Dave Plummer- The Man Who Scammed Millions (in 2006).ass

{\fad(200,200)\fscx166\fscy166}翻译/压制/字幕制作：HAF半个水果

{\fad(200,200)\pos(1240.893,172.557)}使用AI工具翻译，如有不准确的地方请在弹幕或评论区指正，谢谢！

{\fad(200,200)\pos(1240.893,172.557)}翻译质量权威评价：原来25年就有小拉即用机翻糊弄人了

hello everybody today we're going to explore the unpublished history of

a well-known Windows developer that claims he wrote the task manager

yes that story is about the 55-year-old David William plummer

known online as a wise bearded man behind plenty of things Windows

recently I found out a piece of History he prefers not to share with his followers

and I can't quite grasp on why he keeps the silence

Dave plummer ran a company that was sued by Washington State in 2006

the company was called softwareonline.com Incorporated

it developed and sold software products while simultaneously doing all the marketing work

during its lifetime the company proved to be fairly successful spanning over a million customers

the business practices of softwareonline.com however

sparked controversy and caused legal trouble for days

and for a good reason now before we begin it's obvious this happened about 20 years ago now

Dave plummer may very well be a changed man but there is still something that rubs me the wrong way with the guy

it's ultimately up to you to judge him all the sources are in the description below

I don't want anyone to Flame David for

his past actions but the following information you should absolutely consider

as in my opinion it severely Recontextualizes his work including

the book he selling called the secrets of the autistic millionaire

which I quote in this video a lot

the biggest problem I have with Dave is that he doesn't want to shine extra light on softwareonline

his LinkedIn doesn't mention that company even though he was

the chief technology officer of it

he never openly spoke about it anywhere

he blocked me on Twitter for bringing it up

but then immediately unblocked

then he sent a direct message which I think I'm allowed to read in public because he just keeps me on red now

so I did ask him a bunch of questions but he kept me on red

so he assumes if I speak about softwareonline.com in public

is going to destroy his online reputation which I don't think is true

we all make mistakes and it's all a matter of owning up to them and coming clean before the audience

since he keeps me on red I just assume he wants to wait out the storm again

although I don't really believe he's going to lose from openly speaking about his villain Arc in the past

anyway he dropped out of Microsoft specifically to

run this company as being a Microsoft

developer was starting to become too much of a burden

and it implies softwareonline was generating more Revenue

makes sense he also ran a company that had no legal trouble called Xeriton

it was acquired by support.com in December 2009

and currently he's a CEO of plummer software LLC since January 2018

so my concern here if Dave doesn't want to speak about softwareonline publicly he must be hiding something

because naturally if the investigation accelerates and maybe some private

investigator online takes on this

he might get in legal trouble again

how do I know he isn't doing Shady stuff with

software if he did before and actively tries to hide it

that's not a good look for him

and he knows that yet he keeps ignoring that

let's take a look at the legal documents now

it was a civil casewhich he settled into a court order

so here's the complaint from the state of Washington

against soft online.com Incorporated

and David William plummer the chief technology

office officer doesn't really matter of softwareonline.com Incorporated

and we want to check out article five and six of this document

because they are the meat of the complaint

and the rest seems to be legales

so article 5 is called nature or trade of Commerce

and here we go

an internet security and privacy program that defendants represent will

detect a computer's vulnerabilities to harmful exposed websites

and will provide the computer user protection against security and privacy attacks

and a product called Registry Cleaner

software defendants represent will clean a computer's registry in order to

protect the computer from crashes slow performance and other problems

free scan of the user's computer

and then offering to fix a small number of the problems identified by the scan

defendants then strongly recommend to

the user that the users purchase the

full program in order to be protected

from the remaining problems on the user's computer

first of all the case revolves around two pieces of software called

internet shield and Registry Cleaner

the plain clearly implies unfair business practices here which you can't disagree with

the keyword here is strongly recommend

which we're going to translate from legal language to English shortly

let's finish the complaint first

so the article six brings up the violations of the consumer protection act and the

section A first cause of action misrepresenting the extent to

which software is necessary for security and privacy reasons

defendant software generates multiple advertisements of or dialogue boxes

and or launches new browser windows in order to continue to induce

the user to purchase the full program

the advertisements and dialogue boxes repeatedly warn the user of the threat

or risk remaining on the user's computer no matter what the scan results of the user's computer reveal

and urge the user to purchase the full program

in some instances if the user does not purchase the full program of the product

defendant's advertisements and scan interface B warning the user of the remaining problems on the computer

until the user uninstalls the free scan software or purchases the product

the totality of the user experience after running defendant Registry Cleaner and internet Shield free scan

from the scan results to the subsequent series of warning type advertisements

creates the misleading impression that the user's computer is at serious risk of harm

in particular finds every computer at risk for security and privacy

violations as long as the computer does not have the same 2

that defendants have identified as harmful entered turned into the computer's restricted Zone

furthermore the scan shows a user's computer as vulnerable to over 2

even when all of those exact sites are blocked by means of the user's host file

in this way the scan function is unreliable in assessing the computer's vulnerability and

misleads the user into believing that the user's computer is at risk when it is not

so as you can see so far all of this is on point

let's continue

defendants advertise Registry Cleaner and internet shield in various ways

including but not limited to through popups popunders dialogue boxes and chat dialogue boxes

some of which are generated by the free scan software

defendants misrepresent through standard buttons on its advertisements

and program interfaces that if a user clicks on those buttons

the advertisements will close or that processes and progress will seize

in fact in many instances the buttons on defendants advertisements and interfaces

do the opposite of what the button should do or fail to do what the button should do

for example if a user clicks on X to close an advertisement

rather than the advertisement closing another advertisement pops up

over the original advertisement

if a user clicks on close to close an interface rather than an interface closing an advertisement pops up

defendants misrepresentation of buttons that do not perform their normally expected functions

in fact I believe that's a very weak point from the plaintiff

you could make that argument for any software whatsoever even back then

I think a valid angle to take instead would be

the defendant Coes or bribes the user to continue using the software

even when the user made up their mind to uninstall the software in question

just take a look at this

that's Shameless

and if you click yes it redirects you to the website with the coupon

so section D is the only claim Dave has responded to

but not to me here's what he said

no there are three more claims in the complaint asides from that

which I just read to you but let's continue

That's not false but it's not entirely true either

I would say that statement is more false than it is true

I found this checkout page on way back machine dating back to March 9th of 2006

there are two Auto ticked checkboxes with options you will get built for

as the complaint claims which is correct

so it's recommended as well it's non-refundable and it's Auto ticked

so clearly this requires negative affirmation from the user and it bills the user

so it confirms fully the statement within the complaint and Dave

again kind of avoided that question he told us

about what happened before the 2000 but

this is clearly March 9th 2006 so it happened 6 years later and this is very likely what he got

sued for and let's try refreshing that because many

people might not believe me

and to not spark a controversy I'm going to show you that it it is in fact Auto ticked

I'm not going to edit this out not at all

and you can check it yourself

let's go ahead and hop on to January 22nd 2006 for example

and there you go there are two Auto ticked checkboxes

and then it for some reason redirects me

so here's the URL check it for yourself if you don't trust me

there in my books the the software I showed you is a clear scan

legally speaking it's not but does it really not trigger any red flags in your mind

Registry Cleaner detects 42 problems on Windows XP right out of the box

the clean install has 42 problems

and it's clearly over 20 the software fixes for free

you could argue well yeah Windows registry is a hot mess what did you expect

I agree with you but the scare dialogue isn't optimized for when there are less than 20 problems

you see how this looks

the software is very clearly targeted to induce the user into purchasing it

instead of fixing the problem

you can't say that legally but it's a scam

it's obvious enough to deduce the nature of the software by just using it for a bit

you're not being honest to yourself if you don't think it's created to scam people

I mean you're free to think all you want but in my opinion

it's a clear scam the internet Shield that an RFC private IP address to your restricted Zone

and it only blocks these Cherry peed websites

under Internet Explorer

if you use a different browser this doesn't apply to them

it doesn't count the host file even though host doesn't support wild cards

come on now the software barely does what it claims to do

it could have been great was it not created in bad fi that is

these aren't the only programs softwareonline has published

there are a couple more I wished were included in a case against Dave

for example CPU rocket it was marketed as freeware

but when you install it it ships with an adware

it installs you a module that serves ads

and then once you install it it's not a full version of software at all

and you're given an option to pay extra for an upgrade to me turbo

which quite obviously isn't going to remove the adware module

and if you uninstall CPU rocket it simply doesn't uninstall it

and the adware remains and it starts on boot

that's despicable and unfortunately the plff didn't include it in the case against Dave plummer

I believe the inclusion would make it stronger

CPU rocket specifically was ridden by him

because it's a strip down version of MemTurbo and MemTurbo is his creation

he admitted to it on Twitter

it's not an exhaustive list of questionable software the company has published

there's way more stuff publicly available in way back machine

including all the deceiving ads the company has produced

there are several domains owned by Dave namely softwareonline.com

sharewareonline.com and certified-safe-downloads.com

dude I can't with that the name honestly certified safe downloads

that's kind of crazy

and there are a bunch of subdomains like

which included negative affirmation billing

which may prove that Dave did in fact own the domain sharewareonline.com

keep in mind this all happened 18 years ago the court case was published on April of 2006

he was 37 years old at the time

he had a stem background

and he's also retired software engineer from Microsoft going back to the MS DOS and withed 95 days

he was well aware of of what he was doing was wrong

now the case was settled to the state's content

he's right on myms the company was eventually sold

and unfortunately it seems like Dave remained an overwhelming net gain from softwareonline

the court order shows that he had to pay out $190

with additional $250

if he violated the terms of the decree and he also agreed to pay a restitution

which is described in section 4.4

basically had to refund the customers who would file a complaint let's see the exact terms below

so it is section 4.4

I am willing to bet

there weren't many people who filed complaints although I may be wrong

I didn't see that document and it doesn't seem to be out online

anyway let's check out the terms of the decree they're plenty so

keep in mind that's only in the state of Washington so for example if he's in the

state of Texas is allowed to do all this

that's odly specific and it's kind of like legal language you just kind of steers me off

why exactly is it tied to internet Shield

why is it not any fake software it's kind of weird

Well that's uh regarding the negative affirmation billing

well that's basically what his software did

and he's no longer allowed to create or distribute any of that software

at least in the state of Washington

as it states here

But

here's the payment plan right here the pay schedule

so all he did was pay $19

and that was it I am sure he made more than that way more than that

he had several million customers as stated in his book

and even though he agreed to pay out restitution in full I don't think many consumers

filed a refund request with softwareonline.com

because softwareonline was running for a long time

many consumers just maybe forgot about this at that point in time

so Dave plummer went out of this pretty much unscathed

I'm fairly certain now again

20 years ago right right

this still leaves a bitter aftertaste for me personally

and actually mostly because Dave doesn't want to respond to this

and he's still kind of lying about this kind of being slimy about this leading me to believe he's hiding something

another silly response I've seen from commenters is that it used to be common practice back in the day

this does not excuse him this is just a non-argument

say so many people are running a crypto scam right now

does it excuse them in any way no it doesn't so why are you saying this

another great one the case was settled

well the case was indeed settled thanks for telling me but there is clearly no remorse

you can plead guilty to anything that doesn't mean you actually admit to being guilty

sometimes it just less headache in a bargain

for example if you plead guilty you get fine otherwise you go to prison even though you're not guilty

what are you choosing

that's what I'm talking about

finally Dave has been factually wrong Dave has been salty

about stuff Dave has spoken very incompetent things

that happens to us all

but more importantly he's currently selling you a book that's factually wrong

there is a mention of softwareonline.com but he never speaks honestly about it in his book

let alone Call It by its name

he paints himself as the victim of the Court system while

I believe I showed you enough evidence to conclude

the case against him is pretty solid

and the punishment is rather tame

I can't say anything about the rest of the book

but that softwareonline part is really dishonest

makes you wonder did he downplay anything else from his story

I wouldn't make this video had Dave answered publicly and honestly

I told him this on multiple occasions he doesn't want to be honest

so this video isn't really an expose so to speak

I don't want to count this one personally

I don't see canceling Dave but his business did have at least a million victims

some dudes on Twitter told me I'm bad mouthing him for no apparent reason

I want to say you'd be pretty peace

if you fell victim to Softwareonline being a child or part of some other vulnerable population

you would hold the Vendetta especially when the

person behind it doesn't feel any remorse and constantly tries to whitewash himself

it seems like he's going to keep ignoring this anyway so I wanted big YouTubers to take on this

but they're probably not interested in this

maybe coffill would start an investigation or something I don't know

I just wanted them to be upfront because this cannot continue you cannot just say

you're a retired Windows developer at Microsoft Dave

the moment you left Microsoft to run this company you lost your credibility

even though it happened so long ago you oh you're following an explanation

that's it from me Dave I know you're watching this

and you should respond appropriately

thanks everyone for watching take care

大家好，今天我们要揭秘一位知名

Windows开发者不为人知的历史，他自称是任务管理器的编写者

是的，故事是关于55岁的 David William plummer 的

以网络智慧胡子男著称，Windows背后诸多事物的推手

最近我发现了一段他不愿与粉丝们分享的历史

而我始终无法理解他为何保持沉默

Dave plummer经营的公司于2006年被华盛顿州起诉

这家公司曾名为softwareonline.com股份有限公司

它开发并销售软件产品，同时承担所有的营销工作

该公司在其存续期间被证明相当成功，拥有超过百万的客户群

然而，softwareonline.com的商业行为

引发争议并持续数日陷入法律纠纷

这是有充分理由的。在开始之前，很明显这件事发生在约20年前

Dave plummer 或许改过自新了，但这人身上总有些地方让我觉得不对劲

最终由你来评判他，所有来源都在下面的描述中

我不想看到任何人指责 David

他过去的行为可以不提，但以下信息你绝对应该考虑

在我看来，这严重地重新定义了他的作品

包括他正在销售的那本名为《secrets of the autistic millionaire》的书

我在这个视频中多次引用它

我对 Dave 最大的不满就是他不想让softwareonline受到更多关注

他的LinkedIn资料没有提及那家公司，尽管他

曾是该公司的首席技术官

他从未在任何地方公开谈论过此事

因为我又提起这事，他在推特上把我拉黑了

但随后又取消了

然后他发了一条私信，我想我可以公开读出来，因为他一直处于已读不回状态

{\fscx82\fscy95\pos(1934.667,1050.133)}你好。我不明白你为何选择\N
以如此煽动性的方式，在公开场合就一项20年前\N
已获州政府满意解决的调查发起对话。\N
公司在出售前也接受了州政府的全面合规审计。\N
但无论如何，我不清楚你希望达成什么目的。\N
如果你认定我的频道规模是两倍，收入相应翻番，那你早该知道我的实际收益。\N
更何况大部分利润都捐给了华盛顿大学自闭症中心。\N
我实在看不出摧毁我退休后为自己建立的这个小爱好有何益处。\N
对于你可能给予的宽容，我先行致谢。若有疑问，欢迎直接询问

所以我确实问了他一大堆问题，但他已读不回

所以他假设我会在公开场合谈论 softwareonline.com

会毁掉他的网络声誉，但我觉得并非如此

我们都会犯错，关键在于勇于承认并在观众面前坦诚

既然他一直保持已读不回，我只能认为他是想再次熬过这场风暴

虽然我并不真的认为他会因为公开谈论过去作为反派的经历而输掉什么

总之，他特意从微软离职

来经营这家公司

因为继续做微软开发者的负担变得过于沉重

这意味着softwareonline创造了更多收入

这合情合理，他还经营过一家名为Xeriton的零法律纠纷的公司

2009年12月被support.com收购

自2018年1月起，他担任Plummer软件有限责任公司的首席执行官

{\fscx93\fscy93}所以我担心的是，如果Dave不想公开谈论softwareonline的问题，那他一定是在隐瞒些什么

因为如果调查加速，或许某位

网络上的私家侦探会接手此案

他可能又会惹上官司

我怎么能确定他现在没在用软件搞鬼

尤其考虑到他以前做过并且还在极力遮掩

这对他来说不太好

他明明知道却仍置之不理

我们现在来看看法律文件吧

这是一起民事案件，他通过法庭令解决了

以下是华盛顿州

对softonline.com公司的起诉内容

而David William plummer

SoftwareOnline.com股份有限公司的首席技术官，其实并不重要

我们想查阅这份文件的第五条和第六条

因为它们是投诉的核心内容

其余部分似乎是法律术语

第五条名为商业性质或贸易

这里

{\pos(1310.133,281.6)}至少自2005年起，SoftwareOnline公司和David W. Plummer（统称“被告”）

{\pos(1291.2,364)}便通过互联网及商业电子邮件推销（简称“电邮”）向公众营销、宣传并销售多款软件产品

{\pos(1273.6,511.2)}其中包括一款名为“InternetShield”的产品——该网络安全与隐私程序被被告宣称为可检测计算机对有害“暴露网站”的漏洞

{\pos(896,668)}并为用户提供防范安全与隐私攻击的保护

{\pos(1163.2,826.4)}另一款名为“Registry Cleaner”的软件则被被告声称能清理计算机注册表，从而防止系统崩溃、运行缓慢及其他问题

该网络安全与隐私程序被被告宣称

为可检测计算机对有害“暴露网站”的漏洞

并为用户提供防范安全与隐私攻击的保护

另一款名为“Registry Cleaner”的软件

则被被告声称能清理计算机注册表

从而防止系统崩溃、运行缓慢及其他问题

{\pos(1310.4,834.4)}被告方通过先向用户提供“免费扫描”其电脑的服务

免费扫描”其电脑的服务

继而提出可修复扫描发现的部分问题来宣传推广其产品

随后，被告方强烈建议

用户购买“完整程序”，以防范电脑上剩余的问题

用户购买“完整程序”，以防范电脑上剩余的问题

用户购买“完整程序”，以防范电脑上剩余的问题

{\pos(1320,1218.4)}被告与华盛顿州从事类似业务的其他方存在竞争关系

首先，该案件围绕着两款

名为“internet shield”和“Registry Cleaner”的软件展开

该声明明显暗示此处存在不公平商业行为，这一点你无法否认

关键在于“强烈建议”

我们即将把这一法律术语转化为通俗英语

我们先处理完这个投诉

因此，第六条提出了对《消费者保护法》的违反行为

以及A部分第一项诉讼理由

即就软件出于安全和隐私理由的必要性进行了虚假陈述

{\pos(1361.6,632.8)}被告在推广其软件产品“Registry Cleaner”和“InternetShield”时

{\pos(1299.2,728.8)}提供对用户电脑的“免费扫描”服务，随后提出修复扫描所发现的少量问题

{\pos(1305.6,916)}若用户选择不对所谓的问题进行修复，或在修复后拒绝购买该产品

被告软件通过生成多个广告、对话框

或弹出新浏览器窗口的方式，持续诱导

用户购买完整程序

广告和对话框都会反复警告用户

其电脑上仍存在威胁或风险，无论用户电脑的扫描结果如何

并在某些情况下敦促用户购买完整程序

如果用户未购买该产品的完整程序

被告方的广告和扫描界面B会持续警告用户电脑上遗留的问题

直至用户卸载免费扫描软件或购买其产品

运行被告Registry Cleaner和internet Shield免费扫描后用户体验的整体情况

从扫描结果到随后一系列警告类型的广告

给用户制造了电脑面临严重危害风险的误导印象

被告方的“互联网护盾”免费扫描功能尤其会

将每台未将被告方认定的2000多个有害网站添加到计算机“受限区域”的电脑

均标记为存在安全和隐私泄露风险

更甚者，即便用户已通过Hosts文件屏蔽了所有这2000多个危险网站

扫描结果仍会显示用户的计算机对这些网站存在漏洞

因此，该扫描功能在评估计算机脆弱性时并不可靠

会误导用户错误地认为自己的计算机处于风险之中

{\pos(1284.8,565.6)}通过歪曲用户计算机受损风险以诱使其购买产品的行为

{\pos(1281.6,752.8)}构成《消费者保护法》（RCW 19.86.020）所禁止的商业贸易中的不公平和欺骗性行为及不正当竞争手段

如你所见，到目前为止一切都恰到好处

我们继续

{\pos(1268.8,476)}第二诉因：广告功能虚假陈述

被告通过各种方式宣传Registry Cleaner和internet shield

包括但不限于弹出窗口、背后弹出窗口、对话框及聊天对话框等形式

其中部分由免费扫描软件生成

被告通过其广告和程序界面上的标准按钮进行虚假陈述

即如果用户点击这些按钮

广告将关闭，或者流程和进展将停滞

事实上，在许多情况下，被告广告和界面上的按钮

做的与按钮本应实现的功能相反，或未能实现按钮应有的功能

例如，当用户点击X关闭广告时

广告不仅没有关闭，反而在原广告上方

又弹出了另一个广告

如果用户点击关闭按钮是为了关闭界面，而非界面关闭时弹出广告

则构成对按钮功能的虚假陈述，因其未执行正常预期功能

{\pos(1249.6,1213.6)}误导消费者并迫使用户在试图关闭广告时继续观看被告的广告

{\pos(1276.8,680.8)}第三项诉因：虚假陈述卸载选项的功能

{\pos(1286.4,485.6)}被告方为其免费扫描软件提供了卸载选项；然而

{\pos(1267.2,586.4)}该卸载选项并不能可靠地卸载软件。此外，当用户被告知软件已被卸载时

{\pos(1265.6,762.4)}被告方的部分软件文件仍会在用户不知情或未经同意的情况下保留在用户电脑中

事实上，我认为这是原告方一个非常薄弱的论点

对任何软件都可以提出这样的论点，即便在当时也是如此

我认为一个合理的角度反而是被告贿赂用户继续使用该软件

我认为一个合理的角度反而是被告贿赂用户继续使用该软件

即使用户已经下定决心要卸载该软件

看看这个

不要脸

{\fs60}呜呜呜，主人要抛弃我了吗(っ °Д °;)っ\N
我还有许多不足，以后会变得更好哒~\N
您的电脑仍存在注册表错误，非常不希望您抛弃我。\N
为此，我愿为您提供以下优惠：\N
立即获得5美元优惠券，升级至Registry Cleaner的完整版。\N
放心吧，您享有30天无条件满意退款保证，这次升级是零风险的呦~\N
~~领取您的5美元优惠券叭~~

如果你点击“是”，它会将你重定向到带有优惠券的网站

{\pos(1222.4,724)}第四项诉讼理由：误导性选择账单

{\pos(1294.4,488.8)}在其软件产品的结算页面上，被告方提供销售多种附加服务和产品

{\pos(1270.4,578.4)}包括延长下载计划、下载更新以及其他软件产品

{\pos(1267.2,672.8)}附加产品和服务旁边设有复选框供消费者选择购买；然而，被告方默认勾选了不可退款的付费服务

{\pos(1264,760.8)}被告方还默认勾选了一项需消费者主动取消的服务，否则将默认授权在一年期满后从消费者信用卡扣费

{\pos(1272,1028)}若消费者希望避免为这些附加的不可退款产品及服务付费，或防止信用卡在“免费”期结束后被自动扣费

{\pos(1254.4,1384.8)}必须手动取消所有勾选框。大量案例中，消费者被动收到了未主动要求的产品和服务并因此被扣费

所以D部分是Dave唯一回应的索赔

但不是对我的回应，这是他说的

{\fs36\pos(2107.2,159.6)}我们在华盛顿州违反了\N
关于消极确认账单行为的法律。以下是事情经过

{\fs36\pos(2113.6,504.8)}购买程序时，您可以选择直接输入注册码、\N
下载完整版本或通过邮件获取光盘。\N
光盘选项含运费是5.95美元，\N
我认为这个定价本身并不盈利。\N
考虑到空白光盘采购、复制加工、\N
装进附说明书的邮寄袋再寄出的成本，\N
利润其实很微薄。\N
但当时是千禧年前，\N
很多人还是更习惯拥有实体介质

