FTC Threatens Spyware Distributors With Prison 126
Federal regulator Mark Pryor, in a Senate Commerce Committee hearing, has stated that spyware distributors should face harsher penalties than fees. His solution: imprisonment. "Federal Trade Commissioner William Kovacic said most wrongdoers in the spyware arena 'can only be described as vicious organized criminals. Many of most serious wrongdoers we observed in this area, I believe, are only going to be deterred if their freedom is withdrawn,' so it's important for the FTC to collaborate on its cases with criminal law enforcement authorities, Kovacic said."
Windows?? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Windows?? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Windows?? (Score:5, Funny)
Since when does the RIAA need evidence to screw people?
Re:Windows?? (Score:5, Funny)
Ya, but you gotta admit that Bing Crosby gives it a romantic touch. What a voice . . .
Re: (Score:2)
This is neither a crime of passion nor of desperation. Kill em and have done with it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Jail time for invasion of privacy? (Score:1)
Are we really ready to begin prosecution of people who spy because they wo
Re: (Score:1)
If i was to slip a few dollars from someones pocket i would expect less punishment than if i was to go through a bunch of bags and steal all the money from them, just as someone who simply looks at some private information on a private computer would expect must less punishment that someone who came up with an automated method of spying on millions of people at once.
Mod parent up .. this isn't a troll! (Score:4, Insightful)
Also data from 'crashed programs' etc.
So why is the parent modded troll?
Re:Mod parent up .. this isn't a troll! (Score:5, Insightful)
The article is clearly about people who write and distribute malicious programs for the criminal purpose of stealing information, and thereafter actual property and/or money. We can all complain about some aspects of Microsoft's software (yes, really), but its 'spying' is nothing like the same. Legislation may yet change their behaviour here, but suggesting they are in danger of prison is hyperbole.
So introducing the subject is going to divert discussion off-topic, and either just another attempt at starting a fan-boy argument, or yet another boring round of Microsoft bashing.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, even though Microsoft is not taking your information for malicious purposes (I'll concede that), they are violating your privacy by accumulating data on you. The question is, should what they do be considered illeg
Re: (Score:1)
Most people don't really care about spy software. But of the ones that do, they care about as much about Microsoft grabbing their identity as they do about some hacker using their box for a botnet. Maybe more, because Microsoft undoubtedly shares all its data with Fedgov, not just Doubleclick.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
warning: The above content tests positive for sarcasm and/or is a failed attempt at humor and should be taken with a pound of salt.
Re:Ubuntu has spyware in it.. (Score:5, Informative)
How is that spyware? It sends anonymous statistics on what packages you have installed throught apt, and you have to choose to enable it.
It does exactly what it claims it does, and you really have to go out of your way to enable it (add/remove software>preferences>statistics>enable popularity contest )
Right under the checkbox there's a clear explanation of what it does:
Compare that to Windows update, which 'inspects your system' every time you update, and you have no way to know what exactly it's inspecting, and what it's sending back to MS.
You're probably trolling, and I'm probably wasting my time, but someone modded you up, so I guess at least one person believed you.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Anonymous, apart from being associated with your IP address if they happen to keep it in the logs.
You have to admit that if Microsoft had a program preinstalled in Windows (even if it was turned off by default) which regularly reported every single piece of software you installed and the date you last used it.. I can barely imagine the reaction!
I'm not sure windows update sends all that much back either. As I understand it Micro
Re: (Score:2)
In windows the equivalent would be to track things installed with the add/remove programs wizard...
Re: (Score:1)
I think I have about two programs (second life and google earth) that were installed by hand. Everything else I use here came from packages.
Re: (Score:2)
From the horse's mouth [microsoft.com]:
Windows Update is committed to protecting your privacy. To provide you with the appropriate list of updates, Windows Update must collect a certain amount of configuration information from your computer. None of this configuration information can be used to identify you. This
Re: (Score:1)
Sure, except for the hundreds of other people with the exact same Dell/Compaq/HP/etc computer model, and thus the same PnP hardware IDs, for which the only version number being sent is "Windows" and "Office". You conveniently managed to leap from "version numbers of other software for which M
Sure they can't track you (Score:2)
You're actually much more traceable with a giant corporation PC because Dell/HP etc. definitely can track a PC from MAC address to serial number, to sale.
I've done the opposite of what you're saying is impossible. We buy pcs in bulk -> over 1000 at a pop. User calls me from a remote site because he/she can't access our wireless network -- because we use mac filtering and some other stuff for security. User doesn't actually know where his laptop is though, so he can't check the ma
Re: (Score:1)
OTOH the RIAA seem to believe an IP address alone is enough to identify a user, and it sure narrows things down to a single company or a household 99% of the time.
