Recent Posts7951
General Software Discussion / Re: What the hell is OpenCandy?
« Last post by Renegade on April 03, 2011, 01:08 AM »I don't think we'll ever agree on this.
See the smoking guns section below though, as I really don't see how there can be any debate after that.
But anyways...
License information is clearly visisble at the beginning in the EULA.
There's simply no satisfying the requirment no matter what is done. Your verdict is guilty before the trial has begun. No amount of evidence will change that.
A great deal of software collects information, e.g. MS Office, Visual Studio, etc. etc. Now, if you happen to forget that you decided to participate in the customer experience program, it is now collecting information without your knowledge, and if you don't know, then you can't give consent.
You are implicitly demanding that all software that collects information be labeled spyware, which makes the term useless.
Now go check your web sites and see how much "spyware" in on them. All web ad companies, like Google or Double-Click, collect information without the user's knowledge or consent.
No. It doesn't.
However, the ads on your web sites do "surreptitiously monitor and report the actions of a computer user".
Really? I can take things out of context too.
Emphasis mine. And that includes all software. The rest is irrelevant.
For the other things, you're taking them out of context and twisting them.
And that's simply moronic.
The set of "spyware" and the set of "adware" intersect, but that does not make them the same.
Is it possible for spyware to not include an advertisement? Yes. (Proof by example: keyloggers)
Is it possible for adware to not include an advertisement? No. (Proof: By definition. The "ad" in adware is there for a reason.)
They have properties that are not shared.
Why not just do away with all words and just have 1? Heck. It's the same nutty logic. Let's call everything "bloobledurp" or "<insert whatever sound you like here as long as everyone uses the same sound>".
Reductio ad absurdumw. QED.
This:
Directly leads to that nutty "bloobledurp" conclusion. It is an absolute logical consequence. There is NO DEBATE on that.
You can call a tree a door, but it's not.
General categories of things and events do not change the nature of their existence by expletive performatives. "Naming" is an expletive performative, and when I choose to call my pet "Fred", he *IS* thereafter "Fred". That same act/logic does not apply to general nouns or acts.
When in North America, and you are "rooting" for your team, that doesn't make it a sexual act, even if you are Australian! Conversely, "rooting" when in Australia doesn't necessarily make the act "cheering" just because you aren't Australian.
Those are 2 different dialects in English where the same pronunciation has 2 different meanings. Neither dialect gets to arbitrarily decide to redefine the pronunciation for the other.
In the same way, not understanding what something is doesn't make calling it something else correct.
That's just silly. Everything in OpenCandy is upfront. Just because someone refuses to listen or refuses to attempt to understand doesn't validate any claims about "informed consent".
If you've got you eyes closed, and are walking towards a stream, and I start screaming that you're about to get wet, but you cover your ears and start saying "I can't hear you", that doesn't mean that I didn't try to tell you about the stream.
Guess what's in the EULA? At the very beginning of installers?
Refusal to listen doesn't justify crying wolf later on.
That's a legal definition, which makes it essentially worthless. Law is entirely arbitrary and not based on reality. It incorporates aspects of reality, but that doesn't make it reality.
I can provide a logical proof for that if required.
But, to give it the benefit of the doubt... I go back to my point about refusing to listen doesn't make "informed consent" an excuse. Ignoring what you are being told then later recanting saying "yes" doesn't make it right.
Now... I'd like to bring out...
THE SMOKING GUNS...
I ran WireShark just now and what I got from running the Photo Resizer installer was this:
http://removed/?clie...db9897e0bbd47c2c3d58
NOTE: I have removed the host information because it *may* interfere with my control panel stats for initiated installations. This is purely a paranoid precaution on my part. I think the session value would prevent this though. Also note, that this has NO impact on the user. It only has an impact on ME.
If anyone wants the host information, PM me and I'll give it to you.
Let me break that down into each piece. (Some educated guesses in places on my part.)
HOST:
http://removed/
The OpenCandy DLL version (I assume):
clientv=27
Country (I assume):
cltzone=600
Language:
language=en,en
Action to get offers:
method=get_offers
Not sure. Looks like running time or something:
mstime=0.280
The Operating system:
os=WIN6.1-64
The unique key for Photo Resizer
product_key=613b8aaa21ae201a2c054a63f3e87f8d
The version of Photo Resizer registered with OC (I assume):
v=1.0
An authentication method to ensure that it isn't some other software (I assume):
signature=5b437627dd2fdb9897e0bbd47c2c3d58
There is NO personally identifying information sent there. None. Zero. Nadda. Zilch.
Let's go back to some of those accusations of OC being spyware, and look at the definitions you used...
Ummm... No as I've shown above.
[QUOTE]Collection, use and distribution of their personal or other sensitive information.[/QUOTE]
Ummm... No as I've shown above.
