Talk:Zango (company)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Alleged Child Porn Browser

YapBrowser

Since this wasn't mention any where, I'd like to mention the allegations presented here.

http://doxdesk.com/updates/2006.html#u20060416

http://www.donotreply.com/index.php/2006/05/11/warner-brothers-child-porn/

This needs to be added. Nbbs 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So add it then 67.189.48.254 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Technically Legal?

The 2002-2005 section currently states that: "Many other affiliates notified users only via the end user licence agreement EULA; this resulted in millions more of technically legal but still essentially non-consensual installs." What is the source for stating that these installs are legal? As far as I know, the law is not entirely settled here; a remote EULA link that attempts to conceal the install information from the average user may still qualify as a "deceptive marketing practice" and therefore, would still be illegal. I'd like some feedback; if someone has evidence that their practices were legal, I'll hold off, but absent that I would like to change it to "arguable legal" or "of questionable legality etc.

Lciaccio 18:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It installs by itself sometimes.--Hitamaru 23:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Added POVCheck tag

I have added the POVCheck tag because of the following phrases:

• "focused on building a Content economy" - sounds like an ad
• "have a current focus on using time shifted advertising to support the long tail of content available on the Internet" - sounds like an ad
• "non-consensual" - This is a term often used by Zango/180 themselves
• "Zango can be removed by most leading Anti-Virus software like Symantec's Norton Anti-Virus" - endorsement of specific product —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.186.170 (talk • contribs)

I suspect this version is a corporate puff-piece. But it is not as flagrantly and maliciously so as the last version that I reverted was. NPOV could definitely be improved upon. The last bullet mentioned above is not part of the recent corporate change, it has been around a bit. GRBerry 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Added POV section

I just added the POV section tag. Everything below it is a new contribution that looks to be ad-cruft from the company. (And where did the POV check flag the prior user added go?...) GRBerry 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted this entirely. We don't really need the whole privacy policy here - just bits of it if necessary. Maybe an external link would be nice. The M00finman added the policy and removed the NPOV notice. According to M00finman, it was a translation done by him (it?). — Jeremy | Talk 11:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge

With the merger of hotbar and 180solutions I suggest what this page be merged in to the 180solutions page with appropriate renaming.

• Zango is the brand name for 180solutions.
• 180solutions is renaming itself to Zango.
• Multiple pages are redundant.

Bdelisle 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Their Office Building

Office Building: Zango

Locking?

Admins, I think this page should be locked to unregistered users. Most of the vandalism I'm seeing in the history are unregistered edits. EDIT: The article, not the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sljaxon (talk • contribs) 04:58, August 3, 2006.

• First, sign your comment. Second, I can understand the vandals... Its good will too (if you've ever got spyware you will understand). ^^ Anyhow, blocking this page from vandals is unneccisary, as they fix themselfs quick enough. Or if they don't, its like you fixing Zango on your computer. ^^ -- 68.228.33.74 06:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sljaxon, please see the policy on page protection. — JeremyTalk 06:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert

[1] - think it was a decent revert? It seems that the person's edits that I reverted could possibly have been added to make the article more neutral, but they really read as being more apologetic than anything. Especially considering that Google and eBay don't create software that's flagged by every anti-spyware program worth its salt as being "potentially unwanted" (besides Google Desktop, though that's an entirely different conversation). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

myspace adult content viewer.

Perhaps someone has seen this? From what I've read, when people install the "myspace adult content viewer," it installs the zango ad-ware.

MacOS

Why is the MacOS screenshot necessary? It seems a waste of space. Sljaxon 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Zango continue to edit this page

How can anyone claim this page has anything like a neutral point of view when the talk page has a huge introductory message from the head of Zango at the top of it? (note the page vandalism addition underneath, by the way).

the main article has numerous instances of either DTodd editing the page to make it more Zango friendly, and there are endless edits from "anonymous" users who can be traced back to washington, bellevue. it doesn't take a genius to work out these are associated with Zango, especially as many of the supposedly anonymous edits IP addresses lead back to the 180 Solutions nameserver (AKA Zango).

isn't it about time these IP addresses and accounts were banned from wikipedia? at the very least, remove the meet and greet message from the top of this page. Ginza 05:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard from Dtodd this weekend after reverting some Zango changes; his note and my reply are below. Damn, if I had seen that Vitalsecurity link sooner, I could have saved a lot of typing. --CliffC 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the attempts to change the page be commented on on the main page? Something like "In rcent months IP addresses from what seem to be Zango servers and users claiming to be employees of Zango have made several questionable edits to this page" maybe? What did they do when those capital hill staffers kept changing the content of those senator's pages?

they've been editing pretty hard,Including the Newgrounds partnership,it's turn into one sentence.--Hitamaru 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Zango Dtodd 04:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)4/7/2007 dtodd

Cliff,

Numerous parties have a vested interest in keeping information about Zango inaccurate. While I am not concerned about positive/negative information if it is accurate, it is concerning to me that if I remove inaccurate and misleading information that others can simply replace it. Can you please let me know how you determine the accuracy of some information and how best to proceed if my desire is an honest and accurate representation of the history of Zango?

Thanks. dtodd

[The above note was placed on my user page by Dtodd. I have moved it here. --CliffC]

Reply: First, a few of my own concerns. When editors see removals of information or wholesale wording changes that are not explained on the Talk page or in an edit summary, it raises a red flag. Such changes will often be reverted on general principle by the first logged-in editor who notices them. Zango was not an article on my watchlist; I came here, and then on to Zango Messenger, by following the edit history of a user who made two major deletions to Spyware without leaving edit summaries. Looking a little further into who has been editing Spyware, Zango, and Zango Messenger, I see the following users of interest:

• User 206.169.156.2, the id that deleted the180 Solutions/Zango section of Spyware, as well as deleting the "Stealware" and affiliate fraud section that mentioned 180solutions, without leaving edit summaries. More recently, this id removed from Zango a citation titled Nonconsensual 180 Installations Continue, Despite 180's "S3" Screen. This is the same id used to post the "Note from Zango President Daniel Todd" at the top of this page.

• User 24.16.59.121 has made several edits to Zango, including removing a citation to Zango, Inc. Settles FTC Charges that summarizes the FTC charges and settlement.

• User Dtodd, your id, has made several changes to Zango, including a reverted attempt to substitute the term "desktop advertising products" for adware. (Dtodd is also the author of the related article Time shifted advertising.)

It may be that there was a valid reason for some of these changes, but in the absence of an edit summary it's hard to tell. It is hard to 'assume good faith' on the part of you or Zango in the face of these edits. It seems to me that, by definition, you or anyone associated with Zango would have a very large WP:Conflict of interest when editing Zango, Zango Messenger, or related articles. I know it must be difficult to try to overcome years of bad press coupled with past FTC charges, but in my opinion this is not the way to do it.

I think there are two particularly applicable sections of the guidelines, WP:COI#Defending interests and WP:COI#Suggesting changes to articles. Summarizing them, before you "remove inaccurate and misleading information", you should take the proposed change to the Talk page and seek consensus.

Finally, in answer to your question as to how I "determine the accuracy of some information", I simply follow and read an article's citations, assuming they have not been removed. --CliffC 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I must say, I'm particularly disturbed by the direction this wiki page has gone in. Upon seeing DTodds latest edit "(Removing 100% inaccuate information. Editor please track the IP of anyone replacing this information so we can discuss a ban.)", he's made it clear that he's not only ignored the links to the pages you linked to regarding POV, conflict of interest and raising inaccurate information on the talk section of a page relating to yourself BEFORE editing / removing it, he's effectively laying claim to Zangos ownership of this page ("..so we can discuss a ban").

In effect, he's going to continue to dictate to non zango affiliated users (ie regular Wikipedia users) what can and can't be placed here, as well as having made numerous removals of factually valid information such as the FTC link and links to non consensual installs without any comeback - while still expecting people to start banning random IP addresses at his request. This makes something of mockery of the neutrality of this page. Ginza 10:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's outrageous. However, I do agree with the sentiment in his (first ever!) edit summary that a ban should be discussed. He and the Bellevue, Washington IPs should be the subjects of the discussion. --CliffC 12:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cliff,

I appreciate your feedback and do apologize that I had not read the information you pointed out above previous to editing content. I will read through this information and follow the described policies if I have suggestions on improving the accuracy of any statements.

Thank you for pointing this out. Again my apologies for not following what appears to be clearly defined rules around this process.

Have a nice day dtodd

Reply: Despite this, we have yet another Zango / 180 edit from the 206.169.156.2 address. at this point i think its irrelevant which 180 employee is making these constant edits - there's more than enough evidence here to move for a ban on all of these accounts and IP addresses. Ginza 06:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Taken from the top and put on the bottom

Note from Zango President Daniel Todd: Despite our publishing numerous and ongoing notice and consent audits where 3rd parties review our industry leading installation practices and uninstall procedures, some folks on the Internet want to continue to provide misinformation about our products and company. If you have had a bad experience with Zango personally, please let me know or if you currently need assistance please visit our customer support page here and someone from our customer support team will respond to you within 24 hours. If you still have problems after that or would like to provide other feedback, please contact me directly at dant@zango.com. Thank you]-->

• You're a spyware distributor, not a respectable company. You deserve to be put in prison, or maybe drawn and quartered. Ghost of starman 20:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Mr Todd, Have a good easter, keep up the good work!. Chris -

Untitled

Reads like a company puff piece. "Over time Zango will grow..." (emphasis added) is a clear example. "Lastly, we have 75,000 - 100,000 people every day..." is clearly in the corporate voice. All links are to Zango official sites. Excessive use of non-encyclopeic images. No subsection on criticism, even though it is mentioned in passing (as "confusion"). Contains facts needing citation that I suspect were pulled from company internal sources. GRBerry 18:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind. Reverting to last NPOV version by Deltabeignet of 7 days ago. GRBerry 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

POS

The thing's a demon! It's negated my popup blocker, and it won't go away. It's just a matter of time before my computer starts swearing at me in latin. Bioform 1234 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it out, and it's damaged my computer. It's slower than ever, and works even less.

TROLL!

User talk:71.35.130.158 is blanking the controversy part of the article. I highly recommend severe sanction and notification of this occurrence to Paperghost.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 05:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zango, former FTC Commissioner Varney at advertising conference in San Francisco

<quote>

Zango Has Advertisers Covered at ad:tech San Francisco

Online Media Company to 'Blanket' Advertisers With Opportunities at Interactive Advertising Event

BELLEVUE, WA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 04/19/07 -- Zango, an online media company that provides free, sought-after videos, games, music, tools and utilities, will share its unique Time Shifted Advertising(SM) model with marketers next week at ad:tech San Francisco, the leading interactive advertising and technology conference. The ad:tech gathering runs April 24-26.

</quote>
--full article at http://www.sys-con.com/read/364081.htm

I found the above press release looking for a source for a seemingly pro-Zango quote by former FTC Commissioner Christine Varney, that quote recently added by new contributor User:64.60.253.65. I couldn't locate a source for the quote, but Zango's press release does state:

"Desktop advertising used to be a free-for-all," said Christine Varney, a partner in Hogan & Hartson LLP's Washington, D.C. office and a featured speaker at ad:tech San Francisco. "It's not anymore. Thanks to the efforts of the Federal Trade Commission, the New York attorney general's office, TRUSTe and, most recently, the reintroduction of federal anti-spyware legislation, those days are behind us. Simply put, there's never been a better time for advertisers to venture into the desktop advertising arena."

--CliffC 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

180Solutions

This article should be added.

Jmajeremy

Good point, I just created 180Solutions as a redirect to Zango. Oddly, entering 180Solutions in the search box worked, but using it in a wikilink didn't. --CliffC 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)#

CliffC do you mind not keep on going back and back to the Zango page, we get it, you hate Zango. Let it rest, and before you do you little WHOIS search im not from Zango HQ :/

Please sign your talk page posts using four tildes (~~~~).