OTOOH Microsoft have confirmed that things like WGA and OGA do report validation failures, and on the fourth hand what they send back is encrypted and could well contain any kind of unique id
Re: (Score:1)
(Caveat: I am assuming they're only gathering what they claim they're gathering, not because I trust them, but because if they were lying they would have been slammed for it on
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Without knowing anything about popcon really, I think it's safe to say that as long as it has to be EXPLICITELY enabled an
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
If it's on a law, it must be defined, but make the definition too strict and spyware makers will just find loopholes... make it too broad, and you end up affecting legitimate apps like windows update or the ubuntu popularity contest. Also, how do you define willingly update/activate it?. A spyware maker can claim the user willingly installed it by leaving the "install XXX" checkbox on when installing a program, or by clicking "yes" or "I
Re: (Score:1)
Concerning law, it seems to me that legal action has only been taken if the EULA has not warned the user about the information gathering. I can't give you examples, but I don't remember a single time when legal action has otherwise been taken.
I do agree with you that a tiny clause in the EULA shouldn't be considered
Re:Ubuntu has spyware in it.. (Score:5, Funny)
Wait. Does that argument make me sound like a complete and utter idiot? Now you know how you sound.
Re: (Score:1)
no congical visits here... (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Interesting challenge. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Remove the trimming, and put the people in jail.
Re: (Score:2)
Who, the officers of the corporation?
The shareholders?
What about indirectly invested shareholders (like those who invest through a mutual fund)?
The executives who decided to break the law? The peons who carried their instructions out, knowingly or unknowingly?
Not in fact -- in practice. In fact, a corporation is a separate legal entity. The people are incidental
Re: (Score:1)
Re:Interesting challenge. (Score:5, Interesting)
FWIW, this seems like a good idea, too. I'm not a fan of prison terms in general, but I also think that they're quite good at deterring white-collar crime (fraud etc., as opposed to blue-collar crime where you actually have to get your hands dirty - armed robbery, battery, and so on). The problem with penalty fees is that they're paid by the company, not the individuals who're actually responsible - so even if worst comes to worst and if the company will go bankrupt, they'll just go and start another one.
It's like punishing mafia hitmen but letting the actual dons go free - they'll just hire new hitmen and continue like before. But as soon as the directors of a spyware company are *personally* threatened with punishment for their deeds (and let's face it, it *is* upper management that is responsible for these things: the company does not have a life of its own that goes beyond the people working in/for it, and doesn't just decide to commit crimes on its own), most likely will stop and comply with the letter of the law, at least.
Put the CEO In Prison (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
I think a lot of people forget this fact when they think that corporations deserve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Interesting challenge.Not for Direct Revenue (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You revoke its charter to operate for a period of time. Anybody caught trying to operate a suspended corporation is guilty of a felony.
What's so hard about that?
I like this guy (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Good, spyware sucks. (Score:4, Funny)
Oh, there's some pulling out involved... although as I understand it, you don't have to actually be an active participant.
Making the punishment fit the crime (Score:5, Interesting)
I remember, not too long ago, when pricks around the world wrote dialers for people with dial-up connections. Dialers, once installed, would route someone's call to their ISP through some insanely far-away place (usually pimples in the pacific) with insanely high long-distance costs. The people who wrote the software would then split the profits made from the long-distance call with the corrupt operator of the far-away places' phone company. The effect was to leave people out-of-pocket by a huge amount (hundreds or thousands of dollars). If the target got the long-distance charge removed by the local phone company, the local phone company would have to eat the charges.
The point of the above is to underline the character of crimes committed: it's pure theft. Modern spyware either seals people's browsing habits or personal information, so it's a little less direct, but it's still a theft.
I think spyware writers are more foul than virus writers: while virus writers do what they do for the technical thrill and bother a lot of people in the process, spyware writers do it just to get money.
Their motives are base, their methods are underhanded, and they should go to jail.
Re:Making the punishment fit the crime (Score:5, Informative)
-Carl
Re: (Score:1)
Would you like to go to federal "pound me in the @$$" prison?
-> Yes
-> I'm pretty sure I do, but first I just want a 90-day demo
Threathen? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Threathen? (Score:4, Insightful)
Because this is Slashdot, where lately no one bothers paying attention to the article, or even the blurb (which is incorrect as usual anyway), and just tries to get their opinion in as quickly as possible for moderation.
This William Kovacic dude is a bureaucrat for the FTC. He has no authority whatsoever to make laws or throw people in jail. All he can do is threaten, much like the drunk guy on the corner (except that he's more likely to get a Congressman to listen).
