FTC sues Sanford Wallace

[Sashman]

If any are making money through browser exploits you may want to rethink it ..

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6207252

[Steve_S]

Thanks Scott.

Thoughts: It pains me a great deal when our members don't listen to the collective wisdom of this community. I am of course referring to Sanford Wallace whoes member name is lwrules and the following thread:

http://www.geekvillage.com/forums/sh...anford+Wallace

It also bares noting this little nuget from the article link you posted:

"....Currently there are no national anti-spyware laws on the books, though several states have them. The House of Representatives passed two anti-spyware bills this week and another is pending in the Senate.

The FTC used deceptive-business laws to go after New Hampshire resident Sanford Wallace and his two companies, Seismic Entertainment Productions Inc. and SmartBot.Net Inc.

The FTC asked the court to shut down Wallace's operations and force him to return any money he has made....."

It's your site. I respect that. Is their any doubt what's going to happen to you and or others with respect to this issue?

Can you see the praverbal writing on the wall? I sure hope so

[DougM]

Just for fun I dropped the URL (now inactive) attached to lwrules member profile into Google. Strangely, someone is running an AdWords ad for the keyword "+www.smartbotpro.net/" for "Is your computer infected with spyware?"

Having recently reinstalled Windows after a nasty case of this stuff, I am glad to see a step in the right direction.

[joetec]

This is great news.

Many ad agencies have booked Mr. Wallace’s browser exploit ads (the three most common are mylovenet, freevegasclubs.com, great expectations dating) on many if not all networks including our own. What is even worse is that Mr. Wallace starts out with just an image and link in the iframe code they give you. Then after about a week the active-x exploits start to appear.

We about killed a few companies buying ads from us for this.

[Steve_S]

Thanks Joe. This certainly explains exactly how Networks AND Publishers can sudenly find themselves an unwilling party to these kinds of actions.

BTW, the local hometown Newspaper as one would exspect has some additional juicy details. See:

http://www.seacoastonline.com/news/10_8special2.htm

[Sashman]

Interesting. In Sanford's defense, I'm a little surprised everyone is calling his exploit spyware. Unless the definition of spyware has grown beyond what I'm familiar with it doesn't quite fall into that category. Scumware and spyware are merging into one it seems. I'm curious to hear how the FTC proceeds with this one.

[Steve_S]

Yep...things are getting very confusing and your point is well taken.

In the case of the FTC action it's about deceptive business practices.

Read this which is the original complaint that started the FTC and does talk about affiliates and Networks and even includes screen grabs:

http://www.cdt.org/privacy/20040210cdt.pdf

In a nutshell you first open the CD drive and change the home page and default search site in your browser.

Then you hurl a bunch of what some (the FTC) would consider deceptive claims at the poor visitor to buy Spy Wiper. I also think in the case of the FTC Compliant they are also saying and must prove that the ACT of doing this stuff to SallYSurfers machine is also "deceptive" in nature so know you have a double wammy You keep hounding the poor surfer with these claims after you have already scared the liiving <you know what> out of them by opening the CD drive, changing the home page and the default search engine without their prior and explicit approval.

Next the actual FTC Complaint at:

http://www.cdt.org/privacy/spyware/s.../Complaint.pdf

See Count 3 on page 12 of the above document for just a quick look at this issue.

One needs to go even further and ask yourself: Does the software maker know about this? Just how many affiliate accounts might folks have? Do the networks turn a blind eye?

AND, what if I just happened to create a really neat piece of software available on CD that also contained <can you guess>

AND, we still aren't dealing with any federal legislation YET, but that will certainly pass and then folks will be going to jail

[cheznoir]

The funny thing is - on page 2 of that thread when I mentioned having talked to the FTC about a case, it was this one.

I had filed a complaint with full details. Once on the phone with the FTC I shared the complete details of numerous of my forum members who all took the time to document the issue in detail. This is what you have to do - document in detail and file with the FTC.

It was nice knowing then they were hunting hard on how to bust him while he sat there spinning his bs.

And I believe what they take issue with is infecting a machine, so you can deliver ads telling people how to remove the infection. The ads claim the software is spyware, so by default it is fair to call it spyware since the ads for removal are from the company that infected you.

