Paul Laudanski wrote:
Slashdot ran two stories earlier on how iDownload/iSearch sent letters to
anti-spyware companies/websites telling them to [
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/1830243&from=rss ] stop
listing their brand as spyware or malware. The spyware critics [
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/0229222&from=rss ]
responded back indicating they do not agree with iDownload's assertions.
iDownload has now responded back to the spyware critics. Two sites to
date received replies, read [
http://castlecops.com/article-5793-nested-0-0.html ] CastleCops and [
http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/idownloads-response-to-sunbelt.html
] Sunbelt Software for details. Other sources picked up this story
including [
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=615884
] The Independent, [ http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/60608 ]
Broadbandreports, [ http://castlecops.com/article5772.html ] Robin, and
ZDNet Blog [ http://blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/index.php?p=28 ] Spyware
Confidential.
What's truly interesting is that the legal counsel for iDownload/iSearch
indicates that there is a "lively debate" going on on the internet about
whether or not their program is spyware or not.
Maybe I'm not looking in the same places, but I have never seen any
debate regarding the classification of these programs, at least not a
lively one.
As for my own experience, I've witnessed iSearch/iDownload packages
being installed on systems during adware/spyware infestations. Only one
conclusion can be gained from that: You guys are on the right side of
this argument and these people need to be opposed.
Their assertions are laughable.
-Barry
_______________________________________________
Full-Disclosure - We believe in it.
Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html
Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://www.secunia.com/