Yes!!! (Score:1, Funny)
Maybe we can eventually even pass an amendment granting an exception to that whole 'cruel and usual' limitation.
What! (Score:5, Insightful)
Logical substitution of another crime? (Score:1, Insightful)
So right, I hate rapists, molesters, and the likes. But sending people to jail may be a little on the heavy side. Reason being, who'll decide quantitatively about the severity of the rape? And will there be a difference of punishment between individuals and gangs who rape? If a gang does it, they'll be dragged to court resulting in a lengthy legal battle ultimately only resulting in financial loss of the gang, not necessarily prison. There cannot be a very fair
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
One of the problem of modern capitalism is that corporations have more rights than average people and far less liabilities, so the best way to maximise shareholders gains is to act like a criminal. Anything that helps balance that is
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why? Effective punishment must be determined and fines aren't working. Prison seems like the last best choice.
who'll decide quantitatively about the severity of the malicious code? And will there be a difference of punishment between individuals and corporations who make spyware?
How about any malicious code is worthy of imprisonment? Seems reasonable to me. If the definitions seem unclear to you, maybe you should urge your political repres
Re: (Score:2)
A court of law, just like always.
Yeah, I'm not excited about the prospect either. But can you really come up with a better solution?
Re: (Score:2)
determine the severity of the issue. And then the
punishment.
Fraud is something that both corporations and individuals
can engage in. Should we eliminate jail time for that also?
Re: (Score:2)
As for corporations, current laws are screwed. Anyone with a few K in the pocket can start their own personal corporation to evade responsibility for their actions against hundreds of laws. If a corporation commits a crime, everyone responsible should be charged according to degree of their responsibility. Rank and file will probably avoid imprisonment by ratti
Has to be said (Score:5, Insightful)
Yet more proof (Score:2)
Oh please please please! (Score:2)
Because our stupendously moronic german gouverment wants to use systems like this to spy on our home computers - in the war against terrrrrrorism, of course. Then we could finally dump these idiots into jail
New domain name? (Score:1)
LOL
It's a good idea, but... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
Okay, here's a clear, concise way to code it into law:
come ask me, and I'll tell you if it's spyware
Mark Pryor is a Senator . . . (Score:4, Informative)
Obligatory (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Breaking and entering (Score:2)
It'll never fly (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to keep a copy of IE available because Firefox chokes on the tracking cookies MSNBC shoves at me. And still Zonealarm reports spyware being blocked from time to time.
With this level of white collar participation, business will tell its entertainment branch, government, that this is all perfectly legal. The FTC people are great, and more power to them, but nobody is going to go to jail over it.
On the other hand, I get spyware blocking reports from Zonealarm when I use a couple of well known bittorrent sites. Now THEY should be afraid. They don't own any congresscritters.
Re: (Score:1, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
"You can't own congresscritters -- they have moral standards. You can only rent them. Pray that no one else rents them at a higher rate at the same time."
I stand corrected. Perhaps if I kneel under their desk corrected I could get a few extra points with them. Nah, I'm an adult.
Moral standards? "WAAAAAAAAH?!" -- Jon Stewart
Our jail system is already too crowded (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Overseas. (Score:1, Insightful)
FTC, your friendly freedom-withdrawing commission (Score:1)
Fees, Fines, Foes, Fun (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Hang em... (Score:1)
Catch them how? (Score:2)
So you get an IP address and this means exactly what? You call up the ISP and ask for information about this but the response is "we destroy all logs". Assuming you can get law enforcement involved or file a civil suit you might be able to get the ISP a subpoena. Of course, you find out they were lying about not having logs and they can indeed tell you what account had that IP address at the given time.
You have your culprit, right? Wrong - the account hold
Re: (Score:2)
I don't see any enforcement being possible at all.
The WTO - make it part of the treaty obligations of the Most Favoured Nations that they co-operate in the prosecution of internet-related crimes next time there's a round of negotiations. If they want to play in the US market they'll sign up no problem. Yeah, the US will have to grant some concessions and open up a few more market a bit but there's no shortage of US bucks for Taiwanese ICs or Chinese DVD players. Then it becomes part of the signatory's laws and, when a complaint is made to one treaty sig
Maybe a television show? (Score:1)
I can see it now:
Announcer 1 (Ed): "Well Bob last weeks episode of Hunting Cybercrime was in Dallas and what a show it was. The Dalls PD went to town on that spammer! I guess they don't like having Viagra spams in their inbox any more than the rest of us."
Announcer 2 (Bob) "Indeed Ed, but this weeks l