Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Courts Government News Your Rights Online

Utah Sees First Spyware Case 123

Posted by simoniker from the i-spy-controversy dept.
denlin writes "According to a story at The Register: 'Overstock.com is set to become the first company to take action under Utah's new anti-spyware law. The company has filed a complaint against online retailer SmartBargains in the third district court in Salt Lake City. Utah's spyware law, the world's first, only made the statute book on 3 May. Utah is the only state with current spyware legislation, although California and Iowa are considering their own versions of the law.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Utah Sees First Spyware Case More

Utah Sees First Spyware Case

Comments Filter:

  • This might work. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by LPrime ( 752625 ) * <(lprime) (at) (gmail.com)> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:19PM (#9199653) Homepage Journal
    Patrick Byrne's comments regarding the hijacking of affiliate profits are dead on.

    I haven able to gather some interesting statistics about the "Parasitic" methods discussed in the article. The conversion of Visitors to Customer is about .2% of what you would normally get by traditional targeted banner advertising but the cost of the campaign is about 30% of the price. When you consider that in a commercial banner campaign your best hope is a 2% clickthrough (and even that is not that easy anymore) I can't see anyone except the ad companies making any money.

    In my humble experience the spyware companies and their affiliates target small startup companies luring them in with the cheap cost of getting new customers. Heck that's how they got me to spend 350$ on a campaign that ran on WhenU. For the money spend I received 0 Customers, 3 Complains and my CC being charged triple that took almost 30 days to resolve. But I receive at least 5 e-mails daily and at least 1 call per week from people advertising this exact same product.

    • Re:This might work. (Score:4, Funny)

      by lothar97 ( 768215 ) <owen@NOSPAm.smigelski.org> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:23PM (#9199692) Homepage Journal
      If you had spent $700, you could've had double the spam- and double all your returns (0 customers, 6 complaints, and 6 times the charges on your credit card). If it sounds too good to be true...
    • So you admit to funding the spammers? Hmmm.... what an ...interesting thing to do.

      • Re:This might work. (Score:1, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward
        Yeah. Honest presentation of a learning experience. Who'd'a thunk it? The whole point of /. is to maintain your 733t image and karma.
        • The whole point of /. is to maintain your 733t image and karma.

          my teet image?

          seriously though, I don't like it when people give cash to people who use it to buy mailservers in china to flood inboxes and produce spyware that I usually get the task of removing from various family members' computers... but ok..

      • Re:This might work. (Score:2, Interesting)

        by LPrime ( 752625 ) *
        I fully admit it. As a matter of fact I did it just to see if there would be any ROI from it. After I realized that this is all a scam I never did it again, nor would I recommend anyone to do so. Like I said in my first post, they target small startups that have no Idea what they are doing with Internet Advertising.
        • I fully admit it. As a matter of fact I did it just to see if there would be any ROI from it.
          Hmm.

          But what had you done if it did work ? The main gripe people have with this is that it is unethical - like paying a company that overpaint's ad süace others have rented on the street and put your ads there.

          Had you continued using that if it got you a good ROI ?
          • A short answer would be Yes.

            A long answer would be Yes, if that method of advertising would not lower peoples oppinion of my company. I quickly realized that it would be dammaging to our reputation so we never tried it again. Like I said in my previous post, alot of small companies are coned into this type of advertising because they don't know what they are getting into. I did not know all the facts at that time. I get offers like these once or twise a week and I always turn them down, no matter the pot

  • Mad Utah Props (Score:3, Funny)

    by WwWonka ( 545303 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:22PM (#9199683)
    You go Utah!!!

    I'm getting sick and tired of low life no morals spyware companies knowing what me and my 5 wives are browsing on the internet!

  • This will be interesting... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dozix007 ( 690662 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:23PM (#9199693)
    I wonder if they will actually get anywhere. While Spyware is annoying and intrusive, the people who put it on your computer are generally in the right by their agreements. Most people that get spyware are uninformed, and ignorant. If you open unsolisited email, or if you download P2P, and other such software, you will end up with spyware.
    • I remember the good ol' days before spyware: it was always took a little work to fix the PCs of friends. Now it's quite easy- just run AdAware and everything's fixed!

      • Re:This will be interesting... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Jaysyn ( 203771 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:36PM (#9199827) Homepage Journal
        A friend of mine ran Adaware last night & it found 2 tracking cookies, not a huge deal. I tell her to download Spybot & run it, and she found *118* more spyware related files. The moral of the story is use em both if you want to be sure you're clean.

