Ok, I was hit with the scumware called surfbar. For those of you who haven’t had the displeasure its a piece of tripe that loads itself (unless you were smart enough to have proper security settings, or some form of filter), into your browser and feeds you pop ups every once in a while as well as adding a “search” bar to your toolbar.
This is the kicker though, whenever I tried to do a google search for information on this thing (typing in “surferbar” and variations thereof) I would receive no hits for it. Only hits were having to do with bars for surfers. I thought this smelled somewhat ripe and did the same search at another computer at work, and sure enough, all sorts of hits on this piece of nastiness. One of the links mentioned that the program would redirect all searches through its own site.
So the question is, how legal is this? I mean, I did not agree to this thing loading, I did not agree to this thing controlling what I can or cannot see, and I CERTAINLY dont want it. It loaded itself through some site (Im not even sure when or how), and I have no option to un install it. There is no documentation anywhere that I can find on what it can or cannot see.
So how is this company/programmer not arrested? Near as I can see this thing does everything a virus does, it installs itself without permission, changes computer settings, and controls (albeit in a hopefully limited fashion) the operation of your computer (by controlling what you can/can’t see). Heck, as far as I know its sending personal information without my say so, and using my computer without my permission.
Dunno about legality, but download Adaware or Spybot. Either one ought to take care of it, and if for some reason one doesn’t, the other will.
First off, whats the point of all the double negatives? Second off, you most likely gave them permission to install it. Either they straight up asked you if you wanted it installed and you accepted, or it was part of an agreement you clicked yes without reading it. Theres also a chance that they didnt ask you, but its not as likely.
What double negatives? And there’s plenty of websites with unscrupulous owners that install stuff on your machine completely without permission of any kind. Xupiter comes to mind as one of the worst offenders. If you have nothing helpful to post in GQ, then don’t post, thank you.
" not illegal" and “haven’t had the displeasure” are two.
"How did Xupiter.com become my search engine?
This could happen one of several ways.
You could have clicked the ‘make start page’ link on the main Xupiter.com webpage.
You could have downloaded and installed one of our many software applications. In the terms and conditions of any of our software products it is clearly stated that we grant you a free license to use the software and by installing the software on your computer you agree to use our search services in your web browser. Any and all changes made to your system are clearly stated in the terms and conditions. "
My point is, if you read everything including the TOS (which hardly anyone including myself ever does) you wouldnt be left with these problems. Since you agreed to change your settings or install something it is perfectly legal.
Now as i said before, there is a chance that you were not asked for permission but without permission, the only things they can possibly do is change settings such as your homepage.
“not illegal” is not a double negative. A double negative is “not know nothing” and the like.
THis stops stuff like that for me (Using IE):
Open your browser.
Got to ‘Tools’
Click on ‘Internet Options’
Click on the ‘advanced’ tab
Scroll down to ‘enable install on demand’
Uncheck that. If there are two enable install on demand entries, uncheck both.
You will still need to get rid ofthe spyware if you have it already (via Ad Aware or Spybot), but such things should not be able to install themselves without asking you first.
Oh, since you’re picking on grammar, let me point out that you misused “myself” in your last posting.
Do a bit of a search of the SDMB and you’ll notice that more than a few people here have some very strong opinions on stealth software and related stunts.
Correct - “not illegal” and “haven’t had the displeasure” are litotes. Now back to your regularly scheduled spyware discussion.
double negative
n.
An affirmative constructed from two negatives; “A not unwelcome outcome” 2: a grammatically substandard but emphatic negative; “I don’t never go”
Though they may be litotes, they are also double negatives. Im not usually picky on grammar but double negatives are the only things that bother me since they make you think a bit more where little thinking is necessary. Dont complain about misusing a word since i dont proofread any of this. All i did was make one statement… actually it was a question… and everyone gets on my ass. You have all jacked this thread by answering a question that was directed at the OP.
for the record, I did not click on ANYTHING. At all. Not even by accident. Havent done anything like that in years. I urge you to do a search and you’ll see that it has happened to many people. It is not some random thing.
As for any double negatives, Im pissed off that it happened so Im not really bothering to keep tabs.
I would however point out that this board is visited by many to whom english is not a first language. So if you’d like to mention that grammar/spelling is incorrect and offer a suggestion, by all means do so, but do so in polite manner or else you run the risk of it degenerating into a flame war. No one likes to be slapped down in public.
First off, what’s the point of nitpicking the OP? Two double negatives – assuming that’s what they were – in three paragraphs hardly strikes me as excessive. Second off, I don’t recall where the OP’er said “Gosh, could you all speculate as to how I got this problem in the first place, preferably in a way that implies I’m stupid?” Third off, since you’re such a grammar fascist, you might want to stay away from using unnecessary modifiers, such as saying “first off” when what you really mean is “first.”
Goodness, that would never do, would it?
You probably had the cited “install on demand” option checked. By having that selected, you basically consent to download (which tends to be triggered merely by loading a banner ad, etc.) anything which someone wants to load onto your computer. Not wise, as you can see.
Okay, I don’t see what the big deal is, but the title of this thread is not a double negative! The title is a negative, not an affirmative. Think of it as, “This is illegal, isn’t it?”
If you don’t mind a brief hijack/rant. Why? Why? Why would Microsoft ever have such a option in their browser, and have it (most likely) enabled by default? Those two suckers were checked on my PC, I was in danger just like rabbit. :smack:
Microsoft has the option because it’s handy for things like prompting to install Flash when it’s needed (and one does not have it already, naturally). It’s a nice feature until some jerk abuses it for his jerkware for jerks.
If your security settings are at a decent level, IE still prompts you before installing anything, AFAIK. At least, I’ve never had anything install without my knowing about it in… however many years I’ve been using the Internet.
There’s something you have to be careful of with certain types of popups and the like. As noted in the OP, they’re getting pretty sneaky with the whole filtering out themselves from any searches. Another sneaky thing they do is to cleverly phrase the question asking for permission so that when you click “No” it really means “No, I don’t want to turn down the opportunity to install this software”.
If someone just scans the text without reading it completely, they will end up agreeing to something they really wanted to refuse.
That procedure might be necessary for you, but I have both of those checked, and nothing (according to AdAware) has installed itself in my system for over a year (oh, sure, cookies, but not programs). You got a site that installs such junk automatically that I can use to test that theory?
Moderate use of double negatives is not unreasonable anyway.