Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Security IT

Anti-Spyware Bill up for Vote in Congress 176

Posted by samzenpus from the but-I-love-ads dept.
paul_friedman writes "According to Reuters - The U.S. House of Representatives will vote as soon as next week on a measure to crack down on deceptive "spyware" that hides in users' computers and secretly monitors their activities."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Anti-Spyware Bill up for Vote in Congress More

Anti-Spyware Bill up for Vote in Congress

Comments Filter:

  • Won't this legalize Spyware? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by erick99 ( 743982 ) <homerun@gmail.com> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:21PM (#10324494)
    The bill approved by Barton's committee would require software makers to notify people before loading new programs on their machines that can collect information about them. Violators could face millions of dollars in fines.

    A lot of these programs do tell you that they are going to load Gator or some other piece of sh*tware. However, it is buried in the middle of the EULA which most people "pagedown" through rather than read 10 or 15 screens of fine type legalese. I do read them or at least scan them for the part about giving me even more

    "free productivity"

    software. This legislation like the spam legislation (CanSpam), will simply embolden those who have been hesitant. Now that they can legally load your system up with spyware as long as tell you somewhere, no matter how hard it would be to actually find it, they will do so. I just wonder what these politicians are smoking when they come up with these "solutions."

    -erick

    • Re:Won't this legalize Spyware? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Carnildo ( 712617 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:24PM (#10324524) Homepage Journal
      The anti-spyware bill is to spyware as the CAN-SPAM act is to spam.

      In short, it's a bunch of feel-good legislation that legalizes a few shady practices, and add further laws against others. Nobody will bother to enforce it, and in a few years, it will have been forgotten.
      • Ya, but it does make you feel good.

      • Re:Won't this legalize Spyware? (Score:1, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yeah, but think of how nice it'll be when you mention spyware and people don't automatically go "What's that?"

      • Re:Won't this legalize Spyware? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by techno-vampire ( 666512 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:05PM (#10324816) Homepage
        Getting rid of spyware will take time, and may not be possible. Just being able to nail the worst offenders, those that install without notice or any reasonable way to remove, is a start.
      • the Assault Weapons ban? Feel-good indeed, and unenforced.

        It's a PR stunt for the people who live in fear of what they do not understand.

      • In short, it's a bunch of feel-good legislation that legalizes a few shady practices, and add further laws against others. Nobody will bother to enforce it, and in a few years, it will have been forgotten.

        If the powers that be can't even be bothered to enact a law against such practices, they're REALLY sending the message that they don't care, and so emboldens the spyware authors.

        Passing a law in and of itself may not be terribly effective, but it DOES enable people to go after spyware makers - as it

        • There are already laws about unauthorized use of computing facilities. Rather strong criminal laws.

          To be effective, any new legislation should better define what constitutes authorization, specifically that any authorization burried deep down in anything expected to clicked through constitutes fraud.

          from Windows is the 'biggest beta test in history' - Gartner [theregister.co.uk] "Victor Wheatman, Gartner security veep, told delegates at the IT Security Summit in London that the most secure organisations spend less than the a

    • Re:Won't this legalize Spyware? (Score:5, Informative)

      by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:45PM (#10324688) Journal
      I think the most important part of this is that it also requires the software to be easily uninstallable. Something that isn't true today. This is the main point that I believe needs to be inforced, as its hard to exactly give a definition of spyware. But any software that installs permanently onto your computer (java apps and such don't nessearly apply) needs to have a simple uninstall.

      • Re:Won't this legalize Spyware? (Score:4, Informative)

        by MindStalker ( 22827 ) <mindstalker AT gmail DOT com> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:57PM (#10324761) Journal
        Actually I take that back, that is the senate bill. Which is much more comprehinsive. It appears that the house bill is very simple and just disallows installing without notice.

        • Re:Won't this legalize Spyware? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gr8_phk ( 621180 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:53PM (#10325111)
          "It appears that the house bill is very simple and just disallows installing without notice."

          Installing software on someones computer without notice is already a crime - especially if the installed software sends data back to the party who installed it. People go to prison for that type of thing, but apparently it's different if a corporation hacks an individual instead of the other way around.

      • The argument will be that it is easy to uninstall it. Just re-load Windows.
      • Sure, that's the most important thing for making spyware more of a "non issue" -- but legislating it isn't going to change much of anything.

