Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
United States Your Rights Online

House Passes Spyware Bills 226

Posted by samzenpus from the listen-to-the-law dept.
stinerman writes "Today the house passed two bills aimed at stopping spyware / adware and unauthorized use of computers. H.R. 29 makes it 'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices'. H.R. 744 (I-SPY Act) prohibits accessing a protected system via code copied on to the system to, among other things, disseminate personal information. Both bills sailed through the house and are expected to be passed by the Senate."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House Passes Spyware Bills More

House Passes Spyware Bills

Comments Filter:

  • Phew! (Score:5, Funny)

    by CommunistTroll ( 544327 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @05:51AM (#12621622) Homepage
    I was beginning to be worried about spyware, but now that Congress has stepped up to the plate all my worries are over!

    There'll be no more spyware by Christmas, let me tell you.

    • But... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by CountBrass ( 590228 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:20AM (#12621714)

      Is this really something that government should be legislating at all?

      It let's both ignorant users (whom I can forgive) but also Microsoft (whom I can't) off the hook. Rather than having to secure their systems/fix fundamental security flaws in their OS and applications they can just hide behind this new law: "It's not our fault we didn't do anything wrong, they broke the law!"

      • Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Dr.Opveter ( 806649 )
        The law in my country says people are not supposed to break into my house but that doesn't mean i don't lock the door..

        • Re:But... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by advocate_one ( 662832 )
          almost right... Think of the thieves as the spyware makers, Microsoft as the builders of your house, and you as the occupant...

          Now my insurance policy requires me to have secure locks on the doors and windows from a list of approved types, the builders of my house actually installed good locks and latches which actually were on the list... now it's up to me to actually use the locks and latches... if I do and thieves still break in, then I'm covered by my insurance, if I failed to secure a door or window a

          • Re:But... (Score:2, Troll)

            by tha_mink ( 518151 )
            Seriously, that is a horrible analogy. I love Linux but c'mon Linux would suck just a badly and there would be just as much malware if the whole world was using it.
            • I was about to mod you troll, but I stopped. The parent didn't even mention Linux, therefor you are trolling by trying to imply that he was saying Linux was better. I noticed you are base +1 so I figured I'd give you the benifit of the doupt.

              It really isn't a horrible analogy, there are some bad lock systems in place in Microsofts products. But the worst part is most spyware/junk gets through by the users letting them in.
              No product can stop this, just as no security system can stop your from opening the do
          • They've built your house with a fancy, and entirely unnecessary, house automation and remote control system. The locks are wired into this, and you discover that replacing the locks with secure ones disables the lights and interior doors.

            Ever tried running Windows under "Restricted User"? I did. Even with mostly reputable, well behaved apps it's a PITA. Introduce a user who needs the odd browser plug-in and small custom software vendor tool, and you're screwed. Almostnt nothings sets correct registry permi

          • MS Home sales pitch (Score:4, Funny)

            by Aumaden ( 598628 ) <Devon...C...Miller@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @10:51AM (#12623414) Journal
            Let's drop in on an MS House sale in progress:
            Luser: Hey, what's this hole in the side of my house?

            MS: That's our new invention! We call it a "door way". It lets you enter and leave your house!

            Luser: And lets anyone walk right in and nick my telly!

            MS: (smiling) Not to fear! We care about your security! That's why we offer MS House Professional! When you upgrade to MS House Pro, you get a device that closes the hol..., er, "door way", and protects your stuff! We call it... the "Door"! Juse close the "Door" and your MS House Pro is safe and secure!

            Luser: That sounds all well and good, but what happens if someone walks up and opens my "Door"?

            MS: <blink><blink>

            • Luser: That sounds all well and good, but what happens if someone walks up and opens my "Door"?

              MS:

              Linux: Don't buy a house from this man! You need a secure entry and exit system! Our house plans are completely free, and there are plenty of liscensed contractors that can build one for you at a very reasonable price! Plus, it doesn't come with a door unless you ask for one - which, incidentally, I wouldn't! Thieves can get in, after all.

