Re: iDownload/iSearch responds to Spyware Critics

Paul Laudanski wrote:

>Slashdot ran two stories earlier on how iDownload/iSearch sent letters to
>anti-spyware companies/websites telling them to [
>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/02/23/1830243&from=rss ] stop
>listing their brand as spyware or malware. The spyware critics [
>http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/03/02/0229222&from=rss ]
>responded back indicating they do not agree with iDownload's assertions.
>iDownload has now responded back to the spyware critics. Two sites to
>date received replies, read [
>http://castlecops.com/article-5793-nested-0-0.html ] CastleCops and [
>http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/2005/03/idownloads-response-to-sunbelt.html
>] Sunbelt Software for details. Other sources picked up this story
>including [
>http://news.independent.co.uk/world/science_technology/story.jsp?story=615884
>] The Independent, [ http://www.broadbandreports.com/shownews/60608 ]
>Broadbandreports, [ http://castlecops.com/article5772.html ] Robin, and
>ZDNet Blog [ http://blogs.zdnet.com/Spyware/index.php?p=28 ] Spyware
>Confidential.
>
>
>
What's truly interesting is that the legal counsel for iDownload/iSearch
indicates that there is a "lively debate" going on on the internet about
whether or not their program is spyware or not.

Maybe I'm not looking in the same places, but I have never seen any
debate regarding the classification of these programs, at least not a
lively one.
As for my own experience, I've witnessed iSearch/iDownload packages
being installed on systems during adware/spyware infestations. Only one
conclusion can be gained from that: You guys are on the right side of
this argument and these people need to be opposed.

Their assertions are laughable.

               -Barry
Received on Mar 12 2005