Submit Hint Search The Forums LinksStatsPollsHeadlinesRSS
14,000 hints and counting!


Click here to return to the 'Still Unethical' hint
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
Still Unethical
Authored by: MasterUltan on Dec 22, '02 01:42:07AM

I do NOT intend to condone software piracy, but something more insidious is going on here. Let me give you a real world analogy. If you steal something of mine and I KNOW you stole it, do I have the right to break into your home, search your belongings, and take back my property? No, I do not. That is taking the law into one's own hands; that is vigilante-ism. Proteron is NOT justified in stealing user's personal information whether they broke the law or not. This is a matter for the police. I do not accept the idea and am very concerned about the precedent that private interests can be defended by going beyond the law. Is there anything in Proteron's License agreement which alerts the user to the fact that his/her personal information is offered in the case the license agreement is violated? If so, is this a legal form of contract? People interested in preserving the values of freedom which exist on the Internet and in the world should be VERY concerned about this.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Still Unethical
Authored by: DrRobert on Dec 22, '02 06:58:35PM

Amen Brother Ultan. Vigilantism must not be tolerated. This is a good piece of software to boycott. The thought by the company that the innocent have nothing to fear is perverse. Only legal process can determine guilt.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Difference of opinion...
Authored by: robg on Dec 22, '02 07:58:10PM

I feel that accessing information stored in publicly available fields is a far cry from breaking in -- a better analogy, in my opinion, is that I know you stole something, so I used the information in the Yellow Pages to locate you.

But everyone must determine their own level of comfort with their own privacy; I've decided that MM is doing nothing that I need be overly concerned about.

-rob.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Publicly Available?
Authored by: MasterUltan on Dec 23, '02 10:36:11AM

Nothing on my computer is "publicly available". If I go to my bank and withdraw all of my money in cash, then leave that cash on my front door step, you have still committed a crime by taking it. I may have been foolish in leaving it there, but you have no right to it. Any information available to programs through OS X API's is for programmers to facilitate MY use of that information. I have agreed to NO contract which allows that information to be accessed by companies and/or programmers.
In addition, DrRobert makes an excellent point regarding the comment about "innocence". I believe this phrase was used a great deal by Joe McCarthy and is, ironically, quite Un-American.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Difference of opinion...
Authored by: DrRobert on Dec 23, '02 12:24:36PM

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the accessing of publicly available information; however, the is nothing that assumes that a program's author may use that information. The insidious thing here is that that information is LEAVING my machine without my consent. It should be clear to a purchaser what a program is doing on his machine. The analogy is not using a phone book to look up a number, the analogy is digging through a person's personal papers that he left on his front porch to obtain an unlisted phone number. If he really only wants to stop piracy then he should clearly state that he will harvest this information so that we may choose not to use his software. I should never be denied of the choice to not distribute my personal information. I always pay for shareware and never pirate software, but I never register either. Once I buy a piece of software the seller has no right to know what I do with it.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Difference of opinion...
Authored by: DrKwan666 on Dec 29, '02 01:28:34AM

Publicly stored? I don't know what you consider "public", but the contents of my computer, whether protected from intrusion or not, are nobody's business. The fact that this software retrieves ANY data from my computer that I did not explicitly authorize is a clear invasion of privacy regardless of the reason it is done.

I don't use this software, but given this revelation I very definitely won't ever use it or any product from this company. I think consumers have every right to expect that any software they install will, at very least, explicitly state what data will be gathered as a result of installation.

No one condones piracy, but unethical behavior is unethical behavior no matter what the reason. The ends do not justify the means.



[ Reply to This | # ]
Difference of opinion...
Authored by: VicF on Jan 05, '03 12:25:31PM

In my opinion, this would be a legitimate difference of opinion if, when one downloads MaxMenus, they are explicitly told up front that the software includes spyware that sends identifying information to the developer in the event that an inappropriate serial number is entered. Then I as a software user have the option of downloading the software on that basis. Does MaxMenus include such a warning? If not, why not? That warning would actually prevent people from using the inappropriate serial number, which is the only laudable objective that the developer should have. On the other hand, explicitly concealing that the software includes spyware serves the additional goal of 'busting' people that use an illegal serial. THAT's the difference between "protecting ones interest" (warning users, so that the illegal serial is never used in the first place) and "vigilante-ism" (busting them).

FWIW, I downloaded and tried MaxMenus (without the knowledge that it included spyware). I liked it. It's even worth $20. But promoting further encroachment of software users' rights is not worth any price. I've therefore deleted the offending (and offensive) program from my hard drive.



[ Reply to This | # ]