Real Alternative

[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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -