Re: iDownload/iSearch responds to Spyware Critics

[bkfsec <bkfsec () sdf lonestar org>]

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