{\fs36\pos(2114.8,856.4)}我们发现，如果在结账时\N
默认勾选"仅下载"选项，\N
会接到大量投诉电话\N
——用户因未收到光盘而愤怒，\N
最终往往导致我们退款。\N
虽然可以解释是他们自己选择了下载版，\N
但用户根本不记得这回事。\N
等待让他们失去耐心要求取消订单，\N
整个过程充满负面体验

{\fs36\pos(2118.8,1064.4)}但若默认选择"光盘版"，\N
这类问题就消失了。\N
用户似乎对默认获得光盘更满意。\N
少数误选光盘来电的客户，\N
我们直接做了退款处理

{\fs36\pos(2132.8,1202.4)}问题在于光盘版比下载版贵5.95美元——在华盛顿州，\N
这被认定为消极确认账单。\N
虽然网络商家普遍这么做，但我们成了典型案例

{\fs36\pos(2120.8,1340.4)}我们承诺停止该做法并缴纳了罚款，\N
经过年度审计确认合规后，\N
大部分罚金最终被暂缓执行

不，除了我刚给你读的那条

起诉书中还有三项索赔，但咱们继续

这不假，但也并非完全属实

我会说这种说法与其说是真的，不如说是假的

我在网页时光机上找到了这个2006年3月9日的结算页面

上面有两个自动勾选的复选框

{\pos(1150.4,840.8)}备份光盘寄送到家。选择此选项，我们将仅收取9.95美元的不可退运费和处理费，将软件光盘寄送至您的家中

正如投诉所声称的，这一情况属实

{\fscx80\fscy92\pos(1219.2,876)}我们还提供可选的延长下载服务，让您可以在购买后的数天、数周甚至数年之内，从我们的网站重新下载您的购买内容。这是一次性费用，且不可退款。强烈推荐！

