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

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Privacy Your Rights Online

Washington State Outlaws Spyware 318

Posted by timothy from the good-luck-with-all-that dept.
An anonymous reader submits "Today, the Governor of Washington signs a a bill outlawing spyware (bill history) which imposes penalties of $100,000 per violation. Spyware is broadly defined. It includes everything from changing a browser's bookmarks or homepage settings, "Opening multiple, sequential, stand-alone advertisements in the owner or operator's internet browser", keystroke-logging, taking over control of the computer, modify its security settings, and even "Falsely representing that computer software has been disabled." But here is my favorite: "Prevent, through intentionally deceptive means, an owner or operator's reasonable efforts to block the installation or execution of, or to disable, computer software by causing the software that the owner or operator has properly removed or disabled automatically to reinstall or reactivate on the computer." Microsoft and Ebay both testified in support of the bill. On May 10th, a similar law banning Internet and email phishing was also passed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Washington State Outlaws Spyware More

Washington State Outlaws Spyware

Comments Filter:
  • Washington state also outlawed killing sasquatch.
    • and not a single one has been killed since.

    • Re:If I'm not mistaken... (Score:5, Funny)

      by plover ( 150551 ) * on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:30PM (#12560950) Homepage Journal
      Oh, come on, the governor is going to sign ANYTHING Redmond wants signed. If Bill Gates wants Sasquatch dead, Sasquatch is gonna die. Make no mistake.

  • Not sure how I feel... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bananahead ( 829691 ) * on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:12PM (#12560747) Journal
    OK, this is great. So how does one go about enforcing such a law? I have very mixed feelings about this one.

    I love the idea that we are making something so irritating illegal in the strick legal sense of the word. Make no mistake, I hate Spyware.

    At least I think I hate Spyware. I am not really sure, given the broad definition. Some Spyware is good, based solely on MY definition of 'good' and the mood I am in. So what if I have to give up something 'good' because the purveyors of that 'good' thing felt it might fit into the broad definition of Spyware and thusly discontinued it. I lose.

    On the other hand, the creepy porn junk and the crud that wants my bank account so they can sell me into slavery in Korea definitely (again, in MY definition of...) fit the model of BAD Spyware and need to have its purveyors captured, subjected to Janet Jackson Videos and sent to prison for a long time. And thus begs the question:

    How does this law get that done? Certainly these guys aren't going to stop their nonsense, they are making money doing it, so we will HAVE to enforce this law to get them to stop, and if they don't stop because there is no good way to enforce this law, then the BAD stuff continues and the GOOD stuff is thwarted.

    I am just not sure about this one.

    I suppose it gives teeth to companies like Microsoft and EBay to go after these guys and have them bundled away. That is good. But Who decides which ones Microsoft and EBay go after? And do I really want to create a system whereby Microsoft and EBay are the US Marshals and are enforcing laws the way they see fit, and going after those criminals that they decide to go after?

    I'm just not sure about this one.

    • Re:Not sure how I feel... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by AKAImBatman ( 238306 ) * <<moc.liamg> <ta> <namtabmiaka>> on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:16PM (#12560791) Homepage Journal
      OK, this is great. So how does one go about enforcing such a law?

      It won't help from outright viruses, but it could result in massive punitive damages for semi-legitimate corporations. e.g. Gator would be effectively banned from doing business in the state of Washington, under the penalty of heafty fines and/or criminal charges. (Sorry, I didn't read the law in any detail. I didn't catch if it was considered a criminal action or not.)

      As for finding someone to prosecute these companies, that may not be as hard as it seems. Lawyers love to make money by bringing forward any cases they can. In the absense of money, they love high-profile cases that make a name for themselves.
    • Expect something like the following to be added to your license agreements:

      By clicking "Accept" you assert that you are not a resident of the state of Washington nor in any way physically or otherwise in the state and that the computer upon which you are installing this software is not and will never be within the jurisdiction of the state of Washington.

      And words to the effect that make them immune to Washington law if the user misrepresents his locale or otherwise violates the terms of the agreement.
      • Putting terms in an agreement is not the same as having them accepted into law, not even close. Many agreements and contracts contain illegal clauses that would never be upheld in court, which is one reason why so many lawsuits are settled out of court. Generally, you cannot use contracts or legal agreements to facilitate illegal activity, so inserting language like this would not make the spyware company suddenly compliant with the law. For example, employers must follow employment law and cannot simply ma
    • Washington state also outlawed killing sasquatch.
      .
      .
      .
      OK, this is great. So how does one go about enforcing such a law? I have very mixed feelings about this one.

      Maybe they send sasquatch over to kick the guy's ass?
    • It doesn't necessarily STOP the software from running; it forces the software to play nice with the other children and submit to removal if the user wishes.

