[UncleScooter]

"The companies with which they deal and companies that fund them realize that this is an illegitimate activity from which they want to distance themselves," he said. "No one should infer ... that actual advertisers that drive this activity are immune. They are not." - Kenneth Dreifach, Chief of Elliot Spitzer's Internet Bureau

Bold and underline added by me.
The Complete article Once again, Ben is right in the middle of it.

They are going after:

• Spyware companies
• Their advertisers

You merchants out there playing the Adware game might want to re-think your strategy. This could easily blow up in your face.
Will they go after the networks who have simply turned their head to such activity for years? I'd bet they will.

[Leader]

Will they go after the networks who have simply turned their head to such activity for years? I'd bet they will.

Man the lifeboats...torpedoes incoming!!

Unless your commission checks really don't come from any of those networks, anyway. But if they do, there might not be much left for commissions once they pay all the fines...

[ecomcity]

Yeppers.... beware biting off the hand that feeds you Mr Merchant.

[Kellie aka Ms. B]

They are going after:

• Spyware companies
• Their advertisers

Are they going after spyware or adware?

[Leader]

Are they going after spyware or adware?

Spyware--I thought--but I thought that a lot of adware could also be considered spyware. Doesn't adware "call home" with information on surfing anymore?

[Jorge - JRami]

His people set up three personal computers up in a storeroom in Spitzer's Manhattan office.

Vanessa Ip regularly analyzed the hard drive

That's what we need, someone that sees the BS in action and not take any spin from anyone.

Will they go after the networks who have simply turned their head to such activity for years?

Perhaps one of the reasons why its time for some merchants to look towards offering different or external solutions and working with networks that don't play this game and support their affiliates 100%.

Perhaps one of the reasons why some AMs are looking towards working exclusively with merchants that are offering different or external solutions and working with networks that don't play this game and support their affiliates 100%.

My signature should give a clue of one of those AMs that is tired of the spin and willing to help those that offer no spin to their affiliate partners.

Congrats to those in the middle of it and keeping the pressure.

[Cagles Mill]

[Leader]

In pursuing spyware, last week's civil lawsuit against Intermix Media Inc. of Los Angeles is likely just the opening salvo.

Spitzer accused the company of secretly installing software that delivers nuisance pop-up advertisements and can slow and crash personal computers. Spitzer said such programs are fraudulent and threaten to discourage e-commerce~From the article

That's adware...

Spyware legislation typically defines it narrowly as surreptitious downloads that monitor a users' activity and could steal personal information.

Spitzer goes further — to include downloads of advertising onto hard drives that may or may not extract personal information.

That Spitzer always "goes further" to streetttcchh laws to fit his own personal morality, no matter what the issue, which is what I hate about him. IMO it's just as corrupt as anything he claims to be against. If you were obeying the laws as their writers intended, would you want some a-hole cooking up ways to "get you" for it? What if he decides to dislike "sites made specifically for advertising," next?

The short-term results may be good, though.

[garystarling]

In short - honest people with honest sites have nothnig to fear. Are you suffering from paranoia Leader? Content sites rule - OK!

[Leader]

No "paranoia," rather an understanding that ANY violation of rights is bad. And a knowledge of what happens to the regular people, and the economies, of countries like China--where the rule of law has been subverted by people just like Spitzer, who put themselves above the law--and use the "legal" system to destroy all those that they happen to dislike.

I never liked the ACLU, but increasingly I am seeing their logic.

honest people with honest sites have nothnig to fear.

Everyone in the entire United States of America has something to fear, from any who rewrite the laws without legislative due process!

Content sites rule - OK!

I was trying to make a point, that next time the target could be something you're doing!

(not so seriously, but..)
But if you think that way, then consider if the next NY AG is someone like ME...after all--by Spitzer's line of thinking, I could sue content sites like yours for "unlawful restraint of trade" or perhaps "tortious interference!" Never mind that the law didn't mean that, never intended on it, and that all legislation specifically avoided saying that! Never mind that you were in compliance with the law! Who cares?? As the new Attorney General of New York, the original meaning of the law is irrelevant--*I* say content is restraining and interfering with ecommerce, so, your site must pay me $10 million!

[Leader]

Just to make it clear, I AM NOT saying that I want parasiteware to be legal! But I want action to be done in a democratic and constitutional manner, not the stretch-to-fit way.

If Spitzer can find a law that really fits, more power to him!

[Mr. Sal]

"This should be the next big thing for enforcement efforts because there are some likely targets and, more than with white-collar crime, this will resonate with people," said John C. Coffee, a Columbia Law School securities law expert who has closely followed Spitzer.

It looks like the time has come because like they say "there are some likely targets and, more than with white-collar crime"

[womanht]

I think CJ might be in trouble if they don't get rid of the parasites FAST.

Come on CJ. Please clean up your network ASAP and get rid of the parasites so you would not get affected, and the rest of us ordinary non-BHO affiliates can continue getting our CJ checks!

[ecomcity]

Originally Posted by Leader

That's adware...



That Spitzer always "goes further" to streetttcchh laws to fit his own personal morality, no matter what the issue, which is what I hate about him. IMO it's just as corrupt as anything he claims to be against. If you were obeying the laws as their writers intended, would you want some a-hole cooking up ways to "get you" for it? What if he decides to dislike "sites made specifically for advertising," next?

The short-term results may be good, though.

Come on Leader. Your a consumer and web surfer too. Your weak attempt to classify Spitzer's open warfare on the gorilla Adwhores and their enablers has nothing to do with your turf claims or rights as an affiliate. Does It? He's addressing those, who without explicite adult permission, feel the can shove an Adwhore enema tube up your consumer butt and plunge so much advertising through your innards that your eyeballs blink 1-800-Flower Ads on Mothers Day.

