I wish to make a complaint re Latest Flash Player Update

Question

The latest Flash Player update installed Chrome on my PC without asking if I wanted it and without my consent.  This is illegal in Australia and likely other countries too (eg USA).

Answer 1

Michael,
First, the update I witnessed installed McAfee Security Scan, NOT Google toolbar. But you're absolutely right. Installing it with no "opt out" is far less than what I would call a "good practice". That's the reason I DO update all my software, but I do it "manually". I never suggested "not upgrading" or not updating, but rather recommended what I do myself. I have always had a serious problem with people who tell me to do something they would never consider doing, so I don't make a habit of it myself. Yesterday alone I updated AIR and Flash Player on four systems... manually.
I doubt I'll be able to restore your trust in Adobe. ONLY YOU can do that.  As to your complaint, you originally indicated that said behavior was "illegal" and I believe I did a pretty darn good job of explaining why it isn't, because you click the "update" button, regardless of the reason, and your doing so (again, regardless of the reason) implies (if not proves), consent on your part. That's a legal point, even though it doesn't address trust or ethics at all.
When I was at Intuit, we reviewed two separate lawsuits during training on EULA compliance, one was a "Class action" filed by a state Attorney General, alleging that Intuit had installed what amounted to a "rootkit" (Google C-Dilla for more info) on potentially millions of systems without user consent, for the implementation of "anti-piracy" software in TurboTax in 2002. I went to work there in 2003 and I personally issued more than 300 replacement CD-Rs (along with apology letters) that didn't have the C-Dilla on them.
While the court ruled that the software itself caused many problems for the people who were involved in the suit, and that Intuit was liable for damages related to the repair or replacement of affected systems, the ruling magistrate was VERY CLEAR in pointing out that in installing the original software, and "accepting the end user licesne agreement", whether they actually read the whole thing (or any of it at all) beforehand, indicated their consent to install any and all software associated with such agreement. Therefore, the liability was severely limited, and NO puntiive damages could be applied. Several hundred people got free repairs and a few even got new computers, but Intuit made the decision not to use C-Dilla afterward; it was never ordered by the court.
TurboTax is paid software, and Flash Player is free, and C-Dilla was proven to be far more destructive than McAfee, Norton or Google bundled software (it rendered many systems useless), but the principle established by the court was that no one is forced to use TurboTax, and therefore not all of the liability could fall on the developer. Similarly, no one is forced to use Flash Player, or Adobe Reader. That hardly justifies installing third party apps in an update, with no opt out, but it still requires a user initiation to install a "bundled" update, and there ARE options to avoid the bundled software, which are posted in these forums DOZENS of times daily.
As I pointed out, I know of at least one detailed report that was submitted regarding this. It was my intention in reporting it, that someone would make changes that allow users to opt out of unwanted installs when all they're trying to do is update software they see as necessary to get full use and/or enjoyment out of their personal or work computer. Obviously that hasn't happened. I'm not endorsing the practice, or making excuses for it. I already made my position clear on "unwanted" software.
However, I also pointed out that the practice of "bundling software" is industry wide and it ISN'T going to end anytime in the foreseeable future, hence the links I provided and the advice to manually update. Believe me, I fully understand your frustration and I'm on your side. I have to be realistic, though. I have systems with Windows XP, Vista, 7, 8 and 8.1. One of the Win 8 systems is my laptop I use when meeting with clients. I can't afford it to be down because of an anti-virus conflict, and I refuse to use Google Chrome on it because of the massive resource consumption of Google's excuse for a browser. But I've had to make changes in the way I do things to avoid it, because I'm not going to force a company the size of Adobe to change (as my unheeded report has proven).
I'm a freelance web designer, not an employee here. Thanks to the U.S. economy, I have a lot of time to help people out here, so I do. I'm an end user like you, only I have several years of software development and troubleshooting experience. I don't particularly enjoy answering the "why did they install (insert bundled software name here) on my system?" questions. Usually there's no convincing the original poster and subsequent posters that there IS a way around it. Most of them want their computers and ALL software companies to do everything for them, and do it without ever inconveniencing them with knowing it was done, and THEN they complain when something IS installed without their explicit approval. That's a hard case to argue.
Maybe (I'm not holding my breath) enough complaints like yours will eventually persuade Adobe to NOT install bundled apps with updates, and no way to say no to it. Meantime, I do things the long way because I have to, to keep my systems running like I want them