Talk:Veriato

Deletion tag

IMHV this article is faulty to a degree that could be considered dangerous to most of it's target groups with very little exaggeration.

1. It promotes certain software products as valuable tools to enhance computer security but lacks any discussion of the basic general concepts and any links to existing relevant articles covering that topic. 2. The approach towards the legal aspects of running monitoring software are covered in a misleading way. The article proposes there were fields or use cases that were per se legal or illegal but fails to mention several legal risks involved. (E. g. it sounds as if educators were practically required to run monitoring software by several laws but fails to mention the legal risk the unrestricted use of some of the advertised features might bear for users from that filed - see "Lower Merion School District" for some real life examples). The same extends to the risk for parents and employers breaching the privacy of their kid's or employee's communication partners (E. g. in the case of data loss). 3. This gets especially controversial where the article seems to say that parents were per se entitled to use "Spy Software" (only quoting the company's website) on their children "since minors have no legal right to privacy from their parents". Of course the use of spyware for the secretive acquisition of minor's private pictures (a direct sale proposition) later used for sexual stimulation or for other illicit purposes is highly illegal no matter if the offender is the kid's mother of father. As about 90% of sexual child abuse offenders have been found to be the child's family/friends/teachers/babysitters etc. this is dangerous misinformation to give to kids. 4. Apart from the legal downsides of running software with spyware capabilities no other downsides are mentioned as well. (E. g. all data loss scenarios extend to the secretly collected data as well.) (78.52.128.91 (talk) 18:40, 25 April 2010 (UTC))

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)

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)

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: Changed 'this is legal since employees will have signed a contract' because the default is that it is NOT legal UNLESS a contract has been signed permitting monitoring, which is by no means a standard procedure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.252.196.82 (talk) 10:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

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)

Editing Fairness

Hello- I can completely understand that a product of this type can be somewhat controversial. There are pros and cons to just about every program ever made. So I see the points about misuse of the software and how if in the wrong hands it can be a potentially troubling situation.

However, what I read from some of the people that make constant edits is very biased. To deem something as spyware when it is fair to say that “spyware’ is such a broad term that SpectorSoft products have been lumped in to a really broad segment. There is a difference between internet monitoring software and spyware. Seriously, would PC magazine give spyware 2 editors choice awards? Would Chris Hansen recommend eBlaster to parents in his book regarding the “catch a predator” series? Of course not, and it is not fair for someone who has a bias towards that kind of software to make it look as bad as possible.

There is also the issue of stating that thieves can gain access to a machine by using the software. I suppose that could be true, but what makes no sense is that the person or people stating that are not including the entire truth, such as when any of their products are installed the user must agree that they own the pc. If they do not own it they are told they cannot use it. Why is this not being mentioned in these edits and reverts?

I would like to have an open discussion about the fairness of this page and ways that everyone can come to a resolve with the content because there is entirely too much bias from some people. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.88.195 (talk) 20:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

• If you think the article is biased against Spectorsoft products, please provide cited examples of positive use of it. For example, companies that have caught employees stealing data, pedophiles who have been caught with the help of parents that were using the software, etc. Most of the information available on the internet appears to be either marketing/reviews for the products, or discussions about being spied upon, and how to detect/remove the software.
• Until recently, Spectorsoft themselves marketed eblaster as "Spyware" (see this archived copy of the webpage). Many anti-virus/anti-spyware software makers still list it as a critical or very-high risk. You have deleted several cited examples of these.
• I don't think someone who has the intention of stealing information will be too bothered by giving a false response to a question of ownership in the installation program, do you?.
• You've recently changed the article to indicate that anti-virus programs don't detect it. I have no way of verifying this, but this page suggests that Symantec detects and removes it.
• Please declare any conflict of interest you have - do you work for Spectorsoft?
• Also please spell/grammar check your edits carefully - there were several errors in your last edits.

--Ozhiker (talk) 10:48, 28 August 2009 (UTC)

Ozhiker - Thank you for you responses. I do think the article shows some bias and when I read the records many people are shedding light in only a negative fashion. If that’s what they want to post that is fine, but they are really taking things to an extreme when they take marketing material and try to state that they are claiming to be something they clearly are not. I suppose you would need to understand search marketing to know exactly what I mean.

Yes, they did have marketing copy regarding the word spyware, but what many fail to understand is that there was a time when that kind of technology was new and uninformed web surfers would associate monitoring tools for spyware and because of that they probably tried to market to that segment of people so they could bring in more revenue. We do not all speak the same exact language even if English is our primary language. There is nothing wrong with trying to say that some people associate the software with spyware, but to almost ignore the fact that everyone else in the world does not invites misrepresentation and I am sure you know that. I do not need to check my grammar; I think that is just a feeble attempt at discrediting the content I write.

