Spy Act of 2007 = "Vendors Can Spy Act" 309
strick1226 writes "Ed Foster over at InfoWorld describes the Spy Act bill (H.R. 964) as having the same relation to the prevention of spyware that the CAN SPAM Act had to the prevention of spam. It allows exceptions for companies to utilize spyware for any number of reasons; if this bill had been law when Sony distributed their rootkit, they would have had perfect cover. Most troubling is that the bill would preempt all state laws, including those more focused on the privacy of people's data, and disallow individuals from bringing suit. It is expected to pass soon with 'strong bipartisan support.'"
Re:Legal, not moral (Score:3, Informative)
If companies can install spyware... (Score:5, Informative)
OK, What Am I Missing? (Score:1, Informative)
(1) any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service, or a protected computer, by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service or interactive computer service, to the extent that such monitoring or interaction is for network or computer security purposes, diagnostics, technical support, or repair, or for the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities; or
OK, your ISP can do network trouble shooting. Your HW / SW vendor can provide on-line tech support. Seems reasonable to me.
(2) a discrete interaction with a protected computer by a provider of computer software solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software, that occurs upon -- (A) initialization of the software; or (B) an affirmative request by the owner or authorized user for an update of, addition to, or technical service for, the software.
Microsoft can run their "Genuine Advantage" crap. Not thrilled about it, but not surprised.
I don't see anything to get terribly alarmed about. What am I missing?
Re:Look! Rights go down the hole... (Score:5, Informative)
You're right on the first point, but you've got the last one backwards: without a free market (i.e. freedom to act as you wish so far as it involves your own property, and freedom to engage in voluntary exchange with others without coercive interference) you cannot exercise those "human rights." You have human rights to the exact extent that you have property rights; they are fundamentally inseparable.
As far as democracy is concerned, you don't live in a democracy (assuming you live in the U.S. or Europe). The U.S. is a constitutional republic, and the important aspect of such a government is the constitutional limits, not the elections.
Re:OK, What Am I Missing? (Score:5, Informative)
The first part means that anyone who sold you hardware or software can snoop around on your machine if they are doing it to detect fraudulent activities - meaning when the activity hasn't happened yet! Yes, yes, you have nothing to hide. Are you sure? Your SSN is probably around somewhere. As is your bank account, or a lot of others things valuable to identity thieves.
The second parts means that anyone who ever wrote any type of software can access your machine in whatever way they please - as long as it's a discrete interaction.
This means that the security features in your OS are there only to prevent you from accessing everything in it. It is expected to remain open so that law enforcement, ISPs, software and hardware owners can check for anything they please.
In short, your computer is yours and secure only in name. Anybody else can trespass pretty much at will. If your computer is broken into and the other party says "I was just checking if anything fraudulent was going on", they're in the clear. Especially if they are a large corporation.
Re:Look! Rights go down the hole... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Third party (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Look! Rights go down the hole... (Score:4, Informative)
Tell that to the people of Bolivia after their water supply was privatized.
mod parent up! (Score:1, Informative)
List of sponsors (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Legal, not moral (Score:3, Informative)
if so, it would have no effect on any law regarding bussiness, as a bussiness would be bound by no such restrictions.
Re:Legal, not moral (Score:5, Informative)
What I'd be interested in is how this and other such spyware could be subverted, possibly with some false (and FOSS, naturally) piece of software that sends ridiculous junk to the remote servers. Sort of an anti-spyware, if you will. The best analogy I can think of off-hand would be programs like the fake SubSeven servers, that as I recall made your computer pretend to be infected with the SubSeven trojan. If you got someone connecting, you could give them a false directory tree, or press a button to blast their computer with a gazillion windows in their SubSeven client.
I think maybe a little hacktivism is called for, although naturally I would not advocate breaking any laws in the process! Oh no, sir!
Re:Legal, not moral (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Third party (Score:1, Informative)
Ah. Freedom at last. (Score:3, Informative)
Stand back baby, I'm a Nessus [nessus.org] monkey with a long list [unixhub.com] of a**holes [blocklist.org], a can 'o nmap [insecure.org], a fully loaded Metasploit [metasploit.com], and I ain't afraid to use 'em.
Re:Legal, not moral (Score:3, Informative)