        At last check, SpyBot - Seek and Destroy was looking for well over 17,000 known spyware/ad-ware type programs that could be on your machine, and many of them get installed by downloader viruses.

        Even if legislation really was 100% effective at stopping anyone from ever writing another new piece of spyware tomorrow (as if!) - the existing 17,000 plus things out there wo
    • I just wonder what these politicians are smoking when they come up with these "solutions."

      These politicians are simply doing what they can with what they got. What they got (laws) is inappropriate for solving technical problems, such as spam, kiddie porn, and spyware. Politicians don't understand it because they are stupid. They are not smoking anything. They are just stupid, which is quite a bit worse. If they weren't stupid they'd leave technical problems the hell alone, to be solved by technical m

  • Wait... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't get any more free computers that "don't work?"

  • diebold.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by DraKKon ( 7117 ) * on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:21PM (#10324498) Journal
    I would be prudent to put spyware in diebold's voting machines though.,.

  • Oh whatever (Score:5, Insightful)

    by screwedcork ( 801471 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:22PM (#10324502) Journal
    As if the people who write spyware care about the law and doing what's right

    • Re:Oh whatever (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Shnizzzle ( 652228 )
      But at least companies who are located in the United States and who profit from use of said software can be held legally responsible.

      I know that we all feel a little joy when we hear that spammers have been arrested and the same can now happen to spyware authors.

  • Yeah,Sure (Score:5, Insightful)

    by rainman_bc ( 735332 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:23PM (#10324510)
    It's probably going to be as effective as the CANSPAM act.

    How are they going to nail people in Russia and China?
  • I'm guessing since a lot of this garbage originates overseas that we can use this as another poor excuse to go to war??? /duck

  • Poor guys (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:24PM (#10324516)
    What will the honest folk at claria [claria.com] (a.k.a. gator), "A Leader in On Line Behavioral Marketing", The do about this?

    • Re:Poor guys (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Obliterous ( 466068 ) <shawn.somers@noSPAM.gmail.com> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:40PM (#10324649) Homepage Journal
      Not a damned thing...

      they do tell you that their stuff is being installed. it's in the EULA for whatever program you actually wanted to install, that it hitchiked in with...

      Word to the wise: if there is more than one EULA, then there's probably spyware. if there's only one, read the bloody thing...

      • Re:Poor guys (Score:3, Insightful)

        by stephanruby ( 542433 )
        Word to the wise: if there is more than one EULA, then there's probably spyware. if there's only one, read the bloody thing...

        Assuming it's actually a product you're trying to download, and not just a random activex popup. It's usually easier to google whatever name of the product plus add the word "spyware" to it. Reading the EULA is too damn difficult these days.

        It's the corollary of the Slashdot effect. Never read the primary source, someone else will already have done it for you.

  • politicians and technology do not mix (Score:5, Insightful)

    by loose electron ( 699583 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:24PM (#10324519) Homepage
    More useless laws that can not be enforced.

    Just like attempts to make P2P filesharing illegal, it will be virtually impossible to regulate or control.

  • Sweet.... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by bizpile ( 758055 ) * on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:24PM (#10324520) Homepage
    Nice, more unenforceable [slashdot.org] legislation. Go Congress!

  • No doubt... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:24PM (#10324526)
    Corporations contributing to congressional campaigns are exempt, of course.

  • Screw fines... (Score:2, Insightful)

    by TWX ( 665546 )
    ...it's time to get the tree trimmers out, heat them up to temperatures that will cauterize, and then truncate something important to the spyware authors...

    Of course, if the dominant web browser weren't vulnerable to installing trojan software on a user's computer in the first place this would be a moot point.
    • Of course, if the dominant web browser weren't vulnerable to installing trojan software on a user's computer in the first place this would be a moot point.

      Yes, but I don't think a web browser other than MSIE, Safari, or Mozilla is likely to become dominant in the near future.

      • Re:Screw fines... (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TWX ( 665546 )
        Thing is, though, Internet Explorer has sucked from the first release that was bundled with Windows NT 4.0, which was called v2.0. It has never been properly fixed. After the debacle of MS forcing IE on to computers with the OS I decided that I'd never use their browser again for my own computers, and I've stuck to that. I've watched countless exploits for the browser come out and wreak widespread havoc on Internet users, while I've been very safe using Netscape or Mozilla, depending on my fancy. My com

  • Isn't this already illegal? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by halivar ( 535827 ) <.bfelger. .at. .gmail.com.> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:25PM (#10324534)
    Isn't this already illegal? Lately I'm afraid of legislation banning things that are already illegal. Take the DMCA, for instance; copyright violations were already punishable, but all of a sudden a whole slough of other things are, too.

    I say, let's strengthen our ability to enforce laws we already have on fraud and invasion of privacy. It seems new laws, making more things illegal will simply become another "gotcha" for folks using legitimate software.
    • It seems new laws, making more things illegal will simply become another "gotcha" for folks using legitimate software.

      That's the point. If there are so many laws that every citizen unknowingly violates a few every day of their lives then the government can come a-knockin' any time it pleases. Everyone becomes a criminal and everyone can be prosecuted - unless they do what the hell the jackboots tell them to do, without complaint.

      This trick is very, very old.

      Max
    • If we don't continue making new laws then how do we continue expanding the scope of government? Sincerely, Your Political Leaders

  • NO! (Score:5, Funny)

    by BHearsum ( 325814 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:25PM (#10324535) Homepage
    80% of what I do at work is cleaning spyware. I would be out of a job if it stopped existing.

  • Nothing can be done (Score:4, Insightful)

    by economan ( 815794 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:26PM (#10324548)
    There is really nothing that can be done. It is called social engineering. The end user does let them into the computer, not by choice, just by staight ignorance. This is just another set of laws that will mean nothing.

    • Re:Nothing can be done (Score:5, Interesting)

      by frankthechicken ( 607647 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:33PM (#10324600) Journal
      Exactly the number of people who want to have weatherbug on their PC, the number of people who purposely download and install Claria products is ridiculous.

      People want these things because it gives them cool things, they don't care what happens in the background.

      I personally equate it to smoking, without the risks of using the product being fully known about or appreciated.

      Perhaps the preventative measures taken against such adware products should be similar to smoking. Large, prominent notices being required, detailing the risks of using the software, perhaps higher taxes on companies deemed to be adware firms.

      Unfortunately the ability to label such problematic software is, well, problematic.

  • Finally! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jaycatt ( 530986 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:27PM (#10324555) Journal
    I was just doing a training for my coworkers about what spyware is/does. No one had ever heard of it, and didn't know they should be scanning their PCs. I remember telling them that I hoped it would be the next "big thing" they'd start passing laws about (like they did with viruses and spam). Glad to see that hope may come true!

    It'd really be nice to see this issue talked about in the more mainstream press, so that it gets a negative following like spam has. Might not solve it, but at least people will know it exists.

    • Re:Finally! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by savagedome ( 742194 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:32PM (#10324587)
      Might not solve it, but at least people will know it exists.

      And there probably lies the difference between 'average person' and 'average /.er'. What is spyware for you and I might not even be spyware for them. There are people who willing install Bonzi Buddy on their systems because its cute but I would not touch it with a ten feet pole.

      And if these legislators were even half serious, their act should have included not the installation but the 'uninstallation' part. A lot of programs/utilities/helpers capture sensitive information (Google Toolbar anyone?) but the difference lies in getting the crap out of somebody's machine. Anybody who ever had to use HijackThis to figure out the fscking process eating up your machine knows what I am talking about.

      Till then, just another stupid law and the life continues as always.
      • HiJackThis is a great tool for helping to clean up machines.

        • Re:Finally! (Score:3, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          HijackThis is a great tool for totally destroying a computer. In the hands of someone who knows what to do, it's useful.

          In the hands of the typical "click every 'OK' on every popup that appears", it will delete just about everything in their registry.

          Let them use spybot or ad-aware, at least there if they click and delete everything it finds it won't leave them with an unbootable machine.

    • Re:Finally! (Score:3, Informative)

      by JohnnyNoSPAM ( 815401 )
      This in and of itself will not be the end of spyware. However, I believe that this is a starting point from which we can eventually build a system of enforcement which will hunt for spyware and prosecute people who develop and/or utilize it.

      Still, good Internet practices are a good starting point for the rest of us can implement now. This entails doing some research in addition to some common sense. Tools such as Spybot S&D and Ad-Aware are excellent in addition to being freely available and for rea
    • Yeah I am glad that a law cleaned my inbox of all spam.

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by queenofthe1ring ( 768698 ) * on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:30PM (#10324574) Journal
    It will be combined with another bill, passed by the Judiciary Committee (news - web sites), that would establish criminal penalties for those who use spyware to commit identity theft or other crimes.

