OT : Follow-up to "Trolls - And Learning To Box"

[BobS]

Since there was some interest in the original post, I'm posting this as a follow-up that may interest some - maybe not. Sorry there's nothing about woodworking and the post is not meant to start a flame war or a discussion on politics. Some may want to forward this to their own states Attorney General's Office and see if they can't be prodded into doing the same.

I mentioned in a response that the NYS Attorney Generals Office was being very aggressive (Eliot Spitzer) about internet abuse and just today (28 Apr

05) this article from AP appeared. Take note of the laws he's using to go after this particular company.

Bob S.

.......From AP.................

ALBANY, N.Y.(AP) New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer on Thursday sued a major Internet marketer, claiming the company installed "spyware" and "adware" that secretly install nuisance pop-up advertisements which can slow and crash personal computers.

Shares of the company, Intermix Media Inc. of Los Angeles, fell 55 cents, or

11 percent, to $4.25 in midday trading on the American Stock Exchange.

Spitzer said the suit combats the redirecting of home computer users to unwanted Web sites and its own Web site that includes ads, the adding of unnecessary toolbar items and the delivery of unwanted ads that pop up on computer screens. After a six-month investigation Spitzer concluded the company installed a wide range of advertising software on countless personal computers nationwide.

"Spyware and adware are more than an annoyance," Spitzer said. "These fraudulent programs foul machines, undermine productivity and in many cases frustrate consumers' efforts to remove them from their computers. These issues can serve to be a hindrance to the growth of e-commerce."

An Intermix spokesman didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.

Spitzer's civil suit accuses Intermix of violating state General Business Law provisions against false advertising and deceptive business practices. He also accuses them of trespass under New York common law.

The company is accused of downloading ads and software that directs ads to a computer based on the user's activities. Spitzer's investigators said the downloads then attach to computers, often slowing their operation and crashing the computers as well as interfering with use of the computer through pop-up ads. Often the downloads were made without notice when a user visited a Web site, played a game or accepted a screen saver. Sometimes the user was asked permission through an often vague reference in a lengthy licensing agreement which could be misleading or inaccurate, investigators said.

Spitzer, after taking on Wall Street and the insurance industry, is taking a harder look at Internet companies he feels are stunting the growth of Internet commerce, or e-commerce.

"We are looking across the industry at these practices because it really does go to the core of e-commerce," said Kenneth Dreifach, chief of Spitzer's Internet Bureau, "Increasingly, people don't feel in control."

The advertisers, which include Fortune 500 companies, aren't targeted.

The programs sometimes omitted "un-install" applications and couldn't be removed by most computers' add/remove function, Spitzer said.

More than 3.7 million downloads were made to New Yorkers alone and although there is no national estimate, Spitzer seeks a nationwide resolution of the case.

"When dealing with these types of online practices, effectively you're talking about a nationwide resolution because it's very difficult if not impossible to isolate your practices based on a state," said Assistant Attorney General Justin Brookman.

Dreifach said negotiations with the company didn't result in a settlement. And more cases are possible.

"One of Internet users' biggest frustrations today is unwanted software that sneaks onto computers without their owner's consent and cannot be uninstalled," Ari Schwartz, the Associate Director Center for Democracy and Technology, "The practices alleged in this case are widespread on the Internet."

___

On the Net:

now back to the wRECk............

[Doug Miller]

Especially this one:

That could prove to be a pretty big hammer.

-- Regards, Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

Nobody ever left footprints in the sands of time by sitting on his butt. And who wants to leave buttprints in the sands of time?

[lgb]

Agreed. But what bothers me is:

"The advertisers, which include Fortune 500 companies, aren't targeted."

They had to know the methods being used and were, by their actions, condoning them. I think they should be included in any case brought, but the political pressure against doing so may be too great.

[Patriarch]

lgb wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Well, that may have been a tactical decision. IF you bring in the advertisers, there are more targets to identify, more layers of agents and agencies, more motives and actions to prove, and more money and lawyers to face. IF you can prove a point with the agregious ISP, and modify industry behavior, then you can choose to target those who ignore the message.