Ummm... No as I've shown above.
Ummm... No as I've shown above.
I don't see how this is any longer open to debate. I've given solid evidence that anyone can verify themselves.
In any event, on to further beating a dead horse... The XML result set...
The results returned a complete set of offers in XML (I have reformatted it for readability):
*** PROBLEMS POSTING IT -- SEE NEXT POST ***
There is no personally identify information there about me as a user. How could there be? It's purely information downloaded from OpenCandy.
If you check the information in there, you will see that it is exactly what it is advertised to be. There is NOTHING deceptive in there. There is nothing that could be remotely considered abusive or spyware or malware or whatever.
Flat out. The XML contains information that the OpenCandy DLL processes. The results of that are then displayed in the installer.
At no time prior to that is anything personal or identifying sent back to OpenCandy.
SUMMARY:
1. Start installer.
2. OC downloads XML file and does NOT send any information.
What else is there?
You can verify exactly what I said above.
Nothing is hidden. It's all perfectly out in the open for anyone to look at and verify.
I hope that clears up some things. I've presented clear evidence to back up my claims.
Like I said before, if anyone can actually present any evidence that OC is spyware, please do and I will recant! I don't think anyone can though.
See the smoking guns section below though, as I really don't see how there can be any debate after that.
But anyways...
It's not defamation unless it is false. I believe my statement to be true.
Spyware:spyware (computer software that obtains information from a user's computer without the user's knowledge or consent)
What percentage of users installing software from an OC powered installer gave their informed consent and know that information will be sent back to OC, even if they refuse the recommendation?-app103 (April 02, 2011, 11:03 PM)
License information is clearly visisble at the beginning in the EULA.
There's simply no satisfying the requirment no matter what is done. Your verdict is guilty before the trial has begun. No amount of evidence will change that.
A great deal of software collects information, e.g. MS Office, Visual Studio, etc. etc. Now, if you happen to forget that you decided to participate in the customer experience program, it is now collecting information without your knowledge, and if you don't know, then you can't give consent.
You are implicitly demanding that all software that collects information be labeled spyware, which makes the term useless.
Now go check your web sites and see how much "spyware" in on them. All web ad companies, like Google or Double-Click, collect information without the user's knowledge or consent.
spyware
1. (Internet) programs that surreptitiously monitor and report the actions of a computer user.
That describes exactly what OC does.-app103 (April 02, 2011, 11:03 PM)
No. It doesn't.
spyware
1. (Internet) programs that surreptitiously monitor and report the actions of a computer user.
However, the ads on your web sites do "surreptitiously monitor and report the actions of a computer user".
Spyware: Computer programs that typically track your use and report this information to a remote location. The more malicious spyware programs may capture and report keystrokes, revealing passwords and personal information. Users are often tricked into installing spyware programs without their knowledge. Spyware is sometimes referred to as adware.
Emphasis mine. And that is exactly what OC does. It doesn't have to do the rest to be spyware.-app103 (April 02, 2011, 11:03 PM)
Really? I can take things out of context too.
Spyware: Computer programs that typically track your use and report this information to a remote location. The more malicious spyware programs may capture and report keystrokes, revealing passwords and personal information. Users are often tricked into installing spyware programs without their knowledge. Spyware is sometimes referred to as adware.
Emphasis mine. And that includes all software. The rest is irrelevant.
For the other things, you're taking them out of context and twisting them.
...spyware is sometimes referred to as adware.
And that's simply moronic.
The set of "spyware" and the set of "adware" intersect, but that does not make them the same.
Somewhat harsh
This is some pretty basic logic and quite frankly, anyone that doesn't understand it isn't worth listening to.
Is it possible for spyware to not include an advertisement? Yes. (Proof by example: keyloggers)
Is it possible for adware to not include an advertisement? No. (Proof: By definition. The "ad" in adware is there for a reason.)
They have properties that are not shared.
Why not just do away with all words and just have 1? Heck. It's the same nutty logic. Let's call everything "bloobledurp" or "<insert whatever sound you like here as long as everyone uses the same sound>".
Reductio ad absurdumw. QED.
This:
...spyware is sometimes referred to as adware.
Directly leads to that nutty "bloobledurp" conclusion. It is an absolute logical consequence. There is NO DEBATE on that.
Less formal way of looking at it
You can call a tree a door, but it's not.
General categories of things and events do not change the nature of their existence by expletive performatives. "Naming" is an expletive performative, and when I choose to call my pet "Fred", he *IS* thereafter "Fred". That same act/logic does not apply to general nouns or acts.
When in North America, and you are "rooting" for your team, that doesn't make it a sexual act, even if you are Australian! Conversely, "rooting" when in Australia doesn't necessarily make the act "cheering" just because you aren't Australian.