    So now it's going to be a crime to commit a crime?

    • Ask someone who has ever been arrested for having burgerly tools. In most states crowbars and lock picks are legal, but when used to commit a crime it is illegal to have them.

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Interesting)

      by green1 ( 322787 )
      reminds me of a highway sign I saw a while back... it read "obey all signs" I broke out laughing, if you are already going to obey signs then there is no point to haveing a sign to tell you that, and if you aren't, then why would you obey that one?
      • it read "obey all signs"

        Boy, life would suck on "New Billboard" day.

      • Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Funny)

        by PriceIke ( 751512 )

        XXX LIVE NUDE GIRLS! 3 miles, turn right.

        My favorite advocacy group is the one that puts up those orange signs near work zones that say, "END ROAD CONSTRUCTION". I so totally agree!

    • Complexity is always welcome in government. The more complex the law, the bigger the benefit to those in power. At the very least, millions of tax dollars will be spent on administering such redundancy.

  • What the Gov't NEEDS to do (Score:4, Insightful)

    by TheUnFounded ( 731123 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:33PM (#10324599)
    What really needs to be done: have the gov't put in place a formal pricipal that states THIS [google.com]. Maybe then they'd actually accomplish something.
    • Sorry, that's not going to fly. It is written as what it is, a set of PRINCIPLES -- not laws. Principles belong nowhere in the law -- they're extremely broad declarations of what is Good and Bad but not what is legal and illegal. It would be so broad as to be useless against large but subtle infringers (the ones you want to hurt the most) and it would probably affect normal users in negative ways.

      It is useful to note that the Constitution does specify some broad principles. However, they are stated in ways

  • Sorry but (Score:5, Insightful)

    by needacoolnickname ( 716083 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:35PM (#10324614)
    I think governments really have more important things to think about than spyware and spam - oh, I don't know... wars, the economy, health care, education, ways to spend the money they make off the tobacco industry for everything possible except for the health issues they are saying they nede the money to pay for...

    If someone installs spyware it is their fault. Nothing is free on a Windows machine. Take some personal responsibility for jebus sake.

    Here's a question. Why are all the spyware programs written for Windows rather than Mac or Linux. There are perfectly good freeware programs for the other OSs and they aren't laden with the crap?

    • Re:Sorry but (Score:3, Insightful)

      by rainman_bc ( 735332 )
      Why are all the spyware programs written for Windows rather than Mac or Linux.

      Simple market share dude.

      Businesses (shady or not) look at the cost/benefit analysis of writing this stuff. The benefit is higher when you write the stuff for windows than any other platform.

    • Re:Sorry but (Score:3, Insightful)

      by __int64 ( 811345 )
      "Why are all the spyware programs written for Windows rather than Mac or Linux."

      B/c first these things work by volume, windows has a farlarger userbase to attack than any of the others. Second, there are alot more, less knowledgeable users on windows than on other platforms. So statistically its far easyer to doop them into installing your garbageware than users of other systems.

  • Wouldn't it make more sense... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Sentry21 ( 8183 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:42PM (#10324674) Journal
    Maybe it's just me, but wouldn't it make more sense to create an agency (in the manner of the FCC or CRTC) with the mandate to regulate these types of activities? That one agency, given the ability to pass regulations as the FCC has, would be able to regulate things like SPAM, Spyware, and other interests (viruses perhaps?). They could impose fines for companies that write programs to do this kind of work, publish lists of software banned under the regulations, and so forth.

    Just like the acts that created the CRTC and the FCC, it would be a simple matter for Congress to say 'there is a problem, you guys handle it', rather than having to learn the full issue every time something needs to be done.

    --Dan
    • Yes, because we need another governmental agency. Hey, let's make it a cabinet level agency - we don't have enough of those yet!

      These sound like consumer products (software programs for consumers), how about giving it to an existing branch. Sure, you're adding workload, but there's no need to add an additional full political structure when one already exists.

      As for the FCC...until either Michael Powell gets a backbone or they throw him out and get someone with real sense and a working set of balls, you ca

  • yes (Score:3, Insightful)

    by killua ( 604159 ) <nimakuNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:48PM (#10324714)
    Being the honest, law abiding, trustworthy corps these spyware companies are. I'm sure they will comply! Expecially when the law in question will be virtually uninforcable. We can trust them! Really!

