Misinformed about RealPlayer?

[tony@well.com]

Several days ago, after I went to http://www.soundprint.org to listen
to a radio program I had missed, and found that I would have to
install RealPlayer in order to hear it, I sent them a message to
explain that I did not want to load RP because it contains spyware.

Today, I received a response in which a production assistant states
that "Our technical staff assures me Real player does not contain
spyware".

I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to support my claim that it does
-- which I base on reading this group -- but if someone wishes to cite
chapter and verse for the benefit of their production staff, the URL
is www.soundprint.org.

T.
========================
Tony Roder, speaking his mind....

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 18:55:46 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, tony@well.com
wrote:
>
> Several days ago, after I went to http://www.soundprint.org to listen
> to a radio program I had missed, and found that I would have to
> install RealPlayer in order to hear it, I sent them a message to
> explain that I did not want to load RP because it contains spyware.
>
[snip]

Good for you!

> Today, I received a response in which a production assistant states
> that "Our technical staff assures me Real player does not contain
> spyware".
>
[snip]

That "production assistant" is either lying, or completely clueless
(probably the latter, in this particular case -- more likely, it's his/her
"technical staff" that is lying).

Real Networks is one of *THE* most scummy, unethical and unrepentantly
abusive "mainstream" outfits this side of Microsoft. Their history of
privacy invasion, trojan-planting, spamming, and all manner of other
shenanigans is so long-standing and so well-documented that anyone claiming
to be "technical staff" CANNOT also credibly claim to be unaware of it.

To answer your specific question, every version of Real Player since v5.0
has had some form of what has later become known as "spyware" embedded in
it. Among the transgressions it commits are "phoning home" details of what
Real Media files you play, from what sources, etc.

As for "chapter & verse", this should tell you -- and <soundprint.org> --
everything you need to know in order to conclude that NO ethical person
would ever deal with Real Networks:

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

And don't miss this thread in particular:

<http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=3974B07D.10884BAD%40usa.net>


--

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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[tony@well.com]

On Sat, 06 Sep 2003 19:20:34 -0400, Jay T. Blocksom
<usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote:

>As for "chapter & verse", this should tell you -- and <soundprint.org> --
>everything you need to know in order to conclude that NO ethical person
>would ever deal with Real Networks:

From your mouth to soundprint's ear. Perhaps, given your professional
technical credentials, they might believe you more than me if you told
them.

T.
========================
Tony Roder, speaking his mind....

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Sun, 07 Sep 2003 00:39:17 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, tony@well.com
wrote:
>
[snip]
>
> From your mouth to soundprint's ear. Perhaps, given your professional
> technical credentials, they might believe you more than me if you told
> them.
>
[snip]

Thank you for the vote of confidence, but it's not my fight -- I've got too
many other, more pressing, fish to fry.

But there's nothing stopping you from using the evidence I already provided
-- and plenty more that is out there for the Googling -- to make your own
case to them.

--

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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Roy]

In article <hgfklvskq277stgibnetht21ikbj44ukka@news.rcn.com >, usenet01
+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net says...

> As for "chapter & verse", this should tell you -- and <soundprint.org> --
> everything you need to know in order to conclude that NO ethical person
> would ever deal with Real Networks:
>

Which is why the BBC web site requiring you to run this to access most
of their audio/video content really pisses me off. Particulary as I'm
forced to pay the bloody TV tax, euphemistically named the TV licence,
to finance this nonsense.

Cheers,

Roy

[|3iff //ullins]

lucat bene, der Roy <z.5.RoyDent@spamgourmet.com> goh, a hunnert truxx
inero, sumwit kowz n' sumwit duxx on Sun, 7 Sep 2003 01:40:32 +0100:

>In article <hgfklvskq277stgibnetht21ikbj44ukka@news.rcn.com >, usenet01
>+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net says...
>
>> As for "chapter & verse", this should tell you -- and <soundprint.org> --
>> everything you need to know in order to conclude that NO ethical person
>> would ever deal with Real Networks:
>>
>
>Which is why the BBC web site requiring you to run this to access most
>of their audio/video content really pisses me off. Particulary as I'm
>forced to pay the bloody TV tax, euphemistically named the TV licence,
>to finance this nonsense.
>
wouldn't jet audio work for the bbc site?

--
carpe carpum
(seize the fish)

[Roy]

In article <mbvnlv8r0ihn1jp60g4loalh762eqkb27j@4ax.com>, biff.mullins3@
3premeditatedfun.com says...

> >Which is why the BBC web site requiring you to run this to access most
> >of their audio/video content really pisses me off. Particulary as I'm
> >forced to pay the bloody TV tax, euphemistically named the TV licence,
> >to finance this nonsense.
> >
> wouldn't jet audio work for the bbc site?
>

I'm afraid I've no idea, can't say I've heard of that either.

What I do know is that all the BBC site offers is Realplayer and, *very*
occasionally, Windows Media Player.

Cheers,

Roy

[eel]

The problem with jet audio is that you have to have realplayer installed for
it to work so you achieve nothing.

I have been using realalternative for the past few months and regularly
connect to the BBC. If you want to download it go to:
http://home.hccnet.nl/h.edskes/mirror.htm

Make sure you completely remove realplayer first.

eel

"Roy" <z.5.RoyDent@spamgourmet.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.19c6a0f5c9a678a69896a4@usenet.free-online.net...
> In article <mbvnlv8r0ihn1jp60g4loalh762eqkb27j@4ax.com>, biff.mullins3@
> 3premeditatedfun.com says...
>
> > >Which is why the BBC web site requiring you to run this to access most
> > >of their audio/video content really pisses me off. Particulary as I'm
> > >forced to pay the bloody TV tax, euphemistically named the TV licence,
> > >to finance this nonsense.
> > >
> > wouldn't jet audio work for the bbc site?
> >
>
> I'm afraid I've no idea, can't say I've heard of that either.
>
> What I do know is that all the BBC site offers is Realplayer and, *very*
> occasionally, Windows Media Player.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Roy

[CA was in NJ]

Jay T. Blocksom wrote:

>To answer your specific question, every version of Real Player since v5.0 has
>had some form of what has later become known as "spyware" embedded in it.

Are any prev 5.0 versions available from reputable sources? That is, where
nobody's added their own Trojans to it?

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Fri, 12 Sep 2003 02:21:32 -0600, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, CA was in NJ
<cainnj.cjb.net@cainnj.REVERSE_TO_REPLY__SPAMMERS_ SHOT_ON_SIGHT> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom wrote:
>
> >To answer your specific question, every version of Real Player since
> >v5.0 has had some form of what has later become known as "spyware"
> >embedded in it.
>
> Are any prev 5.0 versions available from reputable sources? That is,
> where nobody's added their own Trojans to it?

Dunno, as I've not gone looking for it lately. I have copies of the some of
the older releases of Real Player (including 5.0) in my archives; and they
were all acquired back when those versions were "current". But OTOH, I'm
very hesitant to supply or further distribute it (despite the fact that it
would be perfectly legal for me to do so) due to "political" reasons (i.e.,
I'd really rather not encourage the acceptance of *any* Real-format media
files).

I would also like to clear up one other detail... When I said "since 5.0",
that is exactly what I meant. TTBOMK, v5.0 does *not* have any undefeatable
"spyware" features. But after that, you're definitely playing Russian
Roulette.

--

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.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -