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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy IT

Australia Says No To Spyware 195

Posted by Zonk from the sanity-down-under dept.
PrivateDonut writes "Australian parliament introduced a bill on Thursday that would 'make it illegal for anyone to install a program without informed approval and attract a fine of $10,000.' Is this doomed to fail as many other anti-spam/spyware bills have failed? Or has Australia finally hit the mark?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Australia Says No To Spyware More

Australia Says No To Spyware

Comments Filter:

  • So? ...without international agreement? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by beh ( 4759 ) * on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:29PM (#12538005)
    I think, this proposal is a bit of a lame duck - much like other laws.

    If I am under the danger having to face $10.000 for installing spyware on a PC in my own country - then I'll do it in another country. Do you really think there will be extradition for installing Spyware?

    As long as I am willing NOT to visit the country where I hijacked some PCs, where's the problem? I can still do an awful lot of damage anyway...

    I think, such laws will only become effective, once we will have international agreement on such laws to make them easily punishable across country borders. Internet criminals have the big advantage that they can BE in a non-extradition country even at the time they commit the crime in an entirely different country.

    • Re:So? ...without international agreement? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Hockney Twang ( 769594 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:34PM (#12538052)
      I think the idea of a worldwide anti-spyware alliance is more than a little silly. In fact, I shy away from any push for international policy beyond the protection of basic human rights.

      The solution to spyware problems is either technological(although I have no idea how, using an non-Widnows OS isn't really "the answer") or social(teach people how to 1. Avoid spyware and 2. Avoid giving any kind of financial incentive to any company associated with spyware).
      • using an non-Widnows OS isn't really "the answer"

        Why not? It's worked perfectly for me for years.
      • using an non-Widnows OS isn't really "the answer"

        Sure it is.

        The problem lies in convincing the People Who Decide(tm) that there are real alternatives.

        p

      • Re:So? ...without international agreement? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Farmer Tim ( 530755 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @07:03PM (#12538712) Journal
        "...(teach people how to 1. Avoid spyware and 2. Avoid giving any kind of financial incentive to any company associated with spyware)"

        That's on the list, right after we teach people the following:

        1) MS Word is a word processor, not an operating system;
        2) Nobody in Nigeria really wants to give them $millions;
        3) Their bank hasn't really lost their details, and they don't need to go to a website to re-enter them;
        4) Passwords shouldn't be something as blindingly obvious as the name of their cat/favourite band/significant other; ...and so on. A strategy that involves educating everyone is doomed because not everyone is willing to be educated (sad but true).

        • Re:So? ...without international agreement? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by conchobar0928 ( 865821 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @09:11PM (#12539336)
          In addition to not using obvious passwords, there is a rampant problem on the side of websites: requiring the user to choose a question and answer in case of a lost password. Stuff like, "What city were you born in?" Such a question may foil a criminal on the other side of the world from his victim, but if a criminal is targeting locals, perhaps even acquaintances, friends, and family, then it's trivial. Personally, I just respond to the questions with a random string of characters that only leet hackers could guess.
        • 1) MS Word is a word processor, not an operating system;
          Yeah, everyone knows that Emacs is the only proper word processing operating system [c2.com].
        • 1) MS Word is a word processor, not an operating system;


          Of course, after all, if they wanted a real operating system they'd run Emacs :)

    • Re:So? ...without international agreement? (Score:4, Informative)

      by luvirini ( 753157 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:36PM (#12538067)
      computer criminals have been extradited.. and it is sometimes possible to follow revenue streams and such depending on the exact wording on the bill.

    • ISP Blacklisting (Score:2, Insightful)

      by AtomicSnarl ( 549626 )
      Having the law on the books is one thing, applying it is another. Allowing that SpamHaus Ltd is convicted (in abstentia or other), and is outside the nation (that pesky extradition thing), one possible next step would be a national (international?) blacklist of SpamHaus's ISP. If local ISPs continue to allow access to SpamHaus, the law would then treat the next case as treating the Local ISP of aiding and abetting SpamHaus.

      Yes, this would be shooting the messenger, but it would also put the screws to

    • Re:So? ...without international agreement? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:05PM (#12538224) Homepage Journal
      If writing spyware is illegal in the country you live in, then it doesn't matter where your victims live. Prosecutors just have to show that your software is designed to invade people's computers.
    • "Do you really think there will be extradition for installing Spyware?"

      IIRC Australia has extradited an Australian citizin from a large warez group to the US for copyright after relasing Windows 95 or something.
    • "Do you really think there will be extradition for installing Spyware?"

      If the number if installations pushes the fines into the multi-million dollar range, then quite probably.

    • Re:So? ...without international agreement? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Anne Thwacks ( 531696 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @07:28PM (#12538832)
      Worded correctly, it could work.

      For example, if , under the proposed law,, action can be taken against the (American owned) banks which process the money for all spamware sales, then it would stop.

      If the Australian government says to American Express: "If, after being informed that one of your clients is using your service to process payments for items promoted by spyware, you continue to make payments to that client, then the Austrailian branch of your company will be fined $10,ooo for each transaction" it would stop.

      If the American government threatened to withdraw banking licences from banks that provided services to those who use spyware/spam to promote their goods and services, there would be no spam. They could do this using existing anti-corruption/money laundering legislation. But they don't.

      Unfortunately, the US government has sold its soul to the devil.

      • They could do this using existing anti-corruption/money laundering legislation.

        As far as money-laundering is concerned: For a very long time, most anti-money laundering laws worldwide were worded in such a way that they only applied to hiding the origin of money coming from drug-related crimes. "Laundering" money coming from other crimes, such as extortion, theft, fraud,... was not considered to fall under these laws! The reason for this was that most of these laws were enacted in the framework of the US

    • Re:So? ...without international agreement? (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ummm... you're right. But you're not reading between the lines.

      The main "purpose" of these laws in Australia is to allow the executive arm of government to make treaties with other countries to deal with these problems.

      In Australia, the government cannot domestically ratify a treaty unless
      1. it passes a law through Parliament (which is uncertain because Bills can be rejected); or
      2. the executive makes regulations to give effect to the treaty (which is immediate)

      SO...
      IF
      there was no Spam Act 2003 or no
      • Foreign Affairs explain Treaty-Making here [dfat.gov.au].

        Basically the Government can sign any treaty they like, but to have any effect in Australia it has to legislate those effects. (I think you might have been implying that)

        Regulation (subordinate legislation) is useless because:

        a) it can only be made under an existing Act giving power to a Minister to make Regulations in that matter

        b) it can be disallowed in the Senate within 14 sitting days of the making of the Regulation

        Basically if it's controversial then it'

  • Traceback (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fembots ( 753724 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:30PM (#12538016) Homepage
    Is it correct that spyware works for its master? So at some stage it must try to communicate with its master to relay any information back right?

    I believe if a lab (open, sponsored or even MS) can do the traceback and tie every spyware to its owner, then it'll be easier for those who want to take action to do whatever the law allows.

    For example, if credit card numbers or PayPal logins are purposely fed to the spyware, and whoever uses that information will be linked directly to the spyware.

    • Re:Traceback (Score:5, Insightful)

      by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:36PM (#12538064) Homepage
      Yeah, but that would require "police work". It's much easier to just write broad, vague all-encompassing laws so that the party in power can use them against their enemies.
    • Lets assume its adware/malware instead of some kind of virus or worm.

      Some lab traces the spyware..back to the spyware company. A court order is dropped on the spyware company to reveal its operation to the authorities.

      Spyware company says..oh..ok..we were advertising for (insert giant company, or spyware removal company). Said company says..oh sorry..we're not responsible for what our hired guns do. We pay them for their help in generating revenue for our product, which they do.

      Nothing changes.

  • Hmm... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Kufat ( 563166 ) <kufat@nOSpaM.kufat.net> on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:31PM (#12538022) Homepage
    Seems like most spyware has the same level of "informed approval" that store-bought commercial software does: An EULA that nobody reads.

    It's a feel-good law.

    • Re:Hmm... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Sycraft-fu ( 314770 )
      No there's plenty of it that tries to sneak on your system. Also once it installs itself, much of it tries to install other spyware. Plus, if you remove it, it tries to reinstall without asking. A well written law would be effective against all these. Require an informaed shoice EACH time EACH peice is installed, which means that an installer would need to activete, a disclaimer appear, and it would need to respect a "no" choice.

      Now that would still leave spyware that comes in normally and fully discloses
      • Agreed. I actually wouldn't have much problem with a "legit" spyware program. As long as I knew what it did, could remove it whenever I felt like it and knew that it wouldn't corrupt my system, it might be worth trading that for certain thigns.

