"Contest" - The most difficult Opt Out screens on installs!?

[TaoPhoenix]

This thread was inspired generally by the growing obfuscation of Opt Out measures in harder and harder to find places. Specifically, I went looking for a free CD player program.

Specifically it was inspired by the program "Media Player Classic". I am guessing the original is probably on Sourceforge somewhere. However, the version I got hold of from Cnet had FIVE opt-outs, *alternating* between pre-checked boxes "with this box checked you agree to install an add-on", and then alternating with "by clicking accept you agree to install ___" and forcing you to be clever enough to click "Decline!"

This is an abuse variant of a well known psychological concept where after learning to click the "green button" the correct way out of the install of the aware is alternating between two methods, whereas clicking "all the green buttons like you just learned" installs everything!

So I invite you to submit your candidates for the worst opt-out methods!

Rules: They should (hopefully!) work! Disallowed are cases where the opt-out is simply ignored.

There was one other one from some program elsewhere, but I don't recall what it is now. That one made you uncheck *multiple boxes* per screen placed all over the place!

So my opening entry is five!
From this program/version:
Media Player Classic - *CNet Version* - seems to have more than even usual Cnet nonsense. Someone dumped it into a wrapper.
http://download.cnet...2139_4-10518778.html

[tomos]

I just updated PDFcreator - http://www.pdfforge.org/ -
(all updates have to be manually installed)
it is a really great PDF printer - as good as Adobe distiller in my experience - mind you I havent used more recent versions of that.

But they've taken to fairly sneaky opt-out options which vary from one update to the next. With one recent update, you were led to believe that you had reached the final "install pdfcreator" window, then they snuk in another opt-out - I actually clicked yes to that one and had to do a system restore afterwards (didnt trust anything else).

So here's todays experience:

Advanced are now called "Expert settings / set server mode, etc. ..."
Mind goes - I dont need server mode - next!



this one is okay - nothing pre-selected



this one is kind sneaky too I think:
the untickbox is for terms and conditions - only after that do they say: "and want to install xyz"



In spite of this messing around I'll repeat my recommendation -
if you need control of your PDFs and a printer that works well with vectors, this is the one for you.

[app103]

My vote goes to Desktop iCalendar Lite, which I explained the installer hoops landmines you have to jump through over, here.

The installer for Desktop iCalendar Lite is NASTY. Very tricky and confusing and likely to install a bunch of crapware if you don't pay attention and read everything very carefully.  After unselecting the crapware and clicking next, you get a popup that asks if you are sure that you don't want it. The proper response is to click cancel, not OK. Then it offers you another crapware item and does the same thing, only how to unselect it is a bit more confusing. You have to select the advanced option, then uncheck all the checkboxes there, then it does the same thing as before with the popup trying to get you to change your mind, to which "cancel" is the correct option. ("Better Installer" my ass! )

-app103 (January 31, 2013, 10:52 AM)

UPDATE:I uninstalled this app, just so I can reinstall it for some screenshots. The uninstaller removed a different app it had no business messing with from startup (my oDesk time clock I need to run to get paid).

Any way, here are the screenshots, which the choices were slightly different this time, compared to what I described above, but still just as annoying.

[TaoPhoenix]

Yeah, it's a tough call so far! My experience was along these lines this morning!
Maybe when I get some energy I can do the whole Uninstall for Screenshots routine.

Edit: A Shout Out to App for also being on oDesk! : )

That's where I've had a couple things commissioned.

[tomos]

Any way, here are the screenshots, which the choices were slightly different this time, compared to what I described above, but still just as annoying.

-app103 (April 26, 2013, 05:21 PM)

especially sneaky the way the [cancel] button is greyed out as if it's not an option

[vlastimil]

Both of these examples are horrible. When I have a chance to look at someone's computer, I almost always spot a malware/spyware installed there. And this includes people, who more or less know their way around computers. I find myself apologizing for the state the computer industry is in. 

Recently, I checked my software on the most well known download sites and about half of them are letting users download malware instead of the actual software. Some of them even have videos full of BS about how great their downloader is. I tried to send the download sites emails with my objections, but not with a big success. TUCOWS removed my apps from their site (OK with me), softonic refused to do anything, CNET blocked the downloader for my software (this is old news). No response from the other offenders.

[TaoPhoenix]

Any way, here are the screenshots, which the choices were slightly different this time, compared to what I described above, but still just as annoying.

