Charter Communications Hijacks Windows Live Search

Does anyone else use Charter Communications as their ISP? I have been using Vista, and the default web search engine Windows Live Search. Yesterday I noticed that my searches were being hijacked by Charter. I played around and found out that this is a new "service" Charter is offering, but it only seems to affect Windows Live Search. If you use Google, or Yahoo, or whatever else as your default search engine it works fine, but Windows Live Search searches are hijacked and redirected unless you Opt Out (granted, I was never provided with a chance to Opt In).

I did a write-up on it on my About.com site, complete with screen shots, for anyone who is interested. http://netsecurity.about.com/od/webb...rterhijack.htm

I am curious though- does anyone know the legality of this? Would a default, no-notice, opt-in program (otherwise known as browser hijacking) be illegal, or just unethical? And, are there any legal implications of the fact that they have apparently singled out Microsoft to hijack, but left the other search engines alone?

Hi Tony,

Glad to hear that you are alive, and presumably well..........Happy New Year :D

We get that sort of stuff all the time over here...........if you get your copy of IE via your ISP or e-mail provider, then you get their "version" of it, along with the home page, and a shower of default settings.

My question back to you would be "what is Microsoft's take on all this?" given that they must be licensing these ISPs to distribute a customised version of their software?

It would not be illegal in this country, as your primary contract is with your ISP, rather than MS.

Cheers,

Johnno

My IE is *not* from Charter. My IE is the default version that comes with Windows Vista Ultimate. I have never installed *any* software of any kind from my ISP. They are literally intercepting the traffic to Windows Live One search engine and redirecting it.

As I state in my article- I do't have the time or resources to pursue this or to care beyond bitching about it. I will either use Google or accept the cookie I have to have in order to 'opt' out.

However, I do think it is illegal and that it is browser hijacking and not a "feature". I also think that it is ethicaly questionable that they *only* intercept traffic to Microsoft's search engine. I will leave all of that for one of the state attorneys general or Microsoft's legal team to work out though.

OK Tony,

Over here that happens as well, although the customised browser is more common.

It would still not be "illegal" though. To stir things up a bit, why don't you ask Microsoft ;)

I'm not a lawyer, but there are some interesting paragraphs in Charter's policies

Quote:

---

http://www.charter.com/Visitors/Policies.aspx?Policy=7

At the time of installation of the Service, Charter may provide Customer with common Charter or third-party software (e.g., a browser and plug-ins) to enable and enhance the Service. Charter does not support third-party software. If Customer has any questions concerning third-party software, Customer should contact the software manufacturer directly.

---

...

Quote:

---

In addition, in its sole discretion, Charter may make available to Customer security software, such as anti-virus software, firewall software, “pop-up” advertising blocking software, parental control software, anti-spyware or anti-adware software for Customer’s use on Customer’s computer system(s) in conjunction with the Service.

---

Note here how in its sole discretion is used in the same sentence as may make available - they may have, at their sole discretion, made that "feature" "available" to you ;)

Yeah. I knew up front that there was probably some legalese in the AUP or TOS that gave them the right somehow. But, it is still one of those things that may sound like a good idea in the board room, but has more backlash in real life than they anticipated.

Plus, I can't get past the singling out of Microsoft. I think they might legally have a right to redirect my traffic as the customer based on their stated TOS / AUP, but, it would seem to violate some sort of free trade laws or something if they only do it for Microsoft and don't apply their draconian browser hijacking equally to all search engines.

Just my $.02 (USD)

I use Charter (5Mbps cable internet) as my ISP and didn't notice anything odd when I tried putting a search term in the addy bar in IE(7). Google is set as the default search engine in my IE, anyway. Normally I use Firefox with the Googlebar extension, so your scenario wouldn't affect me in the day to day, but I still find it disturbing if Charter is indeed rerouting traffic to places where I don't want it going. I don't see anything explicity illegal about it, but certainly unethical.

O

I did a capture of the network traffic showing the difference between searches done on Google, Yahoo or AOL, and how the search attempts with Windows Live Search are redirected to Charter's branded Yahoo search site. That has been submitted to a Microsoft contact of mine who has forwarded it on to Microsoft's legal team for further investigation. We'll see what, if anything, happens from this point.

Did you check to see if they installed any browser plugin? (run hijackthis)
Or, activex: (Tools, internet options, programs, manage addons)
Does it happen only with the built in search bar?
Does it also happen when you go to http://www.live.com/ and search from there?

Do you get this with both IE and Firefox?

This reminds me of that VeriSign domain wildcard redirect they did a while back. Though, that affected just about everybody...

There have actually been a few Charter customers who've found my blog post on this subject and have commented with their own information (http://www.computerdefense.org/?p=217)

I've added a comment directing them to this thread.

Another problem here is that the legal definitions of the "opt-out" and "opt-in" concepts are different from the way the terms are used by most. Legally, "opt-in" and "opt-out" don't go together: you either adopt an opt-in system, or you adopt an opt-out system, but not both at the same time.

Legally, "opt-out" is the concept where the ball lies in the customer's camp: in order to prevent companies from collecting your personal data, the customer needs to explicitly tell the company. There is no "opt-in" in the opt-out system, as you are automatically "opted-in" to anything they can think of.

"Opt-in", then, is the concept where the ball lies in the company's camp: in order to be able to collect personal data, the company needs to acquire specific permission from the customer. In this concept, there is no "opt out", as you cannot be "opted in" without your permission in the first place.

The US - despite legislative attempts like the Gramm-Leach-Biley Act - is an opt-out society: in order for companies to stop collecting your personal data, you explicitly need to tell them.

To relate this to the Charter case (without knowing what exactly is going on): in an opt-in system, they would have to ask your permission before "installing" the "feature". In the opt-out system of the US, they can "install" the "feature" without your permission, and you have to tell them specifically that you do not want the "feature." Opt-out is shoot-first-ask-questions-later :)

And if you believe that my post makes no sense or is too complicated: wait until you look at the legislative documents :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Negative

And if you believe that my post makes no sense or is too complicated: wait until you look at the legislative documents :D

---

I think I shall wait until I have had a few pints of Newcastle Brown and a bottle of wine first :drink::D

Yes, I think that is the way things are over here as well, which makes some sort of sense, as opt-out systems would have a lower administrative overhead and hence, cost?

Charter just made slashdot