Spyblaster

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Tue, 9 Sep 2003 20:46:17 -0400, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "Dan"
<djones21@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>
> Does anybody else have difficulties with spyblaster ...
[snip]

SpywareBlaster is a pointless rip-off, since its primary (near-sole, in
fact) function is to de-fang *some* ActiveX controls. But ActiveX has *NO*
place on any properly configured computer system, especially one connected
in any way to the Internet. That combination is *iherently* an open
invitation to Bad Things[tm]. It inescapably follows from this that having
any program installed which can or will download and/or install ANY ActiveX
controls disqualifies a system from being described as "properly
configured". The fact that many shiny new computer systems come out of
their boxes similarly misconfigured does *NOT* change that.

--

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

[Robin T Cox]

Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
news:ahl0mvc415lv79mf66vb1sfkn0epcqb51c@news.rcn.c om:

> SpywareBlaster is a pointless rip-off

How so? It's freeware/donationware, not charged for.

[YoKenny]

Robin T Cox wrote:
> Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> news:ahl0mvc415lv79mf66vb1sfkn0epcqb51c@news.rcn.c om:
>
>> SpywareBlaster is a pointless rip-off
>
> How so? It's freeware/donationware, not charged for.

He's just jealous because he did not invent it. Update today to version
2.6.1 and updated hijacker list of 812 items.

[Jay T. Blocksom]

On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 17:31:38 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, Robin T Cox
<robin2803@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Jay T. Blocksom <usenet01+SPAMBLOCK@appropriate-tech.net> wrote in
> news:ahl0mvc415lv79mf66vb1sfkn0epcqb51c@news.rcn.c om:
>
> > SpywareBlaster is a pointless rip-off
>
> How so? It's freeware/donationware, not charged for.

I presume you are questioning the term "rip-off", not "pointless".

The latter term is blindingly obvious, so no need to expound further on
that.

The former term is not so obvious, but just as valid: First on the grounds
of the false sense of security it instills in anyone foolish enough to use
it -- to at least some extent, they are being deprived of the healthy
skepticism that *could* actually help protect them. Second on the grounds
that the author *does* ask for money from his victims, even if he does not
demand it; by my yardstick anyway, asking for money in return for something
that cannot possibly provide any real value is indeed a "rip-off".

--

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