The same day I created the redirect for 180Solutions, I also created redirects for Bee deaths and Disappearing bees, so I guess that means I must hate (or maybe love?) bees. I've never had a Zango infection on my machine, and I can assure you that my interest in Zango is not in any way personal. Let's just say that given the Zango history, I watch this page with a sort of queasy fascination to see what its officers, employees and affiliates will come up with next. --CliffC 03:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Malware Controversy

According to WP:DUCK we shouldn't need euphamisms. Malware is a term of art that describes spyware and adware. Yes, I know it sounds bad, but if that's what this company is doing, we should call a duck a duck. This is the main reason this company is notable. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It would add to the objectivity and clearity of this article. 80.208.232.106 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Private Message

Hello Cliff,

I hope you are well. I am hoping to send you a private message. How can I do that? I can be reached at sstratz@gmail.com

Sstratz 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

[The above note was posted on my talk page]

I'm not very keen on private messages. I assume, based on your email address, that you are the Steve Stratz who is director of public relations for Zango and according to this OMMA article seeking to have candid conversations with Wikipedia editors. On my part, I would prefer that any conversation took place over at Talk:Zango, where I will move your note. --CliffC 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am, Cliff. I would, however, prefer to send you something privately to begin with, but if it must be here than I can do that, but not sure how it will work, as I have an attachment I'd like for you to see. - Sstratz 00:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as wired into file-sharing as I would like to be; maybe somebody else can suggest a public site that will let you park a PDF or such for people to look at. Looking again at the OMMA article mentioned above, I was a little dismayed to see myself identified as "the" editor, because that's not how Wikipedia works. Maybe I just happened to get up a little earlier than everyone else those days. If you are able to post whatever it is you want to share, interested editors can look at it and perhaps give you the candid comments you seek, in a respectful manner. --CliffC 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, again, Cliff. I'll figure something out. In regard to the OMMA article, the comment was not aimed at you personally whatsoever. I understand there is a clear conflict of interest between me and the Wikipedia entry about our company, but in the spirit of the Wikipedia "way" I am hoping to propose and shed light on many elements within the Zango entry that are not consistent with the community's expectations of fairness, accuracy and objectiveness. Again, thanks! - Sstratz 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Zango people, please post any suggestions you have right here on this talk page. If you include references to reliable sources, that will really help. We generally won't use material from corporate press releases or from news sites that just regurgitate corporate press releases. You might also look into the underlying reasons to why people are reacting so negatively to your company and try to fix those things. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman. Completely understood. There has been massive work over the past 2-3 years on our end, but, and unfortunately, it takes time to continually demonstrate those efforts and convince the public of those changes. It doesn't happen overnight, but our more than 200 employees in six offices in four countries are working hard every day to do just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstratz (talk • contribs)

Sorry for not signing correctly.

SstratzSstratz 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya,Zango go to hell! i hope you get lawsuits,you have caused of over 20 million dollars in computer damages. Make your terms of agreements stating that you use spyware and adware in your software!... -.-,Make one of your spyware modules named "Newb"... NOOBS!--Hitamaru 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Private Message: Introduction and Attachment

As I write to the Wikipedia community, the top of the Zango page on the Wikipedia includes a message that reads, “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards.” On behalf of Zango I couldn’t agree more.

Who am I? My name is Steve Stratz and I’ll immediately point-out that as the director of public relations for Zango, obviously a clear conflict of interest exists between me and the Wikipedia entry about our company.

However it is in the spirit of the Wikipedia “way” that I am reaching out to you all today. The Zango entry simply does not meet the quality standards of Wikipedia. Our passionate President and Co-founder Daniel Todd, made a personal attempt to contribute his own views, but those were deleted.

He and I have learned a lot about the Wikipedia due to those recent incidents – thank you for your responses to Daniel. We have learned that executives editing pages about their own companies is not always the best approach in this community. However in the time since we have monitored the Zango entry and feel there are many elements that are not consistent with the community’s expectations of fairness, accuracy, and objectiveness.

Today, the Zango entry includes far too much opinion and axe grinding (Hitmaru's response to my the "Private Message" confirms just that), and is in need of fact and balancing references – including documentation of our past issues, whether they be PR, legal or business, not to mention evidence that Zango has evolved – in some circumstances to industry leadership positions.

I have sat down – at home and away from the office – and copied and pasted a recent version of the Zango entry into a Microsoft Word document and taken what I believe is a reasonable, cool-headed and well-grounded attempt at a revision that is both fair and balanced. Jehochman, per your Talk page comments, I have included a few company press release links, which felt, given the context, appropriate. I can find other relevant links, but I'm sure that will be one of the last of our worries, right now.

I will send the attachment immediately following this Talk entry and welcome the review and subsequent consideration in assisting with an effort to bring the Zango Wikipedia entry up to the standards it rightfully deserves.

Thank you, Sstratz 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

It's my policy not to correspond with other editors offline about article content. Please post your suggestions here, and keep them concise. Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the .PDF document to the Wikipedia, but it is not showing up here, nor can I figure out how to get to this page. Suggestions? Thank you in advance, Sstratz 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Copy the relevant text out of the document and post it here. Please keep the text short and to the point. We're not very interested in corporate PR-speak. Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Better idea: I am putting a copy of this page into your user space at: User:Sstratz/Zango. Go ahead and edit that, and then leave a note here asking somebody to look at it. Make sure you include reliable third party sources for any additions. Press releases automatically don't qualify as sources, nor do regurgitations of press releases by news sites. Avoid deleting properly sourced material, because we won't allow that. Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Great idea Jehochman. Much appreciated Sstratz 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Wikipedia Community, per the copy of the Zango page under my profile (SEE ABOVE), I've edited the lead: Zango, snapshot sidebar, and Malware Controvery, as well as submitted a new and more up-to-date graphic for our notice and consent screen. Outlined below are a few comments to those proposed edits. I will look forward to hearing input and moving forward to the other sections. Thank you.

Lead: Zango:

1.) Deletion that we manufacture "spyware": While adware and spyware are “often used interchangeably,” according to the Wikipedia “Spyware” entry and this is true, there is a difference. In the case of our entry, it makes no sense to say we manufacture both. It should be one or the other and, absolutely not spyware. We do not manufacture spyware, period. We provide consumers plain-language notice, have to obtain their consent and make our online downloadable software extremely easy to uninstall. In addition, I thought I’d provide a link to the question: Is Zango Spyware?, which can be found in the FAQ section of our Web site: http://www.zango.com/Destination/Corporate/Faqs.aspx#1.4.

2.) Symantec and McAfee links: Instead of linking to Symantec’s Wikipedia page, which has nothing to do with Zango, wouldn’t it be more helpful to link to the Symantec summary, including technical details and more about Zango? Here is the link: http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2005-050416-3519-99&tabid=1

2A.) Again, would it be more helpful to link to the McAfee page about Zango http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_134248.htm?

Malware Controversy:

Edit notes: Per the above paragraph two comments:

1.) Deletion of "spyware": Please see comment above about this topic: "spyware."

2.) Deletion of "cause annoying": A suggestion would be to replace the word "cause" with "deliver" and to strike the word "annoying." It is an opinion, not fact. If you asked most people if advertising was annoying in general, they would probably say, “Yes.” If asked if they are willing to view relevant advertising in lieu of paying cash for something, they often say, “Absolutely” – especially on the Internet.

3.) Deletion of "spy": Per the “spyware” comments above, this is patently untrue and a statement of uninformed assumptions. We do not collect any personally identifiable information, ever. Our desktop advertising software, much like Internet cookies, tracks Web browsing and searching behavior. According to the Wikipedia entry about HTTP cookies, about which there are “a number of misconceptions” (much like about us), HTTP cookies are not deemed “spyware.” A recommendation would be to change this word to “track.”

4.) Deletion of "infected computers": I took out “infected computers,” as, again, this is axe-grinding. If the consumer is provided notice and gives consent to our offer of advertising for content, this is not an 'infection.' I would also note this is a loaded term that is rhetorical rather than factual. The Wikipedia entry for Infection states: An infection is the detrimental colonization of a host organism by a foreign species. In an infection, the infecting organism seeks to utilize the host's resources to multiply (usually at the expense of the host). The infecting organism, or pathogen, interferes with the normal functioning of the host and can lead to chronic wounds, gangrene, loss of an infected limb, and even death. While the entry is not spot-on to the word in our entry, I believe it is interesting. Zango is not detrimental to a computer. In fact our program is only 3+MB's in size. Windows Messenger, which also runs constantly is 30+MBs.

5.) Deletion of "and this behavior can only be stopped by using the msconfig system tool.": This not true and I’d argue the average consumer has no idea what the msconfig system tool is or how to access it. This sentence would be more helpful to the consumer possibly this way: … but this behavior can be stopped by removing or uninstalling the software via the Add or Remove Programs Windows functionality found in the Control Panel. Sstratz 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Sstratz

One further section revised today for the community's review and thoughts. I have gone through the History section. It looks like I didn't do the Web links quite right, but we can figure it out. Again, thanks to everyone and I look forward to bringing the Zango entry up to the standards of the Wikipedia. Sstratz 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Wikipedia Community, per the copy of the Zango page under my profile (SEE ABOVE), I've further edited, including going through Government Regulatory Actions, Litigation, Mergers and acquisitions, Hotbar and (Hotbar) Controversy, Seekmo and Newgrounds Partnership. Outlined below are a few comments to those proposed edits. I will look forward to hearing input and moving forward. Thank you.

1.) Of note, the name of Zango previously was "180solutions" all one word and with a lowercase "s".

2.) In Government Regulatory Actions, Zango was never "charged," "charges were prepared" though. In addition, we did not settle via a consent decree, but rather a consent agreement. Lastly, the FTC's press release is quoted. In the spirit of fair and balance, I've proposed a quote from Zango's press release and from Keith Smith, CEO.

3.) In Litigation, Collins is given a lot of play, yet his case was dismissed, with prejudice. Again, I've proposed balance with a quote from Zango's General Counsel. In addition, the Chicago Tribune article about the lawsuit being filed is cited. The Chicago Tribune, when the case was dismissed, wrote a follow-up story. The link on the Web is dead, but here is the text. This should be cited, like the story a year prior:

TECHBUZZ Spyware rulemaking muddled in a gray area

By Eric Benderoff Published September 11, 2006 In the digital age, there are few black-and-white rules. Rather, we live in an era of gray when it comes to technology and the law.

A federal case that was dismissed last week before it reached trial is the latest example. And while it provides no definitive conclusions on where tech law is heading, it does raise interesting questions.

The case was filed by Naperville attorney Shawn Collins against a Washington software company that he alleges puts spyware on computers without a user's consent.

Collins, who wanted this to be a class-action lawsuit, believes Zango's software trespasses upon and pollutes computers, much like industrial firms have been caught polluting water supplies.

In its defense, Zango hired the Chicago firm of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, a pioneer in tech law that counts Microsoft Corp. among its clients.

Collins couldn't make his case, and the suit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be pursued further. Zango claimed a big victory, saying it proved it is not a spyware provider.

Here's what Zango does: It sell ads. And thousands of people willingly sign up for its service every day, much like they buy goods at Amazon, Apple's iTunes store or register at a newspaper's Web site.

In all of these examples, we have agreed to put cookies on our computers to track our surfing habits. These cookies feed us ads when we enter certain key words, or they remember the last song we downloaded or book we purchased so they can offer something new we may like the next time we visit.

We don't consider these companies spyware firms.

Zango offers free screensavers and computer games in exchange for a user agreeing to accept additional software that will serve ads based on where the user goes online.

If you haven't noticed lately, online advertising is getting to be a pretty big business. And perhaps you haven't noticed the number of cookies stored on your computer lately. I counted more than 1,000 on my machine.

Each one has a little bit of data that tells a marketer something about where I've been and where I may go next.

So where is the line drawn? Are some companies unfairly painted as violating our privacy and polluting our computers?

"I can't give you a definition of spyware that is universally accepted. Even the courts have trouble with that," said Floyd Mandell, a partner with Katten Muchin Rosenman.

His colleague, Michael Dorfman, added that consent is really the issue. "You can get a software application with consent or without consent, but it's the same application. Is that spyware in both cases? If consent is what people focus on, then it cannot be spyware."

"We believe Zango goes to extra measures to get consent," Mandell said. "There are many consumers that want this targeted advertising and want this content."

In June, the Anti-Spyware Coalition defined spyware as "technologies deployed without appropriate user consent and/or implemented in ways that impair user control." The definition offered examples, including the collection and use of personal information.

Ari Schwartz, the deputy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology, which oversees the coalition, does not have a favorable opinion of Zango and believes the company has a history of tricking people into downloading its software.

Yet, he also believes it is important to set objective standards that don't unfairly pick on some outfits.

"Big name companies are, to some extent, given a little bit of a benefit of the doubt, but that only goes so far," he said in an e-mail.

He cited Sony Corp. as an example. Last year, it was discovered that Sony's music division included "rootkit" software that hid itself on a personal computer and could be exploited by skilled hackers to add dangerous code that steals personal information.

That's what spyware can do, among other nasty things like monitoring your key strokes, turning your machine into a zombie for attacks against Web sites or allow others to control your machine.

Sony was sued in three separate class-action suits for putting such dangerous software on customer's machines, and it agreed to refund money to people who bought the CDs. It also offered a security patch to fix the flaw.

Likewise, Zango has changed its practices, and executives say it meets industry standards for its advertising products.

"They want people to have the software on their computer, and the user to know it's there," Dorfman said. "Our client isn't hiding in the shadows."

But in this gray world that is the digital age, shadows aren't so easy to see.

4.) Under Mergers & acquisitions, there is this line, which is a throwaway and can be deleted: According to the 180solutions press release, Hotbar and 180solutions merged and the combined company is called Zango.

5.) the Stopbadware graphic is linked to the Stopbadware page. It would be more relevant if it was linked directly to our report: http://www.stopbadware.org/reports/reportdisplay?reportname=zangomessenger

7.) Under Seekmo, we don't claim Seekmo is free, it is and so is the content in exchange for viewing targeted advertising.

8.) Lasly, the Newgrounds.com Partnership, We have hundreds of Web publisher relationships – Newgrounds.com being one of them. Not sure I see the relevance here, unless the Wikipedia users would like to call out each of our publishing partners. We’ve also been partnered with Newgrounds for a number of years.

Sstratz 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

COI Cleanup

In reviewing the edits suggested by company representative, User:Sstratz, it became obvious to me that somebody with an axe to grind or a connection to a class-action plaintiff's attorney did a number on this article. There is no reliable source that calls Zango Spyware. If somebody can find one, please post it here for discussion, and then we can add it to the article. While Adware with boilerplate consent forms may be undesirable and personally offensive to most of us, we need to maintain Wikipedia's content policies. Unsourced statements should be removed, and should not be re-added without proper citations. If Zango produces Adware, that's what we say. We don't exaggerate and call it Spyware. Google Toolbar monitors user behavior, and we don't call that spyware. We must maintain the same standards for all. Jehochman ^Talk 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just took care of that. See this detailed report from StopBadware.org, sponsored by the Harvard Law School, Oxford University, and Consumers Union. --John Nagle 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We have worked with StopBadware (SBW) since last summer. At the top of the report, it finds that "Zango Easy Messenger is not badware." The behavior of Zango that is described is exactly what one would find if one were to trace the data sent and received by the Google Toolbar, as Jehochman points out. What most people don't realize is that SBW is almost entirely funded by Google so, of course, Google won't be listed as "Behaves as Spyware." When you look at what "Behaves as Spyware" means, you'll see that our position has been consistent - Zango does not collect PII and will not deviate in any way from the EULA and Privacy Policy. We don't argue the credibility of the source, we just ask that you look a bit further than the "Behaves as Spyware" subhead to see what behavior they are describing. They are actually describing the same behavior one would see in typical Adware. Sstratz 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

There has been a development in regard to StopBadware that I’d like to propose as an addition to the “Undesireable software behaviors” section. StopBadware has started to archive its in-depth reports. Per the StopBadware site (http://stopbadware.org/home/reportsarchive): “Over time, certain in-depth reports have been moved to archive status due to the applications lack of availability or a change in the features of the application that would cause it to no longer deserve a badware designation.”

This being the case and since the Zango Easy Messenger report has been archived (SEE THE RIGHT HAND SIDE NAVIGATION OF THE ABOVE LINK), I’d like to propose the below paragraph for consideration right after the second sentence of the section:

Recently, StopBadware.org moved the Zango Easy Messenger in-depth report to archive status. Over time, reports, like Zango’s Easy Messenger are “moved to the StopBadware archive status due to the applications lack of availability or”, and in the case of Zango, “a change in the features of the application that would cause it to no longer deserve a badware designation.”

Sstratz 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Thank You In Advance

Wikipedia Community, I've just finished proposing some further changes in regard to the Zango entry. Again, I'll look forward to the community's insights, questions, concerns and more. In the meantime, I just wanted to thank everyone in advance for their interest in Zango and for the efforts to cleanup this article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and the community's expectations of fairness, accuracy and objectiveness. Sstratz 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

You're welcome, but you don't need to flatter us. We just want to write good articles. Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. What is the next step(s) in regard to my proposed edits? I'm assuming you'll look at them and hopefully others will as well, and there will be dialogue, but just wondering. I will be checking back regularly, so that I can address questions, concerns, etc. Best, Sstratz 04:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Housekeeping

Per the edits outlined on the Discussion page and done at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sstratz/Zango and since I have not heard much back on some of the thoughts posted, I have taken the liberty to take care of some minor edits to the Zango entry, including:

-Adding a break between executives York Baur and Ken McGraw -Adding an updated image of the Zango Notice and Consent screen and new subtitle as the image before was not labeled incorrectly as S3, which is the underlying technology -Correcting the spelling of ePIPO -Correcting the spelling of 180solutions -Adding a dash to pop-up -Finally, correcting York Baur’s title as EVP

Sstratz 23:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Yes, it's spyware

StopBadware.org, a reliable source (it's a joint operation of Oxford University, Harvard University, and Consumer's Union) says it's spyware. That's cited in the article. So it's spyware for Wikipedia purposes. Attempts to remove that from the article must be treated as vandalism and reverted.

Added some new material about WebSense's report of an installer that tries to install Zango Cash via phony YouTube videos. --John Nagle 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the spyware label is debatable. Don't confuse a content dispute with vandalism. Google Toolbar also reports information about user queries in order to bring up certain kinds of ads. Stopbadware gets a huge amount of funding from Google. Surprise, Google Toolbar isn't called spyware. So Stopbadware.org isn't exactly the most neutral source. It has commercial biases. Nontheless, I am not going to edit war. If this stuff really was spyware, it would be labeled as such by more than one source. See if you can dig up some additional references. Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Found an analysis by Ben Edelman and Eric Howes which demonstrates a whole range of new and ongoing Zango bad behaviors, including clear failures to comply with the FTC consent agreement. The latest attack vector involves installing Zango software via the Windows Media Player license manager. Also, here's a detailed analysis of what Zango spyware sends to the Zango servers. "180 transmits to its servers information about the web sites that users visit. Each transmission bears a domain name (or other trigger condition), as well as a unique user ID that lets 180 build profiles of users' online activities." --John Nagle 17:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The analysis in question was submitted to the FTC, which the FTC responded. Here is the link: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523130/0523130c4186lettercommenterskowesedelman.pdf. The FTC pointed out the following: “Your additional comments recognize that consumers were provided proper notice and consent before Zango’s adware was installed,…”. If consumers were provided proper notice and consent, I’ll argue, again, that Zango is not “spyware.”

As for information sent to our servers, we are committed to protecting the privacy of our users. Our software does not collect personally identifiable information (PII), ever. As posted in the COI Cleanup talk section, the information we look for is no different than the ‘Google Toolbar which monitors user behavior and is not called spyware.’

Lastly, we are active members of the Online Privacy Alliance (OPA), International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), among other industry organizations and I'll repeat that the privacy of our users is of the uptmost concern. Here are the steps we take to notify consumers as to what our software does and how it works. John Nagle I invite you download our software for yourself and see that we are not spyware and, in fact, we download our software more clearly than any other downloadable software on the Internet today:

Before installing our programs, users are provided with plain language disclosures as to what our programs are and how they work, in addition to a complete End User License Agreement and link to our Privacy Policy. Our policy is that the user must opt-in (consent) to the download before the install of our software will initiate;

We notify every user who downloads our programs with a post-install confirmation message, complete with a link for more information, including uninstall instructions;

Within 72 hours of downloading our programs, users receive a reminder that they have installed our programs, which includes information about how our programs work along with uninstall information;

90 days after install, and every 90 days after that, users are sent an additional reminder that they have our programs, including information as to how the programs work and uninstall instructions;

Upon download, our programs provide a system tray icon from which the user can access program information, customer support and uninstall instructions;

The user can access further information about our programs through the "Start / All Programs" menu, including direct links to customer support and uninstall instructions;

Delivered ads are labeled as coming from our programs and provide a link to further program information and uninstall instructions;

In any instance where we suspect that a partner channel has been compromised, we will provide every user within the compromised channel appropriate messaging. This messaging provides one-click removal of the fraudulently installed software as well as an opportunity for the user to explicitly opt-in if they wish to keep the software.

Uninstallation of our programs can always be done through the Add/Remove Programs function.

Sstratz 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

What the FTC actually said was: As you have characterized it, the third-party conduct that ultimately led to the above-referenced installations is potentially unfair or deceptive. The proposed consent order with Zango, however, remedies the Commission’s allegations that Zango caused its software to be downloaded on consumers’ computers without adequate notice and consent and remedies Zango’s previous unfair uninstallation practices, which are the principal problems the staff identified in its investigation. Accordingly, the proposed order appropriately addresses the conduct the Commission challenged and fences in reasonably related conduct. It is not intended to cover every potential violation of Section 5 by Zango. The Commission retains the ability to bring a de novo Section 5 action, for example, if it determines that Zango is engaging or participating with its distributors in conduct that deceives consumers into downloading Zango’s software notwithstanding the notice and consent required by this Order. So the FTC is saying that this new attack has to be considered as a new matter, not under the previous consent order. --John Nagle 21:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John. Ok. The very next paragraph in the letter says if we violate the order we “will be subject to potentially large civil penalties.” If any of the allegations in the report proved that we were violating the order, I would have to think (and know) that the ramifications would be immediate and without hesitation.

In any case, the analysis released last November implicitly acknowledged that; the authors admit that “most of Zango’s recent installation disclosures seem to meet” the FTC consent agreement standards. In addition, the examples cited in the report, which presumably led to the comment “most” instead of “all,” are legacy partners who, for whatever reason, have not deleted old versions of the software from certain web sites. In any event, we’ve taken steps to insure that this old software will not install once launched – we did this before January 1, 2006.

In addition, a series of changes were in motion in order to be 100% effective at preventing any install from the old code without causing problems for the user when the analysis was released. The last steps in that process were completed well before our Consent Order was finalized earlier this year. Lastly, much of the information released in November relates to the authors’ opinions. While we respect the right to opinions and will give opinions the consideration they are due, we are focused on meeting the standards set forth by the FTC.

Sstratz 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

It may be productive for you to contact StopBadware and see what needs to be done to get them to remove the word "spyware" from their page about Zango. Debating here will do no good, because this word is based on a reference to an arguably reliable source. Jehochman ^Talk 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman. I'll hopefully have an update by the end of the week on that front. In the meantime though, the StopBadware report in question is irrelevant in my opinion. Why? As posted earlier here for discussion, StopBadware has started to archive its reports. Per the StopBadware site (http://stopbadware.org/home/reportsarchive): “Over time, certain in-depth reports have been moved to archive status due to the applications lack of availability or a change in the features of the application that would cause it to no longer deserve a badware designation.” The latter, since it still is available, pertains to Zango Easy Messenger. In any case, it is situations like this why we are here and can discuss/debate. Again, I'll hopefully have an update by the end of the week. Thanks Sstratz 22:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

damn

video game director's cuts got pwned by zango, it says that i need zango to view the site >:( 71.12.79.243 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

removing zango

in the event that i would want to remove zango how would someone like myself go about doing such yeah 11:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide. I suggest you run some Google searches. If you feel particularly generous you can compile instructions and see if you can post them to wikiHow or some place like that. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You could hit your computer with a hammer and replace it with a new one, but that would cost money! Try downloading Spybot and see what happens. It's free, and more efficient than hitting your computer with a hammer. MalwareSmarts 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To remove Zango simply visit this page and follow the straightforward and simple instructions: http://www.zango.com/Destination/Corporate/Faqs.aspx#a9 Sstratz 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

I'm not sure about doing the above action. Would you trust a malware company's information on removing their products? MalwareSmarts 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Dude, you need to read Hanlon's razor. -Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think the user was up to anything bad, I thought it was an honest mistake. MalwareSmarts 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

The results of the Zango Installer

I would like to know whether this link will work in this page because it contains the items in the Zango software. Thanks!

http://www.virustotal.com/resultado.html?41afd39c700945320eecd28ece8a0f12.

Two links are posted there on the site to explore further.

Goodshoped35110s 01:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Untitled

Reads like a company puff piece. "Over time Zango will grow..." (emphasis added) is a clear example. "Lastly, we have 75,000 - 100,000 people every day..." is clearly in the corporate voice. All links are to Zango official sites. Excessive use of non-encyclopeic images. No subsection on criticism, even though it is mentioned in passing (as "confusion"). Contains facts needing citation that I suspect were pulled from company internal sources. GRBerry 18:23, 21 April 2006 (UTC) Never mind. Reverting to last NPOV version by Deltabeignet of 7 days ago. GRBerry 18:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Added POVCheck tag

I have added the POVCheck tag because of the following phrases:

• "focused on building a Content economy" - sounds like an ad
• "have a current focus on using time shifted advertising to support the long tail of content available on the Internet" - sounds like an ad
• "non-consensual" - This is a term often used by Zango/180 themselves
• "Zango can be removed by most leading Anti-Virus software like Symantec's Norton Anti-Virus" - endorsement of specific product —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.110.186.170 (talk • contribs)

I suspect this version is a corporate puff-piece. But it is not as flagrantly and maliciously so as the last version that I reverted was. NPOV could definitely be improved upon. The last bullet mentioned above is not part of the recent corporate change, it has been around a bit. GRBerry 14:39, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Added POV section

I just added the POV section tag. Everything below it is a new contribution that looks to be ad-cruft from the company. (And where did the POV check flag the prior user added go?...) GRBerry 02:31, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

• I've reverted this entirely. We don't really need the whole privacy policy here - just bits of it if necessary. Maybe an external link would be nice. The M00finman added the policy and removed the NPOV notice. According to M00finman, it was a translation done by him (it?). — Jeremy | Talk 11:39, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge

With the merger of hotbar and 180solutions I suggest what this page be merged in to the 180solutions page with appropriate renaming.

• Zango is the brand name for 180solutions.
• 180solutions is renaming itself to Zango.
• Multiple pages are redundant.

Bdelisle 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Recent revert

[2] - think it was a decent revert? It seems that the person's edits that I reverted could possibly have been added to make the article more neutral, but they really read as being more apologetic than anything. Especially considering that Google and eBay don't create software that's flagged by every anti-spyware program worth its salt as being "potentially unwanted" (besides Google Desktop, though that's an entirely different conversation). -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:23, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Locking?

Admins, I think this page should be locked to unregistered users. Most of the vandalism I'm seeing in the history are unregistered edits. EDIT: The article, not the talk page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Sljaxon (talk • contribs) 04:58, August 3, 2006.

• First, sign your comment. Second, I can understand the vandals... Its good will too (if you've ever got spyware you will understand). ^^ Anyhow, blocking this page from vandals is unneccisary, as they fix themselfs quick enough. Or if they don't, its like you fixing Zango on your computer. ^^ -- 68.228.33.74 06:19, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
• Sljaxon, please see the policy on page protection. — JeremyTalk 06:52, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

MacOS

Why is the MacOS screenshot necessary? It seems a waste of space. Sljaxon 14:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Zango Dtodd 04:48, 8 April 2007 (UTC)4/7/2007 dtodd

Cliff,

Numerous parties have a vested interest in keeping information about Zango inaccurate. While I am not concerned about positive/negative information if it is accurate, it is concerning to me that if I remove inaccurate and misleading information that others can simply replace it. Can you please let me know how you determine the accuracy of some information and how best to proceed if my desire is an honest and accurate representation of the history of Zango?

Thanks. dtodd

[The above note was placed on my user page by Dtodd. I have moved it here. --CliffC]

Reply: First, a few of my own concerns. When editors see removals of information or wholesale wording changes that are not explained on the Talk page or in an edit summary, it raises a red flag. Such changes will often be reverted on general principle by the first logged-in editor who notices them. Zango was not an article on my watchlist; I came here, and then on to Zango Messenger, by following the edit history of a user who made two major deletions to Spyware without leaving edit summaries. Looking a little further into who has been editing Spyware, Zango, and Zango Messenger, I see the following users of interest:

• User 206.169.156.2, the id that deleted the180 Solutions/Zango section of Spyware, as well as deleting the "Stealware" and affiliate fraud section that mentioned 180solutions, without leaving edit summaries. More recently, this id removed from Zango a citation titled Nonconsensual 180 Installations Continue, Despite 180's "S3" Screen. This is the same id used to post the "Note from Zango President Daniel Todd" at the top of this page.

• User 24.16.59.121 has made several edits to Zango, including removing a citation to Zango, Inc. Settles FTC Charges that summarizes the FTC charges and settlement.

• User Dtodd, your id, has made several changes to Zango, including a reverted attempt to substitute the term "desktop advertising products" for adware. (Dtodd is also the author of the related article Time shifted advertising.)

It may be that there was a valid reason for some of these changes, but in the absence of an edit summary it's hard to tell. It is hard to 'assume good faith' on the part of you or Zango in the face of these edits. It seems to me that, by definition, you or anyone associated with Zango would have a very large WP:Conflict of interest when editing Zango, Zango Messenger, or related articles. I know it must be difficult to try to overcome years of bad press coupled with past FTC charges, but in my opinion this is not the way to do it.

I think there are two particularly applicable sections of the guidelines, WP:COI#Defending interests and WP:COI#Suggesting changes to articles. Summarizing them, before you "remove inaccurate and misleading information", you should take the proposed change to the Talk page and seek consensus.

Finally, in answer to your question as to how I "determine the accuracy of some information", I simply follow and read an article's citations, assuming they have not been removed. --CliffC 16:02, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Reply: I must say, I'm particularly disturbed by the direction this wiki page has gone in. Upon seeing DTodds latest edit "(Removing 100% inaccuate information. Editor please track the IP of anyone replacing this information so we can discuss a ban.)", he's made it clear that he's not only ignored the links to the pages you linked to regarding POV, conflict of interest and raising inaccurate information on the talk section of a page relating to yourself BEFORE editing / removing it, he's effectively laying claim to Zangos ownership of this page ("..so we can discuss a ban").

In effect, he's going to continue to dictate to non zango affiliated users (ie regular Wikipedia users) what can and can't be placed here, as well as having made numerous removals of factually valid information such as the FTC link and links to non consensual installs without any comeback - while still expecting people to start banning random IP addresses at his request. This makes something of mockery of the neutrality of this page. Ginza 10:17, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's outrageous. However, I do agree with the sentiment in his (first ever!) edit summary that a ban should be discussed. He and the Bellevue, Washington IPs should be the subjects of the discussion. --CliffC 12:59, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Cliff,

I appreciate your feedback and do apologize that I had not read the information you pointed out above previous to editing content. I will read through this information and follow the described policies if I have suggestions on improving the accuracy of any statements.

Thank you for pointing this out. Again my apologies for not following what appears to be clearly defined rules around this process.

Have a nice day dtodd

Reply: Despite this, we have yet another Zango / 180 edit from the 206.169.156.2 address. at this point i think its irrelevant which 180 employee is making these constant edits - there's more than enough evidence here to move for a ban on all of these accounts and IP addresses. Ginza 06:06, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

TROLL!

User talk:71.35.130.158 is blanking the controversy part of the article. I highly recommend severe sanction and notification of this occurrence to Paperghost.  E. Sn0 =31337= ^Talk 05:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Zango, former FTC Commissioner Varney at advertising conference in San Francisco

<quote>

Zango Has Advertisers Covered at ad:tech San Francisco

Online Media Company to 'Blanket' Advertisers With Opportunities at Interactive Advertising Event

BELLEVUE, WA -- (MARKET WIRE) -- 04/19/07 -- Zango, an online media company that provides free, sought-after videos, games, music, tools and utilities, will share its unique Time Shifted Advertising(SM) model with marketers next week at ad:tech San Francisco, the leading interactive advertising and technology conference. The ad:tech gathering runs April 24-26.

</quote>
--full article at http://www.sys-con.com/read/364081.htm

I found the above press release looking for a source for a seemingly pro-Zango quote by former FTC Commissioner Christine Varney, that quote recently added by new contributor User:64.60.253.65. I couldn't locate a source for the quote, but Zango's press release does state:

"Desktop advertising used to be a free-for-all," said Christine Varney, a partner in Hogan & Hartson LLP's Washington, D.C. office and a featured speaker at ad:tech San Francisco. "It's not anymore. Thanks to the efforts of the Federal Trade Commission, the New York attorney general's office, TRUSTe and, most recently, the reintroduction of federal anti-spyware legislation, those days are behind us. Simply put, there's never been a better time for advertisers to venture into the desktop advertising arena."

--CliffC 04:44, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

180Solutions

This article should be added.

Jmajeremy

Good point, I just created 180Solutions as a redirect to Zango. Oddly, entering 180Solutions in the search box worked, but using it in a wikilink didn't. --CliffC 22:21, 1 May 2007 (UTC)#

CliffC do you mind not keep on going back and back to the Zango page, we get it, you hate Zango. Let it rest, and before you do you little WHOIS search im not from Zango HQ :/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.104.167.223 (talk • contribs)

Please sign your talk page posts using four tildes (~~~~).

The same day I created the redirect for 180Solutions, I also created redirects for Bee deaths and Disappearing bees, so I guess that means I must hate (or maybe love?) bees. I've never had a Zango infection on my machine, and I can assure you that my interest in Zango is not in any way personal. Let's just say that given the Zango history, I watch this page with a sort of queasy fascination to see what its officers, employees and affiliates will come up with next. --CliffC 03:49, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Malware Controversy

According to WP:DUCK we shouldn't need euphamisms. Malware is a term of art that describes spyware and adware. Yes, I know it sounds bad, but if that's what this company is doing, we should call a duck a duck. This is the main reason this company is notable. Jehochman ^☎ / _✔ 21:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. It would add to the objectivity and clearity of this article. 80.208.232.106 08:25, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

Private Message

Hello Cliff,

I hope you are well. I am hoping to send you a private message. How can I do that? I can be reached at sstratz@gmail.com

Sstratz 22:46, 5 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

[The above note was posted on my talk page]

I'm not very keen on private messages. I assume, based on your email address, that you are the Steve Stratz who is director of public relations for Zango and according to this OMMA article seeking to have candid conversations with Wikipedia editors. On my part, I would prefer that any conversation took place over at Talk:Zango, where I will move your note. --CliffC 23:59, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

I am, Cliff. I would, however, prefer to send you something privately to begin with, but if it must be here than I can do that, but not sure how it will work, as I have an attachment I'd like for you to see. - Sstratz 00:59, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm not as wired into file-sharing as I would like to be; maybe somebody else can suggest a public site that will let you park a PDF or such for people to look at. Looking again at the OMMA article mentioned above, I was a little dismayed to see myself identified as "the" editor, because that's not how Wikipedia works. Maybe I just happened to get up a little earlier than everyone else those days. If you are able to post whatever it is you want to share, interested editors can look at it and perhaps give you the candid comments you seek, in a respectful manner. --CliffC 02:35, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, again, Cliff. I'll figure something out. In regard to the OMMA article, the comment was not aimed at you personally whatsoever. I understand there is a clear conflict of interest between me and the Wikipedia entry about our company, but in the spirit of the Wikipedia "way" I am hoping to propose and shed light on many elements within the Zango entry that are not consistent with the community's expectations of fairness, accuracy and objectiveness. Again, thanks! - Sstratz 15:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Zango people, please post any suggestions you have right here on this talk page. If you include references to reliable sources, that will really help. We generally won't use material from corporate press releases or from news sites that just regurgitate corporate press releases. You might also look into the underlying reasons to why people are reacting so negatively to your company and try to fix those things. Jehochman ^Talk 19:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman. Completely understood. There has been massive work over the past 2-3 years on our end, but, and unfortunately, it takes time to continually demonstrate those efforts and convince the public of those changes. It doesn't happen overnight, but our more than 200 employees in six offices in four countries are working hard every day to do just that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sstratz (talk • contribs)

Sorry for not signing correctly.

SstratzSstratz 21:07, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Ya,Zango go to hell! i hope you get lawsuits,you have caused of over 20 million dollars in computer damages. Make your terms of agreements stating that you use spyware and adware in your software!... -.-,Make one of your spyware modules named "Newb"... NOOBS!--Hitamaru 23:27, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Zango continue to edit this page

How can anyone claim this page has anything like a neutral point of view when the talk page has a huge introductory message from the head of Zango at the top of it? (note the page vandalism addition underneath, by the way).

the main article has numerous instances of either DTodd editing the page to make it more Zango friendly, and there are endless edits from "anonymous" users who can be traced back to washington, bellevue. it doesn't take a genius to work out these are associated with Zango, especially as many of the supposedly anonymous edits IP addresses lead back to the 180 Solutions nameserver (AKA Zango).

isn't it about time these IP addresses and accounts were banned from wikipedia? at the very least, remove the meet and greet message from the top of this page. Ginza 05:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I heard from Dtodd this weekend after reverting some Zango changes; his note and my reply are below. Damn, if I had seen that Vitalsecurity link sooner, I could have saved a lot of typing. --CliffC 16:18, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Should the attempts to change the page be commented on on the main page? Something like "In rcent months IP addresses from what seem to be Zango servers and users claiming to be employees of Zango have made several questionable edits to this page" maybe? What did they do when those capital hill staffers kept changing the content of those senator's pages?

they've been editing pretty hard,Including the Newgrounds partnership,it's turn into one sentence.--Hitamaru 23:30, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Technically Legal?

The 2002-2005 section currently states that: "Many other affiliates notified users only via the end user licence agreement EULA; this resulted in millions more of technically legal but still essentially non-consensual installs." What is the source for stating that these installs are legal? As far as I know, the law is not entirely settled here; a remote EULA link that attempts to conceal the install information from the average user may still qualify as a "deceptive marketing practice" and therefore, would still be illegal. I'd like some feedback; if someone has evidence that their practices were legal, I'll hold off, but absent that I would like to change it to "arguable legal" or "of questionable legality etc.

Lciaccio 18:03, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It installs by itself sometimes.--Hitamaru 23:33, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

RE: Private Message: Introduction and Attachment

As I write to the Wikipedia community, the top of the Zango page on the Wikipedia includes a message that reads, “This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards.” On behalf of Zango I couldn’t agree more.

Who am I? My name is Steve Stratz and I’ll immediately point-out that as the director of public relations for Zango, obviously a clear conflict of interest exists between me and the Wikipedia entry about our company.

However it is in the spirit of the Wikipedia “way” that I am reaching out to you all today. The Zango entry simply does not meet the quality standards of Wikipedia. Our passionate President and Co-founder Daniel Todd, made a personal attempt to contribute his own views, but those were deleted.

He and I have learned a lot about the Wikipedia due to those recent incidents – thank you for your responses to Daniel. We have learned that executives editing pages about their own companies is not always the best approach in this community. However in the time since we have monitored the Zango entry and feel there are many elements that are not consistent with the community’s expectations of fairness, accuracy, and objectiveness.

Today, the Zango entry includes far too much opinion and axe grinding (Hitmaru's response to my the "Private Message" confirms just that), and is in need of fact and balancing references – including documentation of our past issues, whether they be PR, legal or business, not to mention evidence that Zango has evolved – in some circumstances to industry leadership positions.

I have sat down – at home and away from the office – and copied and pasted a recent version of the Zango entry into a Microsoft Word document and taken what I believe is a reasonable, cool-headed and well-grounded attempt at a revision that is both fair and balanced. Jehochman, per your Talk page comments, I have included a few company press release links, which felt, given the context, appropriate. I can find other relevant links, but I'm sure that will be one of the last of our worries, right now.

I will send the attachment immediately following this Talk entry and welcome the review and subsequent consideration in assisting with an effort to bring the Zango Wikipedia entry up to the standards it rightfully deserves.

Thank you, Sstratz 21:26, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

It's my policy not to correspond with other editors offline about article content. Please post your suggestions here, and keep them concise. Jehochman ^Talk 21:36, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I have uploaded the .PDF document to the Wikipedia, but it is not showing up here, nor can I figure out how to get to this page. Suggestions? Thank you in advance, Sstratz 21:49, 11 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Copy the relevant text out of the document and post it here. Please keep the text short and to the point. We're not very interested in corporate PR-speak. Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Better idea: I am putting a copy of this page into your user space at: User:Sstratz/Zango. Go ahead and edit that, and then leave a note here asking somebody to look at it. Make sure you include reliable third party sources for any additions. Press releases automatically don't qualify as sources, nor do regurgitations of press releases by news sites. Avoid deleting properly sourced material, because we won't allow that. Jehochman ^Talk 00:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Great idea Jehochman. Much appreciated Sstratz 20:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Wikipedia Community, per the copy of the Zango page under my profile (SEE ABOVE), I've edited the lead: Zango, snapshot sidebar, and Malware Controvery, as well as submitted a new and more up-to-date graphic for our notice and consent screen. Outlined below are a few comments to those proposed edits. I will look forward to hearing input and moving forward to the other sections. Thank you.

Lead: Zango:

1.) Deletion that we manufacture "spyware": While adware and spyware are “often used interchangeably,” according to the Wikipedia “Spyware” entry and this is true, there is a difference. In the case of our entry, it makes no sense to say we manufacture both. It should be one or the other and, absolutely not spyware. We do not manufacture spyware, period. We provide consumers plain-language notice, have to obtain their consent and make our online downloadable software extremely easy to uninstall. In addition, I thought I’d provide a link to the question: Is Zango Spyware?, which can be found in the FAQ section of our Web site: http://www.zango.com/Destination/Corporate/Faqs.aspx#1.4.

2.) Symantec and McAfee links: Instead of linking to Symantec’s Wikipedia page, which has nothing to do with Zango, wouldn’t it be more helpful to link to the Symantec summary, including technical details and more about Zango? Here is the link: http://www.symantec.com/security_response/writeup.jsp?docid=2005-050416-3519-99&tabid=1

2A.) Again, would it be more helpful to link to the McAfee page about Zango http://vil.nai.com/vil/content/v_134248.htm?

Malware Controversy:

Edit notes: Per the above paragraph two comments:

1.) Deletion of "spyware": Please see comment above about this topic: "spyware."

2.) Deletion of "cause annoying": A suggestion would be to replace the word "cause" with "deliver" and to strike the word "annoying." It is an opinion, not fact. If you asked most people if advertising was annoying in general, they would probably say, “Yes.” If asked if they are willing to view relevant advertising in lieu of paying cash for something, they often say, “Absolutely” – especially on the Internet.

3.) Deletion of "spy": Per the “spyware” comments above, this is patently untrue and a statement of uninformed assumptions. We do not collect any personally identifiable information, ever. Our desktop advertising software, much like Internet cookies, tracks Web browsing and searching behavior. According to the Wikipedia entry about HTTP cookies, about which there are “a number of misconceptions” (much like about us), HTTP cookies are not deemed “spyware.” A recommendation would be to change this word to “track.”

4.) Deletion of "infected computers": I took out “infected computers,” as, again, this is axe-grinding. If the consumer is provided notice and gives consent to our offer of advertising for content, this is not an 'infection.' I would also note this is a loaded term that is rhetorical rather than factual. The Wikipedia entry for Infection states: An infection is the detrimental colonization of a host organism by a foreign species. In an infection, the infecting organism seeks to utilize the host's resources to multiply (usually at the expense of the host). The infecting organism, or pathogen, interferes with the normal functioning of the host and can lead to chronic wounds, gangrene, loss of an infected limb, and even death. While the entry is not spot-on to the word in our entry, I believe it is interesting. Zango is not detrimental to a computer. In fact our program is only 3+MB's in size. Windows Messenger, which also runs constantly is 30+MBs.

5.) Deletion of "and this behavior can only be stopped by using the msconfig system tool.": This not true and I’d argue the average consumer has no idea what the msconfig system tool is or how to access it. This sentence would be more helpful to the consumer possibly this way: … but this behavior can be stopped by removing or uninstalling the software via the Add or Remove Programs Windows functionality found in the Control Panel. Sstratz 23:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC) Sstratz

One further section revised today for the community's review and thoughts. I have gone through the History section. It looks like I didn't do the Web links quite right, but we can figure it out. Again, thanks to everyone and I look forward to bringing the Zango entry up to the standards of the Wikipedia. Sstratz 00:06, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Wikipedia Community, per the copy of the Zango page under my profile (SEE ABOVE), I've further edited, including going through Government Regulatory Actions, Litigation, Mergers and acquisitions, Hotbar and (Hotbar) Controversy, Seekmo and Newgrounds Partnership. Outlined below are a few comments to those proposed edits. I will look forward to hearing input and moving forward. Thank you.

1.) Of note, the name of Zango previously was "180solutions" all one word and with a lowercase "s".

2.) In Government Regulatory Actions, Zango was never "charged," "charges were prepared" though. In addition, we did not settle via a consent decree, but rather a consent agreement. Lastly, the FTC's press release is quoted. In the spirit of fair and balance, I've proposed a quote from Zango's press release and from Keith Smith, CEO.

3.) In Litigation, Collins is given a lot of play, yet his case was dismissed, with prejudice. Again, I've proposed balance with a quote from Zango's General Counsel. In addition, the Chicago Tribune article about the lawsuit being filed is cited. The Chicago Tribune, when the case was dismissed, wrote a follow-up story. The link on the Web is dead, but here is the text. This should be cited, like the story a year prior:

TECHBUZZ Spyware rulemaking muddled in a gray area

By Eric Benderoff Published September 11, 2006 In the digital age, there are few black-and-white rules. Rather, we live in an era of gray when it comes to technology and the law.

