Re: Charter hijacks browser

On Apr 28, 4:40 pm, "Warren H" <whol...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
CSharpnerwrote:
Their opt out is a farce on many levels and is NOT simple:

1. It's temporary (60 or 90 days, then you're forced back in).
2. It installs a cookie for your browser (I shouldn't have to install
something to NOT get a service).
3. You must install the stupid cookie on every browser you use (I
currently use both IE and FireFox).
4. You must install it on each browser on each computer (I have two
computers, two browsers each, so I'd have to "opt-out" 4 times.
5. I'd have to opt out a minimum of 16 times a year (if it expires
after 90 days) up to 24 times a year (if it expires in 60 days).
6. Additionally, I'd have to "opt-out" again for each virtual machine
I use (I use many, because I'm a software developer).
7. Each time I use the snapshot feature in my VMs, I'd have to opt-
out again for each browser in my VM.
8. Any time I have to reinstall Windows, I'd have to re-"opt-out" on
both browsers.
9. Any time settngs get messed up, I'd have to re-opt-out.
10. A common security practice is to delete your cookies, which I do
often in IE, which requires yet another op-out.
11. In FireFox, one of my favorite and most used features is to
accept cookies only for the current session, at which point they'll be
deleted when the session ends. Can't do that anymore or I'd have to
opt-out every time I browse... not feasible.
12. They never asked me if I wanted to "opt-in".
13. They never informed me that they were doing this.
14. Other internet enabled software (All other software that is NOT a
browser) that doesn't use cookies, cannot "opt-out".
15. They should NOT be changing the default behavior of the Internet.

There is a simple solution to this: They should just stop hijacking.
IE7 and FireFox both have the ability to set a default search page.
IF WE WANTED CHARTER AS OUR DEFAULT, WE'D SET IT OURSELVES!!!! What
they've done is overridden what we've ALREADY CHOSEN! If I wrote
software that did this to your machine, without asking, you'd call it
"browser hijacking", "adware", and "malware". If I got caught, I'd
likely go to jail. Why should it be any different for Charter??

As you can see, it's a lot more complicated and a lot more cumbersome
than a "simple opt-out".

I'd bet good money (as opposed to that stuff I normally use) that the
terms of service are worded in a way that allows them to do this. But
just because they can, doesn't mean they should.

As you've said, not all software that requires DNS resolution uses
cookies. Getting a webpage that wasn't requested instead of the correct
information or an error essentially breaks that software.

Ideally, if they really have their hearts set on doing this, it should
be an opt-in, not an opt-out. But if they just don't have enough respect
for their customers to make it opt-in, then they should have an opt-out
process that is both permanent, and works for all Internet-enabled
software, not just cookie-enabled browsers.

As implemented, it very squarely falls into the category of things they
can do, but shouldn't do.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.

Maintain your landscape with Black & Decker:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/blackanddecker- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yep. Correct on all points (though, I haven't checked the agreement,
but I'm sure it probably states something like that). Since I've
posted that, a new high speed internet company has come to town which
will be providing fiber to the door. I'll be able to get 15mb/s (as
opposed to Charter's 3mb... well, OK, charter JUST NOW upped to 4mb)
for the same price (or less) than I'm paying charter. I'll also be
able to dump Charter for my cable TV as well as this company will be
offering HDTV as well. Unbelievably good timing!! I'll be sure to
let charter know why I'm dumping them. Up until now, I haven't had a
choice.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: How do we get there from here?
    ... In order to design using that ... > really focused on at this stage is browser enabled applications. ... This is a submission to the server, ... > Don't know much about cookies. ...
    (comp.databases.pick)
  • Re: IP / Proxy / Anonymous Browsing Question...
    ... Browser Security ... Cookies can act as ... of which can be programed to access the Windows System or your ... bypass any firewall since messaging is web page to web page. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: browsing the web privately - how??
    ... Browser Security ... Cookies can act as ... of which can be programed to access the Windows System or your ... bypass any firewall since messaging is web page to web page. ...
    (comp.security.misc)
  • Re: Charter hijacks browser
    ... It installs a cookie for your browser (I shouldn't have to install ... I'd have to "opt-out" again for each virtual machine ... A common security practice is to delete your cookies, ...
    (comp.dcom.modems.cable)
  • Re: Attempt to de-mystify AJAX
    ... "Hyperlinks" always open a new browser window. ... What I meant is that the server, from its state tables, can easily determine ... >>> around cookies and JS, but it seems to be tough. ... >>> 1) use cookies to maintain the session key and hope that the expiration ...
    (comp.databases.pick)