New York Moves Against Stalkerware

An anonymous reader shares a report: Stalkers and domestic abusers in the US for years have been able to access the kind of surveillance tools typically associated with foreign spies. That's all because of a pervasive industry that promises to help people who want to secretly monitor their family members. Now, because of an action brought by the New York Attorney General, one player in the so-called stalkerware industry has agreed to notify the people who were infected with its spyware. But it was required to pay just $410,000 in civil penalties, in part because rather than taking issue with the harmful nature of the technology, state prosecutors cited only the companies' use of deceptive marketing.

A detailed legal filing provides a glimpse into the pernicious capabilities that stalkerware firms provide to consumers -- enabling buyers to collect victims' texts, photos, emails, direct messages, you name it. The case is the latest evidence that such apps are more popular than previously understood. The New York investigation determined that one Florida man owned 16 companies, distributing apps with names such as PhoneSpector and AutoForward Data Services that promoted mobile surveillance software. Once installed on a device, some of the apps would be invisible on a user's home screen and allow a stalker to remotely activate an individual's camera or microphone without their knowledge, according to the legal filing.

typical

[rogoshen1]

the FBI just wants a monopoly on these capabilities.

Re:

[alvinrod]

I think it's a pretty good indication that if we wouldn't allow a private company to do it that we really ought to question if the government should be able to either. I've no doubt it makes the FBI's job easier to be able to do things like this, but the potential for abuse is obviously large and oversight seems to get overlooked.

Re:

[rogoshen1]

absolutely; circumventing rights and protections because it makes the job of law enforcement 'easier' is a pretty quick route to tyranny.
And that's not to mention that if private companies are able to do things that the government cannot; well that's a pretty convenient end-run around those protections isn't it?

there isn't really a proper argument against transparency in law enforcement, any pushback really makes you wonder what they're up to (such as body-cams on officers to no-bid secretive third party co

Re:

[larryjoe]

I think it's a pretty good indication that if we wouldn't allow a private company to do it that we really ought to question if the government should be able to either. I've no doubt it makes the FBI's job easier to be able to do things like this, but the potential for abuse is obviously large and oversight seems to get overlooked.

While I can understand and agree with some examples where both private companies and the government should be prevented from doing something, there are obvious examples to the contrary. For example, maintaining a standing army with nuclear weapons. Or approving medical drugs. Or legally binding courts (okay we have arbitration which has been fantastic for corporations and disastrous for people).

I can agree with the sentiment to be very reluctant to grant surveillance rights to the government. However, I

Re:

[dbialac]

They were always going to have First Amendment issues.

No they didn't

[drinkypoo]

An anonymous reader shares a report:

We know what it means when "An anonymous reader" shares yet another low-quality Bloomberg link. It means it's paid placement. The only question is, who's dumb enough to still be paying for placement on Slashdolt?

Re:

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Punish the stalkers, not the ware

[Powercntrl]

There's plenty of legitimate uses for software that monitors a mobile phone, especially for parents of young children. Just as we punish people who misuse guns rather than the gun manufacturers (although, yeah, there certainly are some misguided folks who believe the manufacturers bear responsibility), it is the stalkers who should have legal action brought against them.

Blaming the tool when a person misuses it sets a dangerous precedent, because even something as innocuous as a soft fluffy pillow can be u

Re:

[bws111]

They aren't saying you can't have tools that monitor a phone. They're saying you can't have tools that monitor a phone and hide that fact from the user of the phone. I don't see a reason why parents of young children would need to do that.

Re:

[rogoshen1]

might be a case of the legal framework not catching up to technology.
Similar to wiretapping laws in a lot of states state that only one party needs to have knowledge the conversation is being recorded.

Re:

[Powercntrl]

I don't see a reason why parents of young children would need to do that.

Because kids are sharper than you think.

Users should be able to protect themselves.

[OneOfMany07]

I blame Google and Apple more than the security companies offering the stalker software. It's the same stupidity as the drug war. You can't legislate most things away.

Force the companies to include enough tools to detect when this is happening. Including when their software is sharing your location, etc.

And that telecom companies + government (police, etc) must make a public record of all information retrieval activities. Easily accessible + searchable, and recent/current.

Airtags?

[Locke2005]

How about mandating that all phones come equipment with software that tells you an Airtag is following you, so Apple doesn't use not getting raped and murdered as a marketing advantage for iPhones anymore?