These guys will infect your computer with pop-up windows, then charge you money to clean it up. They claim there is no law against this practice.
Tek-Tips is the largest IT community on the Internet today!
Members share and learn making Tek-Tips Forums the best source of peer-reviewed technical information on the Internet!
-
Congratulations IamaSherpa on being selected by the Tek-Tips community for having the most helpful posts in the forums last week. Way to Go!
The SPY ACT (Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass)
- Thread starter Dimandja
- Start date
Is it just me or do people just assume that once they buy a pc that no other maintanence is required? No need to do a little research on what's good for the pc and what isn't?
It would be like purchasing a vehicle and then wondering why the car has trouble when you don't take it in for an oil change. Or all of a sudden being shocked why your unleaded car isn't working because you put deisel in because some ad by a diesel vendor said you should. (I hope I got that analogy right? lol)
Augh!!!!!!!!!!
It would be like purchasing a vehicle and then wondering why the car has trouble when you don't take it in for an oil change. Or all of a sudden being shocked why your unleaded car isn't working because you put deisel in because some ad by a diesel vendor said you should. (I hope I got that analogy right? lol)
Augh!!!!!!!!!!
Interesting analogy. Except for the fact that, as soon as you start trying to explain to those people what the issues are, either their mind goes blank, or they start arguing about how they're not supposed to become a mechanic to drive a car.
To drive it ? No. But you have to at least know something about checking the oil if you want to keep it.
Somehow, I can't help but consider all this as a real-life example of Darwinian evolution. Those who purchase a PC and cannot be bothered to use their brains will inevitably become part of the waste, a group of people who cannot do anything without being constantly interrupted an annoyed. The Internet is going to learn to screen out infected and spam-sending PCs, and those who cannot learn how to defend themselves from such malware will be excluded until they do learn.
As for passing laws, let them. Until the ISPs and routers can effectively deal with the junk, any law will just be electoral flotsam.
Pascal.
To drive it ? No. But you have to at least know something about checking the oil if you want to keep it.
Somehow, I can't help but consider all this as a real-life example of Darwinian evolution. Those who purchase a PC and cannot be bothered to use their brains will inevitably become part of the waste, a group of people who cannot do anything without being constantly interrupted an annoyed. The Internet is going to learn to screen out infected and spam-sending PCs, and those who cannot learn how to defend themselves from such malware will be excluded until they do learn.
As for passing laws, let them. Until the ISPs and routers can effectively deal with the junk, any law will just be electoral flotsam.
Pascal.
MasterRacker
New member
I use the car analogy a lot too. My version is that you have to at least know that oil and gas are different and go into different holes. There's a brake pedal and an accellerator and they are used for different things at different times. How many other controls are on the dash? No driver just starts turning knobs and pushing buttons at random.
The car analogy is a very good one. Certain basic knowledge is required to operate a car or a computer safely and reliably. I too and totally confused by those who don't think they should be able to operate a computer without learning at least something.
Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...
The car analogy is a very good one. Certain basic knowledge is required to operate a car or a computer safely and reliably. I too and totally confused by those who don't think they should be able to operate a computer without learning at least something.
Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...
- Thread starter
- #7
This car analogy does not fit the events described in the article at all. I think you guys are referring to a completely different thread.
The car analogy that would fit this this thread is having someone surreptitiously get into your garage at night, disable your car, and leave a note asking you to go to his garage to have it fixed for a price.
The car analogy that would fit this this thread is having someone surreptitiously get into your garage at night, disable your car, and leave a note asking you to go to his garage to have it fixed for a price.
MasterRacker
New member
Dimanja,
Your analogy is incomplete. Add to it leaving the garage door open, car unlocked, hood up, etc. and having someone come in and disabling it.
Onyx, Pascal and I are saying that there are precautions that can be taken to make this type of thing much more difficult, but many people just can't seem to be bothered to learn them or take them.
Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...
Your analogy is incomplete. Add to it leaving the garage door open, car unlocked, hood up, etc. and having someone come in and disabling it.
Onyx, Pascal and I are saying that there are precautions that can be taken to make this type of thing much more difficult, but many people just can't seem to be bothered to learn them or take them.
Jeff
The future is already here - it's just not widely distributed yet...
- Thread starter
- #9
The point of this article is not about leaving your PC unprotected.
The point is about a company that breaks into your PC (protected or not), is doing so in order to extort money from you the victim.
Extortion is the point here. Whether your PC is protected or not is not the issue. By the way, protected PCs do get broken into.
The point is about a company that breaks into your PC (protected or not), is doing so in order to extort money from you the victim.
Extortion is the point here. Whether your PC is protected or not is not the issue. By the way, protected PCs do get broken into.
Okay, how about this? It's like an alarm company representative you signed up with that you found in a dark alley (rather than checking BBB or ask a friend for a referral) and then get angry two days later how someone got into your house to break everything in it.