The point of the law is as much to modify future behavior as to punish for past transgressions.

The question in my mind is how to deal with off-shore, or cross-border miscreants. (And that may only be a confession of my ignorance.)

Patriarch, who believes a populist politician, even if self-serving, might be a good thing once in a while.

[Robert Bonomi]

There is a *BIG* question of being able to _prove_ -- as in 'acceptable to a court of law' -- that an advertiser "knew" about the particular technical facets of the perpetrators methods that give rise to the basis of the suit.

As an A.G. you don't _file_ a suit unless you have a high-probability expectation of winning. If you're trying to "discourage" certain behavior by the suit, the "downside risk" of a loss *is* considerable. You've just given the 'rest of the world' a road-map on how they _can_ do the thing you're trying to discourage, without fear of prosecution.

There's little to be gained, _from_the_A.G.'s_perspective_, by dragging the advertisers into the matter. There is a *difficult* burden of proof standard to meet, and, assuming the actual perpetrator gets shut down, the problem *is* solved -- without the additional time/effort of going after the folks who may, or *may*not*, have been aware of sufficient operational details to be legally culpable.

[Larry Jaques]

On Thu, 28 Apr 2005 19:26:30 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch spake:

With air-conditioned cells, big-screen TV, lavish weight rooms, and massive, multi-million dollar legal libraries? Why do you suppose many criminals commit more crimes? It's nicer (to them) in jail than it is trying to make a life on the streets.

I much prefer the AZ Sheriff's tent city idea. Criminals NEVER want to go back there.

--== May The Angst Be With You! ==-- -Yoda, on a bad day -- Ending Your Web Page Angst.

[Patriarch]

Larry Jaques wrote in news: [e-mail]:

Google on the terms "Pelican Bay", Larry.

We agree with regard to the Sherriff in Maricopa County, however.

Patriarch

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 12:43:14 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch spake:

So, how was the food there, Glen?

now what? It's either 2 hours south of me or down in Flowda.

--== May The Angst Be With You! ==-- -Yoda, on a bad day --

Ending Your Web Page Angst.

[Patriarch]

Larry Jaques wrote in news: [e-mail]:

The one in the upper corner of California. Certainly not a country club, by any stretch. Seriously nasty place, socially speaking. Not that spammers would be sent there, it being the place of choice for meth druggies and their gang-mates. And that's just the warden and the guards.

Yet another dark spot on the escutcheon of the state. At least it's not political prisoners, though.

Glenn

[Charles Spitzer]

now, if it wasn't the fact that lots of people seem to die in his jails at the hands of the guards, he'd be a lot more appreciated here.

regards, charlie phx, az

[Larry Jaques]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2005 17:35:39 -0500, the inscrutable Patriarch spake:

Spammers? They should be given a one-way ticket to Australia, a bathing suit, a rubber pool raft, and a can of beer. Drop 'em off at the Great Barrier Reef and let them paddle around long enough to make themselves known to the Great Whites. This solves two problems. First, it removes a whole lot of trouble from the Internet. Second, it makes surfing and diving a lot safer in AU due to the nicely fed shark population. And it's a whole lot cheaper than warehousing the ickday eadhays in prisons for years.

Perhaps it should be, eh? Hmmm...Delay could be first, followed by a majority of members from -both- parties in the House and Senate.

--== May The Angst Be With You! ==-- -Yoda, on a bad day --

Ending Your Web Page Angst.

[Patriarch]

"Charles Spitzer" wrote in news:d4uecu$31h$ [e-mail]:

That part seems not to be making the news I see. Hmmm. I'll have to ask a few of my friends & family who are locals there. Thanks.

Patriarch

[Glen]

This would also be an excellent plan for housing illegal aliens who cross our border!

Glen

[Charlie Self]

>> SP.asp OK, now what? It's either 2 hours south of me or down in

Frist is much scarier than DeLay. DeLay is jsut a typical ethics-free zone, AKA a politician. Frist is eager to modify the Constitution and hundreds of years of tradition to satisfy his power lust.