Those are 2 different dialects in English where the same pronunciation has 2 different meanings. Neither dialect gets to arbitrarily decide to redefine the pronunciation for the other.
In the same way, not understanding what something is doesn't make calling it something else correct.
I will ask one more time:
What percentage of users installing software from an OC powered installer gave their informed consent and know that information will be sent back to OC, even if they refuse the recommendation? And do they know what information?
Unless OC is getting informed consent to collect that information, it's spyware, plain and simple.
It doesn't matter if you think the information it is collecting is benign...it is still collecting information without the user's informed consent.-app103 (April 02, 2011, 11:03 PM)
That's just silly. Everything in OpenCandy is upfront. Just because someone refuses to listen or refuses to attempt to understand doesn't validate any claims about "informed consent".
If you've got you eyes closed, and are walking towards a stream, and I start screaming that you're about to get wet, but you cover your ears and start saying "I can't hear you", that doesn't mean that I didn't try to tell you about the stream.
Guess what's in the EULA? At the very beginning of installers?
Refusal to listen doesn't justify crying wolf later on.
Informed consent is a phrase often used in law to indicate that the consent a person gives meets certain minimum standards. As a literal matter, in the absence of fraud, it is redundant. An informed consent can be said to have been given based upon a clear appreciation and understanding of the facts, implications, and future consequences of an action. In order to give informed consent, the individual concerned must have adequate reasoning faculties and be in possession of all relevant facts at the time consent is given.-app103 (April 02, 2011, 11:03 PM)
That's a legal definition, which makes it essentially worthless. Law is entirely arbitrary and not based on reality. It incorporates aspects of reality, but that doesn't make it reality.
I can provide a logical proof for that if required.
But, to give it the benefit of the doubt... I go back to my point about refusing to listen doesn't make "informed consent" an excuse. Ignoring what you are being told then later recanting saying "yes" doesn't make it right.
Now... I'd like to bring out...
THE SMOKING GUNS...
I ran WireShark just now and what I got from running the Photo Resizer installer was this:
http://removed/?clie...db9897e0bbd47c2c3d58
NOTE: I have removed the host information because it *may* interfere with my control panel stats for initiated installations. This is purely a paranoid precaution on my part. I think the session value would prevent this though. Also note, that this has NO impact on the user. It only has an impact on ME.
If anyone wants the host information, PM me and I'll give it to you.
Let me break that down into each piece. (Some educated guesses in places on my part.)
HOST:
http://removed/
The OpenCandy DLL version (I assume):
clientv=27
Country (I assume):
cltzone=600
Language:
language=en,en
Action to get offers:
method=get_offers
Not sure. Looks like running time or something:
mstime=0.280
The Operating system:
os=WIN6.1-64
The unique key for Photo Resizer
product_key=613b8aaa21ae201a2c054a63f3e87f8d
The version of Photo Resizer registered with OC (I assume):
v=1.0
An authentication method to ensure that it isn't some other software (I assume):
signature=5b437627dd2fdb9897e0bbd47c2c3d58
There is NO personally identifying information sent there. None. Zero. Nadda. Zilch.
Let's go back to some of those accusations of OC being spyware, and look at the definitions you used...
1. (Internet) programs that surreptitiously monitor and report the actions of a computer user.
Ummm... No as I've shown above.
[QUOTE]Collection, use and distribution of their personal or other sensitive information.[/QUOTE]
Ummm... No as I've shown above.
Spyware Software that uses an internet connection without the permission of its owner, in order to 'listen' to confidential data and transmit them to third parties
Ummm... No as I've shown above.
Spyware: Computer programs that typically track your use and report this information to a remote location.
Ummm... No as I've shown above.
I don't see how this is any longer open to debate. I've given solid evidence that anyone can verify themselves.
In any event, on to further beating a dead horse... The XML result set...
The results returned a complete set of offers in XML (I have reformatted it for readability):
*** PROBLEMS POSTING IT -- SEE NEXT POST ***
There is no personally identify information there about me as a user. How could there be? It's purely information downloaded from OpenCandy.
If you check the information in there, you will see that it is exactly what it is advertised to be. There is NOTHING deceptive in there. There is nothing that could be remotely considered abusive or spyware or malware or whatever.
Flat out. The XML contains information that the OpenCandy DLL processes. The results of that are then displayed in the installer.
At no time prior to that is anything personal or identifying sent back to OpenCandy.
SUMMARY:
1. Start installer.
2. OC downloads XML file and does NOT send any information.
What else is there?
You can verify exactly what I said above.
Nothing is hidden. It's all perfectly out in the open for anyone to look at and verify.
I hope that clears up some things. I've presented clear evidence to back up my claims.
Like I said before, if anyone can actually present any evidence that OC is spyware, please do and I will recant! I don't think anyone can though.