        Jaysyn
        • I'm working on a machine and ran Spybot first and killed a bunch of stuff. Then I ran AdAware and it found 2 bad running processes that SpyBot didn't kill.

          I agree that both must be used to catch everything - and the corallary - Run both on all of the user profiles on a given machine

        • Don't stop there... (Score:4, Informative)

          by r_j_prahad ( 309298 ) <r_j_prahadNO@SPAMhotmail.com> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @11:25PM (#9201584)
          After Adaware and Spybot pronounced my wife's PC clean, it still appeared to have problems. So I ran Moosoft's "The Cleaner" and found nine more Trojans.

          The moral of this extended story is: don't stop at one or maybe even two spyware-adware removers. Malware is clever and insidious and needs to be treated with a "cocktail" mix of software antibiotics.
      • SpyWare?

        Is that a feature of MS Windows? I can't say I have seen anything like it on my PC...
        • No, nothing Windows-specific about spyware, other then the fact that the vast majority of idiots who are willing to install spyware happen to use Windows.

          If you're willing to download and install Bonzai Buddy or anything similar, you'll do it in your operating system of choice.

          If Linux ever gets a foothold into the desktop market place, you'll see spyware popping up there too
    • That all depends on what operating system you use.

    • Re:This will be interesting... (Score:5, Informative)

      by lakeesis ( 325621 ) <lakeesis@NOSpaM.yahoo.com> on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:31PM (#9199782) Homepage
      The only problem is that some of the ignorant masses don't actually download the programs causing the banner ads -- they get webjacked into doing so.

      Though the "software license agreements" that most adware pushers have people page through seemingly give them the right do produce the pop up ads, this particular lawsuit addresses the end result -- the software equivalent of hiring someone to wear a billboard for your store to stand in the doorway of your nearest competition. Your hireling wouldn't necessarily prevent them from going in, but it annoys the heck out of the consumer, and infringes on the space of your competition.

      --

      sig: I'm not here right now, or busy. Please leave new sig after the tone.

      • Agreed. I once sent a less than lauditory note to the LOP people who had installed their doubly-distilled, quadruply qualified and unmentionable (so ok, I read Doc Smith!) toolbar on my daughter's browser. Their response was "you agreed to it". Where? When? At no point did she click on a link that clearly indicated this would happen. Hate LOP. Hate, hate hate hate.
        • so ok, I read Doc Smith!

          Damm, another fan of E. E. "Doc" Smith.

          I think it's time to dig that series out again... was good up until the last book where everything got all metaphysical. High-brow sci-fi it ain't, but still a good space opera read.

    • Re:This will be interesting... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      the people who put it on your computer are generally in the right by their agreements. Most people that get spyware are uninformed, and ignorant.

      You can't make a legal contract if you are uniformed or ignorant. This is why shrinkwrap license are rarely (ever?) held up in court.

      • Being ignorant isn't a defence. being uninformed isn't a defence either unless you can prove that the people presenting the contract didn't meet their legal obligations to inform you of the consequences. For example, investments may decrease and you may get back less than you invested.

        The term you're looking for is 'capacity to contract'. I could sign a contract and be released from it if it's proven that I didn't have 'capacity to contract'. This defence might be used if I were mentally ill or under age.

    • not in the right anymore (Score:5, Insightful)

      by r00t ( 33219 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:39PM (#9199854) Journal
      Spyware authors may have been "in the right"
      prior to this law. Why do you think the law
      was passed? :-) An EULA contract is nothing
      when it goes against the law.

    • Try this scenario... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Duhavid ( 677874 )
      I let my son use my wife's computor to go look up airplane pictures. He is 11, is beginning to learn how to use a browser and search engines. So, I figure OK, let him learn. Well, what happens when he accidently clicks on a web page that has one of the "do you want to install" things on it? This is not unsolicted email, not p2p. And these sites are such that you cant tell you are going to get the treatment until *after* you have clicked the link.

      OK, I can tell him to always click no. But they word th
    • Some of those spy/adwares download themselves by minicking Windows message boxes, which I believe comes pretty darn close to fruad.

      I actually seen one case where an IE window set to hide everything with the background color of blue opens up to make it look like you are experiencing BSOD. It also brings up another pop up window with a message in tune of "something is wrong with your computer and click on "Ok" to download a software to fix it". It looked like a real deal execpt for the fact that the popup
      • Anything that tries to trick a user into downloading and installing it is crap and shouldn't be tolerated.

      • There's a really great/awful "Citibank" scam that javascripts images that mimick the address bar and secure status bar, plus javascripting a fake verisign popup. It took netstat'ing to convince a coworker it was fake.

        None of this particularly makes me regret running Linux, personally...

        • There's a really great/awful "Citibank" scam that javascripts images that mimick the address bar and secure status bar, plus javascripting a fake verisign popup. It took netstat'ing to convince a coworker it was fake.

          I saw that too on some email my wife got. I prompty rewrote my automated form filler to create checksum valid credit cards and submitted about 10000 of them. My only problem is that it is in .Net so not to portable, and need the .net framework installed. Sorry, too lazy to learn Java and

  • From the article: Patrick Byrne, president of Overstock said: "Pop-up ads have been to Web browsing what spam is to email. Within the world of affiliate marketing, such software is often called 'parasiteware' on the grounds that the companies which distribute such code and those who advertise through it are parasitic on legitimate commerce: spyware hijacks not only consumer spending, but the commissions that would otherwise be paid to legitimate affiliate community"

    Ok, I get the idea that spyware is parasitic- but do we really need the cobbled together "parasiteware" to describe it?

  • A question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by neilcSD ( 743335 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:26PM (#9199729)
    Here's what I have always wondered - why do merchants say the 1st amendment protect intrusive advertising? Seems to me that if someone doesn't want to hear it, they shouldn't be forced to. Faxers, spammers, all try to hind behind the constitution. I thought the First Amendment only protects free speech, it does not guarantee an audience. Also, it really isn't free speech if it costs people something is it (bandwidth, etc)?

    • Re:A question (Score:2, Interesting)

      by chachob ( 746500 )
      perfect example of "fax spamming" was discussed in a previous article [slashdot.org]

    • Re:A question (Score:5, Informative)

      by dbc ( 135354 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:47PM (#9199911)
      well, yes. and in fact the 1st A. gives broad protections mainly to political speech. you can stand in the park a rail against the mayor all you like. but the protections for commercial speech are *much* more narrow. and yes, forcing you to pay for them to advertise to you is not protected by the 1st A.

      • Re:A question (Score:2, Funny)

        by snyps ( 656162 )
        freedom of speach is not nearly what people say it is, if you go infront of the whitehouse and start badmouthing bush, then you will most likely be arrested. There are enough holes in the 1st amendment that you could fit an elephant through (accusation intended).

      • ..gives broad protections mainly to political speech...but the protections for commercial speech are *much* more narrow.

        Ah, but wouldn't it be nice if there were such a clear distinction that could be made between commerce and politics.

        Separation of church and state took some time, but has been beneficial for both, IMHO.

        Separation of money and state will take some doing.

    • Re:A question (Score:5, Interesting)

      by register_ax ( 695577 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:55PM (#9199964) Journal
      Seems to me that if someone doesn't want to hear it, they shouldn't be forced to.

      Also, it really isn't free speech if it costs people something is it (bandwidth, etc)?

      True overall, but everything costs someone something. Especially in the day in age where time is just as precious (if not more so) as the green that comes in. Taking a protest to the streets corridors off that section of pavement that you have paid for and costs someone time in detouring. But the issue gets mucky as this is also right to assembly. Now if we detract time altogether and only demand it to be a tangible product, we might see how we might be able to beat 'round this African lilac and escape the issue entirely. Ah, if only simplicity existed and people could show compassion and patience for another. But no, it is about your rights, and your rights require to interfere with other's rights. It just isn't as pen and paper write the laws, which is also why you see an influx of laws and the practice of law in the day in age.

      Recently I was reading a press release on some big item having to do with copyright or the like, and one notable CEO or another said that since there are no laws that exist saying you explicitly can, it means you are not able to (sorry, I can't remember where or who, you'll have to take my word for it :)). So if it is not explicitly written they were saying, there's no rights saying you necessarily can do it. I found that highly repulsive as I figured laws existed as restrictions, not being a mode of checking whether or not you can brush your teeth with so and so toothpaste. Extreme I know, but this has everything to do with freedom of speech. OK, maybe I'm pulling freedom of speech into freedom of use, but I think a slow integration of the two is on the rise, where it becomes impossible to even discuss the technology being used as can be readily seen within this era of the DMCA. Companies wish to do away with these rights because it makes everything a lot easier on them ... no lawsuits for poor products, only being able to be enforced by the government that "works" for the people.

      It's a quiet emergence I fear the majority is not ready for. But then I can also readily see they will never be ready for it. Interesting to see how things will turn out regardless.

      • In America it goes, "if it's not expressly forbidden, it's ok to do it". The other way is very police state, like the bad old days of Moscow.
        As for the first amendment, it has nothing to do with advertising. If someone knocks on my door and refuses to leave, I have them arrested for tresspass. If they stand in the street yelling their spiel, they get arrested for disturbing the peace. There are NO first amendment rights to advertise!
        • I know that there are "NO first amendment rights to advertise" as I am an educated USAian. However when you say "if it's not expressly forbidden, it's ok to do it" sounds more like Amsterdam to be honest. I know I still have this underlying right of freedom and will do my best to ensure it stays this way. But with million dollar arguments flying left and right spreading dee FUD into our culture without a basis to stand makes it seem as though more things are forbidden than is apparent. What's more is th

          • Re:A question (Score:5, Informative)

            by cpt kangarooski ( 3773 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @08:18PM (#9200793) Homepage
            I know that there are "NO first amendment rights to advertise" as I am an educated USAian.

            I don't think you're even slightly well-educated:

            "The First Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, protects commercial speech from unwarranted governmental regulation." Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Commission of New York, 447 U.S. 557 (1980).

            However when you say "if it's not expressly forbidden, it's ok to do it" sounds more like Amsterdam to be honest.

            Nope -- that's the English tradition.

    • Re:A question (Score:4, Informative)

      by cft_128 ( 650084 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @08:23PM (#9200815)
      why do merchants say the 1st amendment protect intrusive advertising?

      I posted something [slashdot.org] in another thread that was related to this.

      Part of it boils down to an unexplained aside in an 1886 Supreme Court ruling that grants corporations 14th amendment rights. This has been used to imply that corporations are 'citizens' and deserve the other rights too.

      Also, it really isn't free speech if it costs people something is it (bandwidth, etc)?

      I think you hit the nail on the head there - their right to freedom of speech does not grant them the right to use *your* private facilities to do it.

      "I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country." -Thomas Jefferson

  • Quite the law (Score:5, Informative)

    by bcore ( 705121 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:28PM (#9199748)
    The article is a bit sparse on detail, but here's a link I dug up: Link [state.ut.us].

    Quite law, that. I wonder if it will work?

  • Hooray for Iowa (Score:4, Insightful)

    by autopr0n ( 534291 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:30PM (#9199769) Homepage Journal
    IA was one of the few states that had an anti-spam law on the books before the federal government stepped in and fucked everything up with there idiotic (yes you) CAN-SPAM act.

    Hopefully more states will follow suit and things can quiet down for a while before the Fed steps in and legalizes it.
    • All the Iowa law was good for was for our Attorney General to get face time on TV. He's never met a class action law suit that he didn't jump on (Microsoft, tobacco, ...) - he appears to mainly want to be seen doing something as opposed to doing something worthwhile like stomping on METH.
    • They were also one of the first states to pass anti-UCITA laws. Iowa despite it's farm image is a technologicaly aware state.

  • glad to hear it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Rick and Roll ( 672077 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:41PM (#9199870)
    I am glad to hear that the state of Utah has an anti-spyware law. I would like to see my own neighboring state, Arizona, get one.

    I run linux and have never had to deal with spyware or adware on my own computer (though I hear one company is using .xpi to add a "search bar" to Mozilla). My parents, however, run Windows. My little sister installs programs from cereal boxes that are full of spyware, and I swear one of those programs caused porn pop-ups to be displayed on my computer.

    So what I'm getting at, is that spyware is a huge problem and it's long time someone did something about it! It's just a pity that there hasn't been a government agency or a court brave enough to bring a big judgement against the industry. The fact of the matter is, these programs vandalize people's systems. They are a form of property damage. Plus they expose people to pornographic ads. They break so many laws already. It is too bad that there has to be legislation before someone can make them pay.

  • While they are filing suit... (Score:5, Informative)

    by jwcorder ( 776512 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:41PM (#9199873)
    I want to get on the band wagon and file a suit against Overstock.com! I bought one thing from them and I have been getting bombarded with emails sometimes two or three times a day.

    I even tried to opt out of their email list and the onslaught continues. So before they start sueing people they need to examine their in house activites.
    • THis really is a (rare) case where Hotmail is your friend.

      If I need to register for a website or anything that I suspect will result in a spam torrent, I hop over to hotmail, make a new account and within seconds I have a legit email that I can use for the registration and promptly forget about. I am probably commiting fraud by doing this but white collar prison vs spam is not a difficult choice to make.

      • That's the same strategy I use for everything. Even this slashdot account is on my hotmail. Once a week, I log in to it and delete all the email so they don't shut the account down.

        I don't give my real email address out to anyone other then bill companies (utilities, mortgage, student loans) and my family.

        It is this reasoning that keeps me from getting any spam what so every on my work or home email addresses.

        The only accounts I have spam issues with are my webmaster@domain.com addresses that I have

        • My problem with this method (I use it too, but with a yahoo address) is Windows users and Windows viruses. I work on a Mac and am immune to all Outlook Express email viruses. However, user spam is still a problem. Idiot family members and friends have continued to bulk mail me moronic massforwards over the years. I complain and complain that they shouldn't share my address in the to: field with others I don't know, but they don't get it. I haven't received any dancing leprechaun emails in a while, but

      • Re:While they are filing suit... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by KrispyKringle ( 672903 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @06:52PM (#9200309)
        Better yet, check out SpamGourmet [spamgourmet.com]. I've seen a few other services come close, but this is the only one I know of that allows you the flexibility to create disposable addresses without logging on (e.g. while standing in line at the cellular phone counter) and restrict what addresses can be created to prevent enterprising spammers from just creating new addresses for you.

        You go there and register a name (say, august_zero@spamgourmet.com). Then, whenever you have to give out a displosable address, you make it string.n.august_zero@spamgourmet.com, where string is some unique string you'll use to remember this address and n is an integer ST 1 Far easier.

        • Karma me to death if you wish, but I don't see how that is easier then one hotmail account that never changes and a decent spam utility. That's IMO only though.

          • I can see two actually. One, you aren't violating the terms of service (If you were to make multiple hotmail accounts. Not your point, but it was his.) (and yes, hotmail and yahoo have both gotten much better lately.)

            The second, you can tell who is selling/mishandling email addresses. If you register for a site with one of these, and then you decide you actually want to use the service longterm, you can be alerted to the possibility of letting one of your real addresses out into the wild.

            (disclaimer:
            • That's exactly where I was going. Guess I didn't make it real clear; thanks for clearing it up for me :)

              I used to do the disposable hotmail thing, too, but having multiple accounts is a real hassle. Multiple logins, passwords...it's irritating. Here, they all go straight to my real address, but as soon as one starts sending spam, I terminate it. And I can still recieve the legit mail from the others, something the hotmail method doesn't really allow for (you either use the same address for all spam--mean

      • Don't you know mailinator.com? Instant e-mail address without registration. You just give me@mailinator.com as required e-mail, and after that you can check you inbox...

    • PEACE OFFERING - Re:While they are filing suit... (Score:5, Informative)

      by jonfullmer ( 781361 ) on Thursday May 20, 2004 @12:18AM (#9201746)
      Hello, jwcorder. I'm the Senior Network Engineer at Overstock.com. I was sorry to hear that you're having trouble unsubscribing from our emailing lists. We are continually doing our best to make sure that the only people receiving our e-mails are those that actually want to receive them.

      Long story short, if you've unsubscribed via our website, and you are still receiving e-mails (promoting the latest deals), please contact postmaster@overstock.com

      As a further peace offering, to be absolutely certain you are no longer bothered by unwanted e-mails (from us), feel free to contact me directly at: jon@overstock.com. I'm offering you this address as a token of my sincerity.

      Overstock, as a company, is opposed to SPAM. I, as an engineer and administrator, detest SPAM, so please believe me that I sincerely want to make sure that you're not getting pestered by unwanted e-mails (from us).

      This offer stands for any of the rest of you loyal Slashdot readers. Overstock has some great deals to offer you, but if you don't want to hear about them, please let us know (you can unsubscribe on the website, or contact us via either e-mail addresses I've mentioned). Thanks for your patience. I look forward to hearing from you and serving you.

      - Jon Fullmer

  • the wrong direction (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Wellmont ( 737226 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @05:43PM (#9199886) Homepage
    Doesn't anyone think these should be class action lawsuits started by consumers rather then competitors? This just leaves too much room for overstock to declair advertising practices of their competitor unlawful just to get them out of the picture, not to champion the rights of online consumers. This is almost as corrupt as the idea of Spyware, addware in general! The two cases that have been posted on Slash dot within the last week have been both started by companies who are in direct competition with the plaintifs. This doesn't seem like a revolution where the consumer is taking back his right to accept or reject advertisements it more or less seems like a great way to get rid of competitors who had to resort to unaccepted advertisement methods in order to get an edge on the monopolistic front runner!
    • The competitors are the only ones "harmed" by the popups (discounting that fact that some POS software was generating them).

      Consumers would need to sue for unauthorized use of their systems or something along those lines.

    • Re:the wrong direction (Score:2, Insightful)

      by c+era ( 102193 )
      Actually, overstock.com does have legal grounds to sue. Here's the prohibited conduct part of the law:

      13-39-201. Prohibited conduct.
      (1) A person may not:
      (a) install spyware on another person's computer;
      (b) cause spyware to be installed on another person's computer; or
      (c) use a context based triggering mechanism to display an advertisement that partially or wholly covers or obscures paid advertising or other content on an Internet website in a way that interferes with a user's ability to view

  • How is this the first? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Zen ( 8377 )
    Maybe LL Bean [slashdot.org] should have filed suit in Utah instead of in Maine? Yes, it's different because this one will test Utah's new law. But this sounds like exactly the same problem, and since the story's short on details, it could even be the same culprit (claria).

  • Gee (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by BCW2 ( 168187 )
    When I saw the words lawsuit and Utah together I expected the worst. Why is it hard to contemplate any good from a lawsuit in Utah? Or at least anthing good happening fast, like in my lifetime.

    • Re:Gee (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by BCW2 ( 168187 )
      I see my biggest fan came by two days later with his mod points.

      Do you have a clue what sarcasm is?

      Dumbass

      • Re:Gee (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by BCW2 ( 168187 )
        I really wish I could understand this clowns problem. This is the only person that consistantly nails me. It seems to follow the mod points cycle, so I pretty much know when it's comming and write something just for this clown.

        Another confused liberal, there's only two things you can do to them:
        1. kick the bejeesus out of them.
        2. give them a big enough raise to make them conservative.

  • Legal virusus (Score:3, Insightful)

    by scifiber_phil ( 630217 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @07:31PM (#9200560)
    Spy ware is nothing but legal virusus in my book. Some legal mumbo-jumbo in a EULA saying that I agree to allow you to install third party crap that does god knows what is just unethical and should be illegal. The fact that most of this stuff then ferments to a greater level of scum by spying on me etc. just adds to the insult. NOONE would knowingly agree to ANY of the things, if the EULA were actually truthful about all the effects of clicking on the "I Agree" button. The social engineering done by the lawyers in these EULAs is no differrent then the social enginneering in an email getting someone to open an attachment. The results, in my book are the same. Now I've got a virus on my machine. Both should be equally illegal.

  • Spyware can be a good thing (Score:4, Funny)

    by Skraut ( 545247 ) on Wednesday May 19, 2004 @09:01PM (#9201013) Journal
    Yesterday my boss got his first batch of spyware. When I explained to him what it was and why it needed to be removed he started getting paranoid thinking everyone was tracking him.


    He asked me "Why don't you ever have to deal with this crap on your system?"

    I dropped a knoppix cd on his desk and simply said "Linux."

  • SCOware! (Score:1, Flamebait)

    by cliffy2000 ( 185461 )
    Utah: the double-edged sword.
    They criminalize Spyware. Yay!
    They give birth to SCOware. Boo!
  • I think there needs to be world-wide agreement and coordination on issues like this, because the net is world-wide. Any sane person except certain unscrupulous marketing people, and some politicians, who can't grasp the concept, would agree that spyware should go.

    It is unfortunate that the IETF, or W3C, or some other democractic body who understands the issues can not be delegated the task of setting internet law. It should not be left to local or state level either, it is an international thing, it needs a

  • Personally, if I'm using Overstock, but another company can provide me the same service for a lower price, I'd like to know about it. Sure, many of the ad-ware advertisers are scum, but this law appears to cut off a valuable service that can benefit consumers.

    That said, I always use Mozilla and have Pop-up ad blocking. Still, the law should not ban ads if consumers WANT the pop-ups from competitors to services that they are visiting. Overstock risks crossing the line and acting uncompetitively in a way

Slashdot Top Deals

"Hello again, Peabody here..." -- Mister Peabody

Close