Real Alternative

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:13:46 -0500, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Little
Johnny" <missb93@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: "Little Johnny" <missb93@hotmail.com>
> Newsgroups: alt.privacy.spyware
> Subject: Re: Real Alternative
> Date: Thu, 24 Jul 2003 16:13:46 -0500
> Organization: Posted via Supernews, http://www.supernews.com
> Message-ID: <vi0j0hd4se8rb0@corp.supernews.com>
> X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
> Lines: 22
>
>
>
> --
>
[snip]

Why did you put the entire body of your post *below* your sig delimiter?

Aside from being really ugly, this will create difficulties for some folks
attempting to f'up to your post.

>
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> FIGHT BACK AGAINST SPAM!
> Download Spam Inspector, the Award Winning Anti-Spam Filter
> http://[URL REDACTED]
>
>
[snip]

Please do NOT shill for these spamming slimeballs. See:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=giantcompany.com+group:news.admin.net-abuse.email&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G&scoring=d>

for confirmation and more info on some of their reprehensible "business
practices".

And to answer your earlier question (the article for which is not currently
on my server, so this will have to do):

--> I just got a new puter with XP and Media Player installed. How do I
--> get MP un installed? I can't find any uninstall anywhere.
[snip]

That is by design.

--> What other things should I be removeing or turning of in XP.

Windows XP itself. See:

<http://www.hevanet.com/peace/microsoft.htm>
or <http://www.futurepower.net/microsoft.htm>

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:35:35 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, turtle
<default@nowhere.net> wrote:
>
> Could I be so bold to ask what possible use this has?
[snip]


+----------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+----------+
| |
| |
.\|.||/..


--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Chuck]

On Sat, 26 Jul 2003 12:35:35 -0400, turtle <default@nowhere.net>
wrote:

>Could I be so bold to ask what possible use this has? After all "who
>cares what you do with your own computer?"
>
>SNIP<
>>> Check out http://fileforum.betanews.com/detail...fid=1054136293
>>> read the reviews. Does most of the stuff Real Player does including
>>> play rm files.
>>
>>I killfile anyone who has ever used Real Player.
>>
Checkout other posts by this weenie.

Chuck Croll
cacrollthespam@yahoo.com
Spam sucks - PLEASE get rid of the spam before emailing me!
Trusted Computing? Right! http://www.againsttcpa.com/
WHAT IS THE CBDTPA? http://www.stoppoliceware.org/

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Tue, 29 Jul 2003 22:07:11 +1000, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Gail Pamphilon
<gail@melbpc.thinkcarefully.org.au> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> I haven't had any problems with Real.
[snip]

Well, I guess the old saying about "Ignorance is bliss" is true.

> I am using the free RealOne
> player that I downloaded ages ago (I don't know if they have upgraded
> since). I don't remember if it came with spyware, but Ad-aware and
> Spybot would have cleaned it if so.
[snip]

Don't count on that.

Several years ago, Real Networks was *the* first so-called "mainstream"
company to jump into the privacy-invasion business (in the guise of
"marketing demographics") with both feet. They have NOT reformed since
then. They are utter slimeballs (and big-time spammers -- but that's sort'a
synonymous). They've been sued over it multiple times, and AFAIK, lost
every time. They have *still* not reformed. It is a lead-pipe cinch that
ANYTHING they give away (and probably anything they sell) will be a trojan,
in at least some way. It is equally certain that to allow anything they've
produced in the last, say, five years to run on a system with a open
internet connection is simply suicidal (at least, presuming that that one
does not have a good hardware firewall sitting upstream of the host system,
with ALL of Real Networks' IP space solidly in the static DENY tables,
effective for all ports, in both directions -- and even then, I might be
nervous about it).