  • Problem (Score:4, Insightful)

    by mboverload ( 657893 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:31PM (#12538024) Journal
    The problem is that most spyware IS INSTALLED BY THE USER. Users are idiot!
    • {this reply posted by automated advertising agent x-buyme} Your post indicates that you would want to visit our excelent site, taking you there automatically now.

    • Funny? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:16PM (#12538284)
      Not all spyware is installed directly by the users, but I've seen it happen in many cases, and sometimes even PAY for it (eAnthology stuff and the like).

      I've seen people who had a completely crashed PC every week, were told that spyware (lots of-) was the cause, were explained everything, but didn't mind if their daughter was going to reinstall spyware-infested kazaa on it again, and kept using IE anyways.

      A lot of people don't care, and some even pay for the previlege of having more spyware on their PCs. Users ARE idiots! It's insightful - not funny!

  • YAY! (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Ammazing! Let's hope that this works.

  • Informed? (Score:5, Informative)

    by Renraku ( 518261 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:32PM (#12538029) Homepage
    If this were in the US, 'informed' would mean "Well, he was getting great offers..so in effect..we're practically putting money in his pocket!"

  • "Informed approval" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by benjamindees ( 441808 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:32PM (#12538034) Homepage
    Not just 'consent', but 'informed' as well.

    Does this include automatic update features? If an update breaks something, is it malware?
    • That was my first reaction as well.

      It's going to be very difficult to distinguish between a legitimate auto-update and an unwanted spyware application.

      How would you tell the difference legally?

  • Informed Concent..... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Manip ( 656104 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:32PM (#12538037)
    A lot of spyware (via the licence agreement) *do inform the user that they are about to be installed. Even those that install themselves via an ActiveX control do so... So this new law will help very little in this war against spyware.

    On that note, look how much good the anti-virus laws have done in cutting them down (nothing). We need to find technical solutions to technical problems, not social solutions to technical problems.
    • Informed consent means a lot in some countries.

      Like if you take a loan, the bank actually has to go through with you every paragraph.. maybe they mean the same thing?

    • Re:Informed Concent..... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Hockney Twang ( 769594 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:42PM (#12538099)
      I don't see it as an overtly technical issue. There is a technical solution to most spyware, don't install it. Of course there are some really sneaky bastards, and you can use anti-spyware progs for them. These are solutions that exist in the technical realm.

      The problem really arises from users who are unaware of how to make proper use of their computers, or who are unaware that by purchasing the products that popup on their screen, they're making the problem worse. This requires social remedy. We need to promote education about how to avoid spyware, then it will become less useful to marketers, and eventually decrease to a mostly harmless level.

      However, the idea that we could litigate spyware out of existence is ridiculous. Laws in this vein are ultimately unenforcable in the real world.
      • Most non-geeks will install just about anything with the hope that some program they're trying to install will work ok. It's hardly informed consent.

        On the other hand, I'm just as bad. When, for example, Debian's Apt tells me to install package "Email" I also need to install library "meaningless letters" and package "obscure joke reference" and 20 other weird libraries, I don't go look up every one of those, and their dependencies. Who's got the time for that? Even if you do, half the time the package

    • No, legislation does help (Score:4, Insightful)

      by MikShapi ( 681808 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @10:08PM (#12539560) Journal
      It puts yet another country off-limits for ad-scum, not only to operate from, but even to live there while operating an ad company in zimbabwe.

      It's not a silver bullet and shouldn't be treated as such. It won't make adware vanish. But if more and more counties say "NOT ON OUR SOIL" to this (and same goes for anything from child porn, to snuff films, to terrorist camps), it make it harder for said scum to operate (especially when they live in those counties and are subject to being sued). Consider this - some of the people who live in those countries, do this and do not look to relocating will look away from such practice (same as they do from, say, theft), thus such legislation *will* decrease the scale of the problem.

      They're correct by looking at it as any other form of crime, assuming that completely killing it is not within our means, but instead looking at mitigating it through legislation.

    • Isn't lack of "informed consent" the rule that makes statutory rape a crime?

      So will we now ban under-18s from installing any software under a "statutory spyware" law?
    • The amount of deception and misinformation in those license agreements is astounding. Some of them have 54 screens of legalese in a tiny box. Others bring up the activeX install box saying "hit yes to install critical media player 9 update". Others are on sites for children, who are too young to legally enter a contract: http://www.benedelman.org/spyware/installations/ez one-claria/details.html#1c [benedelman.org] Quite frankly, if someone were making contracts like these for real life goods and services, lawyers would be
    • It is fine. Next time we should make a law which makes user responcible for all spam from his hijacked machine. This would motivite user to learn and think about what he is going to confirm in this dialog box.