-app103 (April 26, 2013, 05:21 PM)

especially sneaky the way the [cancel] button is greyed out as if it's not an option

-tomos (April 27, 2013, 02:48 PM)

And in honor of Tomos's post, here are my screenshots of the "Trope Starter"!

[bit]

...

[TaoPhoenix]

You mean (gasp) TUCOWS, softonic, and CNET all include crapware in their software downloads? I'm asking, seriously?

-bit (May 01, 2013, 08:50 AM)

I knew there would be, but it's that there's more and more of it as time passes. Pretty soon it's becoming a game of Minefield just to opt out!

[vlastimil]

Not sure how seriously you were actually asking. But in case that was not sarcasm, then the answer is yes. Tucows is probably the worst of them as they only offer links to the crapware. Softonic's big download buttons lead to crapware, but they also have a much smaller links to the original sources. CNET does the same as Softonic, but if the software developer asks them, they will block the crapware for the developer's software titles. A slight improvement, but most of the software titles are still dangerous.

Download servers are not worth it for software developers anymore. I do not submit my new or updated software to any download servers (except portablefreeware.com) and I am considering stopping updating the PAD files. It is just not worth it. New software developers without established web site may even shoot themselves in the foot by adding their software to a big download site. A title on cnet's download.com may actually outrank the developers own web site in Google and who would a user, who just downloaded a crapware, blame? CNET or the actual developer?

[TaoPhoenix]

Great points Vlastimil, and I'll even speculate that CNet "grabs" versions all by itself and packages them without a developer even knowing! (No proof, just guessing.)

I do think I have seen CNet often outranking the original sites because CNet has lots of tasty Backlinks, and the original site might not be optimized at all, and just be a "lonely page".

[bit]

...

[TaoPhoenix]

Yes my question was serious, and now I just found this:
How to Remove Babylon Search Toolbar
It seems CNET has been offering downloads that include being infected with the 'PUP' or 'Potentially Unwanted Program' a.k.a. 'Babylon Search Toolbar'.
It seems CNET is an 'ennabler' in infecting computer OSs with the 'Babylon Search Toolbar', which exhibits many traits of a virus:
"It's technically not a virus, but it does exhibit plenty of malicious traits, such as rootkit capabilities to hook deep into the operating system, browser hijacking, and in general just interfering with the user experience..."

Rootkit...??

Yes, I actually believed -up until now- that TUCOWS, softonic, and CNET were all "developers' darlings"; sites where you could get 'safe' downloads of really cool neat stuff.
Not any more, and my sincere thanks to the contributors to this thread.

-bit (May 03, 2013, 02:33 PM)

That's bad news, because no matter how sneaky the downloads are, per the "rule" of my initial thread they were supposed to be clean if you ever managed to get through the "DoubleDare Physical Challenges"!


But I think I recall a Babylon Toolbar showing up, and I had no idea where it came from, so if it's mashed into supposedly safe programs that's not good!

[bit]

...

[TaoPhoenix]

^I run multiple normally unplugged separate hard drives with backup copies of my OS.
I'm not sure if it would deal with a Rootkit, as I understand those can actually infect the mobo, or am I mistaken?
Rootkits are about as unethical and nasty as you can get.
Maybe someone should write a 'Babylon remove & restore tool'.
Or something 'resident' to protect against it.

-bit (May 03, 2013, 02:47 PM)

I'm not aware of very much software that can go all the way to hardware!

Well, as for the "resident to protect" thing it's kinda also my whole thread point, it's amazing all that stuff gets on there even if you miss an opt-out button.

Mark Russinovich had a Rootkit detector, but I haven't run it in a while. One of these days when I do another whole day of Comp maintenance I might.

[ProgBob]

My solution for this problem is to use VMWare and install a VM Windows (you'll need the Windows install disk), once installed I make a zipped copy of the VM. Then I use the VM to try downloaded programs. When they pass the tests I install them on my main Windows (also in a VM). To test another program I extract the test VM and use it again. This helps protect my main Windows.

[superboyac]

These are great. 
There's one ( I forget the name) that does a really nifty trick:  you are clicking the next-next screens, then there is one screen that doesn't appear immediately and you're next-clicking momentum or rhythm has already been established, so you autmoatically click next without even seeing the screen appear.  SO that slight flicker makes you accept an ask.com installation.  I thought it was an anomaly but then it happened on different computers.  very clever.