Spyware vs. anti-spyware

The author of Ad-Aware, a program that removes sneaky software, explains what happened when his own program was zapped by the enemy.

By Damien Cave

Apr 26, 2002 | Nicholas Stark has spent the past two years fighting "spyware": programs surreptitiously bundled together with popular software downloads for the purpose of delivering advertisements or tracking personal information. His Swedish company, Lavasoft, produces a product called Ad-Aware that searches a computer for hidden spyware, and then asks users if they'd like the program removed.

Spyware is a fast-moving business with new entries arriving by the day. Lavasoft, in collaboration with volunteers all over the world, must constantly update Ad-Aware to take into account clever new technological tricks. But even Stark was caught by surprise at the most recent development: A company in the Slovak Republic called RadLight, which makes a free multimedia player, turned the tables on Lavasoft. In addition to the normal run of spyware that comes with a RadLight download, there was an additional program specifically aimed at removing Ad-Aware.

Hard numbers on how many people might have been affected by this game of spyware vs. anti-spyware are difficult to come by. More than 1 million people have downloaded Ad-Aware, according to Stark, and at least 720,000 people have downloaded RadLight from Download.com since the program first appeared in February, but the extent of the overlap is unknown.

RadLight's counterattack is a classic example of the kind of technological leapfrog always going on in the world of software. But it is also yet another indication of how fraught with complications the search for a business model in the world of free software has become. Parasite programs like spyware are a major income source for the manufacturers of popular free downloads like KaZaA or RadLight. Anti-spyware programs like Ad-Aware aim to cut that revenue source off at the knees.

Does that give RadLight the unilateral right to uninstall programs without directly informing the user? The only notification to RadLight users that Ad-Aware was forbidden came buried in the license statement that most users click through without reading, which stated: "You are not allowed to use any third party program (e.g. Ad-Aware) to uninstall applications bundled with RadLight."

RadLight did not respond to press inquiries. But an individual calling himself "RadScorpion" and claiming to be RadLight's creator posted a message on Lavasoft's message boards Wednesday, stating that the Ad-Aware remover was a fair attempt to make Lavasoft take a taste of its own medicine:

"As I believe that some of the "spyware" are just regular legal programs I really feel for their authors to see how their program is being uninstalled," RadScorpion wrote. "I WANTED ADAWARE TO SEE IT TOO and to revalue their pose to their 'enemies.'"

Salon interviewed Stark via e-mail on the subject of the ever-escalating war between spyware and anti-spyware.

What was your reaction upon discovering that RadLight was targeting Ad-Aware for removal?

Primarily we saw it as a disservice to the users of RadLight, and not against us. Their software silently removed ours without any warning or notice in their license agreement.

At some point, though, a license agreement became part of the download ...

The changes in their license agreement were done after massive protests. The author refused to inform users in the first place.

What about those who downloaded the program after the license appeared? Most people probably didn't realize that they were also downloading anti-Ad-Aware spyware, but isn't it their responsibility to read the license? If they don't agree to the terms, shouldn't they just not download the program?

I do not believe that it is legal to bind the usage of their software to the removal of an unrelated product. What the RadLight developer should have done was to make his software non-functioning should the user choose to remove the bundled spyware/adware. Or at least put it clearly visible that using his software without SaveNow [an ad-serving program that is often bundled with freeware] installed violates the terms of use. Everything else is an unacceptable act ...

As for the license agreement, when this was first discovered, the user wasn't presented with the terms of the "contract" until the software had already been installed. So regardless of whether the user actually read the licensing terms, he or she didn't know the terms they were actually agreeing to before they downloaded the software.

Next Page: "When our worst-case scenario was presented to us, we were already prepared"

• View blog reactions