The Superfish Funder List • Hacker News Board

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#41

Post by yitchelle » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:07 PM UTC

hoodoof wrote: post #32

Draper Fisher Jurvetson = SuperFish? Classy. Ultimately its worth remembering this is Windows..... Microsoft has to be responsible for the crapware installed when people buy a Windows computer. The reasonable conclusion is that if you buy Windows you risk stuff like this because Windows resellers install crapware on top of clean Windows builds.

Not so sure that you can pile all the responsibility onto Microsoft for this debacle. If your favorite Linux distro is to include some adware crap on it, should Linus take the blame?

Ultimately, Lenovo should take the full blame for this.

edit: grammar

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#42

Post by ptaipale » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:08 PM UTC

mobiplayer wrote: post #23

deitcher wrote: post #6

Eh. Investors invest in lots of companies, some of which make pretty bad mistakes. I think Superfish should be forced to wither on the vine because of this - and especially because it pawned off responsibility by saying, "hey, it was those guys, not us!" as should Lenovo ("it is just theoretical!"), but I doubt the investors explicitly backed something with the intent to break security. Few do.

Few do, I can probably agree with that. But it's not like investors through money out of the window unknowingly of where it ends. They either knew about it and didn't care about it or they just didn't care about it in any case, because following due diligence would've raised some red lights.

Most likely someone showed them some Powerpoint slides, and the hapless investors just did not understand that there could be serious privacy and security implications.

That doesn't mean they aren't responsible and shouldn't burn their fingers; investors actually should look into these things when they decide where to invest.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#43

Post by diyorgasms » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:13 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #39

rpedroso wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope that there will be legal ramifications to discourage this kind of behavior, but ultimately, the vendor that packaged Superfish with the computers is a Chinese company who will probably claim that this kind of thing is permitted by their EULA.

What does it matter that Lenovo is chinese and Superfish Israeli?

Damn right. A grand jury can indict without the defendant present (in fact that's how it usually works). Then the US can work to extradite, or just arrest if any of the defendants ever try to enter the US.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#44

Post by Fede_V » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:16 PM UTC

keslag wrote: post #40

Fede_V wrote: post #36

One of the most effective ways we can shut down companies that make this kind of crapware is public shaming. Publicly naming companies and executives associated with this horrendous breach of privacy and security should hopefully serve as a deterrent for VCs who are considering making a quick buck by funding companies that are fucking over non-tech literate consumers.

Publicly shaming Comcast doesn't seem to be working, at all. I think it's good in theory, but doesn't work so well in practice.

I actually think that part of the reason why Comcast has had such a horrific time getting their proposed merger approved is because they suffer from such a horrific reputation.

Obviously, shaming only goes so far... but realistically speaking, besides boycotts and shaming, there really aren't many effective ways to register your disapproval towards privately owned companies.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#45

Post by psykovsky » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:17 PM UTC

shrektoo wrote: post #17

It may be immature but this Adi Pinhas guy sounds like he's a bit of a dick: http://www.home.superfish.com/#!about-us/c1eqi

Sounds? Where? All I see on that page is a photo of him and a LinkedIn link.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#46

Post by e40 » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:19 PM UTC

keslag wrote: post #40

Fede_V wrote: post #36

One of the most effective ways we can shut down companies that make this kind of crapware is public shaming. Publicly naming companies and executives associated with this horrendous breach of privacy and security should hopefully serve as a deterrent for VCs who are considering making a quick buck by funding companies that are fucking over non-tech literate consumers.

Publicly shaming Comcast doesn't seem to be working, at all. I think it's good in theory, but doesn't work so well in practice.

Comcast has a monopoly in most of the markets in which it operates. This makes a huge difference.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#47

Post by seanmcdirmid » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:22 PM UTC

diyorgasms wrote: post #43

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does it matter that Lenovo is chinese and Superfish Israeli?

Damn right. A grand jury can indict without the defendant present (in fact that's how it usually works). Then the US can work to extradite, or just arrest if any of the defendants ever try to enter the US.

Well, you know, we don't even arrest employees of American companies, like anyone on Wall Street.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#48

Post by fooqux » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:23 PM UTC

keslag wrote: post #40

Fede_V wrote: post #36

One of the most effective ways we can shut down companies that make this kind of crapware is public shaming. Publicly naming companies and executives associated with this horrendous breach of privacy and security should hopefully serve as a deterrent for VCs who are considering making a quick buck by funding companies that are fucking over non-tech literate consumers.

Publicly shaming Comcast doesn't seem to be working, at all. I think it's good in theory, but doesn't work so well in practice.

You and the parent are both right. The problem with Comcast is that many people (I being one of them) have no choice in the matter. It doesn't matter how much I despise my ISP, for they are literally the only game in town. My vocation dictates I have high-speed internet, thus I'm forced to work with Comcast.

Shaming Lenovo or its partners can make a difference because people do have a choice here. There are many laptop vendors out there. And if "Vintage Investment Partners" becomes well enough known as something the public finds distasteful, it could conceivably cause other companies to shun them as well.

You know, at least until they change their name. Still, I'd argue that if people cared enough, this approach would work in non-monopolistic cases.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#49

Post by comboy » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:26 PM UTC

Apart from discouraging future VCs, legit question - do you think those listed ones had any idea about how does it exactly works? I mean, you need to be careful what you support, so I think that list is great anyway, just wondering how it usually looks like.

Re: The Superfish Funder List

#50

Post by freshyill » Mon, Feb 23, 2015, 1:30 PM UTC

yitchelle wrote: post #41

hoodoof wrote: post #32

Draper Fisher Jurvetson = SuperFish? Classy. Ultimately its worth remembering this is Windows..... Microsoft has to be responsible for the crapware installed when people buy a Windows computer. The reasonable conclusion is that if you buy Windows you risk stuff like this because Windows resellers install crapware on top of clean Windows builds.

Not so sure that you can pile all the responsibility onto Microsoft for this debacle. If your favorite Linux distro is to include some adware crap on it, should Linus take the blame? Ultimately, Lenovo should take the full blame for this. edit: grammar

Linux is free and there's no stopping anybody from doing whatever they want to it.

Windows is not free.

When an OEM licenses Windows for resale in their PCs, that comes with certain terms and conditions about what the OEM can install. If this falls within the terms of the agreement of what the OEM can do, then Microsoft needs to take at least some of the heat.