From: Loree Thomas (loreetg@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue Jan 29 2002 - 19:04:03 MST
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> > And it didn't actually take you to sites you
> didn't
> > want to go to (as he continually claimed but
> failed to
> > actually demonstrate).
> I humbly disagree.
Of course you do! You wouldn't have posted the link
to that site if you didn't agree with it.
I've got to ask, however... have you actually seen
TopText at work? If not, then you don't know what you
are talking about... read what I wrote again... if so
then you are being purposefully deceptive about how it
works. I've described it accurately... your
description isn't accurate.
> A link is supposed to do what the HTML says to do.
> If I put a link on my website to bring up my resume,
> that is what I want it to do.
But it's MY computer. If *I* want your link to do
something other than what you intended, *I* most
certainly have that right, no?
You are still claiming hijacking. I wouldn't call it
that... You use the term "hijacking" more for it's
emotional content that it's actual meaning. Your
original code is still the same and still works the
way you intended... it hasn't been hijacked at all. I
could still go where you wanted me to... it's just now
I have additional choices as well. I could choose to
make a different use of your page than you intended...
once you publish, you've given me the right to do
that.
Suppose rather than clicking your link, I use it as a
phrase in a search engine? I do that kind of thing a
lot. Do I have a right to do that? Of course I do.
TopText merely provides a (poorly implemented) short
cut to that function that operates all the time.
> If it brings up an ad for monster.com or lists
> other resumes that you
> ought to look at instead
Not instead... in addition to... big difference.
> of mine, I would call that
> link hijacking.
As long as the target of your link is still a choice,
it hasn't been hijacked... additional choices have
been added.
>
> > Once I saw what TopText was, I didn't want it and
> > I had no problem at all uninstalling it.
> > I do NOT, however, think that it is
> > an inherently unethical program... just a useless
> >one.
>
> Wasn't it unethical for it to install itself without
> your knowledge?
You misunderstood... It didn't install itself without
my knowledge. It was one of the components listed in
the set up screen. I could have chosen not to install
it.
It is unethical to mischaracterize something merely
because you don't like it. TopText is a sucky program
that doesn't provide anything useful.... it is NOT a
virus, nor does it hijack links or direct children to
porn sites (I noticed you choose not to respond to
that part of my complaint with the "Scumware"
website!).
The Scumware website is garbage. TopText is garbage.
Neither is exptropian in any sense.
You are a security professional... at least that is
what is says in your sig. I trusted you. I went to
that website on your reccomendation... My trust is
now less than before.
Save the "Security Alert"s for actual security
hazards. Using it this way merely dilutes your
credibility.
Loree
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Great stuff seeking new owners in Yahoo! Auctions!
http://auctions.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:12:04 MST