What difference does it make if I work for that company or not, if I did, I would most certainly be an expert over what everyone contributing to this article knows about SpectrorSoft. You can say what you want, but I know with a great deal of certainty that what I edited was multiple minor changes to content that was not entirely accurate or was one sided.

You can't tell me or anyone else that an INC 500 listed company or a PC Mag triple award winner markets to thieves or openly sells spyware. I still do not agree with much of the content on this article, but I left almost all of the content there because it makes sense to have two sides to a story.

There is not any marketing copy in what i wrote, I simply added to the Wikipedia entry because much of what is written here is negative spin that is either archived web sites from a long time ago(because it is nonexistent today)and articles with negative intention.

Why have you not ever provided any positive content? By your own admission you said there is some, but you only provided the negative content. That my friend is bias, which is something that I have not done here. I will research the positive news and I can guarantee you that there is more positive articles than negative by a major significant percentage and post them in this discussion for you to review before any changes are made because I want to make sure that going forward this content has an even tone.

If you doubt that there is any positive things written by media i suggest that you start reading here: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?pz=1&ned=us&hl=en&q=spectorsoft&cf=all there are 21700 articles, I am certain there are positive articles in there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.89.88.195 (talk) 18:44, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

• Being an employed by the company is relavent - see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, and from your ip address, I see that you are - it may cause you to be unwittingly biased in favour of the company. Particularly having an employee delete sourced negative content is very likely to be seen as biased.
• I have been unable to find positive examples of use of the software on the web - the closest is at http://blog.spectorsoftlive.com/ - but that has no names/dates/details, and is not from a third party, hence is not reliable. If you can, then add them! It is not acceptable to delete cited content just because you don't like it. You need to come up with refuting citations.
• I've looked at the news link you provided, and if you take out all the marketing pages, and all the software reviews, then virtually everything else seems to be negative.
• Spectorsoft is not Inc 500 - it is ranked 3340 see here. I agree they don't market to thieves. But their software is "spyware" - If you take random poll, I think most people would categorise it as such . Your definition of the word "spyware" may be skewed. Please see the Wiktionary definition of "spyware" - it definitely covers Spectorsoft software.
• You do need to check your spelling/grammar: This edit left an incomplete sentence, ending "but employers have the ability to", and misspelled "concent" and "misus"

--Ozhiker (talk) 08:43, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

I do not think that I have any conflict of interest here. In fact, I would go as far as to say that I have been more than reasonable with this kind of bias you spin. After all, I am the person that engaged the conversation with you, and I am also the same person trying to find middle ground. What you are trying to portray is something that is not even close to truth. You also are speaking out of context, SpectorSoft is an Inc 500 company, and they were 2 years in a row. Why are you ignoring that part? You are correct they are also an Inc 5000 company, but what you neglect to say is that they have been part of the Inc list of Americas Fastest Growing Companies since 2004. Something else you need to stop saying is that there are no positive articles. That’s a flat out lie and you know it.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-7877597_ITM http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=PI&s_site=philly&p_multi=PI&p_theme=realcities&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EB7368F502C9A51&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM http://www.infoworld.com/d/security-central/spectorsoft-simplifies-snooping-832 http://www.macobserver.com/article/2003/11/17.12.shtml http://www.schoollibraryjournal.com/article/CA319020.html http://articles.techrepublic.com.com/5100-10878_11-5181013.html http://www.zdnetasia.com/insight/business/0,39044868,39175657,00.htm http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-20095512_ITM http://www.processor.com/editorial/article.asp?article=articles%2Fp2634%2F34p34%2F34p34.asp http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/kimkomando/2004-06-08-question_x.htm http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/09/BIGMOTHER.TMP

Those are just a few links, but I am 100% sure I could locate more. It’s also not necessary to call out someone's IP address. I am not trying to hide anything, I am simply trying to help you get the full story so you can be a better informed writer about this subject because you are clearly not shedding light on both sides of the story and that is one thing we both know to be true.

Video Game Company

I read somewhere that one of SpectorSoft's first projects was a game for the Sega Dreamcast in 1998, but they cancelled the project sometime around 99/00. Is this true? Someone who claims to have worked for them has video game concept art, as well as music from this scraped game. Going from video games to security software seems like an unusual change of company focus. Can someone please clarify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.107.126.125 (talk) 01:08, 4 January 2015 (UTC)