Anti-Spyware Law Snags Anti-Spyware Vendor 138
Country Lawyer writes "Washington state's anti-spyware law has just resulted in a $1 million victory for the state, the first successful prosecution under the new law. The weird thing? They sued an anti-spyware vendor." From the article: "Washington State went after the company after 1,145 state residents purchased the software and the complaints began rolling in. Secure Computer president Paul Burke will now pay $200,000 in penalties, make $75,000 worth of restitution to Washington residents, and pay another $725,000 to cover the state's attorneys' fees. The irony of an anti-spyware law being used against an anti-spyware vendor was not commented upon."
BS (Score:5, Insightful)
that's just insane!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
The lawyers in this case were the Washington State Attorney General's office. In other words, by goin to the lawyers, the money is going into the State of Washingtons coffers, and helps to lower taxes, benifiting the people who were duped.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If these are attorneys' fees, they're going straight to the AG staff's salaries - that's how they'd be determined - what makes you think there's a surplus going into the general revenue fund?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I have learned a lot about taxes and the public's misconception of them... especially where federal taxes are concerned. For every expense that the government makes, there's supposed to be a tax that takes car
Re: (Score:2)
When you bill 25 hours a day, 8 days a week .... (Score:4, Funny)
While its seems an odd ratio... (Score:2)
Actually, not insane (Score:4, Informative)
With 2000 work hours per year, that is less than three attnys full time for a year. With a case that complicated, and testing a new law (so they REALLY want to get it right to set the good prescedent), this doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, I'm sure he doesn't get a discount, or get to nit-pick the bill either.
Re:BS (Score:5, Funny)
When's the last time we paid sharks for eating swimmers?
Same principle applies.
Re:BS (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:BS (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
How do you justify a rate cap? (Score:5, Insightful)
What you say is equivalent to some PHB saying that no programmer or system designer should ever earn more than $50 per hour.
In fact, some should earn much less, and some much more. Hourly rates are really just a shorthand in the capitalist system for how quickly you generate value.
I've got considerable experience in software and corp management, and so often had to deal with lawyers, mostly on IP and contract issues. As I worked with them, I was intrigued to find out how much the work resembled software development. In both arenas, one needs to evaluate the scope of the project, anticipate the opportunities, obstacles, and pitfalls, then design a structure that will handle all these cases. Once a overall plan and structure is selected, then the detailed modules or sections are crafted using custom code or language where necessary, and reusing pre-tested code or language where possible. SW Developers use the languages chosen for the project, and Lawyers use the English language and Terms of Art. Both professions have barely competent people at the bottom and utterly brialliant people at the top. Both have utter scumbags who should be shot on sight (spammers, spyware, or scammers), and others whose wisdom is a national treasure. Both professions have trivial problems handled mostly by cut-and-paste, and incredibly complex problems.
When given an interesting problem in their domain, the lower ones will take almost forever to come up with a bad answer, and the top ones will give a great answer almost off the top of their heads. This is what makes the good ones worth FAR more than the average, and the average ones worth more than amaterus on the street.
Re: (Score:2)
Nice platitude. The reality is that complex problems take real work to solve, regardless of one's expertise. Of course you were sufficiently vague with "interesting problem" rather than "difficult problem" and "answer" rather than "solution" such that your phrase could be construed to mean just about anything, s
Re: (Score:2)
[...] Cum guzzling lawyers [...]
If they did that, they'd be good for something.
Re: (Score:2)
Crime and lawyering are just different levels of thuggery.
So the lawyers fees are more than the penalty (Score:2)
Yes I know its a government entity but I bet there are many "consultants" on that list that are not as well.
I don't think lawyers, singular or as a corporation, should ever get more than the reward.
It isn't that much (Score:4, Informative)
Not to mention their legal staff. Evidence aquisition. Etc. Should they have sought a larger penalty? Sure. But don't underpay the lawyers just because the penalty is low.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Leaving aside the argument that $100/hour might be too high to start with...
Seven lawyers for a single case? Seven lawyers working exclusively for that case? Their entire 40 hour workweeks for 6 months on that one case??
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
For those of you questioning the parents $100/hr. number, you've probably never been to an attorney. My divorce lawyer was billing $150/hr. ten years ago. Shit, my company bills more than that for my time, and I'm not getting anywhere near that. You need to realize that the figure isn't necessarily what the person is making, but what the firm charges. Wrapped into that figure are all the overhead ch
It couldn't have happened to nicer people??? (Score:5, Informative)
I was kind of tired of seeing stuff like they used....
Non-windows operating systems (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Anyone remember this one? (Score:2)
One side effect of running Linux is that the fake dialogs are virtually guaranteed to not match your actual UI, whether they're imitating Luna, Windows Classic, or Mac OS X. Heck, I sometimes see Mac Classic style fake dialogs. Mostly in banners, though, since there are very few sites I visit that manage to get their pop-ups past Firefox these days, and I only block ads that
Re: (Score:1, Interesting)
You mean like MS WGA that was pushed as security update ?