      What IT industry need is the end of principle "NO WARRANTY".

  • The old bullet versus armour story (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:32PM (#12538038)
    Although I applaude the efforts of the ozzie goverment, I can't help but wonder how many hours it will take a lawyer to find the first loophole. Thus placing the advantage back in the malware authors hands.
    • Why so many people here seem to think that if you can't find a perfect, 100%, uncircumventable solution, well just thorw it all out and pretend like there's not a problem.

      Most things in life don't have nice, neat little solutions that are all encompasing. Generally there are flaws, espically when you deal with laws which are a field of human interactions.

      That does not, however mean you should just throw in the towel and let asshole run rampant. While a law like this won't stop spyware cold it can and will
    • Yeah because, really, I'd rather just lie down and take it like we do now.

  • Bundling spyware with other applications? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Mr Smidge ( 668120 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:32PM (#12538039) Homepage
    Some free applications include spyware in their main installs, to provide ad revenue or whatever.

    Kazaa used to be one of those, is that right?

    Can this make any impact on those programs who refuse to install unless you also allow numerous pieces of malware to go with it?

  • Should be a bounty system (Score:4, Interesting)

    by CrazyJim1 ( 809850 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:34PM (#12538049) Journal
    Violator gets $10,000 fine.

    Austrailia govt gets $5,000.

    Bounty Hunter who finds the product gets $5,000.

    All the spyware on the internet would be rooted out in less than a week if Australia could smack down fines to people across the world.

  • The Australian parliament asks..... (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:41PM (#12538086)
    ...that to help them with the task of collecting evidence that you install this helpful program which automatically remembers login IDs/passwords and fills in online forms with just one click [gator.com].

  • Sue Microsoft? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by ikekrull ( 59661 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:47PM (#12538126) Homepage
    So if you plug an XBox into XBox Live, and it downloads a new version of dashboard without your consent, or even informing you it is doing it, can you get $10,000?

    • Re:Sue Microsoft? (Score:4, Informative)

      by say ( 191220 ) <<on.hadiarflow> <ta> <evgis>> on Sunday May 15, 2005 @07:19PM (#12538790) Homepage
      A _slight_ difference between someone being fined $10k and you being paid $10k. OTOH, if you live in Australia, the money goes to the State - and you are the State! So, you do get the money.

  • Wrong Focus? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Adrian Lopez ( 2615 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @05:55PM (#12538169) Homepage
    If the summary is correct then it seems to me the law is focusing on the wrong problem. The problem with spyware is not so much the installing of software without permission, but rather with the sending of information without user intervention or at his implied permission according to the software's clear intended function.
    • I should have clicked on the preview button. Here's another attempt...

      If the summary is correct then it seems to me the law is focusing on the wrong problem. The problem with spyware is not so much the installing of software without permission, but the sending of information without user intervention or at least his implied permission according to the software's intended purpose.

    • Re:Wrong Focus? (Score:3, Informative)

      by thebigmacd ( 545973 )
      I disagree. The biggest problem with spyware is how it trashes people's machines. Whether a program sends "personal" (debatable whether the data is usually personalized) information over the Net beyond its stated intention is secondary to a machine that has been rendered unuseable.

      Users only care about what they experience, and that happens to be computers that don't function. I don't spend hours slaving away trying to prevent personal information from being sent over the Net, I spend hours slaving away t
      • I've had to remove spyware programs myself and I agree they can cause lots of damage to the system, but such damage is motivated by the desire to hide the software's existence, and the desire to hide the software stems from the fact that it's meant to collect and ultimately transfer information without the user's permission.

        Software is often bundled with other software and the user won't know this unless he opts for a "custom" install. This shouldn't be illegal unless it causes damage to the user such as i

  • Internet Credit Report (Score:5, Interesting)

    by adamdewolf ( 879951 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:00PM (#12538203) Homepage
    Fines, BAH.
    An blacklist of people that develop or use mal/spyware. Something that ISP's can check before they give internet access or hosting services.

    I can hear it now, "Oh sir. I'm sorry, but you have a high Internet abuse score. We are unable to aprove your e-mail account at this time."

