FTC Officials Wary of Spyware Measures 242
Nofsck Ingcloo writes "News.com is reporting thusly:
'Two Federal Trade Commission officials ignited a political firestorm on Thursday by criticizing proposed laws targeting spyware and suggesting that the measures might harm legitimate software products, too.' During an appearance before a House of Representatives panel, FTC Commissioner Mozelle Thompson said the measures were the wrong approach to spyware and adware. Basically he is advocating a 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' approach."
Wonder how much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:5, Funny)
http://www.ftc.gov/bios/commissioners.htm
I don't think government employees can accept "contributions" from companies -- granted, that's just for "over the table" contributions.
What's funny is that the Trade Commissioner listed after Mozelle on this page is named "Orson Swindle."
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:5, Interesting)
What's funny is that the Trade Commissioner listed after Mozelle on this page is named "Orson Swindle."
Orson Swindle spent six years being tortured by the North Vietnamese in a Hanoi prison. He came back from that without breaking and with his honor intact - I suspect he's a little beyond being bribed than the average whining slashdotter could even understand.
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:2, Insightful)
However, I do feel that the end result of combatting spyware is going to be more control for the government of the United States.
Geez, lighten up (Score:3, Insightful)
It was a simple - and amusing - idea that an FTC commissioner would be named 'Swindle' - nomen erat omen and all that. It was not an ad hominem attack or an attempt to assassinate Mr. Swindle's character.
(603413 Posties - now with 100% of your recommended daily allowance of Latin!)
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:5, Insightful)
Second honor in one scenario doesn't mean honor it all. I know nothing of Mr. Swindle so I assume he's an okay guy until he proves otherwise (which is unlikely since I'm unlikely to ever meet the man and he's unlikely to ever be in a high level scandle that makes CNN) but the thing that irritates me is the assumption that he's stand up because of an event 30+ years in the past. Yes he did good, yes he was honorable, yes it was important...no it was not the sole act by which he should always be judged from now on. I appreciate Mr. Swindle's service to this country and I thank him for his honor in a time of emense hardship and torment but that does not make him above questions or reproach should he be involved in something shady.
Honor and honesty are life long pursuits and those that don't see that (i.e. cops who cover up for other cops, soldiers who hide war crimes because of justifications of brotherhood, preachers who betray financial trusts in the name of God, and in general any of the any means necessary causes out there, et. al.) are the enablers of corruption in our society.
That said again I'm pretty sure the slashdotter was making a lame joke based on his name...get a life and see if someone can't remove that chip from your sholder.
Reference? (Score:3)
Re:Can't help it. (Score:2)
Spammers will always be able to set up shop in a failed state with no police, write a virus/worm that sets up spam zombies and fire away.
As far as spyware goes, if it's in the Eula, then it's not the government's business to stop it. If Eula legalese ofusticates the existance of bundled spyware, then consumers will have to learn which 'brand names' put ou
Which is baby and which is bath water? (Score:4, Interesting)
It's kinda like writing a program that has to be bug-free on release, the spec's change constantly and the whole QA department is at a seminar the last week of production.
Slow and careful can be good, it's not like there isn't good antispyware software out there for free. Personaly I use Spybot S&D it's free as in beer, no cost, exceptS donations. You can find them at www.safer-networking.org [safer-networking.org].
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:5, Insightful)
I dont think it is that, I am almost 100% sure it's just that these decision makers are incompetent in understanding what is actually being talked about.
These are men and women that dont understand a computer one tiny bit to begin with let alone the concept of a software program installed that does things secretly behind the scenes that you are not told about.
It's either someone in their staff is not accurately explaining to the leaders what the spyware really does, or this is a glaring example that the people being chosen to lead this country are in reality horribly underqualified to do the job they were selected to do.
I am betting all my money of the latter.
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:5, Insightful)
So someone stands up and says "You know, Congress doesn't have much of a track record in writing technical legislation. The intent of anti-spyware legislation might be good, but I'm not sure that the actual legislation as written will accomplish the intent and it might actually have some far reaching implications that go well beyond the intent. Lets make sure that what we pass into law is the right way to do this." Why is it that that guy's a bad guy who's being accused of being a bribed shill for corporate interests?
