Talk:SpectorSoft

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Would someone be so kind as to explain what happened? I have spent a good deal of time follwoing the suggestions that would occasaionally pop up on the page, such as finding relevant internal links that point to this page, finding a category, and so on. I have followed everything to the best of my understanding and have contibuted to a few articles and would like to know if there is some help available as I am a little confused. ThanksTechie guru 22:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I have begun to add citations to this article, if anyone would be willing to assist me on this by adding more or making corrections to the citations etc.. please feel free. Techie guru 14:48, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I removed the afd tag, but left the NPOV tag up for now. I will leave it up for a week or two in hopes that someone will assist with it. Techie guru 12:24, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed NPOV tag per the timeline in the above thread. If there is a difference of opinion on the removal, please feel free to discuss it. Techie guru 19:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup

I have done a little cleaning up of this article, however it still does not read like an encyclopaedia entry.

There is far too much emphasis on the history of the company, also the language is very informal and verbose. It also does not have a Neutral point of view as required, but paints the company in a completely positive light.

This software company is surely controversial due to the 'spyware' nature of its products, there should be a section on this, as the software could easily be used for harm as well as good. From what I have read in the references, the software is completely covert, surely there are major legal issues surrounding this - eg industrial espionage, bosses reading private emails, spouses catching cheating partners, computer dealers selling new PC's pre-installed with the software... etc.

Examples of how people/companies have used the software would be very good, both positive and negative if possible. (eg employees fired, fraud discovered, paedophiles caught, used by stalker, used to steal money/identity... whatever )

The opening paragraph and the product information should be expanded with more information.

The article needs Wikification to add links.

Perhaps screenshots could be added (if they exist for a covert system).

A sentence on the target markets would be useful.

--Ozhiker 00:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ozhiker, thank you for the help and also for the advice, I will start to work on this. I also wanted to mention that I removed 3 internal links from the list as they were not relevant. I figured i should explain why i did this. Netbus is a trojan, SpectorSoft does not make trojans as far as I know, I also removed the spyware reference. While I can see the reason someone would link that (wordplay), spyware is nothing like what SpectorSoft has. Spyware is a parisite that is usually picked up on a web site, or perhaps an email, but there really is a distinct different between spywae and spy software. I would be more than happy to continue to discuss this. Again, thanks for everything and I will start working on wikifying soon. Techie guru 18:04, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Ozhiker I appreciate the information you have added, but it needed to be modified. You can check my references and clearly see that you were making incorrect statements. If you would like to discuss this more, please feel free, but if there is a rv back to what you had as far as fabrication is concerned, i will revert it back. I do think there is a need for the controversy section and want it to stay, but you need to be fair about it and research your material first.

Techie guru 19:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I have also moved the controvery section to a more approprite section of the page. The content is about SpectorSoft first and foremost, controversy has a place in this article, but not at the very top.

Techie guru 20:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I've placed a "citation needed" tag on the article regarding the claim that eBlaster is nothing like a trojan. I've provided examples of well known and well respected companies that consider eBlaster to be a trojan. Please provide some citations to the contrary for the statement, or remove it.

My main reasons that I (and others) would consider it a trojan and no different to the tools used by a cyber-thief are the following similarities:

Similarities:

1. Both log keystrokes of users, including all banking passwords, credit card numbers, personal information etc.
2. Both can be installed remotely without the users knowledge or permission.
3. Both employ rootkits or similar tools to avoid detection by users.
4. Both actively combat removal tools such as anti-spyware or anti-virus software.
5. Both are considered a high security risk by leading anti-virus makers.

Differences:

1. Operators pay to purchase eBlaster
2. eBlaster has a EULA

Please suggest any other differences, if there are any.

EULA licenses have not had a completely successful history when they have been contested in court, most software users are aware of what little notice that pirates give to EULA's, so I cannot imagine that it would stop a criminal who is looking to break the law anyway. Are there any cases of Spectorsoft prosecuting people for violating the EULA? The EULA would apparently allow the operator of a cyber-cafe to install eBlaster on the computers, place a small sign in the cybercafe, and then record users personal information without violating the EULA.

I don't deny that it is used legitimately, but it would also be extremely simple to use for crime.

I don't think the text of the EULA needs to be in the article - just a statement saying that the EULA forbids installation without permission of the computer owner, and forbids use without informing users they may be under surveillance - with a citation linking to the full text.

Please also provide citation for the claim that eBlaster is not spyware, or replace the text - Both Symantec and SpyNoMore.com list it as spyware.

You wrote that "Spyware is a parisite that is usually picked up on a web site, or perhaps an email" - Many people would describe eBlaster as a parasite, since you don't know you've got it, it feeds off your computing activity, and you can't easily get rid of it - Also It can be sent by email, as described in the remote installation guide.

