I followed the advice on the thread and edited the hosts file on my Mac to prevent this data from being transmitted.
As customers, we need to express our feelings about this loud and clear.
Guy
Posted by David Bostedo on December 30, 2007 at 5:43 PM
Thanks Guy. I don't have CS3, only Elements. Any idea if it's doing similar things?
For that matter, I have a feeling quite a few programs (Media Player, Roxio, QuickTime, iTunes) are pretty good candidates for doing the same type of thing. I wonder how long it will be before a "reputable" company does something in software that's actually illegal - like steal your photos in real-time?
And I always love how companies claim it's for your own good. Sure, it can help with product tailoring, marketing, and competition - but all of it's done for them to get more of your money and more market share. If it was really for your good, as opposed to theirs, why be sneaky? At least a couple of programs I've used (including most Microsoft stuff) give you the option of turning this kind of thing on and off, and giving you at least a little idea of what it's sending. Then, if you think you might like to help them learn about user habits, you can choose to.
I don't really know what other products do the same, but looking at the address, any network engineer will tell you it is designed to decieve and conceal this traffic. This is really low for a company like Adobe.
Even Microsoft prompts you to approve sending this type of data from their various products and allows you to opt out.
Guy
Posted by Paul Wegemann on December 30, 2007 at 7:58 PM
Thanks for posting, Guy. This is very low indeed. I'm not surprised by this, but I'm definitely pissed. I will certainly be contacting Adobe. I implemented the fix you referenced. Thanks.
Well, I think by law, one cannot send private information from private computers through software, without permission of the end-user. So I'm sure that there is something written in the EULA (End-User License Agreement) that people clicked in "I Agree" when installing the CS3 product. Does it say anything about this issue?
Posted by Kent Staubus on December 31, 2007 at 12:29 AM
This seems pretty stupid to me. Adobe didn't need to take these kinds of chances. They really thought no one would figure it out? They thought no one be be angry about it? Never thought them to be this stupid.
Kent in SD
Posted by Carol Hyman on December 31, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Guy, Exactly what did you find in /etc/hosts?
My file looks normal...
##
# Host Database
#
# localhost is used to configure the loopback interface
# when the system is booting. Do not change this entry.
##
127.0.0.1 localhost
255.255.255.255 broadcasthost
::1 localhost
I went to the blog enty you mentioned but what I'm seeing doesn't jibe with what they are saying.
Posted by Luke Tingley on December 31, 2007 at 2:36 AM
Carol,
The reference to the Hosts file is a change you have to make that will prevent your computer from transmitting data out to that site. It's not something Adobe has changed on your PC.
To prevent this behavior just add the following line to your HOSTS file:
127.0.0.1 192.168.122.2o7.net
This will tell your machine to route any traffic bound for 192.168.122.2o7.net back to the local machine. Causing it to never leave your local network.
You can test this by going to a command prompt and trying to ping: 192.168.122.2o7.net. It should reply with the IP address of 127.0.0.1. If that works you know your change has been completed successfully.
Example:
c:\>ping 192.168.122.2o7.net
Pinging 192.168.122.2o7.net [127.0.0.1] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Posted by Carol Hyman on December 31, 2007 at 3:02 AM
Luke, thanks. I know enough networking commands to be dangerous. My expertise was UNIX system administration and I appreciate your input.
I would have guessed a script with an ifconfig command but this is easier.
It does work. Gad, you're dragging me backwards in time ....
Carol
Posted by Wim Reyns on December 31, 2007 at 7:20 AM
If you have a firewall running you can block traffic in and to IP: "216.52.17.207" and IP: "216.52.17.136" that will also take care of it.
First, let me say there is a reason that Photoshop is pretty much the standard for image processing. It has nothing to do with their business practices. It is just a great program! Until someone comes along with an open source program that is better, I will stick happily with Photoshop. As for their spying, I chalk it up to someone being clever beyond their capabilities. I am not photographing nude 4 year olds having sex or doing bomb-making tutorials or advocating the overthrow of the government. I am not worried about what they might or might not collect about my use of the program.
I am somewhat upset that they value their own data more than they do mine. They own theirs. I own mine. An open request, honored in the use and honored in the refusal would be really top drawer for me.
Truth to tell, the blog against John Nack bothers me just as much. It is adversarial and counter-productive. Just because Paul Butzi knows the word "meretricious", doesn't accomplish anything more than name-calling. It is just an elitist "liar, liar, pants on fire"! I don't think the proper attitude here is to be Jesus, whipping the capitalists out of the temple of art. Adobe offers a good product, well worth to me the money I paid for it. If they fall short of the ideal in business practice, let's ask them to correct it without all the acrimony. This is not a mountain anyone needs to crawl up and die on.
