Zealots are often quick to accuse “adware” companies of illegitimate software installations and deceptive distribution practices. What we’ve yet to see any of them do is be equally critical of the anti-spyware scanning application companies who are routinely deceptive in their labeling and classifications of some downloadable software, including our own.

We recently filed a lawsuit against Zone Labs, makers of the “ZoneAlarm” software application, after it was brought to our attention by a potential business partner that ZoneAlarm was “warning” users that our programs exhibit “Dangerous Behavior” posing a “High Risk” to users. As the screenshot below demonstrates, ZoneAlarm was advising that our 180search Assistant “is trying to monitor your mouse movements and keyboard strokes”: 

(Screenshot as it appeared at the time our lawsuit was filed in early November.)

It’s interesting to see how Zone Labs has changed their labeling (see screenshot below) since our lawsuit was filed. Apparently tracking web sites visited (think cookies) is as bad as tracking mouse movements.

(Screenshot as it appeared tonight, according to Sunbelt Blog. Thanks, Alex.)

Do we serve ads in exchange for providing our users unlimited access to premium content? Absolutely. Do we “monitor your mouse movements and keyboard strokes”? Absolutely not. Not even the most crazed zealot has ever accused us of that, yet Zone Labs continues to profit financially from this fearmongering. Where are the consumer advocacy zealots on this one? Thus far, nowhere to be seen. Or heard.

As a result of its misclassification (and this hasn’t changed, yet), ZoneAlarm recommends that the user “delete this application immediately because it constitutes a privacy risk, and has no known usefulness.”

(Screenshot as it appeared at the time the lawsuit was filed.)

(Additional screenshot as it appeared tonight, according to Sunbelt Blog. Thanks again, Alex.)

Privacy risk? Hardly. To repeat: 180search Assistant does not monitor mouse movements and does not track keystrokes – and it does not collect, store or use PII, either.

No known usefulness? Hmmm, I wonder what our millions of customers would say about that. Value or “usefulness” is certainly a subjective thing, but it isn’t the job of a scanning application to judge whether or not the content is of value.

This one egregious example of scanning application mislabeling is costing our company big money. Even worse, this mislabeling is preventing an untold number of consumers access to free content – content that they currently have to pay for.

What’s clear to us is the following:

1.      Scanning apps get it wrong . . . a lot.

2.      Scanning criteria are far more subjective than most scanning app companies would have you believe.

3.      Fear mongering is a scanning application “tool of the trade.”

4.      Recourse against scanning apps is difficult (and expensive) – and may get more difficult with pending legislation.

We’ve focused considerable effort on outreach to the leading scanning apps to educate them as to the behaviors of 180solutions’ applications and to further emphasize the clear difference between spyware characteristics and the user benefits of advertising-supported content. Our interactions with Zone Labs have been no different – except that Zone Labs is stubbornly unwilling to make any real change to their description of our products and any change at all to their risk assessment. Multiple emails, conference calls and even a letter signed by two of our senior executives certifying that our programs do not monitor mouse movements or keystrokes have made no difference. Unlike the numerous other scanning applications with which we’ve had productive conversations, those that apparently call the shots at Zone Labs simply are not interested in the facts.

Meanwhile, Congress is considering adding “Good Samaritan” language to any new spyware law enacted. If that happens, companies like Microsoft, CA and Zone Labs – as well as others who themselves profit from competing online advertising models – would get virtually limitless legal protection from companies like ours. Potentially, all a scanning app company would have to do is show “good faith” and they would have safe harbor protection. That sounds like even more financial incentive to continue the fearmongering . . . and, in the case of Microsoft, free reign to continue its push toward free ad‑supported software while stifling the competition that seeks to do the same. Sound familiar?

Our CEO, Keith Smith, had a commentary on this subject published in yesterday’s issue of Online Media Daily. Go to “Scanning For Fear” to read it for yourself. As Keith noted, and as it pertains to ZoneAlarm specifically, “Unfortunately, in the circumstances when the business talks break down, the only other available avenue is litigation. Is this a direction we want [to] move toward? Absolutely not, but it’s a step we have to be willing to take in order to protect our brand and our users. What other choice do we have?”