--Ozhiker 21:25, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Additional Note: Even Specorsoft themselves describe eBlaster as "eBlaster Remote Spyware" - see here --Ozhiker 21:35, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

Another Note: Including the EULA text in the article might be a copyright violation --Ozhiker 22:33, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I can see your point on this, but the way you worded it made it come off like that is the companies intention when the fact is they do seem to make attempts to deter any kind of illegal activity.

Lets look at this from a different standpoint. [1]

Pestpatrol is a good application, its link worthy, but CA owns pest patrol. CA has CA Internet Security Suite 2007. Within that software they have K9 Web Protection.

K9 Web Protection is parental controls. Within these parental controls it can log, or record activity. Such as web sites.

Do you think it is reasonable to come to a conclusion that CA classifies its competition as a Trojan because they may want to damage the reputation of that company to increase their overall sales?

The answer is yes, but it is speculation. My point in all of that is that it seems a little unfair and biased to have competitors promoting something as one thing, but they are doing the same thing essentially. It is not the fault of SpectorSoft that they happen to have more options and record more things than CA. It is what it is.

So, with all of that being said, would it not be a fair statement to say that pest patrol ALSO creates Trojans under the guise of a different “parent label” ? Regardless if it is remote administration capable, or local, a Trojan is a Trojan according to what you are saying.

With regards to you providing a list of reasons that some might consider it to be a Trojan; I can say this with a certain level of certainty and I ask that you find me some instances where I am wrong, but Trojans do not come with an end user license agreement.

Not to mention that eBlaster, has a pop up prior to going forward with the install stating that you must agree that you own the computer and are planning to inform anyone that uses it. Trojans do not do that. While I agree, it has similarities to a Trojan, it really is not because Trojans are not commercially sold and rated by places like PC magazine as the best choice for parents. See my point.

Are there any cases of Spectorsoft prosecuting people for violating the EULA? I do not know the answer, we could both try and see what we find?

Please also provide citation for the claim that eBlaster is not spyware, or replace the text - Both Symantec and SpyNoMore.com list it as spyware.

If you read the PC magazine article that is linked at the bottom of the page you can verify this. I can not see how a major media outlet like PC Magazine could mislead parents when they have reccomended SpectorSoft products. Surley they would not tell people to install spyware on a computer. Can you agree with that?

The words spyware, trojans, spy software, etc are used very loosly and some may think it is, but other think it is not. It really the way a person see it in their mind. That’s why I left the links for spyware and trojan up there because some people may want to learn about that. However, deeming it as software for a theif is just a little biased IMHO. Techie guru 13:37, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rewrite/Content Removal

I re-wrote most of this article a little while back, but forgot to put an explanation:

The article had been tagged, and re-tagged several times for cleanup, reading like an advertisment, neutral point of view, essay prose and lack of references. Please refer to the discussions above and also see: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6].

I removed all the essay like prose, which was overly complimentary to the company, and which read like a company history from a stock prospectus. Now the article has only cited information in it, and I have added sourced negative viewpoints about the products. I think I kept the most pertinent information from the old article, and provided citations for it. --Ozhiker 23:32, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I am going to be making edits to this page over the next week or so. While I think that the page is much better, there is so much negative bias that it makes the page more of an opinion section on an editorial page of a newspaper than an unbiased entry. I have already removed a couple of items that were exagerated statements. I kept the core of the statement as I think it should be there, but removed the negative spin and false statements. If you research what I removed and edited you will find that it is cited information and factual. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.110.62.223 (talk) 10:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Speedy deletion

This article has previously been nominated for deletion, with no consensus to delete: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Spectorsoft

I don't know if it was originally written by spectorsoft employees, but it has been *completely* rewritten since then by non-employees, as per the outcome of the deletion review.

Notability: There are multiple external media references establishing notability. - What specifically is lacking for notability?

--Ozhiker 11:12, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ozhiker I would like to know where the issue of notability lies. If I did not know any better I would think that I stirrerd some kind of pot with someone yesterday because I added a few relevant links to this article from a couple of others. Ozhiker is right, this page has undergone a complete rewrite since it was created and I think that all of the citings in the article are concrete and absolute. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.151.227.250 (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the notability tag. I read the requirements for notability and I believe that Ozhiker has provided more than enough references. As such ithe references provided are long term and not short burst. I read the entire notability article and could not locate any reference of the process to remove the notability tag, so I assume that I can safely remove the tag, make the note here and be done with this issue. Also I notices that Tikiwont stated "(- db: not a speedy candidate. There was already an AfD (see talk page)" which indicated to me that there is a concensus this issue is resolved. Please feel free to leave any comments if there is further disagreement. I would also like to thank Ozhiker for the rewrite, it looks much better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.151.227.250 (talk) 21:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)