[Mark & Juanita]

... snip

Welcome back Charlie! Good to see you are your usual irrascible self (so to speak)

Funny, Delay is taking heat for something that Harry Ried has practiced even more so (vis a vis hiring family members) with nary a peep.

Actually, Frist is attempting to restore the principles of the Constitution and hundreds of years of tradition to *deny* the power lust of the other side who are still attempting to run things despite being in the minority. Never, ever, has the minority in the Senate filibustered the confirmation of judges. That action is what has really set the Constitution on it's ear -- effectively requiring a supermajority for that which the Constitution requires only a majority. What's even funnier is the fact that many of those who are decrying this so-called "abuse of the minority" were, when they were the majority, seeking ways to end the fillibuster in cases they cared about, and even denying the minority party the right to be heard both in committee and on the floor. For example, Senator Byrd, now decrying how this denies the right of the minority to be heard (despite the fact that the filibuster actually shuts off debate), in

1977, using a simple majority vote, broke a filibuster. He repeatedly cut off debate with parlimentiary maneuvers. In 1979, he led a move to let the Chair (himself) decide what was wasn't germaine to a debate. When he was in power, he declared, "the power and right of the majority of the Senate to change the rules of the Senate at the beginning of a new Congress". Further, Barbara Boxer also led efforts to end the filibuster, an action see says now she did only because she was a "junior" Senator and didn't know better -- yeah, right -- back then they were in power, now they aren't.

Frankly, even the so-called "filibuster" is not close to it's traditional meaning. Simply saying, "we are going to filibuster is now enough to stop action on a bill rather than forcing the opposition to actually engage in said slow-down of debate. If they really want to fillibuster, then they should be required to stand at the podium and speak until they can't speak no more.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[fredfighter]

A damn lie:

lets keep in mind:

1) There has been NO filibustering of GWB's judicial nominees. The threat of fillibuster has been sufficient thus far.

2) 95% of GWBs judicial nominess have been approved, the highest such percentage in at least 30 years.

3) No preseident has ever had the chutspah, in his second term, to renominated a whole slate of judges who were turned down druing his first term.

Congress".

He didn't "declare that", the Constitution mandates it. If the present Senate takes actions to modify its procedural rules to end fillbuster that will be just as Constitutional as the procedural rules that permit it.

[Mark & Juanita]

was the requirement for cloture during that period of Senate history? Was it majority or was it supermajority?

Seven of Bush's appellate nominees *have* been fillibustered by the Senate Democrats.

That, on your part is a @#$% lie. Those judges were *not* turned down, they never had a fair hearing in the Senate, they were either filibustered or held in committee by the then Daschle majority without a chance for a fair Senate hearing. Several of the judges removed their names from consideration after waiting in limbo for well over a year.

That's all well and good, and constitutionally correct. However, Byrd's present position is that changing procedures now is warping the constitution claiming that the majority wants to change the rules.

So which Senator Byrd is right, the one from 1979, or the one now?

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[fredfighter]

filibustered

IIRC sometime in the 1960's the Senate adopted a rule to allow a vote of 60% of the Senate to invoke cloture. I don't know it that is 60% of quorum of 60% of the full Senate. Prior to that, there was no rule to force cloture.

No, a filibuster was threatened, that was sufficient. A true filibuster virtually shuts down the Senate so the threat alone is usually enough. I dunno when the last time was that there was an actual filibuster, maybe not since 1968.

filibustered

Ok, Stopped rather than turned down. But as noted above there had been no actual filibustering.

As to holding judiical nominees in limbo, think back to the obstruction of the process during the Clinton years when nearly

30% of the positions in the Federal Judiicary became vacant because the Republicans blocked nominees to the point of bringing the entire process to a virtual standstill.

fillbuster

If the present Senate takes actions to modify its procedural rules to end fillbuster that will be just as Constitutional as the procedural rules that permit it.

I don't care to check to see if Burd ever made the statements you attribute to him.

Meanwhile, consider:

In 2000 Bill Frist voted against cloture regarding the nomination of Richard Paez to the ninth circuit.

