Comments on: 'WSJ' calls Microsoft antivirus tool 'spyware'

In what appears to be just a bad headline, the business publication says that Microsoft plans to introduce spyware. (It's actually planning free antivirus software)

[n3td3v]

I think you're being completely paranoid, that said, if Microsoft were to have "law enforcement backdoors" in its core code, then there would be no need to add additional backdoor code through an add-on application such as a freeware Microsoft OneCare product.

[AppleSuxLeo]

Walt GoatBeard doesn`t know his A** from a hole in the ground.

[rmva]

I don't think anyone at CNET should complain too loudly about misleading headlines.

[Mark_Anderson]

It's the WSJ. Who cares?

[andmore]

I wonder what the second line ofthe headline said? FYI. There's a scroll bar on the right hand side of your browser.

[Ina Fried]

Actually, there was no second line. Sorry if the way i cut the screenshot made it apper that way.

[Seaspray0]

I dunno, Ina. When I looked at it in the article above, it said...

Microsoft Plans New Spyware
(Credit: Ina Fried/CNET News)

I never knew you had that much clout! :-P

[cuwickliffe]

I'm sorry, but Ina c'mon. It's obvious that there was a second line. Hell, I'm a journalist and even I can see this is a stretch! Imagine if this was news all the time:

Obama looks to kill child
-------------------------------------- (fold)
hunger in America by 2010

See how the message changes when you scroll just a tad?

[sythara]

ok that was funny!

[smilin:)]

Lol, nice Cuwickliffe

[cuwickliffe]

Seriously ... I would be embarrassed by this blog entry ...

[Vurk]

If you look closely, you can see the separator lines between headlines. Its a darker blue than the background. Its faint but its there. If you had looked closely, you would see that there is no second line.

Maybe you should get your vision checked. Or increase your monitor resolution above 800 x 600.

[cuwickliffe]

There are really two reasons this stuff is pointless:

1. If the story was the headline, why the hell was the screen cap taken with the headline right at the cut at the bottom? Give a little context all around what you're trying to point out ... a good visual doesn't have the primary focus being the bottom 10 percent of the image.

2. This is not a story. It's a story on a stupid headline ... that ended up changing. Ina, we read everywhere and we know Microsoft's OneCare alternate in 2009 won't be spyware. So WSJ had a bad headline. I've written a few myself ... and then corrected them. Those didn't become a news item because they weren't. The topic at hand was. Stick with news topics we care about, not stupid journalism mistakes.

And Vurk, you're right, there is a line there I missed. The bad cropping of the screen capture didn't help that. I'm running at 1400 x 1050 and not wearing my glasses so yes, I missed it. I see it now.

I guess I've been reading News.com for years and it just seems there's less "news" on News.com than there used to be. It's disappointing because it's a daily stop, but I'm finding out more elsewhere.

[bensobel]

Sad to see cnet has degraded to this level.

[retroboy77]

I'm with rmva, CNET is the king of misleading headlines.

[pbookman]

Calm down, folks. The WSJ staff just forgot the "anti-" prefix. Such is what happens when you write headlines and such about things you do not understand. Spyware and virsues are all the same to them...

[3rdalbum]

It's funny, but it happens all the time for people who don't know much about computers. I was once asked "Can you install this Norton virus for me?"