A federal case that was dismissed last week before it reached trial is the latest example. And while it provides no definitive conclusions on where tech law is heading, it does raise interesting questions.

The case was filed by Naperville attorney Shawn Collins against a Washington software company that he alleges puts spyware on computers without a user's consent.

Collins, who wanted this to be a class-action lawsuit, believes Zango's software trespasses upon and pollutes computers, much like industrial firms have been caught polluting water supplies.

In its defense, Zango hired the Chicago firm of Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP, a pioneer in tech law that counts Microsoft Corp. among its clients.

Collins couldn't make his case, and the suit was dismissed with prejudice, meaning it can't be pursued further. Zango claimed a big victory, saying it proved it is not a spyware provider.

Here's what Zango does: It sell ads. And thousands of people willingly sign up for its service every day, much like they buy goods at Amazon, Apple's iTunes store or register at a newspaper's Web site.

In all of these examples, we have agreed to put cookies on our computers to track our surfing habits. These cookies feed us ads when we enter certain key words, or they remember the last song we downloaded or book we purchased so they can offer something new we may like the next time we visit.

We don't consider these companies spyware firms.

Zango offers free screensavers and computer games in exchange for a user agreeing to accept additional software that will serve ads based on where the user goes online.

If you haven't noticed lately, online advertising is getting to be a pretty big business. And perhaps you haven't noticed the number of cookies stored on your computer lately. I counted more than 1,000 on my machine.

Each one has a little bit of data that tells a marketer something about where I've been and where I may go next.

So where is the line drawn? Are some companies unfairly painted as violating our privacy and polluting our computers?

"I can't give you a definition of spyware that is universally accepted. Even the courts have trouble with that," said Floyd Mandell, a partner with Katten Muchin Rosenman.

His colleague, Michael Dorfman, added that consent is really the issue. "You can get a software application with consent or without consent, but it's the same application. Is that spyware in both cases? If consent is what people focus on, then it cannot be spyware."

"We believe Zango goes to extra measures to get consent," Mandell said. "There are many consumers that want this targeted advertising and want this content."

In June, the Anti-Spyware Coalition defined spyware as "technologies deployed without appropriate user consent and/or implemented in ways that impair user control." The definition offered examples, including the collection and use of personal information.

Ari Schwartz, the deputy director for the Center for Democracy and Technology, which oversees the coalition, does not have a favorable opinion of Zango and believes the company has a history of tricking people into downloading its software.

Yet, he also believes it is important to set objective standards that don't unfairly pick on some outfits.

"Big name companies are, to some extent, given a little bit of a benefit of the doubt, but that only goes so far," he said in an e-mail.

He cited Sony Corp. as an example. Last year, it was discovered that Sony's music division included "rootkit" software that hid itself on a personal computer and could be exploited by skilled hackers to add dangerous code that steals personal information.

That's what spyware can do, among other nasty things like monitoring your key strokes, turning your machine into a zombie for attacks against Web sites or allow others to control your machine.

Sony was sued in three separate class-action suits for putting such dangerous software on customer's machines, and it agreed to refund money to people who bought the CDs. It also offered a security patch to fix the flaw.

Likewise, Zango has changed its practices, and executives say it meets industry standards for its advertising products.

"They want people to have the software on their computer, and the user to know it's there," Dorfman said. "Our client isn't hiding in the shadows."

But in this gray world that is the digital age, shadows aren't so easy to see.

4.) Under Mergers & acquisitions, there is this line, which is a throwaway and can be deleted: According to the 180solutions press release, Hotbar and 180solutions merged and the combined company is called Zango.

5.) the Stopbadware graphic is linked to the Stopbadware page. It would be more relevant if it was linked directly to our report: http://www.stopbadware.org/reports/reportdisplay?reportname=zangomessenger

7.) Under Seekmo, we don't claim Seekmo is free, it is and so is the content in exchange for viewing targeted advertising.

8.) Lasly, the Newgrounds.com Partnership, We have hundreds of Web publisher relationships – Newgrounds.com being one of them. Not sure I see the relevance here, unless the Wikipedia users would like to call out each of our publishing partners. We’ve also been partnered with Newgrounds for a number of years.

Sstratz 22:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Thank You In Advance

Wikipedia Community, I've just finished proposing some further changes in regard to the Zango entry. Again, I'll look forward to the community's insights, questions, concerns and more. In the meantime, I just wanted to thank everyone in advance for their interest in Zango and for the efforts to cleanup this article to meet Wikipedia's quality standards and the community's expectations of fairness, accuracy and objectiveness. Sstratz 22:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

You're welcome, but you don't need to flatter us. We just want to write good articles. Jehochman ^Talk 02:57, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I concur. What is the next step(s) in regard to my proposed edits? I'm assuming you'll look at them and hopefully others will as well, and there will be dialogue, but just wondering. I will be checking back regularly, so that I can address questions, concerns, etc. Best, Sstratz 04:22, 14 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

COI Cleanup

In reviewing the edits suggested by company representative, User:Sstratz, it became obvious to me that somebody with an axe to grind or a connection to a class-action plaintiff's attorney did a number on this article. There is no reliable source that calls Zango Spyware. If somebody can find one, please post it here for discussion, and then we can add it to the article. While Adware with boilerplate consent forms may be undesirable and personally offensive to most of us, we need to maintain Wikipedia's content policies. Unsourced statements should be removed, and should not be re-added without proper citations. If Zango produces Adware, that's what we say. We don't exaggerate and call it Spyware. Google Toolbar monitors user behavior, and we don't call that spyware. We must maintain the same standards for all. Jehochman ^Talk 22:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Just took care of that. See this detailed report from StopBadware.org, sponsored by the Harvard Law School, Oxford University, and Consumers Union. --John Nagle 00:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

We have worked with StopBadware (SBW) since last summer. At the top of the report, it finds that "Zango Easy Messenger is not badware." The behavior of Zango that is described is exactly what one would find if one were to trace the data sent and received by the Google Toolbar, as Jehochman points out. What most people don't realize is that SBW is almost entirely funded by Google so, of course, Google won't be listed as "Behaves as Spyware." When you look at what "Behaves as Spyware" means, you'll see that our position has been consistent - Zango does not collect PII and will not deviate in any way from the EULA and Privacy Policy. We don't argue the credibility of the source, we just ask that you look a bit further than the "Behaves as Spyware" subhead to see what behavior they are describing. They are actually describing the same behavior one would see in typical Adware. Sstratz 00:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

There has been a development in regard to StopBadware that I’d like to propose as an addition to the “Undesireable software behaviors” section. StopBadware has started to archive its in-depth reports. Per the StopBadware site (http://stopbadware.org/home/reportsarchive): “Over time, certain in-depth reports have been moved to archive status due to the applications lack of availability or a change in the features of the application that would cause it to no longer deserve a badware designation.”

This being the case and since the Zango Easy Messenger report has been archived (SEE THE RIGHT HAND SIDE NAVIGATION OF THE ABOVE LINK), I’d like to propose the below paragraph for consideration right after the second sentence of the section:

Recently, StopBadware.org moved the Zango Easy Messenger in-depth report to archive status. Over time, reports, like Zango’s Easy Messenger are “moved to the StopBadware archive status due to the applications lack of availability or”, and in the case of Zango, “a change in the features of the application that would cause it to no longer deserve a badware designation.”

Sstratz 23:24, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Housekeeping

Per the edits outlined on the Discussion page and done at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Sstratz/Zango and since I have not heard much back on some of the thoughts posted, I have taken the liberty to take care of some minor edits to the Zango entry, including:

-Adding a break between executives York Baur and Ken McGraw -Adding an updated image of the Zango Notice and Consent screen and new subtitle as the image before was not labeled incorrectly as S3, which is the underlying technology -Correcting the spelling of ePIPO -Correcting the spelling of 180solutions -Adding a dash to pop-up -Finally, correcting York Baur’s title as EVP

Sstratz 23:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Yes, it's spyware

StopBadware.org, a reliable source (it's a joint operation of Oxford University, Harvard University, and Consumer's Union) says it's spyware. That's cited in the article. So it's spyware for Wikipedia purposes. Attempts to remove that from the article must be treated as vandalism and reverted.

Added some new material about WebSense's report of an installer that tries to install Zango Cash via phony YouTube videos. --John Nagle 02:59, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the spyware label is debatable. Don't confuse a content dispute with vandalism. Google Toolbar also reports information about user queries in order to bring up certain kinds of ads. Stopbadware gets a huge amount of funding from Google. Surprise, Google Toolbar isn't called spyware. So Stopbadware.org isn't exactly the most neutral source. It has commercial biases. Nontheless, I am not going to edit war. If this stuff really was spyware, it would be labeled as such by more than one source. See if you can dig up some additional references. Jehochman ^Talk 04:06, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Found an analysis by Ben Edelman and Eric Howes which demonstrates a whole range of new and ongoing Zango bad behaviors, including clear failures to comply with the FTC consent agreement. The latest attack vector involves installing Zango software via the Windows Media Player license manager. Also, here's a detailed analysis of what Zango spyware sends to the Zango servers. "180 transmits to its servers information about the web sites that users visit. Each transmission bears a domain name (or other trigger condition), as well as a unique user ID that lets 180 build profiles of users' online activities." --John Nagle 17:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

The analysis in question was submitted to the FTC, which the FTC responded. Here is the link: http://www.ftc.gov/os/caselist/0523130/0523130c4186lettercommenterskowesedelman.pdf. The FTC pointed out the following: “Your additional comments recognize that consumers were provided proper notice and consent before Zango’s adware was installed,…”. If consumers were provided proper notice and consent, I’ll argue, again, that Zango is not “spyware.”

As for information sent to our servers, we are committed to protecting the privacy of our users. Our software does not collect personally identifiable information (PII), ever. As posted in the COI Cleanup talk section, the information we look for is no different than the ‘Google Toolbar which monitors user behavior and is not called spyware.’

Lastly, we are active members of the Online Privacy Alliance (OPA), International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP), among other industry organizations and I'll repeat that the privacy of our users is of the uptmost concern. Here are the steps we take to notify consumers as to what our software does and how it works. John Nagle I invite you download our software for yourself and see that we are not spyware and, in fact, we download our software more clearly than any other downloadable software on the Internet today:

Before installing our programs, users are provided with plain language disclosures as to what our programs are and how they work, in addition to a complete End User License Agreement and link to our Privacy Policy. Our policy is that the user must opt-in (consent) to the download before the install of our software will initiate;

We notify every user who downloads our programs with a post-install confirmation message, complete with a link for more information, including uninstall instructions;

Within 72 hours of downloading our programs, users receive a reminder that they have installed our programs, which includes information about how our programs work along with uninstall information;

90 days after install, and every 90 days after that, users are sent an additional reminder that they have our programs, including information as to how the programs work and uninstall instructions;

Upon download, our programs provide a system tray icon from which the user can access program information, customer support and uninstall instructions;

The user can access further information about our programs through the "Start / All Programs" menu, including direct links to customer support and uninstall instructions;

Delivered ads are labeled as coming from our programs and provide a link to further program information and uninstall instructions;

In any instance where we suspect that a partner channel has been compromised, we will provide every user within the compromised channel appropriate messaging. This messaging provides one-click removal of the fraudulently installed software as well as an opportunity for the user to explicitly opt-in if they wish to keep the software.

Uninstallation of our programs can always be done through the Add/Remove Programs function.