  • Not that good of a law... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by chrispyman ( 710460 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:49PM (#10324716)
    As many others have pointed out, this will probably be as effective as a law as CAN-SPAM was. What they really need to do is to make it illegal for companies to profit from the selling of the data that these spyware/adware programs collect.

    • Re:Not that good of a law... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by pilgrim23 ( 716938 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:52PM (#10324734)
      When law is not the answer, yet law is passed to address it. the law, and all laws, looses respect.
      • I can't agree more- if this law is nothing more than Spam Law mentioned by others or even something meaningless like 'declare spyware in some obscure EULA' click option (worse make it opt-in) then what good is it other than politiking?

        Yeah, given the election climate this is all distraction... sad part is that it hurts the People's interest now instead of leaving it alone till the fair/appropriate Law can be passed & implemented.
        • That doesn't really seem to matter. Just look at how effective laws have been on the 'war against drugs'. And yet, despite their abysmal failures as well as their hypocritical exceptions (e.g., alcohol) people will turn rabid and froth at the mouth in favor of passing yet more ineffective laws in this paper-tiger legislative circus of re-election politics.

          Max

  • Hurrah! Congress is on the case! (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @06:54PM (#10324750)
    If you'll excuse me, I have to go upstairs and uninstall SpybotSD and Ad-Aware from my Windows box!

    This is just like when they made spam illegal. Oh, the joy I felt when I removed all the anti-spam measures from my server-- my heart was truly singing!

  • How about a bill... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mabu ( 178417 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:05PM (#10324818)
    that guarantees X amount of money to be put into enforcement/education efforts against existing cybercrime?

    We don't need any more laws. We need law enforcement of existing laws. The current anti-computer tampering laws are effective in most cases.

  • NO! (Score:5, Funny)

    by AvantLegion ( 595806 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:06PM (#10324824) Journal
    If you outlaw spyware, only outlaws will have spyware!

    Wait....

  • How about a bill (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:21PM (#10324924)
    That requires /. to change to damn theme for IT ... christ, I like my eyes ... why are you tring to blind me ...
  • Like so many things Govt's do isn't it "bolting the stable door"? Spyware is out there, asking for people to "agree" to have it is just asking for a whole flood of "legalised" versions to infest PC's worldwide. Biggest problem is *obviously* that like spam this stuff usually comes from outside the "controlled" zone eg China, Russia, Papua New Guinea etc. Harden your security or change to a more secure system or get a better firewall! Then again I run OS X so I don't have to deal with this day on day...
  • I think the government should require people to obtain an Internet license, to get access to the Internet. It could be not only preventional (eg, avoiding spyware, how to remove it), but educational (incorporating a bit of HTML, possibly). It'll probably destroy the essence of the Internet (eg, a kind of virtual library), but people will be more educated.
    • Argh, mod you down, please. That makes no sense, I'm sorry. Are you being serious?

      An Internet License would hurt much of what makes the Internet the Internet (anonymity, free speech, etc.) And how would you enforce it? Would you have somebody watching over your Internet usage, and, if it seems erratic, "pull you over" and ask for your Internet License and Registration? I'm sure everyone here will love that idea.

  • They will blow it. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:30PM (#10324991) Journal
    Just like can-spam. Because they make it too complicated. It is really a case of illegal electronic surveillance, just like an illegal wiretap. You shouldn't be allowed to do it without a court order. The last I heard that was already a felony.

    As usual they would rather pass a new pile of crap than enforce whats already on the books.

  • I guess this means... (Score:3, Funny)

    by marcello_dl ( 667940 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:42PM (#10325051) Homepage Journal
    A slightly new EULA for windows.

  • Immunity for Some? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ObsessiveMathsFreak ( 773371 ) <obsessivemathsfr ... om.net minus bsd> on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @07:49PM (#10325083) Homepage Journal
    Yet how many loopholes will be present to allow law inforcement to install keystroke loggers and port sniffers with any sort of warrent from a judge.

    No doubt they'll justify any blatent breach of personal rights with a big 'fight terror' or 'freedom police' sticker and a grin.

    I'll bet some spyware companies are already passing on data they collect in 'suspect' countries to higher powers. I mean, if there are spyware infected PCs in say... France, don't you think that greasy agents are taking advantage of that now. Expect exemptions, official or otherwise, for spyware companies that jump into bed with enforcers looking to get around the law.