Posted by Richard Henry on December 31, 2007 at 2:12 PM
Luke:
I believe the correct IP address for your fix is: 192.168.112.2o7.net
The third set of digits is 112 (not 122); the last set contains a letter "o" (2 oh 7).
Rich
Posted by Jim DeWitt on January 1, 2008 at 2:44 AM
Phillip, I appreciate your effort to be civil, but Adobe's action here is completely over the top. It is neither civil nor defensible. It's bad enough that they assume I am a crook and copy-protect their software, after charging me an appalling amount of money, and creating a product mix that requires me to buy a bunch of applications I don't want or need. But for them to secretly send unknown information. invading my privacy, it too much. Props to everyone, including Butzi, for busting Adobe. I'll spend the rest the evening seeing how much heat I can put on Adobe...
In the meantime, Omniture has an "opt-out" feature which allegedly places a cookie in your browser, stopping reporting. If you can believe it. Here's the link.
Well, Jim, it must be cold up there in Fairbanks. You sound a mought cranky. It's nice here in Savannah (although we are expecting a bit of cold weather). I think I will go out and take some pictures, then process them in CS3...
BTW, what "bunch of applications" were you forced to buy? That hasn't happened to me yet.
And another thing—I am not responsible for Adobe's civility, nor do I want to defend their actions. I am, however, in charge of my own. So y'all come on down and get warm, y'hear?
Discussion
14 repliesYou may want to read this blog entry by Paul Butzi.
I followed the advice on the thread and edited the hosts file on my Mac to prevent this data from being transmitted.
As customers, we need to express our feelings about this loud and clear.
Guy
For that matter, I have a feeling quite a few programs (Media Player, Roxio, QuickTime, iTunes) are pretty good candidates for doing the same type of thing. I wonder how long it will be before a "reputable" company does something in software that's actually illegal - like steal your photos in real-time?
And I always love how companies claim it's for your own good. Sure, it can help with product tailoring, marketing, and competition - but all of it's done for them to get more of your money and more market share. If it was really for your good, as opposed to theirs, why be sneaky? At least a couple of programs I've used (including most Microsoft stuff) give you the option of turning this kind of thing on and off, and giving you at least a little idea of what it's sending. Then, if you think you might like to help them learn about user habits, you can choose to.
Even Microsoft prompts you to approve sending this type of data from their various products and allows you to opt out.
Guy
Kent in SD
My file looks normal...
##
# Host Database
#
# localhost is used to configure the loopback interface
# when the system is booting. Do not change this entry.
##
127.0.0.1 localhost
255.255.255.255 broadcasthost
::1 localhost
I went to the blog enty you mentioned but what I'm seeing doesn't jibe with what they are saying.
Thanks,
Carol
Thanks for the post, Guy.
The reference to the Hosts file is a change you have to make that will prevent your computer from transmitting data out to that site. It's not something Adobe has changed on your PC.
To prevent this behavior just add the following line to your HOSTS file:
127.0.0.1 192.168.122.2o7.net
This will tell your machine to route any traffic bound for 192.168.122.2o7.net back to the local machine. Causing it to never leave your local network.
You can test this by going to a command prompt and trying to ping: 192.168.122.2o7.net. It should reply with the IP address of 127.0.0.1. If that works you know your change has been completed successfully.
Example:
c:\>ping 192.168.122.2o7.net
Pinging 192.168.122.2o7.net [127.0.0.1] with 32 bytes of data:
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
Reply from 127.0.0.1: bytes=32 time<1ms TTL=128
I would have guessed a script with an ifconfig command but this is easier.
It does work. Gad, you're dragging me backwards in time ....
Carol
Wim
I am somewhat upset that they value their own data more than they do mine. They own theirs. I own mine. An open request, honored in the use and honored in the refusal would be really top drawer for me.
Truth to tell, the blog against John Nack bothers me just as much. It is adversarial and counter-productive. Just because Paul Butzi knows the word "meretricious", doesn't accomplish anything more than name-calling. It is just an elitist "liar, liar, pants on fire"! I don't think the proper attitude here is to be Jesus, whipping the capitalists out of the temple of art. Adobe offers a good product, well worth to me the money I paid for it. If they fall short of the ideal in business practice, let's ask them to correct it without all the acrimony. This is not a mountain anyone needs to crawl up and die on.
I believe the correct IP address for your fix is: 192.168.112.2o7.net
The third set of digits is 112 (not 122); the last set contains a letter "o" (2 oh 7).
Rich
In the meantime, Omniture has an "opt-out" feature which allegedly places a cookie in your browser, stopping reporting. If you can believe it. Here's the link.
BTW, what "bunch of applications" were you forced to buy? That hasn't happened to me yet.
And another thing—I am not responsible for Adobe's civility, nor do I want to defend their actions. I am, however, in charge of my own. So y'all come on down and get warm, y'hear?