/platforms, etc. In that time, I can't think of a single software application that was so absolutely "must have" that I would have traded my privacy (at the very least) and productivity to use it.
Now you may say, well, "As long as we're warned about it then it's not a big deal because we know about it and we're making a conscious decision to install it.". Ok, sure, I can buy the - you've been warned, the rest is up to you argument. To a degree this is true and I encourage everyone to read the license / privacy agreements that are available. However, when do you draw the line? Try actually consuming the license agreements that are bundled with the well known Grokster application... approximately 398 pages of text. Honestly, even if you have the time to read this kind of license agreement, can you honestly expect NOT to find something in those pages that you ARE NOT in agreement with? I'll lean towards my rejection of the license agreement in this case. What's worse is the software publisher is abusing our sensibilities by overwhelming potential users with so much documentation that inevitably the average use will simply click the "Ok" button and continue with the installation. Trust me, there are some seriously heinous clauses in the license agreement that you would NOT agree to if you able to actually read it all, and perhaps more importantly, could make sense of the terribly complex legalese that seems to plague virtually all license agreements. Anyone have a legal --> english translator? :)
Alright, rant complete. Bottom line - we live in a world of choice. So, why in the world would you settle for an application, loaded with SpyWare and/or AdWare simply because it's "free". Maybe you should define your version of free very, very carefully before installing that next software download. What are we saying by endorsing software developers/publishers who fill our computers with crap, especially the subversive garbage they add-on to try and justify you getting the software for free. Doesn't bode well for future software choices. Say no to SpyWare and AdWare and support the truly free software choices available. They are out there, you may have to look a little harder, but it's worth it. And hey, if you can't find one, maybe you can create one and share it with the rest of the world.
Reminds me of that cheeky catchphrase in Hackers - Hack The Planet!
Rock on and compute safely.
-- Riker --
posted by CT @ 1:59 AM
3 Comments:
At 10:12 AM,
Daniel E. Dumond said…
People are well accustomed to the concept of ads subsidizing services and products that they use.
Newspapers and magazines keep the price of their publications down by publishing ads. Would you pay $300 for a Maxim? Depends who's on the cover I guess.
Many free publications are made possible through advertizing. Radio provides free music and news if you can put up with the ads. If you pay for some music services, you can get them ad free. Television is probably the greatest example of how people will subject themselves to ads.
You can argue that VCRs, DVD recorders and Tivo will make TV ads obsolete. Yeah, like the cassette recorder made radio ads disappear...
People will always be willing to trade some of their sensory attention to access a convenient product or service.
At 2:35 PM,
Daniel E. Dumond said…
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
At 5:27 PM,
Daniel E. Dumond said…
All right there poony, so I was exaggerating a bit on the cost of a magazine without ads. Also, poony proves riker’s point about making the distinction between adware and spyware. By the way, some subscription publications openly distribute their member information to direct marketers. So, if you were to subscribe to a parenting magazine, for example, you would start receiving a ton of junk mail about baby products and child life insurance. So in a way, I guess there is a privacy trade-off that is similar to spyware, although arguably not as “in-your-face”.
The point is not necessarily that it would be cost prohibitive for end users to access products and services ad-free. The point is that when given the choice between a free/low cost alternative subsidized by ads and a more expensive ad-free equivalent, a large portion of the population will chose the former. It is not a secret that the adware actually does provoke enough people to buy the advertiser’s product to make the ads profitable. If people stopped buying stuff from adware based advertisements, either through effective blocking of the ads, boycott, etc., we would see either of the following scenarios:
1. Advertisers stop placing ads with adware products and give up
2. Advertisers start placing even more ads with even more products in an attempt to offset the reduced returns on investment
Based on the growing SPAM statistics, I would place my bets on number 2. The more you try to stop them, the more aggressive and sneaky they will get.
doze bastids.
Post a Comment
<< Home