      If you want various background processes tracking your purchases and webuse to supply you with "tailored results" then you should be welcome to them.

      If you DON'T, however, you should be able to remove the damn things with a minimum of fuss. It's never been good marketing for a company, in my opinion. Would you, in your right mind, buy something from a
    • I, too, wondered if certain types of benign software might be caught in the crossfire with this legislation. After reading through it, I'm not worried about that.

      The bill is littered with words/phrases like "through intentionally deceptive means", "deceptively", "intentionally misrepresenting", "falsely representing", "without the authorization of an owner or an operator", etc.

      In every section of the bill, it's rather clear that the target of the legislation is software that deceives the user and/or does

      • My biggest concern now isn't that benign software will be punished; rather, I suspect this bill will be useless because spyware companies will just embed "You give us permission to blah blah blah" clauses deep into those EULAs that no one really reads.

        That's why spyware is a problem which simply can't be solved through legislation. You either restrict the right of people to do whatever they want with their computer or you leave the door wide open for companies to do whatever they want by getting you to

      • My biggest concern now isn't that benign software will be punished; rather, I suspect this bill will be useless because spyware companies will just embed "You give us permission to blah blah blah" clauses deep into those EULAs that no one really reads.

        What happens if the user changes his mind? (In true /. tradition I didn't read the article)

        IMHO, when the user consents through some legalese buried deep within some EULA, the software can install, but I think EULA clauses that go against a law are illegal

    • So what if I have to give up something 'good' because the purveyors of that 'good' thing felt it might fit into the broad definition of Spyware and thusly discontinued it. I lose.

      This I think is avoided by this law. Pretty much all the restrictions require that the behavior be "intentionally deceptive". This is basically defined to mean that the program intentionally lies about what it's going to do or intentionally omits a description of what it's going to do in order to deceive.

      On the other hand, t

    • Enforcement? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 )
      Off topic, but tangentially related: Austin, TX recently passed a city-wide smoking ban. On the news a couple nights later, the anchorwoman said: "With Austin's voter-approved smoking ban coming into effect soon, people are asking how it will be enforced."

      Oh, I'm so glad they thought to ask about that tiny, niggling issue of enforcement after voting for it.

      And you're right, enforcement is going to be a big issue here. How many spywhores are operating in Washington? How many are operating in the U.S.
    • Regarding your definition of "good spyware": what you really mean is that you may be willing to allow information aggregation software to run on your computer in exchange for free services/software.

      OK. That's different from spyware. Information aggregation is still legal. The bill is littered with phrases like through intentionally deceptive means. The deception is a key part of software getting itself classified as spyware. I would posit that spyware is *always* bad (possibly with the exception o

  • Leading the way again... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by spyder913 ( 448266 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:15PM (#12560781)
    We were also one of the first to make spam illegal. I don't really think it has helped all that much...
    • Y0u need V1 a gr a! Dr. Mumbabwi shows you great deals on re.fill pers.cript10n!

    • Re:Leading the way again... (Score:4, Informative)

      by calyphus ( 646665 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @06:24PM (#12561398) Journal
      All state anti-spam laws were rendered inoperative by completely ineffectual federal legislation.

      WA's anti-spam law was useful for the dedicated individuals that took the time to track spam to it's source and file a civil action with the state against them. If you could track them down and you had otherwise fulfilled your own obligations under the law, it was a simple matter to get a $500 judgement in your favor for each actionable missive. Collecting was another matter.

      The only real chance for success would be if the spammer were also in Washington.

      Like all anti-spam legislation it did require some compliance with legal authority on the part of the spammer. as if someone selling fake Chinese Cialis is worried about legal authority.

  • Realplayer now illegal? hopefully (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Toby The Economist ( 811138 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:15PM (#12560783)
    RP is a complete pig to remove.

    Wonder if it's now illegal?

    In fact, I'd like all third-party hidden-startup applications, which generally are unwanted and adopt this method since they know they'd be removed, to be illegal. I get VERY annoyed when other people feel fit to try to force their software into *MY* computer. How would they feel if I came into their front room and took over the remote control?

    --
    Toby

    • Re:Realplayer now illegal? hopefully (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:31PM (#12560957) Homepage
      How would they feel if I came into their front room and took over the remote control?

      The same way a Mafia racketeer would feel if you threatened to burn their house down if they didn't pay for your "fire insurance".

      They aren't children; they know people hate what they do. As long as the annoying thing is happening to you for the profit of them, then they don't care, whether "they" are the Mafia or Gator or whoever.
    • Is IE spyware? It is installed without permission and, even though it can be a vector for viruses, cannot be removed. It also tracks personal information (via cookies). How would this NOT be illegal under the new law?
    • Does this mean that all software that leaves information in the Windows Registry when it uninstalls (so it can check and see if it's been installed before the next time you install it) is now illegal? How about programs that update a DLL and then don't revert your system to the previous version when they uninstall? Is MS Office now illegal spyware (it also tracks you without telling you in hidden parts of its Word documents)?

    • Re:Realplayer now illegal? hopefully (Score:5, Interesting)

      by plover ( 150551 ) * on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:41PM (#12561058) Homepage Journal
      Try removing HP printer "drivers" some time, or "desktop helpers" that come with video cards, sound cards, TV tuner cards, MP3 players, Bluetooth dongles, printers, scanners, faxes, cameras or any other peripheral your PC may have seen on a TV commercial.

      As far as I'm concerned, start arresting them all. I don't want their sh!tware on my box. I want their stuff to sit there nice and quiet up until the moment I want it to do something, and then I want it to do nothing extra. I don't want a pop-up "toolbox" to fix my printer; I don't want a noisy "Lookie what I printed for you, John, aren't you proud of my wonderous inkjets?!" dialog box. And when it's done I want it to get the hell out of my way. Completely. Don't ask me to update, don't leave a tool tray icon behind, don't leave a task running in task manager.

      If all this requires sending a few developers to Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison, all I can say is "don't drop the soap, guys."

      • "I don't want a pop-up "toolbox" to fix my printer; I don't want a noisy "Lookie what I printed for you, John, aren't you proud of my wonderous inkjets?!" dialog box."

        well you could not install those "features". Most driver cd/downloads have their drivers tucked in a directory some where. Especially true with driver updates you download from the manufacture's website. So yeah, you installed all that crap, you live with it. When i install an epson or an HP i just point add printer wizard at the driver dir

        • -5, wrong. But thank you for playing Slashdot.

          HP has been the poster child for how to install crap the wrong way in Windows.

          Set the wayback machine for the late 1990s. I bought a fast, expensive HP inkjet. When I got my brand new printer home and tried to "install" it, the "installer" wanted me to run their stuff. Having had prior experience with HP crapware, I said "no thanks, I'll install it myself." So I clicked up the add hardware lizard, and said "I'll for search myself, and I have a disk, th

      • Re:Realplayer now illegal? hopefully (Score:5, Funny)

        by Rorschach1 ( 174480 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @06:01PM (#12561216) Homepage
        ...or any other peripheral your PC may have seen on a TV commercial

        This is exactly why I don't let my PC watch TV.

      • I am glad to see that I am not the only resource nazi in the world.

        I hate having anything more than 4-6 things in my systray, and start geting annoyed when I see >40 processes running.
        • 4-6 things in your systray? 40 processes? That would be a very bad day indeed for me. My main box typically has 3 icons -- gaim, Google Desktop Search, and my nVidia driver icon -- along with a hidden volume icon. As for processes, right now I have firefox, gaim, and Azeurus open, plus Steam and my nForce2 audio control panel, and I have 30 processes running.

          Disable your unneccessary services in XP. It'll make your life much better, I promise.
      • I don't want their sh!tware on my box.
        Then how did it get on there?

    • Copy Protected CD's (Score:5, Interesting)

      by complete loony ( 663508 ) <Jeremy.Lakeman@nOSpaM.gmail.com> on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @06:16PM (#12561335)
      And the driver that copy protected CD's install without your permission to prevent the tracks from being ripped? I had to clean up one of these last week while I was ripping music for my father in law's new iPOD....
      • The parent makes a very good point. A lot of sleazy Digital Restrictions Management software uses spyware and malware tactics to control your computer. After all, it can't work without restricting your use of your own system to some degree.

        Can Washingtonians now sue record labels that use malware to prevent CD copying? That would be a terrific step towards ending such nonsense.
      • 1 - Definitions
      • 2 - Intentionally deceptive evil things banned,
      • 3 - Illegal to transmit software that takes control of computer or changes security-critical settings,
      • 4 - Illegal to deceptively induce owner/operator to install software for security/privacy/viewing, or to execute software that installs software.
      • 5 - Covers the ass of ISPs, carriers, hardware and software vendors, service providers, etc. installing, monitoring, managing, or upgrading things or detecting illegal use of networks, services, or

  • Agreed-hard to enforce (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Coopjust ( 872796 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:16PM (#12560789)
    Hard law to enforce. If it was a national law, then it would have some effect. Hopefully it doesn't become "National weak law" takes over "Strong state law" like can spam

  • Outlook Express (Score:3, Interesting)

    by McGiraf ( 196030 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:17PM (#12560797)
    Outlook express will re-copy its files next time explorer is started if you delete them.

    at $100,000 per violation that is $100,000 * the number of windows instalations out there, I think microsoft is going broke!