Chet

[Rivux]

Good call cheznoir, he is incrimminating himself two ways. One is by calling his exploits spyware from the product he sells to clean it up. Or if it isn't spyware, then he is lying about what his product does

Either way, I love what the FTC is doing, it is about time that they crackdown on this garbage. As soon as they start to levy huge fines and even some jail time, most of the scum will depart from the net. Of course some will still remain, as in offline life, people still break the law even knowing they could get caught, but it will atleast reduce the amount of garbage out there.

[Czar]

In my days, this was called "extortion"; deliberately creating a problem and then charging someone to clean up the mess you created. Personally, I'm thrilled that the FTC is finally acting on this. Sanford/Spamford is just one in an increasinly long list of players who have been destroying legitimate internet marketing piece by piece, while assaulting newbie web users with so much junk as to virtually kill the old hobby of casual web surfing.

Once the FTC move in on the criminals who distribute millions of emails suggesting "Sign up for SuperSpamBusterPro to stop receiving emails like this one" the net will start retaining some of its purity as an efficient delivery mechanism and trustworthy source of entertainment/information.

Mr Wallace, who used to boastfully and unashamedly describe himself as the "King of Spam" also tried in vain to defend himself against a barrage of criticism from our members in this past thread:
http://www.geekvillage.com/forums/sh...threadid=22196

While it's great to see that Geek/Talk members have long struggled against activity that is now attracting serious consequences, I share Steve's concerns that a small percentage of our members continue to defend the use of deceptive Active-X marketing components and spyware-invested download bundles.

May this action by the FTC prove a timely lesson for the internet marketing industry.

[Jan]

I know I am not alone in wanting to rid the internet of the vultures who take advantage of innocent surfers all in the name of fattening their wallets. I would support any move to eradicate this after being a victim of this slimy practice many times.

I certainly hope a few supporting this intrusion into our lives take heed of the majority of surfer's view on your scum.

[Eric_eLyrics]

I think ActiveX has hurt most publisers' income badly.
Because of ActiveX, the rate of regular pop-ups have dropped dramatically from $5 CPM to nowadays even less than 50 c sometimes. Then most of us have to face the dilemma: to activeX or not.
Also most agencies prefer to serve activeX in the rotations and are so unwilling to remove them upon request. It is soooooo hard to find an activeX/virus free pop sponsor

It is interesting that nowadays some ad networks even stopped showing their own URLs and brand names in the pop-up window, and use publiser's url instead. Then our publisers become the easier targets.

Anyway, I wish that all activeX ads would be eliminated because of this. Then the rate of regular pop-ups would rise.

[lwrules]

From Sanford Wallace:

I know this is against the geek code of conduct but one is innocent until proven guilty in the USA.

Let's wait and see how the case pans out before jumping to conclusions about legalities.

As quoted in the FTC release...

NOTE: The Commission files a complaint when it has “reason to believe” that the law has been or is being violated, and it appears to the Commission that a proceeding is in the public interest. The complaint is not a finding or ruling that the defendant has actually violated the law. The case will be decided by the court.

Also this whole claim of creating a problem and selling the solution is not as clear cut as the FTC puts it in its complaint. There are a lot of issues here.

So go on and continue making 12 cents per 1000 impressions and pat yourselves on the back for doing the right thing.

Hey I was trying to read the story on MSNBC.com but I couldn't read it because MSNBC served an annoying pop-in that covered most the screen and didn't scroll or close. The only way to close it was a small button on the bottom right corner. Oh the irony.

Sanford Wallace

[Jan]

Originally posted by lwrules
Hey I was trying to read the story on MSNBC.com but I couldn't read it because MSNBC served an annoying pop-in that covered most the screen and didn't scroll or close. The only way to close it was a small button on the bottom right corner. Oh the irony.

So you got annoyed about a popup you couldn't close? Sure that would annoy me too, but what annoys me a heck of a lot more is to have to clean my computer from all the junk that people of your ilk install without my consent.

At least with unclosable popups, I can restart my computer and be done with it, but you type of invasions takes a lot more than that.

Tell me Sandford, what would you do if someone broke into your house, while you were there?

[lwrules]

>Tell me Sandford, what would you do if someone broke into your
>house, while you were there?

Well if I lived in a dangerous city I would first try to prevent it by locking my doors. And if someone came in while I left my door wide open I would ask them to leave and if they refuse to leave I would use whatever weapons I own to get them the hell out. I certainly wouldn't call the U.S. Dept of Defense to ask them if they can lock my door for me.