Sstratz 18:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

What the FTC actually said was: As you have characterized it, the third-party conduct that ultimately led to the above-referenced installations is potentially unfair or deceptive. The proposed consent order with Zango, however, remedies the Commission’s allegations that Zango caused its software to be downloaded on consumers’ computers without adequate notice and consent and remedies Zango’s previous unfair uninstallation practices, which are the principal problems the staff identified in its investigation. Accordingly, the proposed order appropriately addresses the conduct the Commission challenged and fences in reasonably related conduct. It is not intended to cover every potential violation of Section 5 by Zango. The Commission retains the ability to bring a de novo Section 5 action, for example, if it determines that Zango is engaging or participating with its distributors in conduct that deceives consumers into downloading Zango’s software notwithstanding the notice and consent required by this Order. So the FTC is saying that this new attack has to be considered as a new matter, not under the previous consent order. --John Nagle 21:08, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks John. Ok. The very next paragraph in the letter says if we violate the order we “will be subject to potentially large civil penalties.” If any of the allegations in the report proved that we were violating the order, I would have to think (and know) that the ramifications would be immediate and without hesitation.

In any case, the analysis released last November implicitly acknowledged that; the authors admit that “most of Zango’s recent installation disclosures seem to meet” the FTC consent agreement standards. In addition, the examples cited in the report, which presumably led to the comment “most” instead of “all,” are legacy partners who, for whatever reason, have not deleted old versions of the software from certain web sites. In any event, we’ve taken steps to insure that this old software will not install once launched – we did this before January 1, 2006.

In addition, a series of changes were in motion in order to be 100% effective at preventing any install from the old code without causing problems for the user when the analysis was released. The last steps in that process were completed well before our Consent Order was finalized earlier this year. Lastly, much of the information released in November relates to the authors’ opinions. While we respect the right to opinions and will give opinions the consideration they are due, we are focused on meeting the standards set forth by the FTC.

Sstratz 21:54, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

It may be productive for you to contact StopBadware and see what needs to be done to get them to remove the word "spyware" from their page about Zango. Debating here will do no good, because this word is based on a reference to an arguably reliable source. Jehochman ^Talk 22:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jehochman. I'll hopefully have an update by the end of the week on that front. In the meantime though, the StopBadware report in question is irrelevant in my opinion. Why? As posted earlier here for discussion, StopBadware has started to archive its reports. Per the StopBadware site (http://stopbadware.org/home/reportsarchive): “Over time, certain in-depth reports have been moved to archive status due to the applications lack of availability or a change in the features of the application that would cause it to no longer deserve a badware designation.” The latter, since it still is available, pertains to Zango Easy Messenger. In any case, it is situations like this why we are here and can discuss/debate. Again, I'll hopefully have an update by the end of the week. Thanks Sstratz 22:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

The results of the Zango Installer

I would like to know whether this link will work in this page because it contains the items in the Zango software. Thanks!

http://www.virustotal.com/resultado.html?41afd39c700945320eecd28ece8a0f12.

Two links are posted there on the site to explore further.

Goodshoped35110s 01:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Un-archiving

I have restored this talk page. Any archiving of the page needs to be discussed right here first. --CliffC 16:22, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup

This article seems to need some cleanup, I am going to add a cleanup template and do some work, but I did want to get an opinion on a few major moves and edits I was thinking of. I suggest dividing this article into 3 - one for the Zango company, one for the Zango Search Assistant software, and one for Hotbar. What do you think? Sljaxon 14:43, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Suggested split into three articles

• Against. These products all have the same parent, and it's mainly the behavior and history of the parent that this article has come to be about, a situation brought about by Zango itself. I don't think it would be possible to write encyclopedic content about any Zango product without having as background the company history, product behaviors, controversies, litigation, etc. Let's keep all that information here in one spot where it can be watched, and can't become detached and lost in a product split-off. --CliffC 21:00, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
• Against The nature of, and controversy about, both the company and the product itself seem highly related. I'm very suspicious that the split is an attempt to deflect bad reputations about one or the other, rather than a truly encyclopedic reason. Cander0000 01:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

For what it is worth as the Director of PR at Zango and a very small contributor, I agree with CliffC. In addition it is important to note that this content should be focused not just on the history, but also the present and future, especially moving forward. Sstratz 23:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, so the content should focus on what's published in reliable sources, not future plans. I agree that the split makes no sense. We have enough material for one good article. Let's keep it together. - Jehochman ^Talk 22:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Content

Last month, Zango announced a new relationship with Warner Bros. Here is a link to the press release: http://www.marketwire.com/mw/release.do?id=803582. In addition, here is a link to a December 14, 2007 story that appeared in the Puget Sound Business Journal (print subscription is required: http://seattle.bizjournals.com/seattle/stories/2007/12/17/story6.html, but the full article without a subscription is found at the East Bay Times, a PSBJ sister newspaper: http://eastbay.bizjournals.com/eastbay/othercities/seattle/stories/2007/12/17/story6.html?b=1197867600^1563860). Lastly, here is a press release link from September where the new relationship was first announced: http://www.timewarner.com/corp/newsroom/pr/0,20812,1660526,00.html.

Reminder: I am the director of public relations for Zango, so there are obviously potential conflict of interest implications here. However, in a continued effort to “cleanup [the Zango article] to meet Wikipedia’s quality standards” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zango) – something the article in its present condition does not do – I’m bringing this information to the Wikipedia Community.

Zango’s new relationship with Warner Bros. should have an impact on the current language within the “Content” section of the Zango article. The simplest way to cleanup the Content section would be to delete the present sentence at the end of the section about Warner Bros. It is my opinion that this sentence does not help the article, especially as Zango has more than 100 content provider/aggregator partners and the information conveyed by the sentence is, at best, no longer factually accurate.

If the Community decides a different approach is appropriate, here is a potential edit for the last sentence of the section:

Content providers, ranging from large studios such as Warner Bros. to smaller-sized content creators, partner with Zango to earn revenue and increase distribution.

In addition, if the content about the past relationship and subsequent notes are included in the updated Content section, I’d also like to propose the following link as a note, as it accurately tells the “real” story behind events that occurred nearly 18 months ago: http://blog.spywareguide.com/2006/07/did_digg_cause_the_zango_warne.html.

Sstratz (talk) 20:05, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Sstratz

Their Office Building

Office Building: Zango

This picture is older. The building is now black, has an on-ramp in front of this picture, and no longer has the 180solutions logo on the right side. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.104.255.46 (talk • contribs)

Would you have time to take a new picture some morning and post it? --CliffC (talk) 11:45, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

POS

The thing's a demon! It's negated my popup blocker, and it won't go away. It's just a matter of time before my computer starts swearing at me in latin. Bioform 1234 01:27, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I took it out, and it's damaged my computer. It's slower than ever, and works even less.

Ugh, I'm glad I googled Zango before hitting the "yes" button. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.165.6.225 (talk) 23:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Not for squeamish...

We should mention that ad with the guy jumping under the bus!--Editor510 (talk) 17:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

removing zango

in the event that i would want to remove zango how would someone like myself go about doing such yeah 11:34, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a how-to guide. I suggest you run some Google searches. If you feel particularly generous you can compile instructions and see if you can post them to wikiHow or some place like that. Jehochman ^Talk 13:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

You could hit your computer with a hammer and replace it with a new one, but that would cost money! Try downloading Spybot and see what happens. It's free, and more efficient than hitting your computer with a hammer. MalwareSmarts 18:56, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

To remove Zango simply visit this page and follow the straightforward and simple instructions: http://www.zango.com/Destination/Corporate/Faqs.aspx#a9 Sstratz 22:13, 6 August 2007 (UTC)Sstratz

I'm not sure about doing the above action. Would you trust a malware company's information on removing their products? MalwareSmarts 16:47, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Uh...I think that this article is about removing the virus that comes with Zango once you uninstall it... —Preceding unsigned comment added by MasterOfTheXP (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Dude, you need to read Hanlon's razor. -Jehochman ^Talk 17:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I didn't think the user was up to anything bad, I thought it was an honest mistake. MalwareSmarts 21:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Somebody trying to avoid a lawsuit here? I know I'm digging up the past, but putting a link to "removing Zango" that goes to their own site, where users are told to remove Zango using Add/Remove Programs? When the article specifically states that this malware is not fully removed using this process? Meh. --Snograt ^{talk here} 13:01, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

An update on the spyware status?

There's a section on this talk page above, but it was since June, and StopBadware has also archived the software, something it may apparently do due to changes in the listed software. I think this arcticle is a bit shady on the exact reasons for why this software should be treated as spyware? It mentions it even in the intro, but doesn't provide a reference. That it's adware, I can understand completely, but I'm a bit lost as for why it should be called spyware. Last thing I heard is that it applies spyware-like functionality, but with user consent, and then I would hesitate a bit before calling it that. — Northgrove 10:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Looking through the article there are many concerns about the product's being installed without user consent or knowledge, which is the defining characteristic of spyware. --CliffC (talk) 15:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

In addition to the new Content topic for discussion I just posted, I’d also like to weigh in on this discussion, again. I agree with Northgrove. The StopBadware report on Zango has been archived – some time ago now, I might add – because the company has made changes in the features of the application that make the “badware” label inappropriate. Similarly, the “spyware” label found within the Zango Wikipedia article is inappropriate, as Northgrove cogently observes.

Zango is not spyware, period. I think our FAQ does a great job of answering the question: http://www.zango.com/Destination/Corporate/Faqs.aspx#a9.

Uh... yes it is. It puts irremovable toolbars in Outlook Express, Internet Explorer, and...uh...everything. Once removed, it installs rogue anti-virus software, aka virus software. --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 22:05, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Most companies as they evolve encounter obstacles of one sort or another. Earlier in our history, we relied too heavily on our affiliates to enforce our consumer notice and consent policies, which allowed deceptive third parties to exploit our system to the detriment of consumers, as well as our partners. Our business has since evolved and for the better. We’ve developed technological safeguards to help prevent abuse; overhauled distribution so that we work directly with our partner – cutting out the middle man; and built a dedicated team of security professionals who monitor Zango’s systems 24 hours a day, seven days a week, 365 days a year.

If you go to the Odwalla article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odwalla), it correctly labels the business as a juice company, not an E. coli maker. If you go to the Microsoft article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft), it correctly labels the business as a technology corporation, not as a monopoly. The Zango Wikipedia article is inconsistent in this regard. Why? I can live with the adware description, even though that word has been dragged through the spyware mud, but I can’t live with spyware, as it simply isn’t true.

Sstratz (talk) 20:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)Sstratz

As the director for public relations, I don't doubt you "can't live with" the allegations of spyware. However, the discussion of this topic is referenced with evidence contrary to your claims and relevant to this article. Unless you can clearly refute the continuing practices alleged (or better yet, change them) your dislike is not sufficient to warrant changing the article. CliffC's comments still stand. Furthermore, there are many reasons that various entities may change a classification, such as to encourage compliance with set standards that improve the cyber-landscape. These standards may well be below what is necessary to cease being badware, but are necessary intermediate steps to improve behavior of companies like yours. They are therefore not dispositive for general and encyclopedic classification.

As to Odwalla, if they had begun as a company that purposefully and exclusively bottled pure e-coli and were allegedly continuing to do so, the analogy would be far more apt. As it stands, it is an unhelpful comparison. -Lciaccio (talk) 18:23, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Child Porn Browser

YapBrowser

Since this wasn't mention any where, I'd like to mention the allegations presented here.

http://doxdesk.com/updates/2006.html#u20060416

http://www.donotreply.com/index.php/2006/05/11/warner-brothers-child-porn/

This needs to be added. Nbbs 01:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

So add it then 67.189.48.254 02:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't add everything. There's a page about YapBrowser --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 22:07, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

new section

I had added a new section:

As Zango has pursued new business opportunities, new and innovative methods of installation and operation have been common. Software such as Zango may exist in different formats for different applications and platforms. Zango has stated on their website that any Zango application can be completely uninstalled by using the (Microsoft Windows) Add or Remove Programs function. However, Zango may appear as a browser plug-in or in some other form which cannot be removed by the officially recommended procedure.

Utilities exist for the purpose of detecting, and in some cases removing Zango-like software. Some software advisers have recommended that individuals seeking to remove Zango-like software from their computers search for instructions specific to their particular platform, application, and installation.

