Top Web Businesses Oppose Utah Spyware Law 289
theodp writes "According to MediaPost.com: 'Some of the Web's leading content and technology providers have taken action to lobby against Utah's controversial Spyware Control Act, which is awaiting the governor's signature. Web publishers and businesses including AOL, Amazon, Cnet, eBay, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! signed a letter to the bill's sponsors arguing that the bill could create serious repercussions for the entire online community. The parties to the letter warned that the bill could interfere with computer security and would also impair the delivery of local, targeted ads'."
Claria (Score:4, Informative)
What are they smoking? Claria is spyware [com.com].
Re:Politicians and technology, again. (Score:5, Informative)
People dont realize how epidemic this is in American politics. The politicians often don't even write the laws, they _literally_ allow companies to write the laws, and simply sign what they are given into law.
It even got to the point where laws are copyrighted, and one had to pay hundreds of dollars simply for a copy of the law. Someone posted a copy of the law online and was met with copyright complaints.
see here. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
of course, they eventually found in Veeck's favor, http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-40
heres a slashdot article on it:
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/05/13/1921223.sht
I could also post a flurry of links regarding American fore-father's worries about the growing strength of "company" and to watch out for its influence on the government, but that would be preaching to the choir.
Re:Politicians and technology, again. (Score:5, Informative)
"For the reasons discussed above, we REVERSE the district court's judgment against Peter Veeck, and REMAND with instructions to dismiss SBCCI's claims."
Re:Utah has done this before (Score:5, Informative)
The problem is, there were hundreds of bills that needed to be debated, and so each individual bill gets little debate time. When a technology bill comes up, the attitude they all have is "Well...I really don't know what it means. However, I have to vote on it. If nobody else raises any serious objections, I'll assume its a good bill." This bill didn't have any serious objections, and so it was quickly passed.
On a side note, the anti-UTOPIA bill was written almost solely by Qwest to kill the fiber optic plan. The bill survived the first few legal hurdles before some representatives started to actively question the bill and how it was designed by Qwest solely to kill competition. Then representatives drastically amended the bill for the better.
Re:Yes, well... (Score:4, Informative)
Here's a hint, though - a changed WWW prefix to ehttp.cc. CoolWebSearch.
Re:Let me control my own computer! (Score:2, Informative)
It is your computer, bought and paid for.
As for the software, you're simply leasing a copy of it. You don't buy it. What you're purchasing is the distribution media and a license to use the software. (Which license, by the way, can be revoked at any time, according to many software companies terms of use.)
Your bandwidth is likewise leased, unless you happen to buy and bury the cable yourself, and even then you have to connect *somewhere*.
Re:Let me control my own computer! (Score:3, Informative)
Basically the law says you can't sell Drain-O at a lemonade stand, not that you can't drink it on your own if you want to.
Re:[OffTopic]Re:If you think that... (Score:3, Informative)
At the time, there was very little difference between civilian and military firearms. To be logically consistant would require the government to end all gun control laws...
I wonder how many people read the legislation? (Score:2, Informative)
I hate ads as much as most people, but I know of people who do actually use this stuff on purpose - they're also the type of people who collect coupons etc. Should it be illegal for them to install software to look up cheaper/better alternatives?
It seems to me that this is more about a company trying to protect is business models than about consumer interest or spyware/adware/etc.
Re:[OffTopic]Re:If you think that... (Score:2, Informative)
The problem is most anti gun laws make restrictions were there should be none. I can understand not having a convicted criminal posessing guns but an underlying freedom in this country is the ability to have firearms. when someone starts saying you don't need a gunn like that they are effectivly saying you don't need the freedom or types of freedom that i don't agree with.
The gun has always been a symbol (in the U.S.) of somethign that guarenties freedom. Reguardless of it's perceived value of a couple of gun toting citizens being able to save our freedom from a military so technically advanced, the actual value of such a hypothetical situation being attacked is often construed as an attack on ones ability to keep thier freedom.
It is still an asault on that freedom when you can only be free if you obey my will. I, for one, am just as disapointed in the attacks on other freedoms we hold dear. Bush and co as you put it, is stretching the limits of your freedom in the name of peace. I am disapointed as the next person but i think the gun laws are a more important issue and historically the liberals are more likley to take that away from you.