  • RTFL: Read the Legislation (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @08:13PM (#10325237) Homepage Journal
    The article is actually rather devoid of information. If you want real data, you gotta go to the source: The Library of Congress [loc.gov].

    For example, many articles in this thread have talked about them burying the the notice in the EULA. From the House bill:

    The notice clearly distinguishes such notice from any other information visually presented contemporaneously on the protected computer.

    They call that "clear and conspicuous notice in plain language", and it goes on from there.

    As for enforcement: there's less spyware than spam. Spyware takes time to write, and it takes time to make it useful enough that dumb users install it. Claria is easily tracked down, and if they don't ask "This program will collect and transmit information about you. Do you accept?", they go to jail. Stupid users will click anyway, but "Against stupidity the gods themselves contend in vain" (Frederick Schiller).

    The solution isn't perfect: some malware writers will just move offshore, for example. But I have reason to believe that this legislation will do at least some good.
  • From the article:

    Spyware can sap computing power, crash machines and bury users under a blizzard of unwanted ads. It can ca pture passwords, credit-card numbers and other sensitive data.

    And this law is going to stop it?

    And further,

    Violators could face millions of dollars in fines.

    If you're using spyware to steal credit card info the only millions you're likely to have are those you stole.

    I hate to use the slippery slope argument, but that's seems to be what's happening here. Whether it's

  • Spying Politians (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mulletproof ( 513805 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @08:21PM (#10325291) Homepage Journal
    "The U.S. House of Representatives will vote as soon as next week on a measure to crack down on deceptive "spyware" that hides in users' computers and secretly monitors their activities."

    This one is a slam dunk. I mean, what government offical wants their computer to secretly monitored??? ^_^

  • Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is ethical.

  • EULA legislation? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Wino ( 655084 )
    What I'd really love to see is some sort of regulation that tames the one-sided nature of EULAs themselves.

    For instance...

    Ability to opt-out (or must opt-in) to tracking/privacy related features.

    Non-solicitation agreements.

    Use of personal information. etc.

    Also, force companies to have a brief overview of the EULA so consumers can actually determine what it is they are actually agreeing to without having a law degree.

    A man can dream...

  • I have always sort of wondered why adware and spyware have not been lumped into the same category as malicious viruses. It is easy to say that they're not malicious, in that they don't delete files or make damaging configuration changes to a computer. However, they do create a huge performance decrease.

    From what I have seen the average Windows user who uses Internet Explorer seems to have between 100 and 600 spyware items (according to ad-aware) on their computer. I see this because I do computer repair

  • IAAL who researched spyware.... (Score:3, Informative)

    by omarKhayyam ( 544074 ) on Wednesday September 22, 2004 @11:30PM (#10326311)
    I researched spyware this past summer with a professor of mine at law school. The main flaw with all the proposed spyware legislation (there are around 10 pieces of it at the state and federal levels) is that it focuses on regulating "spyware" itself, rather than dealing directly with what bothers us about spyware. This is especially problematic because spyware is defined to cover a hopelessly broad array of software. As a result, two different legal issues have been handcuffed together. These two issues are information privacy and trespass.

    Information privacy covers all the collection and use/abuse of personally identifiable information. This concern is not unique to spyware. It also exists in the use of bank records, medical information, etc. The EU has done a better job than us of consolidating information privacy concerns into a coherent body of law. In the US we have a legal patchwork that covers each use of personal information separately.

    Trespass covers the installation, disclosure of functionality, and uninstallation of programs. There is a strong analogy here to real property, where you have some control over who comes onto your property, what they do there, and your right to expel them. One area that is in flux (and it is not unique to computer software) is that burying something in legalese in a license agreement may no longer be viewed as giving someone notice. This view is already being taken by some courts with regard to boilerplate contracts for products like cellphones.

    In the end, this legislation is flawed because the legislators failed to identify the distinct issues of information privacy and trespass and address them separately. Identifying and separating issues is rule #1 when it comes to the understanding the law. I would imagine this mistake was made because this law involves technology, which probably makes legislators think they need to write completely new law. Sometimes this is the case, but often it is better to extend the laws we have developed over hundreds of years.
  • All Spyware when running must be visible on screen to show the user that it is running.

    When it notivies that this program will popup adds and collect information it should say so. before installing before any other text with easy to read language and writting and under 30 words.

    All Spyware must come with an Uninstall program that works and does no damage to the computer software.

    All Spyware must be allowed to be easily turned off via interface that is part of the on screen section showing that it is run

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close