{\fscx80\fscy92\pos(257.6,964)}延长下载服务 您的价格 $4.95

因此它也是推荐的，不可退款且自动勾选

这显然需要用户的否定确认，并且会向用户收费

这完全证实了投诉中的陈述

Dave又一次回避了那个问题，他是这么告诉我们的

关于2000年之前发生的事情，但

这里明显是2006年3月9日，所以事情发生在6年后，这很可能就是他得到的东西

被起诉了，我们试试刷新一下

因为很多人可能不信我

为了避免引发争议，我要向你证明它实际上是被自动勾选的

这个片段没有剪辑

你可以自己去检查一下

我们以2006年1月22日为例继续

好了，这里有两个自动勾选的复选框

然后不知为何它就把我重定向了

这是网址，不信的话你可以自己看看

在我展示给你的软件中，表面上看是合规的扫描

严格来说其实并不合法，但这真的不会让你心里产生一丝警觉吗？

注册表清理工具在Windows XP上初次运行即检测到42个问题

全新安装就存在42个问题

而且很明显超过了20个，软件免费修复

你可能会争辩说，没错，Windows注册表就是一团糟，你还指望什么呢

我同意你的看法，但警示窗口在问题少于20个时并未优化

你看看这怎么样

该软件的目标非常明确，就是诱导用户购买它

而不去解决问题

你不能合法地说出来，但那是个骗局

稍微用一下就能明显推断出这个软件的性质

如果你不认为它是为了骗人而设计的，那你就是在自欺欺人

我的意思是你可以随意思考，但在我看来

这明显是个骗局，所谓的“internet Shield”将RFC私有IP地址划入你的受限区域

而且它只屏蔽这些被标记的网站

只能在Internet Explorer下阻止

如果你使用不同的浏览器，这些规则就不适用于它们

即使 host 不支持通配符，它也不考虑这些

得了吧，这软件连它宣称的功能都勉强实现

如果不是以糟糕的方式创建，它本可以很出色

而这些并不是softwareonline发布的唯一程序

针对Dave的案件中，还有几点我希望被包含进去

例如CPU rocket它被宣传为免费软件

但当你安装时，它会附带一个广告软件

它会给你安装一个展示广告的模块

一旦安装后，你会发现这根本不是软件的完整版本

并且会让你额外付费升级至turbo版本

这显然不会移除广告模块

如果你卸载CPU rocket，它根本就不会被卸载

广告软件依然存在，并且会在启动时自动运行

这真卑鄙，可惜原告方没有将这一点纳入对Dave plummer的起诉中

我相信加入会使它更强大

CPU rocket正是由他驾驭的

因为这是MemTurbo的简化版，而MemTurbo是他的作品

他在Twitter上承认了这一点

这并非该公司发布的所有可疑软件的完整清单

在时光机上公开可获取的资料要多得多

包括该公司制作的所有欺骗性广告

Dave拥有多个域名，其中包括softwareonline.com

sharewareonline.com 和 certified-safe-downloads.com

我真受不了那个名字，老实说，认证安全下载

太颠了

还有一堆子域名，比如

其中包括负面确认计费

这可能证明Dave确实拥有sharewareonline.com这个域名

请记住这一切都发生在18年前，法庭案件发布于2006年4月

他当时37岁

他有理工科背景

他同时也是一位从微软退休的软件工程师，可以追溯到MS DOS和Windows 95时代

他非常清楚自己所做的行为是错误的

此案现已圆满结案，令州政府满意

他说得对，公司最终被卖掉了

遗憾的是，Dave似乎仍是softwareonline带来的巨大净收益

法庭判决显示他必须支付19万美元

另有25万美元暂被冻结

如果他违反了法令条款，并且还同意

支付第4.4节所述的赔偿金

基本上不得不向投诉的顾客退款，我们来看看下面的具体条款

所以这是第4.4节

{\pos(1294,512)}根据《华盛顿州修订法典》第19.86.080条，被告方自费同意向符合以下条件的消费者提供退款/补偿（若尚未执行）：

{\pos(1266,750)}在本法令生效后120天内，向被告方、总检察长办公室、商业改进局或联邦贸易委员会提交投诉或退款请求的消费者

{\pos(1274,834)}本法令生效六个月后，被告方需向原告律师提交书面报告，详述收到的索赔或请求，包括每位索赔者身份信息

{\pos(1260,1082)}申请退款金额及事由、实际退款金额以及退款与补偿的总额

我愿意打赌

虽然我可能弄错了，但提出投诉的人并不多

我没看到那份文件，网上似乎也没有

总之，我们先来看看法令的条款吧，内容相当多

{\pos(1220.8,373.6)}被告及其所有继承人、受让人、受转让人、高级职员、代理人、佣工、雇员和代表

{\pos(1236.8,487.2)}特此被禁止并永久限制在华盛顿州直接或间接从事以下任何行为

请记住，这仅适用于华盛顿州，因此，举例来说

如果他在德克萨斯州，所有这些行为都是被允许的

{\pos(1352,496.8)}在任何服务或产品的广告或营销中，直接或暗示性地歪曲产品/服务的紧迫性、专属性或必要性

{\pos(1353.6,664.8)}包括但不限于使用任何语言、符号或其他视觉/文字信息向用户虚假传达其电脑存在必须购买产品才能解决的风险

{\pos(1320,836)}或采用诸如重复弹出窗口等方法，通过免费扫描警告或提醒用户电脑存在的问题

这说法出奇的具体，而且有点像法律条文，就是让我有点摸不着头脑

{\pos(1323.2,394.4)}在任何形式的广告或产品营销中，使用“按钮”时若其功能与用户基于普遍认知和接受的按钮用途预期不符，即构成违规

{\pos(1305.6,570.4)}这包括但不限于：点击“取消”按钮后却在新浏览器窗口跳转至网站

{\pos(1381.2,640.8)}“X”按钮无法关闭广告、对话框或浏览器窗口，反而开启另一则广告、对话框或其他形式的弹窗