              Luser: So... how do I get in?

              Linux: We have two cannon-powered one-

      • Re:But... (Score:4, Interesting)

        by takeya ( 825259 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:42AM (#12621786) Journal
        I agree, like it or not, this is not really something the government has been delegated the right to have a say in by the people.

        Slashdot is too full of narrow-sighted people who will say the same things I just did about acts like REAL ID, but fail to realize that legislating computer software is also not within their rights. The 10th amendment is always my favorite defense, but nobody really cares about the Bill of Rights anymore and it's sad.

        • Re:But... (Score:2, Insightful)

          by smchris ( 464899 )
          Sounds like you're still in that Reagan era mentality that anything government does is evil (Real ID) and everything business does is good (Spyware). Which Right in the Bill protects spyware? You think it is freedom of speech?

          Both Real ID and spyware are invasions of the target's liberty and security.

          • Re:But... (Score:4, Insightful)

            by Winkhorst ( 743546 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @07:55AM (#12622001)
            Under this theory of free speech, I have the right to stand over your bed at midnight and give you my opinion on current affairs. I also have a right to privacy, and that includes a bunch of hax0rs breaking into my computer and turning it into a zombie or some moron corporation trying to sell me exactly what I just bought from them. No, free speech does not include the right to be heard.
          • The more you allow yourself to be governed by others, the less you are free. Remember that when we are all bowing to corporations who have completely purchased our government.

          • Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)

            by Dannon ( 142147 )
            Takea specifically mentioned the 10th amendment. That is, the part of the Constitution that says that every business not specifically mentioned in the Constitution is up to the States or locals to figure out, and the Feds have no business sticking their schnoz in it. Trespassing isn't something you go to the Feds for, nor is simple theft, etc, etc.

            Now my two bits: I see spyware as an act of trespass. My computer is my private property, as much as my house. My computer and my house are both extensions of my
        • Yes, its sad that the original Bill of Rights is so often ignored, at least until the more gross violations get to the Supremes.

          Me, I tend to have faith in the 1st and 2nd. If they're honored, then the other 8 will have a long term tendency to fall into line.

          Right here and now, I'm exersizing the 1st, my right to make a statement. We have had that for so long now, that attempts to limit it, are, including the recent "campaign finance reform" that took away over 5 million voters rights to say how they fe

      • Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)

        by dnoyeb ( 547705 )
        My mother is not an ignorant user. She is legally blind. I am sick and tired of cleaning this insidious shit off her computer every 2 week. Yes there is firewall, yes I run spy wear cleaners, yes I have anti-virus installed...

        She can't see these things that pop up in small corners at times. Or can't be arsed to read them considering how long it would take her away from something thats already going to take her a while to get done.

        MS on the other hand should be ashamed of itself. Crap ass browser lett
        • I completely agree. My sisters are handycapped and have the same issue with their computers. They'll agree to anything. My mom, thats a different story but she's starting to learn.

          Microsoft should be part of this issue. With the ability to add plugins automatically, users should be able to remove those and turn off the autoinstall feature. I doubt this will be in the next release of windows and it sure as hell won't be in any upgrades to IE anytime soon - too much money to gain by having people buy the new

        • Re:But... (Score:3, Informative)

          by michrech ( 468134 )
          Obviously you have never heard of hijackthis. It should not be used by someone who has no idea what they are doing, but it *does* remove BHO's quite nicely.

          Along with Ad-Aware, it is quite effective.

          ---
          Read my Journal [slashdot.org]
          • espescially in safe mode. Only ones it doesn't remove are the truly insidious things that embed themselves into the Windows startup chain, such as that sod that tells the registry to run asdfasdf.exe instead of winlogon.exe.

        • Re:But... (Score:3, Funny)

          by Wordsmith ( 183749 )
          Tell her to stop reading those braille porn sites.
        • Instead of complaing about MS, you should just use a different OS product. Linux, MacOS, Solaris,...
          • Shes already blind. She would have to learn _how_ to use linux. And no console either. Plus we would need a screen reader package. i have investigated and see that there is an available screen reader but I have not tested it.

            If I choose Linux I effectively become the developer and have to learn every single package and help her to use them. I just got no time... While there are packages we have found that work on windows, and that took several years too.
      • Such behavior is illegal under at least trespassing and theft of services laws. Had the courts merely shown common sense and run over the first miscreants with a large truck, a lot less of it would be going on.

  • Spyware with permission? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Kinky Bass Junk ( 880011 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @05:51AM (#12621623)
    What about spyware that asks permission before it installs, like Gator and all that. Is that sorta thing covered in this?
    • I imagine it would be if it asks for permission to do so explicitly

    • Re:Spyware with permission? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NickFortune ( 613926 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:02AM (#12621657) Homepage Journal
      I suppose it's going to come down to what the courts deem as authorisation and deception. Disclaimer: IANAL, I have not yet RTFL.

      I'd expect not for things like Gator, since that would be "authorised" access to your computer, with you authorising it. Spyware that comes bundled with other code could sneak past by havting the authorisation burined in the bundling software licence agreement.

      On the bright side, it should make the covert installation of spy/malware from a web page illegal. Or maybe more illegal. Of course, those who argue that web page access entails an implicit social contract are likely to feel they have been granted all the authority they need.

      I'd guess it needs to be tested in the courts before we can tell wether this is going to be a CAN-SPY bill or not.

    • Most of the spyware I've seen is legal. They just use tricks to make you agree ("press ok button to get pr0n videos" and then in a small box a contract or whatever saying "if you press ok you agree with...")

      Lots of spyware is installed by installing programs that bundle spyware with them. Kazza, divx, etc. People just press "OK, OK, Next, OK" even in the license field. Cookies are used sometimes as a spyware too. This bill is not going to change anything for those.

      • ``then in a small box a contract or whatever saying 'if you press ok you agree with...'''

        Oh, yes. The popular view window that Windows love using that allows you to look at a 1,200 line file three lines at a time. Everyone, and I mean everyone, just loves that. After encountering one of those, does anyone actually spend time wondering why people merely click through without reading the effing EULA? Not that a resizable window would cause everyone to thoroughly read the legalese but it would at least m

  • Unenforceable? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Dancin_Santa ( 265275 ) <DancinSanta@gmail.com> on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @05:55AM (#12621633) Journal
    This is a great step, if only in spirit.

    When the spammers and spyware makers start getting fined and sent to jail I think we'll have something to crow about.

    Until then, it's just a feelgood law.

  • The term 'spyware' has fuzzy definition (Score:4, Insightful)

    by guyfromindia ( 812078 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @05:55AM (#12621635) Homepage
    http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1788844,00.as p [eweek.com] According to this article, leading anti-spyware vendors are working with the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology to develop guidelines for defining spyware.
    When the very definition of spyware is hanging in balance, I dont see how they can strictly enforce the law.
    My 2c.
    • " H.R. 29 makes it 'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices' && H.R. 744 (I-SPY Act) prohibits accessing a protected system via code copied on to the system to, among other things, disseminate personal information."

      I think that pretty much covers what is defined under the bill , These companys can try to rename it all they want ,But if it falls under these classifcations (read the bill for more clarity) then its illegal(well will be when the bill passes)
    • A spyware maker's defense:

      "Thats not spyware! Since they have visited my website they are my customers and thus I therefore have their expressed permissions to install software on their computers to be able to send targeted promotions to them. "

  • What's the catch? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by __aaclcg7560 ( 824291 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:00AM (#12621650)
    I wouldn't be surprised that if you allowed one piece of spyware to be installed, it would be automatically assumed that you want more spyware installed. It's like getting married to one person and finding out that all the in-laws are moving into your new place with you.
  • Any chance this law bans TCPA too by accident?

  • Unintended consquences (Score:5, Interesting)

    by lotussuper7 ( 134496 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:07AM (#12621677) Homepage
    Well, I'm not the legal wizard, but the first thing I thought about was will these bills have unintended consequences like the DMCA?

    I'm sure that Congress-critters didn't intend companies using the DMCA as an agressive legal weapon it has become.

    What twists will these bill's be given to turn them into tools for the harassment of honest people?

  • First Steps... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by kf6auf ( 719514 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:10AM (#12621685)

    The problem with first steps (whether it be Congress's legislation or international treaties) is that because it's a first step and getting agreement it hard enough they can't accomplish very much and, yet, after the first step has been taken no one feels the need to take another step. My guess is that this legislation is too weak to accomplish anything and nothing will really be done until it becomes a big enough problem that the politicians can't say that they worked on it and are waiting for it to take effect or some BS like that.

    Now if they had only made it part of the DMCA, then we would get some quality legal action going by the **AA and we might actually solve the problem.

    • Insightful? Why would the RIAA/MPAA care if someone's installing spyware on your computer?

      This act makes it clear that the Federal Trade Commission is to see spyware as a clear violation on the prohibition against deceptive trade practices. Does just mentioning the DMCA and **AA get you an Insightful mod these days, no matter how far off-topic you are?

  • what about m$ (Score:3, Interesting)

    by William Robinson ( 875390 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:14AM (#12621696)
    "H.R. 29 makes it 'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices' && H.R. 744 (I-SPY Act) prohibits accessing a protected system via code copied on to the system to, among other things, disseminate personal information."

    Does it prevent M$ from collecting info from your PC?

  • Protected computers? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Lihtan ( 803863 )
    I have a feeling that the thousands of ignorant users that don't run a firewall or even bother with security updates aren't going to be considered "protected computers". *Sigh*

  • I'm no lawyer but... (Score:5, Informative)

    by ZeroTrace ( 594778 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:16AM (#12621707)
    US Code Title 18 Section 1030e: (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer-- (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States; This doesn't protect anybody but the government... Back to the drawing board I guess.
    • If you post to slashdot from a computer which is in another state or country, then AFAICS you are doing interstate or foreign communication. The same applies if you exchange email with someone in another state or country. However IANAL.

    • Re:I'm no lawyer but... (Score:5, Informative)

      by hhghghghh ( 871641 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @07:02AM (#12621840)
      or (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States; This doesn't protect anybody but the government... Back to the drawing board I guess. The wording is because of States' rights. Congress can pass laws regulating interstate commerce, and some other topics (like defense, international relations, etc.) In practice, if you've ever used your computer to buy something off of e-bay, or to even look at a commercial from out-of-state, it's been used for interstate commerce. And if you haven't, you might. So that means everybody, just nice and constitutional-like.
    • This doesn't protect anybody but the government...

      Though I'm not sure that's exactly true, the real issue is that if somebody's malware does get onto the desktop of, say, a project manager working at the Agriculture Department, then that publisher's going to wind up in heaps o' trouble regardless. I don't care if they go down because my local sheriff presses the case, or the feds do. They'll go down harder if the feds do it.
    • I was worried about that little weasel word; "protected computer". I was hoping that this congress would have actually done something good(TM), but again, they have been cynical and shifty. If this is only for Government and Financial institutions, it means they are still philosophically opposed to helping anyone not helping their pocket.

      I sound like a broken record, don't I. But this is depressing. They could have done something good, and it would have only hurt a few spammers and jerks. Unfortunealy, I a

  • One more law (Score:3, Funny)

    by Actuator Man ( 874693 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:17AM (#12621708)
    What we really need is a law to prevent idiots from using a computer... (or driving a car, buying a gun, voting)
    • or install a tazer in the mouse to give the user a shock whenever they download the latest smileys, or play those games to "identify which celebrity is Paris Hilton and win $500."

  • What about non-US spyware? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by skiman1979 ( 725635 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @06:22AM (#12621716)
    What about spyware coming from non-US systems? US law does not govern these systems. What happens then if I get hit with spyware from some other country?
    • What happens then if I get hit with spyware from some other country?

      Write to your congressman. He'll forward your letter to a collating department at the Dept of Homeland Security. The first country/state/banana republic to score a stack 1 inch high (or 1000 complaints, whichever occurs first) wins a free WMD inspection courtesy of Dubya. Use really thick paper for quick results...

    • Oh, c'mon. This is the U.S. for chrissakes, and G.W. is president. If your computer gets invaded from some other country...
    • The only problem I have with this anti-spyware legislation is that it does nothing to prevent either offshore based spyware OR USA government sanctioned spyware.

      The current regime in power has gone out of its way to characterize "terrorism" in the broadest possible definition, to include such things as copyright violations and DMCA violations. Trading partners of the USA have been coerced into passing legislation that brings them into compliance with American law. But protecting the sanctity of citizens'
  • "unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices." So if I am at home, working on my own computer which is behind my firewall, I can send out all the spyware I want? Something wrong with the wording here...
  • Great! This would effectively outlaw spam, since most spam is sent through compromised windows boxes acting as proxies.
    Oh wait... it only applies to computers used by the United States Government according to tfa...

  • Wiretapping (Score:5, Interesting)

    by jwdb ( 526327 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @07:03AM (#12621845)
    How does this affect government observation programs (you know, carnivore et al...)? Does this force them to get a warrant in all cases to certify that they really are 'authorized users'?

    Jw
    • If enforced creatively it means spyware is really an illeagle wiretap, like most of us thought all along. After all it really is electronic monitering of one actions/communications without a court order. If DA's would have done it this way a few years ago no new law would be needed. Of course Congresscritters don't get press when someone enforces an existing law, just when they write a new one, even if it is un-nessesary and un-enforceable(this one, Can-Spam). Got to get some press, election is only 18 mont

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
      Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Great except for one little detail (Score:3, Insightful)

    by syntap ( 242090 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @07:12AM (#12621871)
    unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices

    I guess this means my deceptive aliases on slashdot and every other potential spammer Web site can now land me in jail, assuming slashdot is a "protected system". I guess I'm an "authorized user" of /. but the definition of an "authorized user" will be interesting.

  • Interesting choice for a sunsetted law (Score:3, Interesting)

    by syntap ( 242090 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @07:15AM (#12621877)
    Usually there is public interest in sunsetting bills that are polarizing so they must be re-authorized later, like the USA PATRIOT Act. But this bill sunsets December 31, 2010. You'd think by then that stronger regulations will be needed to fix all the loopholes this one creates, but look out for spyware set to report all you personal stuff back to home base on Jan 1 2011!

  • Great! (Score:4, Funny)

    by rogerzilla ( 575012 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @07:27AM (#12621911)
    Let's hope it's as successful as the YOU-CAN-SPAM Act. That really showed those Nigerians and Chinese (not to mention the big American spammers) who was boss, didn't it?
  • So does this mean I can't enter bogus information to access a site or download so I can avoid spam? If I don't own the site's servers, and I enter a bogus e-mail just to download a whitepaper, then that would be deceptive. I feel like such a criminal. I wish these people would get their tech gurus to help them write this stuff.
  • ...prohibits accessing a protected system via code copied on to the system to, among other things, disseminate personal information.

    Could a shared cookie be considered spyware? (I visit foo.com, which has an image on evil.com that places an evil.com cookie on my machine. Then I visit bar.com, which also has an image on evil.com. Evil.com shares this information between foo and bar. $Profit$

  • I-SPY and other such acts (Score:5, Funny)

    by potpie ( 706881 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @08:30AM (#12622192) Journal
    Anyone else notice that politicians these days always make their acts spell out cute little words or phrases with their acronyms (PATRIOT, I-SPY, etc.)?

    Well I'm going to become a politician and write up the OMGWTFBBQ act.
  • How does it define "protected computer" and "protected system"?

    It could be completely toothless. Do you have to spend $10,000 per year on IT security services before your computer is considered secure. And is an unpatched system considered "not protected"?

    • WRONG. (Score:2, Informative)

      by Jurph ( 16396 )
      It's not "vague" at all. The law amends Title 18 USC, Chapter 47, Section 1030. A "protected computer" refers to the effectivity of the law (your computer is "protected" by law) not by any particular user action.

      A computer is "protected" if it is used for interstate or international commerce or communication. If you don't live in Michigan and you post on Slashdot, that's you.

  • Prohibits any person from bringing a civil action under State law premised upon the defendant's violating this Act.
    If I read that correctly, I can't sue someone who installs spyware on my pc or tries to phish me. But I don't understand the "under State law" clause, so maybe I could still sue under federal law? Does this limit my recourse to breaking the guy's kneecaps?

  • Why Bother? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sqlrob ( 173498 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @08:52AM (#12622333)
    There's already laws against unauthorized computer access, just enforce them.

    Yet another unenforced law doesn't do any good.

  • File under stupid laws. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by g0bshiTe ( 596213 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @08:53AM (#12622335)
    Ok this is yet another example of wasted tax dollars deliberating something that is obviously never going to be enforced.

    "Wahoo, the Senate made it illegal for Spyware companies to install it on my system, wait a tick. If I install a trojan on someones system why is that a stiffer penalty than spyware? Both are installed without the users consent to track movements, wreak havok, both could be used for malicious purposes."

    I can see this already, spyware will still be produced en masse, the people who deploy it will simply move somewhere not governed by US law. New law circumvented, tax money wasted, spyware still rampant.

  • Why? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Chanc_Gorkon ( 94133 ) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <nokrog>> on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:01AM (#12622387)
    Why was this bill even necessary? It will only stop those who are trying to use spyware as a supposed business model(HEllloooo Claria...). Did this really need another law? This is yet another case of our representatives not understanding technology and not understanding that with a world wide system, it's impossible to enforce.

  • Be careful what you wish for (Score:5, Informative)

    by Halvard ( 102061 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:22AM (#12622548)

    First let me say IANAL. I've been around them my whole life but that doesn't mean I am one. I have been told by some that I think like them though.

    I don't think this quite protects like people seem to think it does.

    I interpret Section 2a2D of the SPY Act to say it's okay to change security settings without the knowledge of the protected parties as long as you don't seek to do damage. Imagine a defensive claim that a change to weaken security settings is to make the computer easier to use and less confusing. Prove they had a different motive. That could be tough. No question that changing a settings of allowing ActiveX controls to always run makes it easier for a website targeting ActiveX capable browsers to run whatever they want "for the purpose" of serving their users and it's "easier" for their "customers" to use the site because then they don't have to bother with or know about changing browser security settings.

    Additionally, has any one read Title 18,1030? This bill references another which goes to Title 18. Title 18,1030 reads:

    (e) As used in this section--
    (1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
    (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer--
    (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
    (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;

    That *might* protect you buying something on eBay but I read that to mean it doesn't protect you regarding, for example, online banking necessarily. Phishing seems to prohibited in the SPY Act but I think this needs more analysis. I think the Act protects companies like Microsoft and others (Symantec?) that are using DRM and the like. A number of companies (*cough* Real Networks *cough*) get caught not infrequently sending off more information than they claim that they do; they apologize and do it again. So say they "encrypt" it in pig Latin because they aren't supposed to any longer. Now because you've decrypted it (as any American Kindergardener can do), you've now violated God knows how many other acts.

    I'm not trying to say the sky is falling. These Acts could be a good start. But anyone who thinks this is the cure is a fool. Don't forget CAN-SPAM legitimized spam while being (mis-?)represented as outlawing it.

  • What is really needed is more general privacy (Score:5, Insightful)

    by jonwil ( 467024 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @09:36AM (#12622661)
    Ignoring the fact that the spyware makers could just go offshore and avoid this, what is really needed is a new bill giving americans more privacy for personal details across the board. (not just for spyware)

    For example, if collects personal details they should be required to tell you that they have those details.
    And allow you to change those details if they are wrong.
    And if they give those details to another company (e.g. credit agency, firm that is going to use the details to send you marketing crap etc etc) they should be required to tell you about that too.

    Spyware companies would be required to notify you in advance what personal details their software collects (if any) and what is done with those details.

    The problem with this proposal is that it would cost the big corporations money to implement. But more to the point it would prevent the corps from hiding what is going on (for example, I occasionally get letters from American Express asking if I want an American Express card even though I have never had any dealings with American Express in my life which means that some other company I deal with such as my bank must have given American Express my postal address and stuff)

    Really, the 5 biggest problems with spyware are:
    1.Spyware takes various levels of personal details and sends it to some company (with you not knowing what those details are or what is being done with them)
    2.Spyware installs without it being clear that it is installing
    3.Spyware messes with system files and settings
    4.Spyware takes up memory/system resources (and often internet bandwidth to download ads etc)
    and 5.Spyware is almost always impossible to remove without tools like ad-aware, MS anti-spyware or Spybot.

  • I'm Really Friggin' Jaded (Score:3, Funny)

    by Rob Riggs ( 6418 ) on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @11:15AM (#12623647) Homepage Journal
    When I read House Passes Spyware Bills the first question that popped into mind was "OK, how many will we be required to install"?

  • Unintended consequences (Score:2, Interesting)

    by cyways ( 225137 )
    There are some interesting tidbits in H.R. 29 (I haven't read the other yet). For instance, the law is designed to exempt things like web server logs with the following:

    "(2) EXCEPTION FOR SOFTWARE COLLECTING INFORMATION REGARDING WEB PAGES VISITED WITHIN A PARTICULAR WEB SITE- Computer software that otherwise would be considered an information collection program by reason of paragraph (1)(B) shall not be considered such a program if--

    (A) the only information collected by the software regarding Web pages
  • Note the term "protected computer".

    And as it happens, that term already has a legal definition in the US Code.

    Thus, this only impacts computers used for interstate or foreign commerce, or by the US government.

  • A few observations (Score:5, Interesting)

    by deblau ( 68023 ) <slashdot.25.flickboy@spamgourmet.com> on Tuesday May 24, 2005 @01:36PM (#12625217) Journal
    First, all the comments about 18 U.S.C. 1030. Your home computer is a "protected computer" since you buy things with it online. That pulls it under the interstate commerce clause, and the power of Congress to regulate it.

    Second, the first bill, H.R. 29, doesn't provide for a private cause of action. It says it's enforced by the FTC. Which means you can't sue under this bill (if it becomes law).

    Third, the second bill allows for an (implied) private cause of action: No person may bring a civil action under the law of any State if such action is premised in whole or in part upon the defendant's violating this section. It doesn't say you can't bring a criminal action under state law, so you may not be required to file in federal court.

    My sense of the bills is that the first goes after companies who make and bundle spyware, while the second goes after extortionists, phishers, virus writers and the like.

  • H.R. 29 makes it 'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices'.

  • I only skimmed the legislation, but other than mentioning "spyware" a lot, I don't see the point of it. It has been illegal to break into computer systems since at least the 80s, regardless of whether you use a technical or social engineering attack.

    Similarly, stealing personal information is illegal (or should be, regardless of whether spyware is involved!). The class of social engineering attacks, such as phishing that these bills outlaw, seem to me (IANAL) to be the same thing as the old con artist sc

Slashdot Top Deals

Our OS who art in CPU, UNIX be thy name. Thy programs run, thy syscalls done, In kernel as it is in user!

Close