Re: (Score:1)
Misleading... (Score:5, Informative)
change to 'a corrupt company anti-spyware vendor' (Score:5, Insightful)
So, oddly enough, it seems the law worked. Just calling yourself an 'anti-spyware vendor' is no protection from being a spyware company.
But did it really work? (Score:4, Insightful)
But how much in profits did they make?
If they made $2 million in profits, then the law didn't work at all.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
FTA
Secure Computer is actually based in New York, and has gone out of business since the lawsuit was filed.
I think it worked well enough.
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Secure Computer is actually based in New York, and has gone out of business since the lawsuit was filed.
I think it worked well enough.
That doesn't mean the owners didn't take all the remaining money and are laughing all the way to the bank and enjoying their retirement. Closing it down would be a logical thing for them to do under the circumstances, since the company would now be more likely to have its assets exposed to lawsuits from other states.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So... If you see this, report it, and let them know about the pattern. When you form a company, someone real has to be the agent for the company. So if that person starts, closes, starts, closes, a chain of businesses, it shouldnt be terribly hard to track, especially if you consider where they put their mo
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act [wikipedia.org] should be applied to CEO's and Board of Directors of failed companies, and restrict them from holding such positions again for a set period of time. ( I read it that the BAPCPA only applies to individuals, anyone?)
Re: (Score:2)
No reason, other than if they owe a bunch of money to customers, employees and investors. If the business liquidates and all debts are paid, then no problem.
However, I think a "stand-down" period of 1 year would be appropriate for a 'failed business owner' who still owes a significant amount to previous stakeholders, employees etc. It'd go someway to stopping the "scam-lather-rins
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
(sonic boom)
No. It was spyware (Score:5, Insightful)
A good precedent (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
One little thing you missed..... (Score:4, Informative)
Is it a beginning? Yes. Does it move us closer to being able to prosecute others? No.
While I applaude the state of Washington on bringing charges in the first place, I think that they did the people of the state a disservice by settling. It seemed they had a pretty solid case yet caved at the last moment.
I suspect that what happened is that someone decided that in order to collect ANY funds from the company, they had to settle. Otherwise, the defendants attorneys would have "used" up all the funds in an effort to defend the company leaving none for the "fines".
Attorneys have been known to obfuscate, delay and appeal cases all in the name of extending their own value, and thus, their fees.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Hopefully the financial losses were sufficient enough that they will think twice before doing something similar.
That being said, it doesn't really matter that most of the money involved ended up in the pockets of lawyers. As long as it hurt the perps, it was worth the effort.
I can fix that for you... (Score:5, Insightful)
RTFA! No Irony Ahead (Score:4, Informative)
They made false claims as to a limited time offer.
They provided free scans that resulted in a false-positives.
They offered upgrades to a "pro" version of a product that was essentially the same as already purchased.
Say what you want about over-regulation, but these guys seemed a perfect target for these type laws. Has nothing to do with their supposed status as anti-spyware vendor.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hmmm .. it appears that the offer is no longer available. It seems to have had a limit.
Just not the limit that the company intended ;-)
Penalties and Lawyers Fees? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Rouge anti-spyware (Score:2, Informative)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_software [wikipedia.org]
$750000. Damn, they some blood sucking lawyers!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
A communist plot to bilk people out of money.
Through capitalism.
OK, maybe not.
Um... maybe from a red state?
No, New York and Washington.
Hmm... maybe their marketing people wear make-up?
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-spyware company? (Score:2)
When you use spy-ware, malware to create a problem just so you can sell your product, you deserve to get smacked as hard as the law can allow (imo), how it is ironic when the company probably produced more spyware then it stopped.
Anti-spyware vendor... (Score:2)
- spams without opt-out
- offered fake discounts
- had deceptive popups, offering a free scan, that always, in every machine, report that the user had spyware.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Left out of article summary (Score:5, Informative)
"...their "Spyware Cleaner" product had, well, a couple of flaws: it didn't work well, it deleted a user's Hosts file after installation, and it tried to convince users to "upgrade" to another program that did essentially the same thing.
But it was the way that Spyware Cleaner was marketed that attracted the Attorney General's attention in the first place. The company allegedly spammed users to advertise its product, included deceptive subject lines, failed to include an opt-out mechanism, and suggested that the product was "discounted" for a "limited time," when in reality it was always available for the same price.
The dubious marketing tactics did not end there. Secure Computer also sold its product using pop-up ads which warned users that their computers might be infected with spyware, and it offered them a free system scan. The results of the scan were invariably positive. "Our investigation found that this so-called free scan always detected spyware, even on a clean computer," said Senior Counsel Paula Selis, who led the state investigation. "In order to remove this falsely detected spyware, users were instructed to pay $49.95 for the full version of Spyware Cleaner." It is illegal under Washington law to "induce a computer user to download software by falsely claiming the software is necessary for security purposes," she added.