Dimandja,
So the article does not mention protecting their PCs ? That does not prevent the fact that if the infected users had taken a minimum of precautions, their PC would not have been infected in the first place.
Thus, the car analogy seems perfectly fitting.
Pascal.
So the article does not mention protecting their PCs ? That does not prevent the fact that if the infected users had taken a minimum of precautions, their PC would not have been infected in the first place.
Thus, the car analogy seems perfectly fitting.
Pascal.
- Thread starter
- #12
The article is quite simply about a former spanked spammer (Spamford Wallace) who decided to turn to spyware for profit. Whether you have your computer protected or not isn't the point, the point is what this guy is doing: invading your computer (firewall or not) then selling his scumware, Spy Wiper/Deleter (that installs more spyware) to you to "get rid" of the "spyware".
Spyware happens to the best of us unless we're equipped with a hardware firewall. Software firewalls just don't cut it anymore, too many people click past the warnings. Without disabling your browser to the point of not browsing, staying safe from spyware can be pretty tricky.
A quick google shows many, many, many pages discussing what this software does, and it's been in the FTC's line of sight for at least 6 months.
I'm glad they're finally going after someone. Spamford can't seem to figure out how to scam people and not get caught, and I'm thrilled that he's caught again!
Spyware happens to the best of us unless we're equipped with a hardware firewall. Software firewalls just don't cut it anymore, too many people click past the warnings. Without disabling your browser to the point of not browsing, staying safe from spyware can be pretty tricky.
A quick google shows many, many, many pages discussing what this software does, and it's been in the FTC's line of sight for at least 6 months.
I'm glad they're finally going after someone. Spamford can't seem to figure out how to scam people and not get caught, and I'm thrilled that he's caught again!
lionelhill
Technical User
This idea that it's OK to be horrible to people if they haven't defended themselves is totally unacceptable. It only seems to apply to computers. To continue the car analogy, insurance companies may not have much sympathy with those whose cars are stolen because they left the key in the ignition, BUT, we still prosecute the thief if we catch him!
On the subject of victims who might have been able to defend themselves better, look at it the other way: If you don't want to be the "victim" of federal attempts to nobble you for being nasty to computer owners, you don't have to be nasty to computer owners. Ethics and the law are two different things, but do tend to be related. If you do something unethical, don't be surprised if it turns out not to be legal.
On the subject of victims who might have been able to defend themselves better, look at it the other way: If you don't want to be the "victim" of federal attempts to nobble you for being nasty to computer owners, you don't have to be nasty to computer owners. Ethics and the law are two different things, but do tend to be related. If you do something unethical, don't be surprised if it turns out not to be legal.
You're right, it is unethical and people should be punished for doing this. However, perhaps it wouldn't happen as often if people informed themselves. If you just punish the bad guy, people may become completely dependent upon the law to stop this.
I don't think anybody here said or even implied that it is OK to infect a PC if the owner didn't defend himself.
I do think that pointing out the fact that said infection would not happen if people used a minimal amount of precautions is a valid remark.
As for the scumbags that try to take over anything without the victims consent, I am all for prosecuting them to the maximum extent of the law.
However I would like to point out that getting yourself attacked in the street by a gangster intent on taking your money/phone/car keys is very different from getting your PC hacked.
It is easy to defend oneself from the latter, and quite difficult (and possibly dangerous) to defend oneself from the former.
Saying that does not mean that I root for the gangsters.
Pascal.
I do think that pointing out the fact that said infection would not happen if people used a minimal amount of precautions is a valid remark.
As for the scumbags that try to take over anything without the victims consent, I am all for prosecuting them to the maximum extent of the law.
However I would like to point out that getting yourself attacked in the street by a gangster intent on taking your money/phone/car keys is very different from getting your PC hacked.
It is easy to defend oneself from the latter, and quite difficult (and possibly dangerous) to defend oneself from the former.
Saying that does not mean that I root for the gangsters.
Pascal.
lionelhill
Technical User
I think the Gangster analogy is quite an interesting one, too. This thread, in this forum, is a bit like a thread on "walking alone in rough areas of town" posted in a forum for personal minders, security guards and police! Of course people here think private individuals are very silly in not having better and more expensive protection. The development, sale, and implementation of computer security is a large part of the job of a large proportion of those who post here.
The fact remains that just as people should (ideally) be able to walk home at night through a rough bit of town without getting robbed (and criticised for being stupid enough to get themselves robbed!), people should be able to buy a PC from their local PC supplier with a view to using the internet, turn on, and surf, without getting cyber-mugged. At least that's something to aim for.
The fact remains that just as people should (ideally) be able to walk home at night through a rough bit of town without getting robbed (and criticised for being stupid enough to get themselves robbed!), people should be able to buy a PC from their local PC supplier with a view to using the internet, turn on, and surf, without getting cyber-mugged. At least that's something to aim for.
- Status
Similar threads