CastleCops, Internet Crime Fighters
Need help? Click here to register for free! Absolutely zero advertisements on this site!

$9736.22 of $21422.68
left sidedonated so farneed $11686.46 donated to reach our goalright side, our goal
Help CastleCops serve the community on new servers, Donate Here to reach our goal.

Donation/Premium
spacer
block bottom
Security Central
spacer
· Home
· PIRT/Fried Phish
· MIRT
· SIRT
· Deutsch
· Wiki
· Newsletter
· O16/ActiveX
· CLSID List
· Contest2007
· Downloads
· Feedback (send)
· Forums
· HijackThis
· Hijacktrend
· LSPs
· My Downloads
· O18
· O20
· O21
· O22
· O23
· O9
· Premium
· Private Messages
· Proxomitron
· Reviews
· Search
· StartupList
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· WsIRT
· Your Account
· Acceptable Use Policy
block bottom
Survey
spacer
Was 2007 a good year?

Yes it was a wonderful year
Yes, but there is always room for improvement
Status quo
It was a challenge
Other (leave comment)



Results
Polls

Votes: 937
Comments: 25
block bottom
spacer spacer
image The Courtroom: iDownload's Attorney Responds to CastleCops image
CastleCops
Since CastleCops publically shared with the community that we received a letter from iDownload demanding we reclassify their software, several other sites have also stepped forward indicating that they have been sent the same kind of letter including: Spywarewarrior, Spyware Guide, and Sunbelt Software. We believe in information sharing and ensuring the community is aware of the latest trends and threats in the world of Security/Anti-Spyware, which is why we decided to publish not only the iDownload letter to us, but our response to iDownload because we feel it is necessary to educate the public on the kind of tactics and pressures being used against the Anti-Spyware community.

Yesterday we received a response via Fax from iDownload's attorney Mark D Hopkins, of Savrick Schumann Johnson McGarr Kaminski & Shirley.
March 7, 2005

Benjamin Z. Rice                                                                                                        Via CMRRR
Law Offices of Benjamin Z. Rice
P.O. Box 1206
Pleasanton, CA 94566 

              Re:    ComputerCops, L.L.C's Improper Classification of iSearch Product
                        File Number: CY757-515

Dear Mr. Rice:

         Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding iDownload and its software product,
iSearch. As we are both aware, a lively internet debate currently exists over the functionality of
the iSearch program, as well as the questionable classification of iSearch as malware, spyware, 
etc., by various security companies.  As counsel for iDownload, our goal is singular in purpose, 
that being to assist iDownload in correcting the current dissemination of incorrect information 
surrounding iSearch.

          We recognize that much scrutiny exists with respect to our actions, and that we may be 
perceived by some in the internet community as being on the wrong side of the ongoing fight 
against "internet malfeasance." This perception is contrary to reality. We are currently engaged 
in an open dialogue with several large security firms, with the end goal being to reach a 
consensus as to the proper characterization of iSearch.  We trust that you will conform your 
published materials, as we previously requested, once some of the industry leaders analyze 
iSearch more thoroughly and release their classification of iSearch.

          Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions about the foregoing.

                                                                       Best Regards,

                                                                       Mark K. Hopkins

Intially we offered iDownload the opportunity to come into our forum and answer some questions from the public about their product iSearch, in order to be fair and eliminate any possible confusion about what the product does or does not do. To date they have not taken us up on that offer. Our position remains the same now as it always was concerning iSearch.
Correction: "concenus" is a typo and updated to the document's word: "consensus".
Posted on Tuesday, 08 March 2005 @ 18:29:27 UTC by robin (8190 reads)
[ Trackback ]
image

"The Courtroom: iDownload's Attorney Responds to CastleCops" | Login/Create an Account | 6 comments | Search
Threshold
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.

No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register

Re: iDownload's Attorney Responds to CastleCops (Score: 1)
by nfntjy  on Tuesday, 08 March 2005 @ 20:46:47 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://castlecops.com/modules.php?name=Premium
several large security firms

like who....Aluria? the firms that put out the software on this list [www.spywarewarrior.com]?

HA!

CCSP: Never conform!



Re: iDownload's Attorney Responds to CastleCops (Score: 1)
by Scaramouche  on Tuesday, 08 March 2005 @ 22:08:06 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.fbmsoftware.com
I'm hoping the concensus they reach is at least spell-checked.



Re: iDownload's Attorney Responds to CastleCops (Score: 1)
by OJ_did_it  on Wednesday, 09 March 2005 @ 00:15:32 UTC
(User Info | Send a Message | _JOURNAL)
Thought this might be an interesting read:

SUMMARY AS OF:
10/5/2004--Passed House, amended. (There are 2 other summaries)

Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act or SPY ACT - (Sec. 2) Makes it unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user (user) of a protected computer (a computer exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the U.S. Government, or a computer used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication) to engage in deceptive acts or practices in connection with any of the following conduct with respect to the protected computer:

(1) taking control of the computer by sending unsolicited material to others, diverting the Internet browser without authorization, using the modem or Internet to cause damage to the computer or to cause the user to incur unauthorized financial charges, using the computer as part of an activity performed by a group of computers that causes damage to another computer, or delivering advertisements that will not close without turning off either the computer or all sessions of the Internet browser;

(2) modifying settings related to the use of the computer or to the computer's access to or use of the Internet by altering the Web page of the Internet browser, the default provider used to access the Internet, the bookmarks used to access Web pages, or the security or other settings of the computer that protect information about the user;

(3) collecting personally identifiable information;

(4) inducing the user to install a computer software component onto the computer or preventing efforts to block installation of a software component;

(5) misrepresenting that installing a separate software component or providing log-in or password information is necessary for security or privacy reasons;

(6) inducing a user to install computer software through misrepresentation;

(7) inducing a user to provide personally identifiable information to another through misrepresentation or without the authority of the intended recipient of the information;

(8) removing or disabling a security, anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology installed on the computer; or

(9) installing or executing additional software components with the intent of causing a person to use such components in a way that violates any other provision of this section. Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to issue guidance regarding compliance with and violations of this section.

(Sec. 3) Makes it unlawful for a person to:

(1) transmit to a protected computer for which such person is not a user any information collection program (a program that collects personally identifiable information and uses such information to send advertising), unless such program provides the notice required by this Act before execution of any of the collection functions of the program and such information collection program includes specified functions; or

(2) execute any information collection program installed on such a protected computer, unless, before execution, the user has consented to such execution under notice requirements of this Act and such information collection program includes specified functions.

Requires such notice clearly and conspicuously, and in plain language:

(1) state that the program, if accepted, will collect personally identifiable information about the user and their computer use;

(2) include an option for the user to grant or deny such consent, or to abandon or cancel the transmission or execution of an information collection program; and

(3) include an option for the user to view a clear description of the types of information to be collected and the purposes for its intended use. Requires, if a user has consented, that an additional notice be sent if there is a material change in the way collected information will be used such that the use

Read the rest of this comment...


 
Login
spacer
Nickname

Password

Security Code: Type Security Code: Usage signifies AUP acceptance
· New User? · Click here to create a registered account.
block bottom
Related Links
spacer
· del.icio.us!
· digg it!
· reddit!
· TrackBack (0)
· HotScripts
· W3 Consortium
· CastleCops
· More about CastleCops
· News by robin


Most read story about CastleCops:
Join Computer Cops Club to Find A Cure!

block bottom
Article Rating
spacer
Average Score: 5
Votes: 7


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Bad
Regular
Good
Very Good
Excellent


block bottom
Options
spacer

Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

block bottom
spacer spacer