Judge Halts Utah's Spyware Law 390
TheFarmerInTheDell writes "According to CNet News, a judge in Utah has granted an injunction to WhenU.com to temporarily halt the state's new anti-spyware law from going into effect. WhenU filed suit in April asking for an injunction, and this judge has decided that their claim of abridging their First Amendment Rights has enough merit to issue the injunction. What about our rights not to have to deal with this scumware?" (This previous post mentions Ben Edelman's research on WhenU and other spyware makers' activities.)
Free speech? (Score:5, Interesting)
So when does their 'right to free speech' end and my right to be left alone on my personal computer, in my private residence, begin?
Villianous Scum (Score:4, Interesting)
Great more money for me! (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm glad I have the work but also dislike having the need to do the work. I think alot of people of turning away from the internet because of all this spyware crap.
Re:Free speech? What about property rights (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Free speech? What about property rights (Score:3, Interesting)
As for free speech, their claim is that delivering context-based ads is speech, which seems kind of a stretch. I guess they must mean "free as in beer".
A matter of security (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never been comfortable working with unclassified (but potentially sensitive) data on a system that I know has spy-ware on it. It wouldn't be difficult for someone to collect sensitive data from those machines with spy- or mal-ware. A little side note here: it's possible to use information from unclassified documents to determine classified information.
Regardless of whether the system is military, government, or your own personal PC, I see spy- and mal-ware as a form of trespassing. Someone sneaking software onto your PC is no different than someone breaking into your house and stealing your drivers license, social security card, and other personal information. What these companies do has nothing to do with free speech.
While I hate spyware (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm probably going to be modded WAY down for this
I cannot 100% disagree with their position. If someone is foolish enough to click through the agreement and installs spyware, as repulsive as it is, who do they really have to blame except themselves? As long as they don't act like a virus and stealth install along with another program as some programs have been known to do, I don't see how you can complain. Basically, as long as they agree, they agreed. Are you going to sue MS for typing "format c:" and then losing your system?
I should mention that Hotbar is fresh in my memory from having to step my dad remotely through the painful removal process (no network access thanks to hotbar, sort of ironic;). However, the fact that is is painful, or even if it could not be removed at all, is not cause for legislation. Otherwise, I'd like MS to be the first victim. Ever try to uninstall an IE hotfix that causes problems? How about that "Outlook security fix"? Can't see your JPGs anymore? Tough. So, while I agree that Spyware sucks rocks, I don't think Utah's legislation is very well thought out or even correct.
I think a better law would actually address personal privacy. The more I think about it, the more I think I like the EU's privacy laws, and perhaps the US should step up to that level of privacy protection. (Be hell on advertisers, but who really gives a sh!t about them anyways?)
Hacking is free speech, too. (Score:5, Interesting)
Browser mods against spyware? (Score:5, Interesting)
Granted, no spyware company is going to pay attention to such things, but it might be useful if you participate in a class-action claim against such a company for installing damaging software on your system without your permission.
How bout third amendment? (Score:5, Interesting)
WRONG! (Score:1, Interesting)
2.No one may be the object of arbitrary or abusive interference with his private life, his family, his home, or his correspondence, or of unlawful attacks on his honor or reputation.
That means that spyware is abusing my rights. It interferes with my computer, which interferes with my correspondence, since the primary function of any computer is telecommunications.
Case closed.
I didn't think that
Legal question (Score:1, Interesting)
As an aside, what's with all the bad news coming out of Utah? First the whole SCO thing, then Orrin Hatch's corruption, now this?
North Korea (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Free speech? (Score:1, Interesting)
So you can take that 1st Amendment and shove it right up the spyware companies' collective asses.
How to convince the judge (Score:5, Interesting)
To simulate the trouble it can be to remove the crap from your system, slather some superglue on the backside before doing this, so that it'll be expensive and time consuming to remove and will cause damage that will also be expensive to fix.
I see NO difference between this and some of the more obnoxious spyware lately; they're both hijacking my property without my knowledge or consent in order to promote their own business interests.
Spyware Costs! (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:First Amendment Rights? (Score:3, Interesting)
(quoting part:)
Here's what happened. Santa Clara County in California was trying to levy a property tax against the Southern Pacific Railroad. The railroad gave numerous reasons why it shouldn't have to pay, one of which rested on the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause: the railroad was being held to a different standard than human taxpayers.
When the case reached the Supreme Court, Chief Justice Morrison Waite supposedly prefaced the proceedings by saying, "The Court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." In its published opinion, however, the court ducked the personhood issue, deciding the case on other grounds.
Then the court reporter, J.C. Bancroft Davis, stepped in. Although the title makes him sound like a mere clerk, the court reporter is an important official who digests dense rulings and summarizes key findings in published "headnotes." (Davis had already had a long career in public service, and at one point was president of the board of directors for the Newburgh & New York Railroad Company.) In a letter, Davis asked Waite whether he could include the latter's courtroom comment--which would ordinarily never see print--in the headnotes. Waite gave an ambivalent response that Davis took as a yes. Eureka, instant landmark ruling.
For what it's worth, this is exactly the kind of case that could get back to the S.C. to force this issue, as one could also argue 'Fine, you have free speech rights but this is trespassing and you should be jailed'. I wouldn't have much hope with a consumer-favorable result with the current administration though.
DNS (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Spyware Costs! (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Free speech? (Score:4, Interesting)
"If the software spies or spams you without telling you honestly that it's doing so, you have a remedy in the form of existing laws against fraud or the like -- or possibly new laws that more narrowly target deceptive software."
Oh really? Have you read about anyone successfully pursuing this? These cases don't even make it to court. The laws on fraud, for some strange reason, don't apply here. Try telling a lawyer that you want to sue a company because they installed software on your computer without your consent, and they are going to laugh at you.
Now, don't get me wrong. What you said is valid in theory. However, the execution of these laws is very, very poor.
Ultimate example of (Score:3, Interesting)
1) If the malware/spyware does not tell you what it does, then you have a fraud case. No need for additional laws here.
2) If the malware/spyware does tell you, and you do not pay attention to the agreement, then it is the users fault.
The problem is with #2. Is it realistic to expect users to read these long contracts? Maybe, maybe not. Since normal everyday software now includes EULAs, people are used to ignoring them. THIS is what needs to be decided -- is it legal to bury this information in a multi-page EULA?
But I have a quick solution! Users should refuse to install applications that have EULAs. If every mom and pop called Microsoft or Dell or HP or Symantec when they saw an EULA, EULAs would be gone. *poof*
Unfortunately, this is where the consumers become sheep. They don't like malware, but they don't want to stand up to Microsoft either. So they have dug themselves a hole, and now they want the government to dig them out.
Re:First Ammendment Rights (Score:1, Interesting)
But you have no right to make me listen to you.
And if I am sitting at home, I certainly have the right to stop you sneaking in to harangue me.
So fuck off.
Anti-Spyware Proxy (Score:3, Interesting)
For the usual stuff like doubleclick it could for example generate nice, useless cookies with random ID's. For all the install-stuff it could just screw up the content a bit.
This would give those bastards the traffic they asked for but without the option to put it to commercial use