Gain (Gator) ? The Virus
It just amazes me how there are companies out there, claiming to be legitimate businesses, who are distributing what can only be known as spyware, adware, malware, badware, and viruses. These companies get away with it due to obscure clauses and legal double-speak in their terms of agreements, if they bother to have one at all. Some websites will download unwanted spyware and badware on your computer without any consent from you at all. They claim that all of this information gathering has a legitimate purpose and that people are over-reacting. Some people do not know what a virus is. It is simply a program. Just like any other program you download and use everyday. It must be installed onto your computer. The difference between a virus and a legitimate program lies in the purpose for which it was created. A legitimate program was created to help you perform a task. A virus was created to harm your computer or steal information from you. The other difference is the first one is legal, the latter is not. A virus is legitimately defined as an executable program, however, any script or macro should be included in that definition in my opinion. If they are written with the intent of causing harm to a user?s computer or they are written and installed on a user?s computer in order to gather information on that user, then they are no better and no different than a virus, and should fall under the same laws that apply to viruses. If these programs like GAIN, Gator, and WinFixer are so legitimate, why are the techniques they use to install it on a user?s computer so sly? Why are they using these sneaky tactics, such as downloading it onto someone?s computer without disclosing what it actually is to the user in a clear manner? Why do they write their malware, badware, and adware in such a way as to have it resist your efforts to remove it from your computer? Your computer is something you bought and paid for. You have the right to decide what will be installed on your computer. Anyone who writes a program that resists your ability to choose to remove it is a violation of your rights. Our elected officials don?t know how to surf the web for the most part, let alone actually understand what the definition of a virus is and how to legislate against spyware and malware. Software companies who write legitimate programs lobby them to make sure they do not pass any laws that regulate the sale of software. Example: Name any other product or service where you must pay up front for it before you even see the contract you must sign and agree to before you can use it? Not only that, but large corporations support the use of malware, adware, spyware, badware, and viruses that gather information from users without their knowledge. They in turn buy that information to build their own consumer databases and use that information to sell you products. They pay to know what your habits are. As long as they are willing to pay for that information, companies like GAIN will continue to steal it from user?s and sell it to these companies. If you want to know how many programs on your computer are gathering information about you, you will need to get some type of spyware detection software. There are several available, however, be careful, some of those advertising the removal of spyware are actually installing it on your computer themselves. Make sure you do a search in your favorite search engine to find out about the brand of software you are thinking of downloading. If your computer is infected with Gator or GAIN, you may have to use anti-virus software to remove it. Many of the anti-virus companies have removal instructions on their website. If GAIN were a legitimate company and legitimate software, it?s highly doubtful it would have to be removed by an anti-virus program. I hope this article has been helpful to you. GAIN, WinFixer, and other programs that act in this unethical manner should be considered viruses and held accountable for the harm they do to your computer and liable for the time it takes to remove them. That?s my opinion. D. David Dugan is the president of DD&C (<a href=http://www.dugancom.com>http://www.dugancom.com</a>) and personally helps to maintain their computer support forum at <a href=http://forum.dugancom.com> http://forum.dugancom.com</a> as well as their Spyware Information site <a href=http://spyware.dugancom.com> http://spyware.dugancom.com</a>.
Source: www.ArticlePros.com
How Fixing Broken Windows Can Decrease Click Fraud
There is a theory in law enforcement that goes something like this: If someone breaks a window in a building, and it isn’t fixed quickly, others will soon be broken. As the evidence of neglect builds, vandals will be more emboldened to break into the building and commit more vandalism and eventually destroy it completely. If, on the other hand, that window is promptly fixed, it discourages further crime because it is clear that someone is watching the store. Further, if instead of just fixing the window, you find the vandal and hold them accountable for it, a message goes out loud and clear: we’re watching and you will get caught. The problem with the broken windows theory is that it requires more than police action to put into practice. If the community isn’t involved in the cleanup effort, the initiative fails. When the community is drawn in to help police the problems, to report them and to ‘mind the store’, so to speak, crime rates drop. This theory can be extended to police nearly any venue where there is unacceptable behavior - including the problem of click fraud in the venue of PPC advertising. At the moment, the PPC industry is like a vacant building with nobody watching the store. It’s easy to enter fraudulent clicks. It’s even easier to get away with it. At the moment, a large percentage of advertisers leave the detection of fraudulent clicks up to the PPC provider - and the policy of most PPC providers is that they will provide refunds for proven click fraud upon request from the advertiser. What happens when: - The PPC provider’s software detection methods don’t catch the click fraud? - The advertiser doesn’t use fraud detection software? - The advertiser can’t back up the claim of click fraud? - The major players in the industry refer to the problem as ‘negligible’? Simply put - the click fraudster gets away with it. The rewards are enormous - estimates put the amount of money lost to click fraud in the range of billions of dollars annually. But the loss to any individual advertiser is usually negligible, and even Google sees refunding money to advertisers as no more than the cost of doing business. If we’re ever going to put a dent in click fraud, three things have to happen. 1. Advertisers have to take responsibility for monitoring their own campaigns. If you don’t know it’s happening, you can’t take steps to stop it. 2. Advertisers need to use the information they generate through their analytics to demand refunds from the PPC companies on a consistent basis. As long as the losses are minor compared to the profits for the PPC companies, their incentive for responding is limited. 3. Click fraud perpetrators have to be identified, actively pursued and penalized. Currently, modern techniques that use proxies and ‘zombie networks’ can make it almost impossible to identify and punish offenders. Those are the three elements of the Broken Window theory that make it work - community action, official backing and action and penalizing perpetrators. The first element in combating click fraud as a community is in getting click fraud prevention and tracking software into the hands of all advertisers. The difficulty of sifting through hundreds of pages of data to make comparisons and weed out patterns that signal click fraud is a daunting one for most companies. Click fraud detection software makes it almost painless - but can be expensive. Other parts of the internet market have benefited from open sourcing of software to manage content, manipulate graphics, and create communities and process payments. An open offering of free click fraud prevention software will encourage advertisers to start monitoring their own logs and records and identify potential fraudulent clicks. In addition, an open offering encourages others to modify and extend the software and make those extensions available to the community at large. With those monitors in place, the second part of the equation becomes more possible. When it’s easy for advertisers to identify and document fraudulent clicks on their campaigns, it becomes that much easier for them to demand refunds for those clicks. The third part is an outgrowth of creating a community that actively works to eliminate click fraud. For the time being, click fraudsters are loose in a neighborhood of broken windows. With the right tools, we can begin to repair the windows and create a community that makes it nearly impossible to get away with their tactics. Jay Stockwell has been fighting click fraud since 1999. In 2004 he developed the first version of Click Sentinel which was released 6 months later to critical acclaim. His release of <a href="http://www.clicksentinel.com">Click Sentinel</a> (Version 2) redefines how click fraud should be addressed.
Source: www.ArticlePros.com
