Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Microsoft Helps Write Oklahoma's Anti-Spyware Law

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Tue Apr 11, 2006 01:03 PM
from the things-not-to-farm-out dept.
Microsoft Privacy
groovy.ambuj writes "The Inquirer reports that Microsoft has developed Oklahoma's 'Computer Spyware protection Act'. The law will supposedly protect people from unwarranted hackers or virus attacks and can fine individuals up to $1M who are found guilty of breaking into a computer without the owners knowledge. At the same time, it also allows some of the better known capable companies to 'look' into your computer for possible virus/spyware and fix the problem without informing you. And, while these friends are doing their job, they can also take the moment to do other things. "
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Slashback: Oklahoma Spyware, FSF DRM, Lenovo Linux 135 comments
Slashback tonight brings some corrections, clarifications, and updates to previous Slashdot stories including Oklahoma's Spyware Bill dies a quiet death, Lenovo denies ditching Linux, Mars rover escapes again, RIM CEO speaks out against unlimited wireless, Microsoft LiveMail gets ads, FSF anti-DRM campaign expands, and AT&T calls Wired to task over leaked documents -- Read on for details.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Microsoft Helps Write Oklahoma's Anti-Spyware Law 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Be afraid... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:05PM (#15107291) Journal
    be very afraid

    • Who mod'ed that "troll"? (Score:5, Informative)

      by khasim (1285) <brandioch.conner@gmail.com> on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:15PM (#15107376)
      From TFA:
      Now because Microsoft knows that it sometimes need to get information from their users for upgrades, it has put in a clause to allow software companies to do this. Basically the Vole law demands that a software company licence agreement tells you the sort of data they are taking.

      The problem is that if you agree, you give the company you bought upgradable software the freedom to come onto your computer for "detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of or fraudulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network, service, or computer software, including scanning for and removing computer software prescribed under this act."

      In other words if you install Vista, Microsoft can come in, snoop around your computer see if you are doing anything illegal and delete it.
      That certainly sounds like people should be opposed to this "law".
      • That's scarey, not only will Microsoft be able to snoop inside my computer and install stuff, but those who always hack Microsoft programs will be able to do the same. Plus how will Microsoft know whats good for my computer. I'm running a certain version of Adobe Premiere on my Win2K machine. It runs fine as long as I keep it on SP2. If I upgrade the service pack, I unleash a whole new set of bugs that cause Premiere to act the fool. What if Microsoft decides it's about time I upgraded to SP4 and they scre

        • Re:Who mod'ed that "troll"? (Score:4, Informative)

          by gurumeditationerror (631201) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:04PM (#15108323) Homepage

          That's scarey, not only will Microsoft be able to snoop inside my computer and install stuff, but those who always hack Microsoft programs will be able to do the same.

          Simple solution: Don't use Microsoft software.

          Plus how will Microsoft know whats good for my computer.

          Knowing what is good for your computer is not so much the concern but MS deciding what's good for your computer is.
          Again: Don't use Microsoft software.

          I'm running a certain version of Adobe Premiere on my Win2K machine. It runs fine as long as I keep it on SP2. If I upgrade the service pack, I unleash a whole new set of bugs that cause Premiere to act the fool. What if Microsoft decides it's about time I upgraded to SP4 and they screw up my stuff?

          Simple solution: Don't use Microsoft software.

      • Re:Who mod'ed that "troll"? (Score:4, Informative)

        by johndiii (229824) * <johndiii&amilost,com> on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:31PM (#15108029) Journal
        One would think that people would oppose it (text of the bill (RTF document) [state.ok.us]). But... It has passed, or is under consideration, in other states [ncsl.org]. Microsoft is not the sole originator, but a group called the American Legislative Exchange Council [alec.org]. It supposedly "...advances the Jeffersonian principles of free markets, limited government, federalism and individual liberty...", but actually seems more interested in making corporate policy into state law.

        The Microsoft campaign contributions mentioned in the article (a slightly more readable version) [altweeklies.com] are also worth noting.
        • What you just said is exactly true, however it's not the complete extent of what's allowed. There's nothing in the bill that limits what Microsoft (or Norton, or whomever) can detect and delete from your computer, provided that it's illegal. The excuse is to allow them to delete spyware, but it just as easily allows them to do you the "service" of removing any unlicensed software you have on your computer.