"If they want to filibuster, mount a filibuster for an appellate judge, I think that's appropriate, if they want to do it. It normally is not done. But if that's what the Democrats want to do, I think they're entitled to do it under the rules of the Senate." 2001, Senator C. Boyden Gray on John McLaughlin's "One on One"

According to the Congressional Research Service, cloture motions were filed and cloture votes held on 14 appeals court nominations from 1980 to 2000.

Not only has it happened, it has happened often.

Perhaps you should begin question the honesty of whomever it is that assigns talking points to you.

I had thought that the Clintons set a standard for sheer dishonesty in the face of fact that would be hard to beat. But the Bush administration and its supporters have proven to be the Bob Beamans of dishonesty established a record for bald-faced lying that may (one hopes) never be surpassed.

[fredfighter]

Here's a longer explanation for the benefit of the reader whose American Government class did not cover filibusters and/or who have not seen _Mr Smith Goes to Washington_.

A filibuster is made possible by two procedural rules adopted by the Senate a very long time ago, I dunno how long. First, a Senator who has the floor may speak for as long as he/she wishes. There is some provision for temporary interruption, I'm pretty sure that the President or President Pro-Tempor of the Senate may request that the Senator yield to another speaker but a Senator who has the floor is under no obligation to grant the request.

Secondly, the Senator who has the floor may designate the next Senator who is to speak, e.g. by stating that he/she yields to the Senior or Junior Senator from the State of Foo (There is a rule in the Senate prohibiting Senators from referring to their colleagues by name.)

No other business may come to the floor while a Senator is speaking, thus a speaker can stop a motion (like a bill) from coming to a vote for as long as he/she can keep speaking. I think the late Strom Thurmond set the record for one-man filibusters, somwhat in excess of

30 hours IIRC, in (unsuccessful) opposition to Civil Rights legislation.

But a small number of Senators, by continuously speaking and yielding only to each other, may hold up the Senate indefinately.

Sometime during the 1960s the Senate adopted a new rule, a rule that permitted the Senate to 'invoke cloture' that is to set a time limit for debate or a deadline for a vote so as to defeat filibusters. The standard adopted for invoking cloture is 60%, whether 60% of quorum or of the full Senate I do not know.

In effect, 40 Senators are enough to stop any measure from passing the Senate even though only a simple majority is required to pass most measures.

I gather from reading between the lines of the publicity around the current issues that filibusters per se are a thing of the past. Senators wishing to filibuster no longer get up and speak for hours on end, they just make their intent known and the opposition (actually, proponents of the measure in question) accepts that. If 60 Senators oppose the filibuster, they will vote to invoke cloture and the measure will be passed. Otherwise it will be tabled. It seems that today's Senators are too lazy to do the hard work that is necessary for a real filibuster.

Both sides in the current debate make a lot of noise about what is Constitutional or not, and both are mostly full of crap. The Constitution allows the Senate and the House to each make their own rules of procedure. A new rule lowering the number of votes required to invoke cloture, whether for any measure or specifically for nominations to the judiciary would be just as Constitutional as the older measure setting that number at 60%, or for that matter, a measure setting it higher or eliminating the cloture rule altogether.

One of the more obvious lies being told by Pat Robertson a televangelist and con artist, about filibusters, against judicial nominees is that the filibuster has never been used to block the confirmation of a nominee who has enjoyed the support of a majority of Senators. Filibuster is ONLY used to block measures (whether voting on judicial nominees, legislation or anything else) that enjoy majority support. Opponents of a measure that does NOT enjoy majority support are typically happy to see it come the the floor for reasons that should be obvious.

Persons who promote misconceptions and outright lies about filibuster or anything else in politics or other topic or filed rely on the ignoranc eof their listener, reader, or viewer. They hope that what they say will be uncritically accepted by their audience typically relying on their status as a self-declared authority figure.

So don't trust me either, check it out for yourself.

[Tom Watson]

Scarier than that is the general tone of the policy that I would call Bushido.

Tom Watson - WoodDorker tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)

(website)