{\pos(1368.4,816.8)}以及“否”按钮将用户导向被告或任何其他网站的情况

{\pos(1334,672)}通过扫描用户计算机来宣传、营销或推广InternetShield

为什么它要和internet Shield绑在一起

为什么这不是什么假软件，感觉有点奇怪

{\pos(1330,482)}通过免费扫描、免费“试用版”或其他形式的软件下载，在用户计算机上安装软件后

{\pos(1338,546)}若该软件导致用户在首次尝试关闭广告、扫描界面或由该软件生成的任何其他形式广告后

{\pos(1316,714)}仍出现多个广告、对话框或任何形式的弹出或弹下窗口，则构成违规

{\pos(1324.8,570.4)}能运用符合行业标准与技术的商业合理努力，为被告方所营销、推广、广告或销售的任何软件（包括但不限于"试用版"）

{\pos(1318.4,740)}提供功能正常且易于访问的卸载选项

{\pos(1374.4,602.4)}在卸载过程中未按照行业标准和技术要求采取商业上合理的努力

{\pos(1347.2,893.6)}以彻底清除用户计算机上的所有软件文件，包括但不限于可执行文件和图标

{\pos(1291.2,768.8)}在用户卸载被告方推广、宣传及/或销售的软件过程中，通过在其电脑上生成更多广告或采取其他任何手段干扰卸载操作完成

{\pos(1331.2,679.2)}在未获得消费者明确、积极同意购买产品或服务的情况下，即对产品或服务进行收费

嗯，那是关于负面确认账单的

{\pos(1334.4,591.2)}歪曲任何产品或服务旨在应对的风险，或任何产品或服务的益处或成本

{\pos(1310.4,706.4)}歪曲对消费者电脑进行扫描的效用、实质或效果

这基本上就是他的软件所做到的

而且他被禁止再创建或分发任何该软件

至少在华盛顿州

正如这里所述

但是

付款计划就在这里，这是支付时间表

所以他只付了1.9万美元

就这样，我确信他赚的远不止这些

按他书中所说，他的客户有好几百万

尽管他同意全额支付赔偿，但我认为没有多少消费者

向softwareonline.com提交了退款申请

因为softwareonline已经运行了很长时间

许多消费者可能当时就把这件事给忘了

所以Dave plummer基本上毫发无损地脱身了

我现在又相当确定了

20年前

这对我来说仍然留下了一种苦涩的回味

而且主要其实是因为Dave不想回应这个

而且他还在某种程度上对此事遮遮掩掩、含糊其辞，让我觉得他肯定隐瞒了什么

评论者们的另一个愚蠢回应是，这在过去曾是常见的做法

这并不能为他开脱，只是个无稽之谈

现在搞加密货币骗局的人可真多

这能成为他们的借口吗？不，完全不能。那你为何还要这么说？

又一个很棒的消息，案子已经解决了

好吧，案子确实已经结案了，谢谢你告诉我，但显然毫无悔意

{\pos(1304,568)}只是举个例子

{\pos(1322,1030)}Dave plummer没有犯罪！

你可以对任何事认罪，但这并不意味着你实际上承认自己有罪

有时候讨价还价反而更省心

例如，如果你认罪，就会被罚款，否则即使无罪也要入狱

你会怎么选

这就是我要说的

终于Dave确实错了，他一直耿耿于怀

Dave对一些事情的看法显得非常不专业

我们都会遇到这种事

但更重要的是，他目前卖给你的那本书在事实上是错误的

书中提到了softwareonline.com，但他从未在书中诚实地谈论过它

更别提直呼其名了

他把自己描绘成法院制度的受害者，同时

我认为我已展示了足够的证据

足以证明对他的指控相当确凿

而惩罚却相当温和

关于书的其余部分，我无可奉告

但那个softwareonline的部分真的很不诚实

不禁让人怀疑，他是否还隐瞒了故事中的其他细节

如果Dave公开且诚实地回答了，我就不会做这个视频了

我多次告诉过他，他并不想诚实

所以这段视频严格来说算不上什么揭露内幕

我不想亲自调查这个

我并不想否定Dave，但他的生意的确至少造成了一百万人的财产损失

推特上有几个家伙说我无缘无故地诋毁他

我想说你目光短浅了

如果你作为儿童或其他弱势群体的一员成为Softwareonline的受害者

你会怀恨在心

尤其是当幕后之人毫无悔意且不断试图为自己洗白时

看来他反正都要继续无视这件事，所以我想让大牌YouTuber来接手

但他们可能对这个不感兴趣

或许科菲尔会展开调查之类的，我也不确定

我只希望他们能坦诚相告，因为这样下去不行，你不能只是说说而已

你是微软退休的Windows开发者Dave

从你离开微软去经营这家公司的那一刻起，你就失去了信誉

尽管那已是很久以前的事，可你还在解释

我就说到这儿吧，Dave，我知道你正在看这个

你应该适当地回应

感谢大家观看，生活愉快

{\fad(200,200)\pos(1244.893,238.557)}原标题：Dave Plummer- The Man Who Scammed Millions (in 2006) 原作者：Enderman

{\fad(200,200)\pos(1268.893,208.557)}原视频上传日期：2024年7月29日 重新上传2025年4月14日

{\fad(200,200)\fscx237\fscy247\pos(1258.49,482.69)}在 Youtube 上关注

{\fad(200,200)\fscx166\fscy166\pos(1274,822)}翻译/压制/字幕制作：HAF半个水果

{\fad(200,200)\fscx146\fscy157\pos(1292,904)}翻译质量权威评价：原来25年就有小拉即用机翻糊弄人了\N
\N
向所有字幕制作及相关人员道一声辛苦了 (*ˊᗜˋ*)/ᵗᑋᵃᐢᵏ ᵞᵒᵘ*\N
感谢字幕组的默默耕耘，你们的每一行字都能让更多人能够跨越语言障碍，享受精彩的内容

{\fad(200,200)\fscx166\fscy166\pos(1274,822)}字幕制作不易，喜欢的话支持一下我吧！