    • You mean like the TSA "terrorist watch list" for airlines?

      <sarcasm>Oh yeah, that's *real* effective - I feel much safer flying now!</sarcasm>

      Repeat after Ben: "They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security". And, I would add, will get neither liberty nor security.
    • An interesting idea but it wouldn't work, people on the internet can be anyone they want to be. To truly make sure would take a massive database of something unique about them

      + there will always, always be one hosting company that would pop up and charge over the odds to these bastards so they can get online.

  • Don't like Spyware? Don't choose it (Score:5, Interesting)

    by xiando ( 770382 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:23PM (#12538350) Homepage Journal
    At the end of the day we all know that local laws like this have no effect in a global place unless every country connected to the Internet agrees on such laws. Spyware software is a matter of education and choice. The best way to fight it is to educate people on software and the importance of knowing how it works so consumers can make choices based upon facts and information. Some operating systems allow spyware to be installed, others do not. People need to learn that they can choose operating systems that do not allow Spyware. And they also need to learn how to avoid the pitfalls in the operating systems that allow spyware to be installed easily by clicking on the wrong advertisement banner in the wrong browser if the wrong configuration is in use. Knowledge = power....
    • . . . platforms that do not allow spyware? Like, say, a tin can? Or maybe a dead badger. I can't think of any way to install spyware on a dead badger.

      Seriously - the day you know Linux is a major force is the day people start writing spyware for it. Hell, I could write spyware pretty easily - just run at login and pull the URLs out of any Firefox processes I see . . .

      (Note: Firefox is a major force now. You can tell because people are explicitly working around the popup blocking.)

  • Informed approval... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Francis85 ( 875901 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:24PM (#12538389)
    As long as people won't read disclaimers, they'll end up installing lots of spyware "legally". w00t for 250 pages disclaimers!

  • Private member bill == Joke? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by gvc ( 167165 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @06:34PM (#12538514)
    In Canada, Private Member Bills are a joke. Is Australia different?
  • trying to keep the tide from the beach.... Every attempt at regulating the Internet or its use will fail. The only successful prosecutions are when it is proven that the user's use of the Internet violated another law that has nothing to do with the Internet. Of course this will fail, they have little if any power to enforce this law, and this is probably something related to other, unrelated, political interests anyway. I wish the world would wake up and start openly and vociferously laughing at public fi

  • No Spies (Score:2, Informative)

    by paulkoan ( 769542 )

    Having a decent application firewall is a solid preventative for spyware. Spyware can only be of value if it can report back the data it collects.

    XP has an "incoming" application firewall - it would be of greater value if it had outgoing controls too.

    • XP has an "incoming" application firewall - it would be of greater value if it had outgoing controls too

      Outgoing calls home from software are still figured (in some quarters) to be a great tool against piracy. Sooner or later Microsoft would undoubtedly backdoor their outgoing firewall app with a way for their own apps to call home to prove their authenticity and of course with MS security and code stability being what it is, how long till malware writers crack it and use that backdoor to get around it?
    • A firewall can't protect you from actions by programs inside the protection domain of the firewall. A spyware program could communicate with the outside world by techniques as subtle as coding them in the name if HTTP fetch requests, so even if the firewall was a hard proxy and didn't do more than a lookup of the name (say, to see if it's a blocked IP range), it could still call home through the DNS requests the proxy made.

  • I can see it now..

    "Microsoft has been charged for uninformed installation of software by numerous individuals in Australia."
    "I saw this icon in my taskbar, but didn't know what it was, before I could take a decent look at it this was gone! I called my more technical savvy friend in fear for a virus, so he explained me it was Microsoft installing software onto my computer." a victim said. Microsoft claimed it to be a "feature" and declined any further comment.

  • In related news, the crime rate in Australia went up 23,453,464,356% today...
  • I'm one of those people who must find the right way to do everything and do it in a clean, efficient way. This bill seems like added bulk to me. I'm certain there must be another way around these problems, rather then just rehacking legislation.

    With all the new bills and laws being added, does this have some effect on the effectiveness of the justice system? It seems governments these days are in competition with Microsoft to see how many patches/hacks they can add to an already bloated system.

  • Realistic? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by t_allardyce ( 48447 )
    Governments should be careful to make laws that can be enforced, otherwise the law looses respect, it becomes a joke.