I don't like spam, I don't like spyware, I don't like trojans or worms or viruses. But I dislike Congress' meddling in these affairs even more - they almost always bungle the attempt and cause more harm than they do good; often they cause more harm than the problem they're trying to fix. Law isn't the solution to technical issues. Let's leave the clueless lawmakers out of it.
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:4, Informative)
And why does this not suprise me?
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Wonder how much... (Score:2)
I don't have a subscription to Lexis/Nexis, and I doubt that any body else here does either, so the chances of anybody being able to verify your claim is slim. However, opensecrets.org has no information on any politician Mozelle Thompson.
So who modded this guy up anyway?
Chuck it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chuck it (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Chuck it (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
Mozilla's feedback agent (and, perhaps, some other modules), while certainly NOT spyware, fits her/his definition...
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
Mozilla's feedback agent (and, perhaps, some other modules), while certainly NOT spyware
-----
I disagree.
The feedback agent can be hijacked by malicious java and Flash working together. It can be used to execute arbitrary code but, more easily, can be used to establish seemingly normal http connections and use your browser as a proxy for people who know that your browser has been compromised. The exploit is small enough to be easily hidden in banner ads.
We have not formally released this security vu
Uh ... (Score:2)
Wait a minute! The Quality Feedback Agent is not hidden from view during a "custom install" with your usual optional brief mention at the bottom of some EULA or something like that.
It's a legitimate and non-silent (unlike spyware) component of the Mozilla Suite. If you choose "complete install" (in any application) it means everything!
zRe:Chuck it (Score:3, Interesting)
Windows Messenger Service! (Score:4, Insightful)
Seems like every time I thought I had it turned off, some damned windows update would turn it back on. Microsoft must have been paid off by spammers worried they couldn't use Email anymore, makes more sense than they're just that stupid.
Finaly bought a linksys router (which runs on Linux) to make the messenager spam go away for good.
Re:Chuck it (Score:5, Insightful)
And how exactly do you propose to verify this beyond a doubt? Consider the old RealPlayer, which some of us were willing to install that first time, that required non-beginner knowledge to fully remove.
You and I may know what we're installing, and we might also consider it pretty stupid-easy to go edit out the thing's entries from our windows registry, but that doesn't mean your below-average-or-average user will comprehend this. Those are exactly the people who are most affected by spyware.
The rest of us already know how it got there and how to get rid of it.
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
Other, similar programs misstate, or mislead, even if they offer similar functionality.
I would not consider Google toolbar to be spy-ware, and would hate to see an ignorant user install it, then claim 6 months later they didn't know what it was doing and sue them for installing spyware.
Re:Chuck it (Score:5, Interesting)
1. ALL seperate programs not fully integrated into the main program have to have a seperate EULA.
2. Software must come with an uninstaller that completely removes ALL elements packaged with the program.
3. "Phone Home" spyware must include in the EULA a list of exactly WHAT data it sends, and what protocals and ports it uses to do it.
4. Spyware makers MUST have provisions to comply with COPPA, and not collect information on persons under 13 (the killer nuke regulation, one Gator can't possibly comply with, but one they could be prosecuted for RIGHT NOW)...
Re:Chuck it (Score:3, Insightful)
My apologies to the few (such as Al Gore) who though they may not have invented the internet, have been well-informed about technology. However, most of them are incapable of NOT screwing up this type of legislation.
You really want the government to tell you what kind of software you can write?
Maybe they should
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
However, after several hours of research I can figure it out.
This affects even us in The Know.
Re:Chuck it (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see his point... if the user is asked for a blanket permission at the start of the install then it negates the purpose of asking permission for the spyware components but if each individual program asks permission, it would take all day.
So what's the solution?
Re:Chuck it (Score:5, Insightful)
Solving the problem for MOST legitimate software is as simple as requiring any software by a third party to have it's own checkbox and explanation of what that software does. Require a set of privacy keywords that is legally enforcable in those explanations. For example, a legal description for Gator may contain three keywords words: ADVERTISEMENT POPUP PHONEHOME. They could define as many keywords as the public wants, performing a "spyware function" without notifying via the keyword would trigger heavy fines. Requiring a link to a privacy policy wouldn't be a bad idea, assuming that policy had any legal weight to it.
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
Exactly. The problem isn't that there's the option to install these things. The problem is that they insist on being installed, and try to sneak back in if you find some way to remove them. Or, even worse. provide you with the option but reset it as part of some other, innocuous-looking option later in the setup program. I don't think anyone would object to "spyware" if they really could choose to install it and it was open about what it did.
But the spyware scum rely on the user NOT knowing that its being
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
And wasn't just a page of "hahahahahhaaaa!"s.
Re:Chuck it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Chuck it (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
The market (Score:2)
Re:Chuck it (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me ask this: how many people reading this comment actually have spyware on their computers? How many have spyware on computers they have admin rights to? And how many here couldn't clean out spyware from any PC inside of an hour? I'll guess: None, none, and none.
The point is this: technological solutions exist already. Why tempt the law of unintended consequences by trying
Re:Chuck it (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
And I bet most non-geeks don't know that Adobe has implemented various phone-home techniques.
I'm not saying that Adobe does not have the right to do so, to protect against piracy, I'm just noting that they don't really come out and tell the ignorant.
>>There's no mistaking a legitimate program that user chooses to install.
true. but there might be mistaken notion by some that legitimate software won't track you.
some does.
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
Assuming the person who put their product on a machine had the right to do so... that person *does not* automatically have any right to allocate network resources. If Adobe has received consent from a company's NOC provisioning, then fine... phone home all day long. In the general case, however, that won't happen - these phone home actions offer no value to the NOC mission, nor the company... it's an expense that has no purpose (e.g. allocation of ne
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
Exactly, while the spyware companies CLAIM that noone every installs their software without knowing about it, we all know the truth behind that claim. The issue with the legislation seems to be one of semantics more than anything, surely they can find a way to word it to only effect ad/spy-ware.
Since big companies are crying uncle over this, I suppose this tells us what directions they were planning to take with future product up
Re:Chuck it (Score:3, Insightful)
Consider a law which prohibits sending any personal information without the owner's express permission. What is personal information? Well, I have an account with Speakeasy which provides me with a static IP. That IP is leased to me and is conceivably traceable to me. It's therefore arugable that any program which is network enabled sends out personal information - my IP address. Do you want to have to personally OK every IP packet that's sent from you
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
I agree. To me, spyware is anything that has no purpose but to relay private information back to a server. Usually it latches on other software, like a parisite, but everything would work better without it. Personally, I don't care if registration software falls into the spyware definition. If I want to register my software, I'll hit the product website and hand over my info. But that's a waste of time, for me,
Re:Chuck it (Score:2)
You mean like installing Microsoft Products. You want a word processer but don't want a product that phones home with a Globaly Unique Identification that can track you where ever you go. Right... Try installing the software and not installing the spyware. The line gets pretty fine between a useful program and a program that does things in the background. I wouldn't be suprised if even MS had a few things to say on the subject. Th
So why isn't the FTC prosecuting any yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
-
The FTC representatives countered by saying that while they were "outraged" by spyware, a careful approach was necessary. In addition, during an FTC workshop last week, a prosecutor noted that the Justice Department already had sufficient legal authority under existing computer crime laws to put the most noxious spyware makers in prison.
If this is true then why aren't they? There are certainly several spyware products "noxious" enough to warrant a prosecution. Sounds like a bluff to me.While I understand the FTC needs to protect legitimate business interests along with consumer's interests, this is ridiculous. Yes there may be difficulty in wording the bill so that it doesn't hinder legit software, but that's something that can be resolved. Self-regulation sure as hell isn't going to work, the adware and spyware companies have shown little to no restraint in doing whatever they damn well please.
Don't believe that last sentence? Just check out how they all claim you have to opt-in to their software, that it's never installed without your permission. Then check out the ad/spy-ware infected software installs and see if they warn you about them. I've yet to see a warning when one of the buggers shows up, and I do read the info during my software installs.
And finally, just try to remove one without a 3rd-party utility, they're nearly impossible to remove. That alone makes them trespassers to me, since you can uninstall them but they're still partially there, cluttering up your hard drive and mucking with your OS.
Re:So why isn't the FTC prosecuting any yet? (Score:2)
Shit like Gator, MyWay Search Bar, Ezula, etc, all behave like viruses, the only difference is that there is a EULA somewhere.
FTC represents the current pro-business climate (Score:2)
What surprises me is that only the fringe elements of the c
Re:So why isn't the FTC prosecuting any yet? (Score:2)
Still, doesn't make 'em right for putting them on our computers in the first place.
Basically he is advocating a 'don't throw the baby (Score:5, Funny)
In this case the baby is green, has 10 eyes, keeps track of your every move, spits in your face with ads, and is guaranteed to wreck your house.
So you do toss the baby out with the bathwater. Otherwise you have a monster on your hands.
Some call him Gator
FUD ALERT (Score:2, Funny)
Yeah I didn't think so tinfoil man.
Self-regulation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Self-regulation (Score:2)
So does it follow that "Involuntary Draconion Legislated Mother-May-I Approach to Life, Under Threat of Imprisonment" is the Democratic mantra?
Re:Self-regulation (Score:3, Interesting)
Blame Microsoft for poor security policy and placing a low priority on keeping the user in control of their system, not on the FTC failing to make a law.
Almost all other OS vendors have placed a high degree of emphasis on keeping the user in control of their system. Apple forbid software following the HIG to do anything based only on cursor movement, for instance -- the idea is that the user should
No baby (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a problem in preventing "Third party installations" from being included in the installers, as many games and legitimate tools have come to rely on DirectX, Quicktime, and Rad Game tools. But there is no necessity to include them as part of the installer itself. Meerly make a note in the installer that you need to install these utilities too and that they are included on the cd or in a setup directory.
Re:No baby (Score:2)
You'll get flamed by people crying out that your idea won't make programs very easy to install, if Joe Average has to decipher messages like "This program requires DirectX 9 or better. Please install DirectX 9 or better before proceeding".
However, if I may preceed any such responses, I actually like the sound of your idea. Does an operating system really need ton
Re:No baby (Score:2)
Let's say that's beyond dispute. But is that really a law you want to have passed -- browser-driven installs will be outlawed; use InstallShield or go to jail?
Beyond the side effects (what do
Re:No baby (Score:4, Interesting)
I actually like microsoft's approach in IE - it tells you the signer of the app (if any), and gives you info on who's giving you the software. It lets you know exactly who's trying to install what on your machine. True, 90% of the time it's crap, but 10% of the time it's something genuinely useful.
Take DirectX out of the install package? Do you know how many calls to their CS that will cause? People are dumb - they don't read install notes (heck - on windows you don't have to). Also, an installer for a game should install the game on your machine, including everything it needs. It should be a two-clicks-and-youre-playing scenario, not a multiple-application approach to installing software. Windows users are used to minimal fuss when installing, and rooting around CDs for software you need to install is pointless (especially when most people will end up running the same apps in the same order, anyway).
It's false security. Moving DirectX/etc out of the install package just causes people to run them from different locations. If they had spyware in them, they'd still be installed on most computers. All you've succeeded in doing is making the install procedure more complicated and time-consuming. The same amount of machines will be tainted, regardless.
Carefull is good.... (Score:3, Interesting)
On the other hand, the spyware, the automated pop-up programs, etc... these need to outlawed and the "companies" that make money by hijacking information need to be dealt with.
Hmm, someone is not thinking straight. (Score:2, Insightful)
I personally dont particularly like adverts on web pages, but i can see they are needed on some sites
As in real life (Score:5, Insightful)
This shouldn't be too difficult to pass such a law, and legit businesses will adapt very well. As a matter of fact, legit businesses already have adapted : a clear warning or information page with a link to the install program. Plain and simple.
Solution is still crap... (Score:5, Insightful)
Doesn't matter if it's a 12 year old kid at your keyboard in your house, and it doesn't matter if it's a secretary in a 500 person company. Neither of these people have the authority to consent to anything, especially binding agreements (and contracts, which is how the s/w industry would like their EULAs treated).
All this crap does is legalize social engineering. Think about it.
Spyware is good for linux (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spyware is good for linux (Score:2)
Plenty of clients pay my employer $90/hr for me to go do that. I bet I can get $40/hr for it...
Re:Spyware is good for linux (Score:2)
We spend 0% of our time cleaning our windows machines, as we control what gets installed on them.
Re:Your admins need to be fired then (Score:3, Interesting)
-NOT MAKING ORDINARY USERS ADMINISTRATORS! (usually do to laziness because some lame app written for win95 don't work and the 'IT guy' doesn't know how to change a reg permission).
Ok. In almost all cases, not necessary for spyware.
-Centralized, automatic, forced software upgrades.
"CEO Smithley? Yes, this is CFO Barker. Well, I was just working on my Excel numbers for our shareholder presentation, and my machine rebooted when I went out for a cup of coffee and I lost all my work. IT says something
Minimum (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Minimum (Score:3, Interesting)
Hear hear.
No more unremoveable spyware...
...and as an added bonus, the ability to easily ditch IE and WMP.
Re:Minimum (Score:2)
Spybot is a bit over-sensitive (it whines about some tracking cookies and such minor issues), but it's effective.
Re:Minimum (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, maybe 99% of software is distributed on windows or through a package manager. But the law applies to 100%.
Separation (Score:3, Insightful)
Any thing less and it should all be illegal, with large fines and loss of internet connection for that company, for 5 years. If that closes them down, so freakin what!
Offshoring (Score:2)
The point here. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Insanity Check (Score:2)
Protecting Oil (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know of any spyware makers big enough to support politics, but who knows. Maybe Time Warner, or GE owns something we don't know about.
Just a thought.
Bad baby? (Score:2)
If that baby keeps pooping up in my face so I can't see anything else all the time, why not?
In all honesty, the FTC should be thinking the other way around. Instead of hiding spyware and forcing pop-ups on innocent web surfers, they should consider finding a less aggressive means of advertising to the general public online... 10 million people don't all want "presciption pills"... Though there are the occasional few,
Wired news article today (Score:5, Informative)
CoolWebSearch (Score:2)
The CoolWebSearch (CWS) browser hijacking variants are nasty alright! I have just helped someone get rid of one of these.
It's the first time I've encountered spyware that actually trashes your files. The CWS variant in this case had replaced the Windows Media Player executable with it's own little pet resident trojan. That was new to me. I had to resort to using the CWShredder (contains more info about CWS) [spywareinfo.com] and SpyBot Search & Destroy [safer-networking.org] tools to remove all the cruft left on the system - Ad-aware couldn't
DMA (Score:2)
Marketers make me sick.
Tin foil from the other side (Score:5, Interesting)
People in general, and Americans in particular, are obsessed with the mantra of "do something". Perhpas it has been beaten into our culture from the WW-I and WW-II era old hardtimers who felt the indignance of being marched off to war and then watch their subsequent generations enjoy profit without the pain of shell-shock or watching best friends get riddled with bullets. Whatever the reason the American society seems to be unable to enter into a state of natural flux--ebb and flow. Instead American society is stuck in a full steam ahead approach to everything. Refinement means nothing and progress means everything. The definition of progress is addition and more addition. The component of progress that involves improvement has been swamped by the "do something" drive to add more.
Adware and spyware have come about because the operating system and web browser which appeals to the popular citizenry has given them what they want. It has given them more and more and more as they asked. When the problems arose that, in a normal system, would have encouraged refinement and improvement, the users demanded more and more and more. This resulted in EULAs. EULAs made it possible for the software industry to concentrate on giving the users what they want: more. EULAs made it possible for software manufaturers to be free and clear of the necessary refinements and improvements which could have made adware and spyware obsolete before it ever started.
The approach to this problem is not to pass more laws. That approach does nothing but feed the "do something" attitude which has brought us to the quagmire of today. The approach to this problem is to refine and improve what we have. We need not to add more laws but rather to remove the artificial laws which give umbrella protection to less than optimal designs.
Spyware == Viruses (Score:4, Interesting)
Shouldn't spyware already be covered by laws against spreading viruses? Spyware is software installed on my machine without my knowing it, and this is exactly what happens when a virus spreads. What's the difference?
When it's distributed by a business, it's called spyware, and when it's distributed by a 14-year-old, it's a virus. Is this asinine or what?
Different agency, different M.O. (Score:2, Insightful)
In contrast, the FTC doesn't want to protect you because spyware "might hurt good software" Yes, let's leave open the possibility for malware, spam, Windows, etc., to take over your computer, steal your identity, wipe out your bank account, etc. Those things can also "kill" your livelihood, in a sense.
Bah.
Let's jail the computers! (Score:2, Funny)
Maybe these lawmakers should just throw their own computers in prison. A computer is cheaper to maintain in a cell (no need for food, water, and exercise). Plus *POOF*, their problem goes away. No more adware! Hell no more viruses or evil hackers either! Their computer can
Double Standards (Score:4, Insightful)
It's hard not to become cynical about the state of US "democracy" when spyware and spam illicit a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" response, but the DMCA slides through congress on a greased fast track.
lawyers are bad (Score:2)
I hate spyware as much as the next guy, but we can't act like we can regulate and legislate our industry in a vacuum. There's a cost for every law or regulation, and we shouldn't ignore that
Mozilla Thompson? (Score:2)
Was I the only one who read that as "Mozilla Thompson"?
Yes, apparently, I was...
What legitimate software would be harmed? (Score:4, Interesting)
Spyware -- The "Riders" of the Internet (Score:3, Interesting)
How ironic would it be if the house of reps outlawed spyware, and inadvertently made it illegal to tack "riders" onto House Bills.
IDNRTFA. 0:-)
Re:For all the people supporting outlawing spyware (Score:2, Insightful)
Any attempt to describe the injustice in a foolproof way will only (or probably only) assert heavy restrictions on valid software. Any attempt to prove that the software was "granted" permission by the user will result in deeply-hidden and cleverly-worded explanations of what the software is doing. The same folks that are susceptible to it today will still be susceptible in the end.
Re:For all the people supporting outlawing spyware (Score:3, Insightful)
The only 'spyware' that is problematic is the kind that installs itself by exploiting software bugs in browsers, and that is already illegal: it's called a virus.
This is a rather optimistic view of things, I take it you've never run afoul of much ad/spy-ware. The issue isn't so much software that p
Re:For all the people supporting outlawing spyware (Score:2)
These side programs are merely the cost of these great free utilities. It used to be that you had to pay $5 and $10 for these little utilities. Now I get a cool password safe and an address book manager, and it just costs me some extra pop-up ads and them wanting to do some market research on me. Boo fucking hoo! That's my choice! The ads show me products I wouldn't have seen otherwise, and it's not like I have anything to hide on my machine. I don'
Re:For all the people supporting outlawing spyware (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the most common fallacy I see in today's political atmosphere. No one has the right to make money and the government's job isn't to make sure people with crappy ideas or products no one wants stay in business.
Newsflash to programmers: If people will work cheaper than you they will get your job.
Newsflash to farmers: Some crops don't grow well in some states.
Newsflash to RIAA: No one NEEDS you
Re:For all the people supporting outlawing spyware (Score:3, Interesting)
Bull!!!
I've a twelve year old developmentally disabled child who surfs wesites such as Disney, Cartoon Network, Goosebumps, Warner Brothers etc.
A recent cleaning with Adaware and Spybot Search and destroy revealed over 150 instances of spyware on his computer including one goofy search toolbar which prompted the most recent cleaning.
Do you think he agreed to install this shit on his computer? Most of the time I can't
Re:For all the people supporting outlawing spyware (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree totally. There's nothing inherently wrong with adware. The term simply means software that is supported by ads. The free version of Opera is adware even.
You want to pass a law that criminalizes something that's not even defined? Klerck is right about this being a very slippery slope, but even more than that, I just think that they won't be able to come up with a definition that actually covers malware without affecting other "legitimate" soft
Re:For all the people supporting outlawing spyware (Score:2)
Gator keeps appearing on my system, yet I am not installing anything new. It appears in my cache for IE, traces of it, so it is being installed via an exploit in IE. I do not want this crud on my computer, yet it keeps reinstalling itself. Sp
They don't have to sell to the US (Score:2)
India and the rest of the world is a much bigger market
Re:Not all 'adware' is bad (Score:4, Funny)
New.net (Score:2, Informative)
For those who don't know what new.net is about, it's basically a company which offers custom domains. Their spyware installs a layer which takes over all DNS resolving and redirects it to their servers.
A housemate of mine got infected with New.net. He could no longer log in to the university network, because Internet access was not allowed until logged in and thus the request to resolve the domain name of the log-in server could not reach new.net. This is what happens when stupid people write s
Re:New.net (Score:2)
Re:New.net (Score:2)
Re:Ninnle will do the trick! (Score:2)