          The intent of a law and what it actually allows are often totally separate things.
          • "The intent of a law and what it actually allows are often totally separate things."

            True, and:

            The stated intent of a law and the true intent of a law are often totally separate things.

            Another statement for your consideration.

            all the best,

            drew
            ---
            http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924 [ourmedia.org]
            Some Bahamian Nonsense

            • Well, not that I'm a lawyer or a lawmaker, but something to the effect of:

              Providers of a product or service may connect to a computer at the owner's request. If the connections will occur at the user's request, the program must inform the user what steps will be taken, and give the user the option to deny the connection. If the connection will be automated, the program must, at installation, provide a clear and complete accounting of what will be done at each connection, and to the extent technically feas

    • Remember...the State of Oklahoma was created by Congress; whereas it can't legislate to Oklahoma because it is a state already created by the people; thereby, Congress can't create a state within a state unless by Admiralty jurisidiction (libel) to say our (the people's) Oklahoma is a Territory under the US Constititution. This brings in many presumptions whereas this Oklahoma (not-confederated several states of the people) are not a part of that OKLAHOMA (a federal State upon the dejure state known as Okl

  • So Linux and OS X will be defined as spyware? (Score:5, Funny)

    by fdrebin (846000) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:06PM (#15107292)
    Wouldn't suprise me none...

    /F

    • Well, this is Oklahoma, and it seems that CentOS is already a virus or hacker tool of some kind there...

    • Without consequence. It's not funny. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by twitter (104583) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:31PM (#15108541) Homepage Journal
      FTFA:

      if you have, say, a pirated copy of Excel Microsoft (or companies with similar software) can erase it, or anything else they want to erase, and not be held liable for it.

      This is Bill's dream come true. They have already granted themselves this power in their EULAs. This law gives them unambiguous rights to carry out that EULA. So yes, they can "update" your boot loader, load your free software with keyloggers and spyware, wipe partitions and do what ever they want.

      More ominously:

      Additionally, that phrase fraudulent or other illegal activities means they can ... Let the local district attorney know ... [about whatever they find or think they find on your computer].

      About the only thing worse than M$ having run of your computer would be M$ law enforcement. I predict a wave of bogus reports designed to harass people Bill does not like. We can only hope that law enforcement has the good sense to distrust such an obviously interested party.

  • Big Brother, nothing we can do? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Komarechka (967622) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:06PM (#15107297) Homepage
    When then pen it into law that companies can look inside of out machine to "fix" problems, does that mean it is illegal to prevent them from doing so?

    • Re:Big Brother, nothing we can do? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by TomTraynor (82129) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:13PM (#15107360) Homepage
      Unless it is written into the law that you cannot prevent them from going in then it is allowed. Hopefully someone will get the lawmakers a clue bat and let them know that a third party has complete access to all of the lawmakers private and confidential information on their computers. The third party won't even need to be security cleared, that third party can grab anything and do anything without letting the person know.

  • Just great. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Rob T Firefly (844560) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:09PM (#15107325) Homepage Journal
    In other news, Charles Manson has produced a flawless plan for the public to avoid being murdered by crazed serial killers, relying heavily on letting him murder you before any "really bad people" can.

    • Re:Just great. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by timeOday (582209) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:31PM (#15107504)
      Not exactly. From my reading of the article, this law doesn't legalize anything that's illegal today. It says, "no spying, except for these loopholes." Now, we can (and probably should) complain about the loopholes, but don't forget that right now there are no loopholes, because there is no law - whatever's in the fine print, goes. This law would prevent most companies from doing whatever they want simply by hiding legalize in the fine print, as they do now. The only catch is, certain companies (such as Microsoft, not surprisingly) can keep writing arbitrary EULAs wherein you "grant" them permission to do whatever they want.

      • As an Oklahoman, I can assure you that there are not nearly as many savvy users here as are needed to "complain about the loopholes". The best bet is to not run the software that allows the loopholes to be exercised. That is a choice any Oklahoman can make.

  • And this probably includes a lucrative contract to implement Microsoft' new ActiveX based anti-spyware tool...

  • obligatory... (Score:5, Funny)

    by revery (456516) * <.charles. .at. .cac2.net.> on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:13PM (#15107358) Homepage
    Clippy: It looks like you are writing a state law, do you mind if I insert Microsoft-friendly boilerplate?