[Leader]

It's not a "weak attempt," it's how I see it!
I don't really expect to get much agreement, YET, but I wanted to get my views on record. I've been watching--and getting pissed at--this guy for years. But until now, there wasn't a topic at ABW relevant enough for me to bring it up (except for when he messed with online cig places. Funny, I didn't see you defending him THEN!)

It's hard not to comment on anything to do with Spitzer. Like how some people just have to talk about politics, I always have a few choice opinions about him!

He's addressing those, who without explicite adult permission, feel the can shove an Adwhore enema tube up your consumer butt and plunge so much advertising through your innards that your eyeballs blink 1-800-Flower Ads on Mothers Day.

Yeah--but he has also devoted millions to trying to destroy Grasso's (of the NYSE) life, just because he was jealous of his paycheck (of course, he doesn't SAY it's because he's jealous)--and THAT is the issue that earned him the level of hatred I have towards him. Filing suits, digging up/stretching "laws" to fit--for what amounts to making what SPITZER THINKS is too much money?! What a total load of BS!!! I could go on and on about that case.

The Grasso case tells me that his main interest is just to screw over whoever he thinks is "too rich" on whatever pretense he can come up with. When he actually hits someone who deserves it, or helps any consumers, it's probably a side-effect.

And I DO have an obvious interest in that anti-cig-seller action he did. As a smoker, I'll blatantly and biasedly BOOO that particular action, and hope that some tobacco company gets it thrown out!

And since the Rest of the Place probably is uninterested in seeing a huge post debating the Securities Industry and the merits of the cases therein, I'll just give you a link to this one: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...042501524.html .

[Andy]

I agree with Leader. Any attempt to stretch a law into a "one size fits all" category will only make whatever comes of this harder to enforce. It will open the door to endless appeals, and instead of being a clear message that this isn't acceptable, it will allow it to remain in the "gray area" of what's acceptable until the lawyers have years to manipulate it in court.

I do think this is a message to advertisers and networks that they need to put some serious distance between them and these "gray area" operators. I've long felt that having your company's name appear in these software bundled downloads creates a negative impression to the people viewing the ads, but it could now also associate your company with spyware.

Not good for investors, or for future business growth.

Andy

[ecomcity]

Andy you've hit the key issue. Spitizer's case, and those Anti-crapware laws on the State and Federal dockets, place monitary burdens on those pimping browser spam through various blackhat Adwhore agents known to all the networks insiders. The bow shot made by Spitzer, across the bow of the "Good Ship LolliPop" sailing on the affiliate sewage flowing into the Merchant's lake, put monitary fines on the table for those abusing New York web surfers.... and voters.

Sure Spitzer is a power hungry attorney seeking higher office on being a bulldog on polled voter friendly issues involving sleazy, often criminal practices. Will Martha Stewart be the only affiliate enabled merchant doing jail time on Spitzer hit list. If it got Spitzer the Governors Office, shoving a hot expensive poker up the Ad industries butt for abusing the pissed off merchant's audience, he'll do it with vigor. Marks him as a people friendly un-corruptable Leader worthy of higher office.

[Leader]

It's definitely a message, and I have indeed had fun, watching the Biggest 2 dumping their formerly-precious parasites off their ships like so much sewage. Also I think the downtimes are highly coincidental, don't you? I can hear the e-shredding of the Linkshare Reformat commands all the way from NY

Marks him as a people friendly un-corruptable Leader worthy of higher office.

Naw I still think his law-stretching is just as corrupt as anybody else's. It's the flipside of the same coin.

My opinion, of course, won't stop him from costing parasite-supporters millions so the networks had better keep on dumping those paras overboard!!

[Cagles Mill]

Hopefully this won't be considered off-topic, but my question concerning Spitzer's plans is this: if he fines these companies $500 for every infected computer in the state of New York, who will get the money? Will the money go to those who can prove their computers contain the adware/spyware, or does the state keep it to spend as they please? Too often in these sorts of lawsuits, the actual victims never see any of the money.

[RadarCat]

Originally Posted by ecomcity

Will Martha Stewart be the only affiliate enabled merchant doing jail time on Spitzer hit list.

LOL !!

I know that the webmaster I used to work for always said that Martha Stewart would look really good in an orange prison jump suit because of the ruthless way she treated her affiliates.

Best,
RadarCat, WebMaster
http://www.os2warplinks.com

[ecomcity]

Originally Posted by Cagles Mill

Hopefully this won't be considered off-topic, but my question concerning Spitzer's plans is this: if he fines these companies $500 for every infected computer in the state of New York, who will get the money? Will the money go to those who can prove their computers contain the adware/spyware, or does the state keep it to spend as they please? Too often in these sorts of lawsuits, the actual victims never see any of the money.

Spitzer will model his States Anti-Spyware/Adware legislation after the Michigan model if he's loyal to his attorney and politician roots. Michigan leads the way with individual victims of the Adwhores being allowed to sue fro damages on top of State imposed fines. Look for Florida to adopt this model too.

[Leader]

The New York LEGISLATURE, not Spitzer, are the only ones with the authority to make legislation. Hopefully they will follow MI's lead so the parasites can get the legal equivalent of sitting on an ant hill. Anyone who's riled up an anthill knows that trying to get a few thousand biting ants off can be harder than dodging a raging rhino.

Michigan leads the way with individual victims of the Adwhores being allowed to sue fro damages on top of State imposed fines.

Cool huh! MI, where I am, and FL, where I want to be--both at the forefront of real anti-parasiteware/anti-spyware laws.

[SSanf]

It would be neat if individual affiliates could sue the networks for losses of any sales that they did not get paid for due to commissions being diverted by parasites that are or have been supported by the networks.

[womanht]

Bump