It has been immediately undone because it "sounds like a press release".

That's ironic, considering how i feel about the company's practices.

I have been fuming about Zango on my computer for many hours. I have followed every recommended procedure that i can find to get rid of a Zango plug-in, but so far no joy.

I discovered an interesting encyclopedia-appropriate fact through my own experiences-- the Zango corporate guidance for removing Zango, which is already linked from this article, does not work. I verified this not just by my own experimentation but also by researching other's similar experiences, and i thought that was worth noting in the Wikipedia article.

If the text that i posted sounded like a press release, it is because i was bending over backwards not to allow any of my anger about Zango on my PC to enter my wiki editing. Go figure.

As far as the entry being "uncited", it was reverted within minutes after my first edit. I wasn't finished adding citations, nor with the editing explanation that i had planned for this page.

Ahh, well, i don't want to fight over this article. Zango has already added more than enough stress to my day. Richard Myers (talk) 19:59, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard, the text you added sounded neutral and encyclopedic to me. Anyone else? --CliffC (talk) 22:11, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A worthwhile and good-faith edit. To me, the first sentence sounds vaguely like something from a press release – the phrases "pursue new opportunities" and especially "innovative" sound like PR-speak to me. No problems at all with the rest. I hope you won't be discouraged from editing this challenging article Richard! Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hi, thanks.

I accept that Wikipedia is not a how-to website. Yet I hope that someone sees the value in addressing the Zango removal issue, as i was attempting to do. I'm mindful of the probability that most readers who read the Zango article are looking for information after having discovered some sort of Zango software on their computer. That is certainly how i came to the article.

An encyclopedia doesn't exist in a vacuum; to be successful it must try to address in a factual manner what some majority of its readers are seeking-- even if that consists of simply explaining the current state of affairs regarding Zango software installations. I think as it stands, the article goes in the opposite direction, falsely suggesting (through the presence of a link to the company's instructions) that there is an easy solution to a Zango "infection". The linked instructions may work for some Zango programs, but they certainly do not work for others (including the Zango software that continues to reside on my computer in spite of my removal efforts).

If Zango's proclamations of innocence are to be believed, there is another important point that ought to be included: Some Zango-provided software apparently is modified or implemented by others in a manner over which Zango corporation has little or no control. Therefore, Zango has the dubious role of creating and promoting software tools and techniques which may in virus-like fashion take on a life of their own. I believe that the impact of such practices is tolerated only because Zango teeters along the precarious line between legitimate corporate profitability, and swindle.

My take on the first sentence that i wrote,

"...As Zango has pursued new business opportunities, new and innovative methods of installation and operation have been common..."

The words are accurate. Zango is pursuing new business opportunities, and their methods are nothing short of innovative. Coupled with the other information about Zango, i think the very neutrality of these words can take on an ominous tenor. I react to them as i would to knowing that thugs were inventing new and innovative torture devices which may – in the name of profits – some day be used on me.

But that is just my personal reaction to the words after my close-up experiences with Zango software. I selected these words carefully so that in itself, my contribution would convey no values judgment.

As it stands, i don't see a problem with the words that i used. I do believe it was a good faith edit, but i'm not committed to it so much that i want to engage in an edit war with someone who thinks it is pro-Zango.

Maybe someone else will resurrect the edit. best wishes, Richard Myers (talk) 20:26, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I just added a variation on Richard's edit that I hope might be acceptable to all involved, not elegant, so feel free to revise. --CliffC (talk) 02:16, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Richard, I hope my comment didn't add to your stressful day. Just to clarify, I thought your edit was accurate and neutral, and I certainly wouldn't have reverted it myself – I was only trying to identify why Nagle might have reverted. My comment about the first sentence was my wholly subjective feeling; it had no objective basis. I like CliffC's version. I agree with you about the direction of the article, I think info on removal is appropriate, and I like your torturer analogy :-)

It would be great if you could add the citation(s) whenever you have time, so that "Zango-like software" could be clarified to "Zango and similar software" or "unwanted programs in general", as appropriate. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 04:36, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Pernicious and Evil

In my limited experience I find Zango to be far more destructive and harmful that this article might lead one to believe.--Diablorex (talk) 13:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

4megaupload.com

hey, quick question. is it safe for me to install zango software so i can get the megaupload link for an album on 4megaupload.com? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.10.88.69 (talk) 20:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

if you want a computer that's infinitely slower, filled full of spyware and adware and random popups asking for your credit card details, go ahead...81.96.251.67 (talk) 18:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Out of date McAfee classification

In the lede, the following text appears:

McAfee states, "this program may have legitimate uses", but describes it as a "potentially unwanted program", and an "adware downloader".

However, this appears to be out of date, as the reference given is from 2005. McAfee SiteAdvisor is a lot less positive about the site, as seen here. Seeing as the currently-used, out of date McAfee page seems to paint the site as a lot less dangerous than SiteAdvisor, perhaps someone should update the lede with the SiteAdvisor link as a ref. 88.104.151.185 (talk) 08:04, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Liability

While the original Zango product (may) follow the EULA and will not connect/change system or track, spy the user or any effect considered as spyware but it is able to install without the consent of the user (but indicate in the EULA) a third party software and this software is not liable to any prior EULA. So may be Zango can't be considered as spyware (as a isolate program) but it's toying with the current law, zango himself can't be a spyware but under the sleeve it install spyware. Even worst, the third party software (that can be another Zango product) can install another new set of nastyware.

In the same basis, Google (just a example) can follow some confidentiality rules but also can share their data to a third party, this third party can do with this information whatever they want to.

Even the FBI can use this kind of legal void.

--190.47.241.187 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)--190.47.241.187 (talk) 23:20, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

seekmo

the "seekmo" section is addressing the reader directly. -- Kl4m ^{T C} 06:12, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

damn

video game director's cuts got pwned by zango, it says that i need zango to view the site >:( 71.12.79.243 23:13, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

not just vgdc,a LOT of websites use that to"support"there website.or,in other words,screw it up and destroy it.Mariofan1000 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Bad external links

The "official instructions" for how to remove Zango are located at zango.com, a site that many community members of WOT have marked Untrustworthy. AKA: they don't work. I have changed them over to a safe one. --MasterOfTheXP (talk) 22:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Zango has been removed

It should be noted that zango has now been removed from 4megaupload. rapidlibrary, and filesfind. -----71.10.88.69 (talk) 22:41, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Advertising

I think we should mention their ads. I was re-introduced to Zango (which, I might add, was my first malware experience) by an internet banner ad advertising Counter-Strike wallhacks, maphacks, multihacks, whatever. I, personally, would call this "advertising that's just so evil everyone blames the person who falls for it". In other words, EVIL!!!

And, on another note, I think that this bit with the companies higher-ups requesting (and making) edits that are blatantly against Wikipedia's policies. I think a ban may be in order. 68.102.253.212 (talk) 01:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I thought I was free of that stupid zango forever...but now i know i must...redownload zango!! Benard-day of the tentacle note:message may have been changed to better suit the subject.Mariofan1000 (talk) 07:34, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Zango going into computers

I found the Zango setup on the desktop,but...i never downloaded it.I think zango,may be going into computers and putting in the setup.Unsurprisingly,i deleted it as fast as lighting.Anyway,has this happened to anyone else?And if so,should we put it in the article?Mariofan1000 (talk) 07:44, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

I see the change of executives hasn't changed anything. Anyway, per policy on original research, we should ideally only include it in the article if it can be cited to a reliable source. Might be worth doing a Google search or something. Of course, the really curious readers will see your comment on this page. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 08:13, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Your right.We should probably wait until we find a reliable source.Though,there is proof:its zango.Mariofan1000 (talk) 10:14, 27 October 2008 (UTC)

Zango bought out, closing

According to Computerworld, Zango was bought out by Blinkx PLC.[3] I'm leaving this link here so I remember to update the article later, but if someone else wants to take a shot at it, go ahead. -- ArglebargleIV (talk) 14:03, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, have just added it, I don't see any reliable sources commenting beyond what CW says (nor are Zango or Blinkx so far), so not many details on what happens next. --CliffC (talk) 14:33, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Links to extant brands added

I've added links to Zango's successors:

• Extant brands formerly owned by Zango:
  • Website of Hotbar, formerly owned by Zango, now part of Pinball Corporation
  • Website of Seekmo, formerly owned by Zango, now part of Pinball Corporation
  • Pinball Corporation website
  • Another Pinball Corp. website. ZangoCash redirects here

I think they're relevant and uncontroversial, but please delete if considered inappropriate (as per comment in external links section) Pol098 (talk) 13:42, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

2014 Neutrality discussion

This article still has a 'neutrality' tag suggesting there is a dispute over content, but I see no new discussion from the past six months, and the article content is extensively cited. If anyone has open issues with the current content, please point them out here.Dialectric (talk) 20:56, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The question today is "Where are they now?" Their main successor seemed to be Pinballcorp, but today, that web site is displaying "The page cannot be displayed because an internal server error has occurred." "hotbar.com" is no longer in DNS. "blinkx.com" is up, offers a video search engine, and appears to have given up toolbars and such for Facebook connections. "blinkx.com" shares a DNS server with "pinballcorp.com". Not yet clear whether Pinballcorp is out of business or just having server problems. "zango.com", the domain, is parked and for sale. John Nagle (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that this article puts undue weight on Zango's role as a malware provider. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:33, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That's the business they were in. They were notorious in their day.[4] John Nagle (talk) 23:03, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Current ownership and status does seem to be unknown, but I don't see a dispute there, just a lack of recent information. There is a lot of content on the malware/adware issue and related lawsuits, but as Nagle points out, they have a reputation both in the press and in legal proceedings that suggests this weight is justified. If any user wants to add independent refs that show another aspect of the company, they can do so.Dialectric (talk) 23:24, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, off the topic of neutrality, I plan to merge Zango Messenger into this article soon unless anyone has objections.Dialectric (talk) 23:28, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

That makes sense, given the tiny size of that article. Do we have any more Zango-related articles? John Nagle (talk) 01:06, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I searched and didn't find any more related articles, (though Talk:180 Solutions probably should have been merged). Easy message is peripherally related, but I plan on afd'ing that one soon.Dialectric (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Zango (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100402082118/http://www.seekmo.com:80/ to http://www.seekmo.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Offline} 00:00, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Zango (company). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://corporate.zango.com/Press/ReadArticle.aspx?id=57
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071012120747/http://zango.com:80/Destination/Catalog/tags.aspx?group=popular to http://zango.com/Destination/Catalog/tags.aspx?group=popular
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060722101119/http://blog.180solutions.com:80/PermaLink,guid,b0fc12f9-e1f0-4a7a-998f-0b2f11d1fafd.aspx to http://blog.180solutions.com/PermaLink,guid,b0fc12f9-e1f0-4a7a-998f-0b2f11d1fafd.aspx
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081217234110/http://www.globes.co.il:80/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000407591&fid=1725 to http://www.globes.co.il/serveen/globes/DocView.asp?did=1000407591&fid=1725
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090424074659/http://www.computerworld.com:80/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9131858&intsrc=news_ts_head to http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9131858&intsrc=news_ts_head
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110101153952/https://www.pay-per-install.org/pinball-partner-network-zangocash/ to https://www.pay-per-install.org/pinball-partner-network-zangocash/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080706213125/http://www.cdt.org/publications/policyposts/2006/2 to http://www.cdt.org/publications/policyposts/2006/2
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100408083319/http://www.hotbar.com:80/ to http://www.hotbar.com/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Science/2006/03/01/symantec_settlement_riles_hotbar/8883/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070101230209/http://www.stopbadware.org:80/home/reports to http://www.stopbadware.org/home/reports

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:19, 21 July 2016 (UTC)