    [User clicks no.]

    Clippy: Congratulations, your document has been modified and submitted for sponsorship and ultimately passage by Microsoft-owned employees... err shills... err statesmen... Thank you for using Microsoft Word. (Also, we'll keep that private folder between you and me, ok? It'd be a shame for the attorney general to see that...) Have a nice day! You poor little sheep... HA HA HA HA HA!

  • Hmmm... On one hand... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ursabear (818651) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:14PM (#15107365) Homepage Journal
    My Pavlovian [wikipedia.org] reaction was, "OhhhhhhhhNNNNNNNNNNNNNNooooooooooooooooo!"

    Now that the bell has rung, my kibbles are ingested, and I feel better...
    If you were a state agency and needed security expertise, where would you go to get the information you need (to write a law/rule/proposition/etc. that is based on highly technical stuff)? Would you go to a security firm? Would you go to the local IT management firm? Would you go to a support shop like Geeks 'r' Us?

    A little voice inside my head (yes, I have those sometimes - be afraid) says that something inside the law may be done to tilt things Microsoft's way - but I don't know that Microsoft would be such a bad partner (all feelings of MSHatred(tm) aside - just looking at it as a business).

  • Will Tuttle have any input? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Snap E Tom (128447) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:14PM (#15107366)
    Heh. Because if they do, I'll bet Apache and CentOS gets listed as spyware.

  • clause for defective OS liability? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by potus98 (741836) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:15PM (#15107373) Journal

    Perhaps the Act should be expanded to include liability for companies that offer operating systems with poorly designed security that permit (some of) such problems in the first place. Sure, users are responsable when they flip their car off the road, but auto-makers are still liable when they manufacture a vehicle with inherintly weak suspension arms.

  • R-Edmond?? (Score:3, Funny)

    by jomegat (706411) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:15PM (#15107377)
    Clearly, Jolley is not the only legislator who could be described as "R-Edmond".
  • Why in the HELL would you let Microsoft or any other company PERIOD to write or even assist in the writing of a law like this. All Im saying is that they wrote the law to protect the computer from all illegal activites but give them and every other company free reign on your machine. Thats NEVER good! What kind of dumbass do you need to be to see this is a positive thing?

  • could be worse (Score:4, Funny)

    by rbochan (827946) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:17PM (#15107403) Homepage
    A local village idiot [slashdot.org] could have written it.


  • The law will supposedly protect people from unwarranted hackers or virus attacks...

    Aside from laws being merely an extension of a socially acceptable psychological deterrent with provisions for those we deem "law enforcers" (which should have a more describing name of their true nature), laws of this type really do nothing.

    That and the fact that Microsoft has helped to write it is a step in the right direction, one of being guided by a technologically aware firm, but I don't think MS should be the ones to

  • Unusual punishment? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ehiris (214677) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:29PM (#15107491) Homepage
    Is this law unconstitutional? 1 Million dollars for breaking into just any computer seems pretty steep.

    It should be cheaper to fend off some REAL bad people that the authorities can't get around to catch.

  • OK (Score:4, Insightful)

    by hackstraw (262471) * on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:32PM (#15107510) Homepage
    1) What does MS know about preventing spyware aside from charging extra for it in an upcoming newly released service?

    2) $1mil fine is not sufficient. Its still very profitable to break into a computer and steal over a million dollars worth of information.

    From the real FA [okgazette.com] that does not allow copy and pasting from their website via a DRM like mechanism, documented here:


    * Disable select-text script- © Dynamic Drive (www.dynamicdrive.com)
    * This notice MUST stay intact for legal use
    * Visit http://www.dynamicdrive.com/ [dynamicdrive.com] for full source code
    */

    I can still grab the text via the source, so here's the gem:

    If you click that "accept" button on the routine user's agreement, the proposed law would allow any company from whom you bought upgradable software the freedom to come onto your computer for "detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of or fraudulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network, service, or computer software, including scanning for and removing computer software prescribed under this act."

    So, all you have to do is ask the user to install spyware. Shouldn't be too tough.

    Good law!

  • Hmmm, foxes guarding hen houses comes to mind. But in all fairness, it is still a good thing that Microsoft is involved and in a way shows a sense of responsibility. I can only hope that the baser aspects of human nature won't raise their ugly heads here later.
  • "This legislation is brought to you by Microsoft(TM)". Happy democracy(TM) and freedom(TM)...
  • The next thing you know, Microsoft will be writing Evolution into Oklahoma law, too. [msn.com]
    This could be the onset of a new great age of enlightenment, OK?

  • =oO= (Score:5, Insightful)

    by qeveren (318805) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @01:42PM (#15107574) Homepage
    Section 6 of the act says such a prohibition "shall not apply" to "telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider or provider of information service."

    So... the law doesn't even apply to spyware, since companies that produce spyware are technically "software providers or providers of information service", no?

  • Big Brother is watching.......and Big uncle-in-law (Score:4, Informative)

    by Drinkgreen (964785) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:08PM (#15107799)
    For those of you unaware, Oklahomans are allowed to look at "special" pornography. "Special", meaning no penetration or ejaculation in our magazines, skin-a-max, or anything. Its hard as hell to find a total nude strip club in this state. Neighboring states already know this, such as Texas. When you travel south from Oklahoma, into Texas, the first thing you see (even before the "Welcome To Texas" sign) is a little building with a giant XXX sign. We Oklahoman's know when we've left the state, because all the porno shops appear.

    I'm glad about this spyware law, but I think its just more about getting to see what's on user's computers , legally. The Anti-Spyware law is just a front. Oklahoma has been wanting to be able to monitor people for a long time. Which I understand on one hand, but also kind of sucks. I mean, our porn sucks anyway, but now we have to worry about someone watching us visit "non-Oklahoma" approved sites.

  • Meh... (Score:3, Informative)

    by duffstone (946343) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:28PM (#15108002) Homepage
    Not everyone in Oklahoma is a retard... Unfortunately the majority rules. :-\

    Hell, I'd bet that half of our politicians would pay handily to work with a corporation such as Microsoft just so they can get a nice little blurb in a national paper that they can give their grandkids... Life in rural America is uneventful at best. Something like this is what makes people feel important. Even if they don't see the greater evil in their actions... You can't blame them; they simply don't know any better...

    -Duff

    P.S. I've lived in Oklahoma my whole life so I can criticize all I want.
  • Hmmm... the / intro says:

    "unwarranted hackers or virus attacks..."

    Are there such things as "warranted hackers or virus attacks"?

  • This is legalizing spyware! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Opportunist (166417) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @03:24PM (#15108485)
    Think about it for a moment. If I got that right (a lawyer might clarify the details), when I write some software that requires "updates", I am allowed to sniff in your computer when you agreed first to use my software.

    This means, though, that if I write a, say, download manager, that installs sniffing software that phones home (hey, it's just updating itself, after all it has to update the ad-pages I pop in your face!), this actually becomes legal. I could harvest whatever information I want from your machine, and it is legal. If you should dare to install an ad-blocker, I'll remove it (legally), because it interferes with the operation of my adware ridden spyware.

    Nice to know. Time to open some software company in Oklahoma.
    • Perhaps because it is one of the redest of the red states, so if you can bribe republicans there, they still don't have to worry about losing an election. You could probably perform vivisections on babies and still be re-elected there as a republican.

    • Re:Why (Score:4, Interesting)

      by tompaulco (629533) on Tuesday April 11 2006, @02:22PM (#15107942) Homepage Journal
      Why Oklahoma?
      Because Oklahoma is trying like mad to become a progressive state. I live in Oklahoma, and the state definitely has a stigma of being unimportant, stuck in the past, backwoods, you name it. Even our local radio jockeys often quip "Welcome to Oklahoma, please set your watch back 50 years". However, the government in Oklahoma is attempting to make the state more mainstream. Even though many Oklahoma businesses have no web presence, the state has built web site portals to create at least some web presence for practically any business in Oklahoma. Oklahoma was the first state to regulate medicines that were being used to make methamphetamines. Oklahoma doles out big incentives to companies like Dell to bring high tech industry into the state. I can't say I'm crazy about them choosing Microsoft as a partner, but at least the state is doing something constructive.

    • wrong (Score:3, Interesting)

      by c6gunner (950153)
      The 4th amendmend applies to the government, not to private individuals or corporations. Why do people keep getting that wrong? The constitution DOES NOT place ANY restrictions on the actions of individuals or businesses.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.