3 ms·

I'm trying to be a better actor on this site, I'm sorry for the "Why are you lying?" comment. I deleted it because it completely undermines my argument, you're

by dimino 11y ago

I'm trying to be a better actor on this site, I'm sorry for the "Why are you lying?" comment. I deleted it because it completely undermines my argument, you're right to call me out on it. I'm sorry. :( I think you and I are on the same page here. My only additional point I'd like to make is that there is value in differentiating between what Sourceforge did and what will happen if you download a bad torrent from TPB, or click the wrong ad on a porn website. Lumping them all together means my grandfather goes and buys identity protection services because the Ask toolbar on IE is "malware".

JoshTriplett 11y ago
If you'd started out your comments in the way you're presenting them now, I think you'd have gotten a better response. It's still a hot-button topic, not least of which because as mentioned the main people that benefit from such distinctions are the companies writing software that users don't want (e.g. Lenovo's attempt to use the term "Potentially Unwanted Programs"). However, what is HN coming to if you can't argue about nitpicky distinctions? ;) Also, the Ask toolbar is not the only thing SF is installing; they're also installing much worse software. And sure, it's less harmful to change a user's search engine or waste a few dozen vertical pixels on a distracting toolbar than it is to turn a user's system into a botnet node, but "less harmful" is still harmful. For the record, I also think there are some bad actors in the "identity protection" and similar security spaces; not only is it ridiculous to need software or services to protect you from other software and services, but many such services are scamming novice computer users who know enough to be afraid. And the entire consumer antivirus industry is a bit ridiculous as well, not least of which in the sheer amount of resources such software tends to take up. I much prefer the portion of the security industry that's pushing for a sandboxed-by-default, principle-of-least-privilege world. But at the same time, adware, malware, or whatever you want to call it (including the vast majority of IE toolbars and such) are good examples of software that needs to go away and never come back. I'm not interested in shady ways to scam and "monetize" users; as has been said many times elsewhere, "your failing business model is not our problem". And the existence of even worse software doesn't excuse slightly-less-awful-but-still-awful software. The only question is how much damage such companies will do in their death throes before they finally die.
- dimino 11y ago
  I agree with everything you've written! All I wanted to make clear was that what Sourceforge is installing on people's systems is not on the same level as Duqu, for example. I get what you're saying regarding "if we just call it all malware, people will get upset when companies install it", but I see that as a dishonesty to the public. In the computer security industry, it's very tempting to sell fear -- it's immensely effective as a sales pitch, but it's not honest. We can do better, I think.

by dimino 11y ago

JoshTriplett 11y ago

If you'd started out your comments in the way you're presenting them now, I think you'd have gotten a better response. It's still a hot-button topic, not least of which because as mentioned the main people that benefit from such distinctions are the companies writing software that users don't want (e.g. Lenovo's attempt to use the term "Potentially Unwanted Programs"). However, what is HN coming to if you can't argue about nitpicky distinctions? ;) Also, the Ask toolbar is not the only thing SF is installing; they're also installing much worse software. And sure, it's less harmful to change a user's search engine or waste a few dozen vertical pixels on a distracting toolbar than it is to turn a user's system into a botnet node, but "less harmful" is still harmful. For the record, I also think there are some bad actors in the "identity protection" and similar security spaces; not only is it ridiculous to need software or services to protect you from other software and services, but many such services are scamming novice computer users who know enough to be afraid. And the entire consumer antivirus industry is a bit ridiculous as well, not least of which in the sheer amount of resources such software tends to take up. I much prefer the portion of the security industry that's pushing for a sandboxed-by-default, principle-of-least-privilege world. But at the same time, adware, malware, or whatever you want to call it (including the vast majority of IE toolbars and such) are good examples of software that needs to go away and never come back. I'm not interested in shady ways to scam and "monetize" users; as has been said many times elsewhere, "your failing business model is not our problem". And the existence of even worse software doesn't excuse slightly-less-awful-but-still-awful software. The only question is how much damage such companies will do in their death throes before they finally die.

dimino 11y ago
I agree with everything you've written! All I wanted to make clear was that what Sourceforge is installing on people's systems is not on the same level as Duqu, for example. I get what you're saying regarding "if we just call it all malware, people will get upset when companies install it", but I see that as a dishonesty to the public. In the computer security industry, it's very tempting to sell fear -- it's immensely effective as a sales pitch, but it's not honest. We can do better, I think.