If there is still ANY doubt in your mind about these low-lifes, see:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Real+Networks%22+group:news.admin.net-abuse.email&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G>

> I'm using Win 98 SE, perhaps people with different O/Ss have different
> experiences.
>
[snip]

There are no "good" experiences to be had using Real Networks crapware.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[BoB]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 01:08:25 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

SNIP

>Don't count on that.
>
>Several years ago, Real Networks was *the* first so-called "mainstream"
>company to jump into the privacy-invasion business (in the guise of
>"marketing demographics") with both feet. They have NOT reformed since
>then. They are utter slimeballs (and big-time spammers -- but that's sort'a
>synonymous). They've been sued over it multiple times, and AFAIK, lost
>every time. They have *still* not reformed. It is a lead-pipe cinch that
>ANYTHING they give away (and probably anything they sell) will be a trojan,
>in at least some way.

SNIP

>If there is still ANY doubt in your mind about these low-lifes, see:
>
><http://groups.google.com/groups?q=%22Real+Networks%22+group:news.admin.net-abuse.email&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=G>
>
>There are no "good" experiences to be had using Real Networks crapware.

Can't say that I disagree with anything you said. If a web site
is stupid enough to use Real, then I have no interest in their
site, PERIOD.

BoB

[Gail Pamphilon]

Quoth Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net>:

>Several years ago, Real Networks was *the* first so-called "mainstream"
>company to jump into the privacy-invasion business (in the guise of
>"marketing demographics") with both feet. They have NOT reformed since
>then. They are utter slimeballs (and big-time spammers -- but that's sort'a

Hi Jay, I agree that Real are scumbags and that they are not going to
stop being scumbags. But do you think both Ad-aware and Spybot are
incapable of cleaning out whatever spyware may be there, after all
this time? After all, they are constantly updating their reference
files, are they not?

Mind you, I rarely run RealOne these days, but I still have it for the
occasions when it's needed. But it still works perfectly, which means
that any spyware that was cleaned out did not disable it. As an
example of what I mean, when I ran the Oozic Player (by Creative), one
of the virus checkers (as I prefer to think of them), removed Oozic's
spyware, after which the player would no longer run - it was audio
only.

Over to the rest of the newsgroup for any opinions they may like to
offer.

Gail
c|_|

If you want to email me, use your imagination first.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Wed, 06 Aug 2003 15:32:01 +1000, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Gail Pamphilon
<gail@melbpc.thinkcarefully.org.au> wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> Hi Jay, I agree that Real are scumbags and that they are not going to
> stop being scumbags. But do you think both Ad-aware and Spybot are
> incapable of cleaning out whatever spyware may be there, after all
> this time? After all, they are constantly updating their reference
> files, are they not?
>
[snip]

Dunno. But that's not really the point.

We already *know* that Real-ware is not trustworthy. It is also only
reasonable to assume that the mechanisms they use to conduct their illicit
business are not static -- i.e., they will keep developing "new and
improved" ways to abuse the users of their trojan horse programs. Given
that, it seems imprudent at best to depend on ANY after-the-fact third-party
"band-aid". As popular (and useful!) as AdAware and SS&D may be, it's
important to remember that they are *NOT* panaceas. At best, they can only
be a "reactionary" defense: A particular threat mechanism must first be
devised _and_deployed_ by the malware vendor; only then can the "band-aid"
makers discover that threat mechanism, identify it, and develop a
countermeasure to it -- in the meantime, you're *already* exposed. Sure, in
the context of "new and unknown" threats, these "band-aid" programs are
probably one the best defenses we have; but in the case of Real Networks,
we're already *well* beyond that point. Don't get me wrong.... Like I
said, AdAware and SS&D are good products; and I recommend them highly when
properly used for the purposes they are intended. But there seems to be an
alarming tendency for some folks to view them as the end-all and be-all of
spyware control. They are not that, and can never be that; nor are they an
adequate subsitute for ALWAYS practicing "safe computing".

Then there is the political angle... By keeping any incarnation of
RealPlayer on your system, you enable the download and use of Real Media
content. Now, that might seem like "a good thing", at first glance -- but
it's not. Every time you download a Real Media file from some website,
you're telling the owner/operator of that website that his choice to offer
his content in Real format, as opposed to a generic "open standard" format
like .AVI or .MPEG, was the correct one -- thus you perpetuate and
exacerbate the larger problem of Real Networks' continued existance.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -