Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Businesses Government Politics

House To Enact Anti-Spyware Law 252

Posted by Zonk from the but-bonzer-buddy-wants-to-be-your-friend! dept.
Stephen Samuel wrote to mention that the U.S. House of Representatives has readied the aptly acronymed Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act (SPY ACT) for law. MS-BS has an article claiming that the bill allows a loophole for the makers of proprietary software. The issue at hand concerns Section 5, paragraph b, subsection 2, under the heading of limitations. The law does not apply to: "(2) a discrete interaction with a protected computer by a provider of computer software solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software, that occurs upon (A) initialization of the software; or (B) an affirmative request by the owner or authorized user for an update of, addition to, or technical service for, the software." The law, then, would disallow Gator and their ilk but would not hamper Microsoft's Genuine Advantage Program. More complete commentary is available at TechReview and About.com.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

House To Enact Anti-Spyware Law More

House To Enact Anti-Spyware Law

Comments Filter:

  • hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

    by commo1 ( 709770 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:44AM (#11712208)
    What about all those who signed the Gator/Gain network EULA which prohibits the removal of said spyware/adware from PCs?

    • Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Informative)

      by cplusplus ( 782679 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:47AM (#11712244) Journal
      Law takes precedent over a EULA.

      • Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

        by hey! ( 33014 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:09AM (#11712580) Homepage Journal
        That's an interesting question.

        Technically (and I stress "technically"), what they are doing here amoutns to taking a right away from the consumer: the right to enter into a contract with a vendor to receive software in return for providing information about their browser habits. The problem is that the vendors are dishonest, and take advantage of the fact that most people can't make it through the legalese in their licenses or don't really understand the implications of what they are doing.

        In any case, IANAL, but isn't this the sort of thing that usually ends up in the UCC for constitutional reasons?

        • Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Interesting)

          by Spy der Mann ( 805235 ) <spydermann.slash ... com minus distro> on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:14AM (#11712655) Homepage Journal
          So if a girl signs a contract that says she has to be somebody's slave or engage in prostitution, is that contract legally valid?

          No, if a law makes something illegal, any contract endorsing such unlawful behavior, becomes automatically void.

          • Re:hmmmm (Score:2, Funny)

            by Anonymous Coward
            So if a girl signs a contract that says she has to be somebody's slave

            I thought marriage vows (love, honour and obey) was legally OK in the USA?

          • Re:hmmmm (Score:3, Interesting)

            by terrymr ( 316118 )
            In contract law it is valid. In practice it is unenforceable on public policy grounds.

            • Re:hmmmm (Score:3, Informative)

              by rainman_bc ( 735332 )
              In contract law it is valid

              Since when? If the consideration of a contract is illegal, the contract is this void.

              Prostitution is illegal, and using it as consideration in a contract makes the contract void.

              There is no "In contract law it is valid" crap. Legality of the consideration is an important part of contract law.

              IANAL, but I play one on /.

          • Re:hmmmm (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Anonymous Custard ( 587661 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @12:18PM (#11713495) Homepage Journal
            So if a girl signs a contract that says she has to be somebody's slave or engage in prostitution, is that contract legally valid?

            Prostitution is a strange legal area to me (IANAL).

            There are all sorts of things that are illegal to do without consent, but are perfectly legal to do with consent.

            Fighting (Martial Arts vs. Assault), sex (consentual vs. rape), taking things (Free Halloween Candy vs. Burglary) - all these things are drastically different when you add the consent of both parties.

            Prostitution is consentual sex + money. In theory it isn't any more dangerous than consentual sex without money. And when properly regulated, then even in practice it's still not any more dangerous.

            Many women legally have sex for money reasons, even if it's not a direct obvious exchange as with prostitution.

            So why is it illegal?
            • It's illegal not because of the act itself, but because of all the stuff that comes along with it.

              Areas of prostitution in a town are usually accompanied by drugs, disease, gang activity, public indecency, statutory rape, etc. Those areas that have outlawed it saw the right of a person to have sex with another person for an exchange of money as expendible when they looked at the rest of the picture.

              It's the same reason strip clubs aren't usually allowed in residential or commercial areas near the center o

            • When Congress just upped the penality for showing a nipple on TV to half a million dollars, you have to ask why prostition is illegal? It has nothing to do with praticality and everything to do with morality.

              A bit off topic, but you hit a sore spot of mine. I am a life-long martial artist and it really bothers me that people think of training as "fighting". You might have seen one too many Van Damme flicks. We don't call it "fighting" it's either "sparring" or "kumite". In either case it's nothing more tha

            • Here in the UK prostitution per se is not illegal (i.e. accepting money in return for sexual favours) - what is illegal is soliciting (i.e. advertising yourself or making offers of money in return for sex) or running a brothel or similar service. So if your girl says she'll give you a BJ if you buy her a new car, that's not illegal - but if she put the same offer on eBay it would be!
              I always thought the same was true in the most of the US states - but maybe I'm wrong.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

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

          • Re:hmmmm (Score:3, Informative)

            by Anonymous Custard ( 587661 )
            Same thing that happens to the Nielsen company, who collects TV ratings by installing a special set top box in a sample of homes around the country who agree to participate: Absolutely nothing.

            When it's completely transparent, and completely opt-in, there's nothing wrong with it.

            Just like if you hire a bodyguard to guard you every minute from a safe distance, you couldn't go and sue him for stalking you. Sure stalking laws could apply to the situation - someone is following you around all day long, but s

          • google too (Score:3, Insightful)

            by gad_zuki! ( 70830 )
            Or google's never expiring tracking cookie. It aint there just for your "prefs."

            Spyware and datamining need to be controlled, or at least made in a way which gives the user an obvious choice. Same with tivo. I didnt appreciate being put into their datamining program by default. These companies needs to change, and if legislation is the only way to do so, then go for it.
        • You can't sign away right that is protected by law. My landlord can't put a clause in my lease agreement that says that I sign away my right to prevent her from entering the house without 24 hour notice. Well, she can try to, and even if I sign the lease, the state law overrides it.
      • Only federal law (which this is). A state law would have a problem. If EULAs are contracts (which they need to be to be valid anyways) then section I.10.1 has the following to say:

        No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts;

        pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobili

      • There's no hierarchical precedent when it comes to contract law. Specifically, contracts that break the law are unenforcable. Eg, if we have a signed contract detailing the methodology and compensation for you killing my partner, and you reneg, I can't come after you for violation of contract.

        And yes, according to my business law teacher, that example did happen.
    • Gator/Gain network EULA

      You mean Claria? I thought they were Ad-Ware not Spy-Ware. Well I would ahve to say that law trumps EULAs any way you put it. And maybe now we'll be allowed to call Spy-ware what it is with out being sued by the company who makes it for libel or slander.

      Personally I have been calling it all vomit ware for quite some time.... as in a previous post I made a while back... because cleaning it up is just like cleaning the bathroom after a night of praying to the porcelaine god.

  • As if It's Going to Do A Thing... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by iammrjvo ( 597745 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:46AM (#11712236) Homepage Journal

    Sure, some of the "legitimate" US companies pushing this stuff will obey the new law, but it's not going to do a thing to stop people in other jurisdictions or criminals who just don't care what the law says.

    Kind of like "Gun Control" I might add.

    • Re:As if It's Going to Do A Thing... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by geoffrobinson ( 109879 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:57AM (#11712399) Homepage
      Accurate analogy people on slashdot won't like and may mod you down for aside, you are correct. Human nature and history being what it is, you are probably correct. The people who would obey this law, probably aren't the people performing this activity to begin with.
    • If the government wants to go after spammers and/or spyware makers, the best way to do it is not by using new and non-court-tested laws, but by using existing law. Kind of like the way they got Al Capone. Almost all of these scummy fly-by-night operations are in violation of numerous laws already. I'd be willing to bet they don't report all of their income to the IRS. At the very least, they probably don't keep proper records. They might not have all the necessary business licenses or otherwise be in violat

      • Do we really want to approve of government actions that basically circumvent due process? I'm normally not very chicken-little about these types of things, but the libertarian in me quails at the thought of a government that's granted the power to persecute whomever it wants (and unless what the spyware companies are doing is actually illegal, whether under existing laws or new laws, that's exactly what you're advocating!) by bringing them up on completely unrelated charges.

        You're basically advocating t

    • Such as GAIN [gainpublishing.com] (producers of Gator).

      If this is made illegal it _will_ make a dent. It will also significantly reduce the number of companies willing to advertise with a spyware vendor; if GAIN is made illegal no legitimate enterprise will buy ads on their network, which significantly reduces their potential profit.

      It doesn't completely fix the problem, sure, but to say that it does nothing is simply not true.
    • IANAL, but under typical accessory laws everyone associated with the crime is also guilty of it. That means not only the spyware makers, but also the companies whose software bundles the program, and any company that advertises through the associated adware. Since both of these have to have a public face, they are easy targets with nowhere to run. While they might go offshore, better there than here. Also, it might stop sites like download.com from posting programs with spyware, as they would also be accomp

  • Who named this? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:49AM (#11712264)

    Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act (SPY ACT)

    So wouldn't this be the SPY ACT Act?

    Are these the same people who scream about having their PIN Numbers stolen at the ATM Machines?

  • And, thanks to this... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Zangief ( 461457 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:51AM (#11712300) Homepage Journal
    Spyware will be "legal", just like the CAN-SPAM act...

    Thank you for your stupid technology laws, American Congress!

    • Story is slightly over-rated. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by essreenim ( 647659 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:01AM (#11712467)
      Right som MS are allowed to inspect my machine to see if I'm authorised to run their software.

      Actually, there is no problem with this, and it is not genuine spyware tactics. Sorry if I start a flamewar here, but if you insist on using Windows, then you should be paying for it and they have every right to inspect your machine to see if you are. This is the aggreement you sign up to.

      Also, I don't see how this affects programs loke Gator as g. parent suggests. They are playing by the same rules. If their software doesn't comply, they should be able to make changes without significantly altering it.

      Anyway, it's not my problem I don'r use Windows. Good luck!!.

      Anyway, spyware will probably find a way to evolve with this..

      • Actually, there is no problem with this, and it is not genuine spyware tactics.

        Hey, there are people who complain that KDE is "spyware" because it sets a flag after first startup to keep kpersonalizer from being run repeatedly (a datum which is not sent anywhere).

        As you say, the proposed legislation outlaws what pretty much everyone defines as "spyware", but people who insist on applying the word far more broadly can continue to complain that their pet objections aren't being addressed.

      • but if you insist on using Windows, then you should be paying for it
        Believe me, I am...
      • The "loophole" only allows checking for authorization:

        "solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software"

        Uploading keystroke logs, web browser history, etc. would not fall under this heading.
      • I am sure that the crackers will have an updated version of the latest Windows ISO image on the file sharing networks that removes the MS-Spyware and replaces it with their own Spyware within at least a month of the next Windows release.

        Either that or use a software firewall to block access to whatever system program that uses MS-Spyware.

  • Cut It Out (Score:5, Funny)

    by Doesn't_Comment_Code ( 692510 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:51AM (#11712314)
    I would like to see a bill that prohibits congress from awkwardly wording bill names to create acronyms.

    • Re:Cut It Out (Score:2, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      We'll call it

      Cut Repetitive, Uninformitive Functionless Titling of Legislation, Establish Succinct Statutes (CRUFTLESS)

    • Re:Cut It Out (Score:5, Funny)

      by OECD ( 639690 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:10AM (#11712598) Journal

      I would like to see a bill that prohibits congress from awkwardly wording bill names to create acronyms.

      I agree. We can call it the No Acronyms May Exist act.

      Wait...

    • Re:Cut It Out (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ZorbaTHut ( 126196 )
      Reminds me of a scifi book I read a while back. One of the side atmosphere bits was that each sentient species (I think there were 5) had one thing they did that really bothered the other races.

      One race, for example, lived about ten times as long as anyone else.

      One of them never took anything seriously.

      The human race? We made clever acronyms. For everything.

      Drove the other races completely mad. "It doesn't NEED an acronym! We can just give it a name! Oh my god, is that a RECURSIVE ACRONYM? I can't work
      • What book was it?
        • I don't actually remember, it's been a very very long time since I read it. The only things I remember is that the ship AI was named PHANTOM, the ship AI's drones were named PHARTS, and that humans and dolphins were two of the races.

          Good luck finding it, if you want to try. :P (I just looked on google and couldn't dig it out.)
    • Seriously. This shit is so juvenile. It's nothing but a publicity ploy. I'd like bills to be acts of law not acts of public relations.
    • We could call it the

      Stop Trying to Over Perform Utterly Silly Ideas of Naming God Awful Creepy Rules Ordering Nomenclature You Might See act

      you know the

      STOP USING ACRONYMS act
    • Or at the very least, Congress should be required to spend more time working on the legislation itself than naming it.

      I agree that these contrived names are ridiculous. I'm quite capable of parsing and reading basic English, and in spite of the legislature's best efforts I'd imagine that most people with decent reading comprehension skills could grasp what the new law covers without needing some stupid name that sounds like it was created by a fourth-grader.

  • Law may have positive effect (Score:5, Insightful)

    by CA_Jim ( 786327 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:54AM (#11712352)
    Two positive thoughs on this.

    One - if written and applied correctly in the US, at least it is a legal tool against some of the spyware, making it more costly for them.

    Two - if it's somewhat successful, it may make Congress look back at CAN-SPAM and fix it.

    Okay I'm optimistic here.

  • B..b..but (Score:5, Funny)

    by GillBates0 ( 664202 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:55AM (#11712359) Homepage Journal
    Won't somebody think of the Bonzie Buddy?

    Bonzie Buddy loves children!

    "SPYACT kills cute furry pets" campaign.

  • Not a legal problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by chill ( 34294 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:55AM (#11712369) Journal
    Spyware is a technical problem. Congress and the public should have learned from the CAN SPAM act, more accurately called "You Can Spam" Act. Spam is at an all-time high.

    People don't read click-thru licenses now, what makes anyone think they're going to read them in the future?

    The antivirus companies, who already have the technology and infrastructure, need to extend their scanning of executables to include ANY software that collects data and phones home. Make a big list and update it with the AV updates. When anything is installed that hit the list, pop up a big "POTENTIAL SPYWARE - ARE YOU SURE?" box.

    Yet another "vote for me, I feel your pain" law isn't going to do anyone any good.

    -Charles

    • Re:Not a legal problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Rasta Prefect ( 250915 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:00AM (#11712440)

      The antivirus companies, who already have the technology and infrastructure, need to extend their scanning of executables to include ANY software that collects data and phones home. Make a big list and update it with the AV updates. When anything is installed that hit the list, pop up a big "POTENTIAL SPYWARE - ARE YOU SURE?" box.

      What this will do is provide the AV companies with a legal defense when purveyors of bundled spyware which the user authorized in paragraph 27 subparagraph z3 come knocking and complaining about interfering with contracts and restraint of trade.

    • Re:Not a legal problem. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Chris_Jefferson ( 581445 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:15AM (#11712666) Homepage
      You could argue the same thing about anything. Maybe shoplifting shouldn't be a crime, as shop keepers could just keep watch, throw people out and ban them. Most shoplifters never go to caught anyway. Same for burgulars.

      I think after how much many people complain about stupid laws, they should be pleased about this one. The point of law is (broadly) to forbid activities which are against the "common good". I'd say spyware falls well into that category.

      AV companies are already starting to have problems as spyware providers use the law against them, claiming marking and removing their software is illegal. This is going to be a great help to them.
    • "Yet another "vote for me, I feel your pain" law isn't going to do anyone any good."

      It might do the politician who wrote it some good, what with all that voting.

    • When anything is installed that hit the list, pop up a big "POTENTIAL SPYWARE - ARE YOU SURE?" box.

      This is not the proper tactic. This would actually make things worse. The problem is, this would pop up so many times that it would effectively numb them to the warnings and they'd either (a) turn the crap off so it would stop bugging them and just let them do what they're trying to do OR (b) just start answering "YES" to all of those to get it to stop buggin them and just let them do what they're trying

    • AOL's spyware weatherbug does not have an EULA dictating its spyware. Go read it.

      No mention of spyware anywhere.

      Many other programs do not even include an EULA because the servers that host the program are oversea's.

      So yes its a problem and some even use Javascript exploits to install themselves without the users knowledge just like a real worm or virus.

  • From Strength to Strength (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Doc Ruby ( 173196 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:56AM (#11712384) Homepage Journal
    I can't wait for the Congress to protect us from spyware as effectively as they've protected us from spam.

  • From bad to worse (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Marcus Erroneous ( 11660 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:56AM (#11712389) Homepage
    I can only hope that this piece of legislation is considerably less effective than the CANSPAM Act. Compliments of the CANSPAM Act, spam is worse. We don't need another cure like that. If the U.S. Congress is our only hope of rescue from spyware, just shoot us now rather than prolong the misery. After all, this crew is the same one that brought us the DMCA and we all know what a resounding success that has been!

    Or not. Your mileage may vary.

  • Securely Protect Yourself (Score:5, Interesting)

    by CastrTroy ( 595695 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @10:56AM (#11712394)
    Securely Protect Yourself is the name of the game here. This law won't do anything to actually stop spyware, as it will probably only affect companies run out of the US. In case they haven't figured it out yet, the Internet is global. The best solution is to just protect yourself by learning basic computer skills such as don't install everything you see and use browsers that don't allow arbitrary code with full system access to be run on your computer.

  • Not gonna work.. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by cluke ( 30394 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:00AM (#11712435)
    This won't be hard to get around. Every user is by now thoroughly desensitised to seeing click-through EULAs for any software they install. So, after this law, paragraph 135.62.4.3.1 on the EULA for your latest Swimsuit Babes Screensaver package is "Oh yeah, and we're sticking Gator on your PC as well, ok?"
    User, as ever, scrolls to bottom of 100 page document in 3 seconds flat, clicks agree, and off we go as before.

  • Patent law could save us (Score:3, Insightful)

    by matt me ( 850665 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:00AM (#11712449)
    If 'technology' patents in the EU end up as silly as those in the US, we could probably stop spyware/adware by patenting
    "A program that installs itself without the user's knowledge, possibly by coming bundled in another package, monitors the user's internet activity and then displays (un)targetted advertising"

    Could probably stop spam too similarly.

    Patent adverts and compulsary user-registration and we wouldn't need the adblock and bugmenot extensions.

  • Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kozar_The_Malignant ( 738483 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:02AM (#11712473)
    This, like Can Spam and others, will have no effect until it starts putting people in prison for some Mitnick-style hard time. It will be especially effective if it puts people who wear suits to work into prison. Until that happens, it is to laugh.

  • Hmm... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by deemaunik ( 699970 ) <ian.shepherd@gma[ ]com ['il.' in gap]> on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:08AM (#11712571)
    Not sure, but in previous bills that were being introduced, the term "Protected Computer" meant any system under the control of a financial institution. It had nothing to do with the general users of the public.

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:2, Informative)

      by Yea-but... ( 743927 )
      deemaunik, your comment is RIGHT ON THE MARK!

      >> Hello Slashdot

      Title 18 USC 1030(e)(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

  • Legislation Names (Score:3, Insightful)

    by drakyri ( 727902 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:10AM (#11712590)
    I'd take a long hard look at exactly what goes into this bill.

    It seems like lawmakers like trendy acronyms (PATRIOT Act, CAN-SPAM, etc.) that disguise undesirable things behind a hard-to-challenge facade.

    Didn't vote for the PATRIOT Act? ...how can you call yourself an American? /sarcasm

    Still, I'd be much happier with names like "HR-98-101" or something similar.
    • I second that.
      This seems to be a disturbing trend in the US, which I hope will not be taken up in other countries. I'll bet it probobly has to do with marketing being applied to legislation. And considering how marketing is 90% about tricking, cajoling and decieving people into buying a product this can only be a bad thing.

      PATRIOT is a classic example. A great many would argue that the act was very UNpatriotic. CAN-SPAM, well dual standard here. DMCA Act? This was less about copyright and more about other
  • I propose we have congress pass a law making it illegal to pass off spyware without having a confirmation "Do you accept to install this activity monitoring software?". Granted this won't help with idiots who blindly click through everything during install, this would greatly make hidden spyware less hidden.

    Hiding spyware in EULAs is distasteful and dishonest at best. This damned act still lets that pass.
  • Good job Congress. Nice to see you occasionally come up for air while you're fluffing the special interests.

  • I love spyware (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I've started a cash-only side business cleaning up spyware/viruses/crapware from frends and family members PCs. Despite my repeated suggestions to stop using Kazaa and IE, and to switch to a Mac, they insist on keeping their Windows.

    Fine with me. It means an extra $200 - $300 CASH every month for me.

    I love spyware.

  • MS "Genuine Advantage" Illegal? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Corporate Drone ( 316880 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:15AM (#11712668)
    Doesn't this bill make the MS "Genuine Advantage" program illegal?

    Section 2(a)(5) says:

    (It is unlawful for any person, who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer, to engage in deceptive acts or practices that involve(s))...

    Misrepresenting ... that installing a separate software component is necessary to open, view, or play a particular type of content

    So... since MS claims that it's necessary to run Windows in order to run Office components, and since WINE amply demonstrates that it's not...

    then any MS claim that Windows is necessary in order to run Office (or to access documents created in Office components) violates this bill...!?!?!

  • Wait a second... (Score:3, Funny)

    by J-Doggqx ( 809697 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:22AM (#11712782)
    This acronym is SPY ACT, but the full name is SPY ACT Act?

    Did the Department of Redundancy Department come up with this?

  • against bill names that form acronyms. Of course the penalty woulf be death, since it is a blatant attempt to destroy the democratic proccess.
  • This a US law.
    They'll need a clone of this bad law in every country.

  • Acronyms (Score:4, Funny)

    by null etc. ( 524767 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @11:42AM (#11713025)
    SPY ACT:

    Silly Politicians Yearn for Acronyms and Catchy Terms

    soon to become:

    Senators Pass Yet Another Crazy Trap

    with an inevitable transition to:

    Start Protecting Your Ass(ets) from Corporate Targeting
  • I really don't care what they call it, what's important is if they can enforce it! The CAN-SPAM act has had some results, but it is still a far cry from stopping the majority of spam. The question lies in whether this bill is going to be used to prosecute the people resposible for the spyware, or if it's just been made to make people think that the government is going to address the issue.
  • The law, then, would disallow Gator and their ilk but would not hamper Microsoft's Genuine Advantage Program.

    Much as I hate Genuine Advantage, it is good that things like that are explicitly allowed. Of course, there should be some sort of notification that this is happening (which, with Genuine Advantage, I believe there is). Apple has a similar feature when you make an Installer Package. When you run it, the user will see a dialog that says something like "This Installer needs to run a program to see

  • It needs a good recursive acronym, a la PHP, wine, or pine...

    How about SPINELESS?

    SPINELESS Prohibition Is Not Exactly Likely to Enhance System Security...

  • Chicago lease lessons (Score:3, Insightful)

    by deanpole ( 185240 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @12:24PM (#11713585)
    Here is Chicago I rented an apartment without consulting a lawyer. It was a contract representing 1/3 of my salary but I had no fear, as leases in Chicago use a standardized form, which is fair and has survived the test of time.

    The flawed UTICA was the opposite. Like today's EULA, it requires me to consult a lawyer and do hours of review and analysis for a piece of software I may have picked out of the bargain bin at Walmart (if we had one in Chicago) for $20. That is absurd. The UTICA was the lawyer full employment act of 2001.

    Other areas have this regulation such as credit cards. Did you ever wonder why all the companies were so nice as to provide a boilerplate section indicating their annual fee in easy to read text?

    I believe books once tried this stunt with several pages of "license" at the front which generally forbid resale and lending from libraries. The Supreme Court struct this down creating the "first sale" doctrince, which is on life support today.

    Therefore, for cheap software (less that $1000) I motion we standardize the EULA's that are permissible. Perferrably to one with a dozen checkboxes for the reasonable variation among verdor wishes. Does anyone care to draft it?

  • 2 loopholes (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Billly Gates ( 198444 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @12:25PM (#11713592) Journal
    1.) Gator which is now Claria bought a mailbox in bulgaria so they are technically not a us company anymore even though they reside here. If they are not under US jursidiction the law then could not be applied to them if the software is distributed from an oversea's server.

    2.) Gator will claim they are not really tracking your urls or keystrokes but are just checking to make sure you are not pirating their software. The clause in italics mentioned in this article can be used by the spammers and spywhere makers to pretend they are offering you a service and checking your membership.

    Many spyware companies also use products like bandwith increaser which also include spyware. Since its a service the company who makes it is immune.

  • Technically speaking (Score:4, Informative)

    by deblau ( 68023 ) <slashdot.25.flickboy@spamgourmet.com> on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:24PM (#11714546) Journal
    The House of Representatives doesn't enact laws. This has to pass committees in the House and Senate, full votes in the House and Senate, and then the President has to sign it before it's an enacted law. Before all that happens, it's just a bill [school-house-rock.com]. (More information here [gpoaccess.gov].)

    Basically, after the bill is signed into law, it becomes a public law [archives.gov] and is printed as a "slip law" [cornell.edu] which can be cited in court. After every 2-year session of Congress, the slip laws are compiled in chronological order in the Statutes at Large [cornell.edu]. Every three sessions (six years), the at-large statutes are organized topically in the United States Code [cornell.edu]. The last US Code came out in 2000, so the next one is scheduled for 2006.

    We just started the 109th session in January (2005 - 1789 = 216 years = 108 sessions prior to this one). That means that if you want to get print copies of laws passed in the 107th and 108th sessions (since 2000), you have to go to the Statutes at Large in your local law library. If you want laws passed by this Congress, you have to go to the slip laws. So far this session, there's only been one: Pub. L. 109-1, "To accelerate the income tax benefits for charitable cash contributions for the relief of victims of the Indian Ocean tsunami."

  • Can't we see what is going on? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by DrDebug ( 10230 ) on Friday February 18, 2005 @01:52PM (#11715027) Journal
    OK, folks, let's step back a bit and see if we can see the forest instead of just the trees.

    Spyware is something relatively new. Recently, it has become epidemic. People are screaming for relief, from both the lawmakers and the software industry.

    The industry has responded, somewhat grudgingly, with limited spyware removal products. None are outstanding.

    The lawmakers, as usual, are clueless. Of the hundreds of lawmakers at the state and federal level, only a small percentage are technically savvy. And those that are technically savvy are usually junior, and do not have the political equity or clout to bring about real change yet.

    But the lawmakers feel like they have to do something to stem the panic on the part of the people. What are they going to do?

    Enter Microsoft. Besides being a number one marketing firm (for their own products, of course) they have one of the finest set of lawyers in the business. Now who better than a small team of Microsoft lawyers could assist the lawmakers with laws concerning this brave new world of spyware?

    Of course, I would not put it past Microsoft to engineer small backdoors in the law to allow them to continue doing what they do best-- attempting to take over the entire planet.

    Remember, these are the people that write bulletproof EULAs-- do you want them helping to make law now?

Slashdot Top Deals

"An idealist is one who, on noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it will also make better soup." - H.L. Mencken

Close