  • I do not approve this bill so I cannot allow it to pass. There are no provisions for ass beating with a cain pole in here. So until I see these changes I cannot approve it.

  • We've had spam legislation longer than the United States has, and our legislation covers all Australians. The U.S. cannot say as much.
  • The point of laws like this, and others (viruses, spam, etc) isn't to solve the problems legally. Obviously nobody except perhaps the very naive expects stealing to stop just because there are laws against thievery. Rather they provide some means of justice (or retribution, or whatever you want to call it) when people are caught. Will some people be deterred? Maybe. But I don't think anyone breaks the law expecting to get caught.

  • PRIVATE MEMBER'S BILL (Score:5, Informative)

    by child_of_mercy ( 168861 ) <johnboy AT the-riotact DOT com> on Sunday May 15, 2005 @08:50PM (#12539241) Homepage
    OK, I relaise that very few people understand Australian Parliamentary procedure (including whoever posted this)

    This is a Private Senator's Bill which means it is going no-where in our system.

    Even more irrelevant is it's introduction by the Australian Democrats, a fringe party in the process of disapearing completely.

    (proving that having progressive ideas about computers is no guarantor of electoral success)

    Very, very rarely a Government will look at a Private Bill, say "hey that's a good idea" and then re-introduce it as a Government Bill (yes, about three years ago a PMB was passed into law but it was notable for being an exception).

    That's the day for headline stories on Slashdot.

    Even if the proposals in the Bill are workable (enough spyware is made by companies operating in Australia to have some enforceable merit) the Bill itself is not likely to become Law.

  • Nothing can be prevented, even murder (Score:5, Informative)

    by anti-NAT ( 709310 ) on Sunday May 15, 2005 @09:29PM (#12539421) Homepage

    People seem to assume that laws should only be enacted if they can "perfectly" prevent what is made illegal. People then seem to say a law that doesn't perfectly prevent the act that is made illegal is a waste of time.

    Laws don't work that way.

    Prevention of "illegal acts" is actually an intended side effect of the law. Murder, for example, is commonly prevented because of the consequences of the laws against murder, not purely because of the existance of the law itself. The significant punishment for murder hopefully makes people think twice about committing it. Of course, people sometimes still commit murder, irrespective of the law against it. Murder could be declared illegal, with no punishment attached. Law abiding people should therefore not commit it, however the significant punishment attached is what gives the law it's "teeth".

    Laws primary goal is to create a significant level of discouragment to commit the illegal act. In most cases, that discouragement then has a resultant effect of preventing most cases occuring. Laws are actually a form of behaviour control.

    Laws such as this one are an attempt to make spyware authors think twice about creating it. It certainly won't perfectly eliminate it. However, if there is a significant reduction in spyware, then the law can be considered to be effective.

  • Quite aside from the virtues or flaws of the bill itself how much support for it is there in the Australian parliament?

    IIRC the Australian Democrats have only a handful of senators in the upper house and zero or one MP in the lower house so unless I'm misunderstanding how Australian bills become law they'll need substantial support from the mainstream parties to get this through.
  • IIRC Oz has laws that prevent people for changing data on your PC without concent, like changing the default homepage on your browser, this moves to stop non-intrusive virii, which is really what spyware is. It is a start and better than nothing, now if they could stop spam from Goverment bodies and political orgs!!
  • Australia is not America - the Democrats are a minor party and fading fast, and all members of both houses of parliament are required to vote on party lines. They don't get a choice. In other words this Bill is probably going nowhere. The Democrats may continue to hold onto the title of "most important minor party" but they're rapidly losing even that honour to the Greens. Introducing bills like this is political posturing pure and simple - they're rarely taken up and can sit in the lists for years. The
    • "all members of both houses of parliament are required to vote on party lines."

      Actually only ALP members are "required"

      But to face this monolithic block the rest of the Parliament has over the years calcified into a monolithic block of its own.

      Very few Lower House members have the personal following to risk losing their official pre-selection.

      In the upper house it's even worse where the parties can assign the flow of preferences within each state.

      So you're right in practice but the theory is a little d
  • in that our current government thinks they can solve technical issue using legislation. these spyware people are criminals, they dont' CARE about the law
  • ... illegal for anyone to install a program without informed approval and attract a fine of $10,000.'


    Would that make it illegal to pre-install Microsoft Windows?

Slashdot Top Deals

We are each entitled to our own opinion, but no one is entitled to his own facts. -- Patrick Moynihan

Close