If you haven’t been keeping up with the iDownload/iSearch saga, you might be interested in taking the time to do so. You can check out the Spyware Warrior aspect of the story and this is the link for the Castle Cops side of the story. This is a pretty interesting story and is creating a buzz in several forums. There is the question of whether iDownload/iSearch is spyware or not. There is also controversy in whether iDownload/iSearch is preparing for a SLAPP.
Suzi at spyware warrior claims to have searched her site, and found only references to Ad-Aware updates and Spyware Blaster updates. Does this mean that if I place a list of updates in a myITforum blog, that we may receive a letter that makes a threat of legal action? Could such legal action succeed? What about opinions posted by forum members? I don’t think that the legal attempts of iDownload/iSearch will be successful, but it does provoke thought on the matter.
According to thefirstamendment.org :
“ Most SLAPPs are ultimately legally unsuccessful. While most SLAPPs lose in court, they "succeed" in the public arena. This is because defending a SLAPP, even when the legal defense is strong, requires a substantial investment of money, time, and resources. The resulting effect is a "chill" on public participation in, and open debate on, important public issues. This "chilling" effect is not limited to the SLAPP target(s): fearful of being the target of future litigation, others refrain from speaking on, or participating in, issues of public concern. “
I found it pretty interesting that in the Cease & Desist letter sent to Spyware Warrior, iDownload/iSearch says :
“iSearch does not qualify as Malware. iSearch is a toolbar that in no way attempts to remain hidden or evade detection, Continuing, unlike Malware, iSearch does not gather any personally identifiable information about end users, does not collect data about the user’s web usage, does not collect any information entered into web forms, does not share information with third parties, does not send or cause to be sent unsolicited e-mail, and does not install items such as dialers on the end user’s computer.”
This paragraph is from ISEARCH INTERNET END USER LICENSE AGREEMENT and states :
“iSearch and/or it's partners may also collect and may use certain other types of non-personally identifiable information, including: certain of the web pages that you view, the amount of time that you spend on certain websites, your responses to ads served by iSearch and/or it's partners, certain software installed to your computer and software characteristics and preferences, non-personally identifiable information on web pages and forms, software usage characteristics and preferences, and your ZIP code. iSearch and/or it's partners may associate this information with a randomly-generated anonymous identifier for your computer and may use this information to enable the functionality of the Software, to periodically update the Software, to deliver and display ads served by iSearch and/or it's partners of advertisers who pay a fee to iSearch and/or it's partners, provide you with or redirect you to content or websites of such advertisers or other parties and offer you the opportunity to download software from third party vendors.”
In my non-legal opinion, they seem to be contradicting when talking about collecting data from web forms. Also, the first paragraph states that they do not collect any data about the users web usage, but the second paragraph from the EULA states that they can collect web pages you view, the amount of time on a page, information in forms, and your zip code. If they are collecting data on where you go and how long your there, that sounds like a users web usage to me. Anyway this is an interesting story to follow and does stir up some debate.
In an effort to determine what the public opinion is on the controversy, I created a poll at VirusIntel.com.