Score system? (Score:2, Informative)
According to the post, it was scored 4 for being informative when it is comprised of nothing more then a cut/paste from the article, prefaced with a remark that attempts to point out the obvious. Don't get me wrong. I'm not slamming the poster here, but rather the scoring system.
Kudos, Slashdot, on an excellent scoring system.
(By the time some of you read this, it may have changed, dunno. But I can almost assure y
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Believe it or not, I was actually concerned about that.
I am one of those "fucked up in the head" people that realizes that there is a real person at the other end of every post.
Re: (Score:2)
No the irony is... (Score:3, Interesting)
"If I owned this place and Hell, I'd rent this place out and live in Hell."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Over about 1000 people, that averages out to $75 for what they paid $50 for.
they deserved it (Score:3, Funny)
Good Guys have to obey the law too (Score:1)
It's like saying it's ok for a sports hero or rap-music artist to drive drunk. Oh, wait.
Re: (Score:1)
This is pretty interesting (Score:1)
Broadening definitions (Score:2)
It reminds me of the way the term "computer virus" has expanded, at least in general use, to cover worms, trojans, and other sorts of malware that don't technically fall under the original definition. This has happened concurrently with antivirus programs expanding their mandate to cover various types of computer security threats.
Similarly, going the other way, you have "spam" incorporating email-based phishing attemp
State Attorney's Fees?!? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is that? They're taking the money from the spammer, so it's not like the taxpayer is paying twice. In fact, assuming that the attorney would submit a bill to the state (and thus the taxpayers), instead said bill will be subsidized by this spamming fake.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The money to pay those attorneys' salary (and other expenses incurred in the litigation) come out of taxpayer funded accounts. The award of attorneys' fees takes money from the wrongdoer and puts it back in those accounts, saving the taxpayers the expenses incurred in the litigation and allowing them (through their elected representatives) to use that money for other purposes.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The taxpayers have (directly or through their representatives) chosen to have certain wrongdoers pay them (the taxpayers) back for those salaries and other expenses in certain cases when the expenses are devoted to dealing with those wrongdoers' wrongdoing; essentially, this money will go to the state's general fund, to offset expenses (both personnel
What?! (Score:2)
Well, i think i fucked up good when i picked my career path.
No (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This is like a bullet proof vest maker shooting someone in the chest. No, wait, this is like a vest maker being shot in the chest, with his own gun, and then being thrown in a river. No wait...
My sympathy for them is near zero... (Score:3, Insightful)
Spammer or company spamming = all the same (Score:2, Insightful)
But it was the way that Spyware Cleaner was marketed that attracted the Attorney General's attention in the first place. The company allegedly spammed users to advertise its product, included deceptive subject lines, failed to include an opt-out mechanism, and suggested that the product was "discounted" for a "limited time," when in reality it was always available for the same price.
I`m *very* happy to see the government does not differentiate between spammers, and spammers acting as legitimate companies. To me it doesn't matter if it's your son delibatery sending me spam or your boss, you're all equally convicted of being jerks in my eyes, and I`m glad to see this court had the same point of view on this.
Is this opposite day? (Score:1)
I make a nice chunk of change removing crap from computers. Spyware 'Cleaner' is one of the piles. Just like all the other crap you get when you click a flashing ad that says "You're[sic] computer is infected...click here to clean it!"
This won't hurt a bit. (Score:1)
Moderating (Score:2)
How about just calling it 'Fraud'? (Score:2, Interesting)
wrong law (Score:2)
Washington resident (Score:1)
Stop posting. (Score:3, Informative)
Zonk. Stop posting shit.
Seriously what is this crap? "Washington Law Stops Anti-Spyware Vendor"? The vendor in question was FALSE MARKETING claiming machines were INFECTED when they were clean. It was throwing pop-ups in peoples' faces and everything. The SEC could shut these guys down, seriously. You might as well say "Built-In FTP Password Sniffer in Linux Kernel" and talk about the Linux Kernel sniffing FTP passwords and sending them offsite; there's actually an example code out there to explain what a rootkit is and demonstrate connection tracking, it's not part of vanilla Linux or any distro, and this would make great FUD. It'd be right along Zonk's line of posting too.
My suggestion is that Slashdot needs to throw Zonk out because his stories are all bullshit.
Re: (Score:1)
irony (Score:1)
I can't resist... (Score:2)
Well, to be fair, those clean computers were running Windows.
Lawyers and money (Score:2)
"Bottom Feeder", not "anti-spyware vendor" (Score:2)
These are the same companies responsible for those "Your computer is broadcastin
The Real Irony is... (Score:2)
>> That the Lawyer's fees are more than the fine and the restitution combined. It seems to me, that just going to court is penalty enough -- much more than if you are guilty of anything.
You just get into court hoping that you don't have to pay lawyers fees. They might as well just say; "anti up!"
"I'm going to b