  • Phishing is already illegal (Score:4, Insightful)

    by 77Punker ( 673758 ) <(spencr04) (at) (highpoint.edu)> on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:18PM (#12560813)
    Shouldn't phishing just fall under fraud?
    • When the phisher sends you email saying "Get a Great Credit Card / Mortgate Today - Send me all your information!" it's not fraud unless you actually give them your info and they use it to rip off you (or some bank, etc.) It is spam, and you'd like it to go away. And it's easier to prove that somebody broke a phishing law than to get your money back.

      "This is EBay/PayPal/SomeRealBank/eGold/etc. - Give me all your info", that's lightweight no-money-stolen fraud, unless you give them your info and they use

  • People outside the US? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by nizo ( 81281 ) * on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:18PM (#12560817) Homepage Journal
    which imposes penalties of $100,000 per violation.

    Give half of that to bounty hunters who bring the culprit to justice and we could have a new series of reality shows. Who woulda thunk spyware could be entertaining?

  • Class Action Lawsuit (Score:3, Interesting)

    by benspikey ( 658022 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:19PM (#12560820)
    Consumers and the state attorney general would be able to seek damages up to $500 per violation, or actual damages if phishers try to get consumers' information. Victimized Internet service providers could get $5,000 or actual damages. Judges could award an ISP three times the amount of fines if they so choose. Alright who wants to sign up with me.. We get 1000 systems download bonzibuddy and weatherbug and make a fortune. or at least have fun trying.. :)

  • where are the teeth? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by spamchang ( 302052 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:22PM (#12560860) Journal
    or dentures, at least, for this bill?

    i want to see people paying up the wazoo for this: collection agencies pounding down doors, spyware companies going belly up, class action suits, the like. hell, if they put filesharing on the same penalty level as involuntary manslaughter (because you know those two are equally evil in the eyes of MPAA/RIAA/congress), why don't they send spyware companies to bankruptcy? /annoyed
  • Will this make any real major difference to the internet? most spyware companies are smart enough to have moved out of the US by now, and will probably be in safe havens for their activities.

    It would be better developing ways to stop the actual spyware, rather than try to track down the people doing it. If the people were actually making serious money, and knew the government would be after them, they would be out of the country like a flash, and continue their business.

  • All that needs to be done (Score:4, Insightful)

    by doofusclam ( 528746 ) <slash@seanyseansean.com> on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:23PM (#12560870) Homepage
    .. is to make companies accountable for the actions of their 'affiliates'. Many a spyware company uses this defence, and end up gaining customers from dodgy affiliates who they don't need to pay as the affiliate has broken the terms and conditions. Genius. Their business model is just like bill posting on roads and streets.

  • Mod this bill redundant? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mr_Spook ( 458791 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:25PM (#12560898) Homepage
    Okay, it might just be me, and I might just be an idiot here, but isn't spyware illegal already, since it's modifying the contents of my computer without my knowledge or authorization? To me, it seems that spyware makers should be prosecuted just like anyone else who writes malicious code (viruses, trojans, worms, and so on).

    Any technically-literate lawyers have a comment on this?
    • Any technically-literate lawyers have a comment on this?

      IANAL, but I think that a law which SPECIFICALLY prohibits some obscure behavior (that would lead to YEARS in courts in case of a suit) will certainly make the upholding of our privacy rights much faster and more effective.
    • I think that any bill or law like this has all the teeth that the law against anal intercourse does in Texas. Its only used to prosecute those that the government and/or its most ardent lobbyists want to prosecute, at which point legal action is rammed through (so to speak) in a way that makes it very difficult for anyone to defend themselves should they be the target of this type of law.

      Any law that is practically unenforcable is only ever enacted in order to have it handy like a law against rats being in

  • So now there's a law (Score:3, Insightful)

    by RM6f9 ( 825298 ) <rwmurker@yahoo.com> on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:26PM (#12560908) Homepage Journal
    The next steps will be legal definitions of what constitutes spyware, and refinements of those definitions based on cases brought to trial.

    How will they know who's doing spyware? Offer rewards to reports resulting in convictions.

    Of course, the thing might be struck down as unconstitutional depending on the breadth of definitions it starts with and the zeal of the ever-loathed ACLU in promoting the letter of the First Amendment to the detriment of the spirit of it.

    sigh.

    • "Of course, the thing might be struck down as unconstitutional depending on the breadth of definitions it starts with and the zeal of the ever-loathed ACLU in promoting the letter of the First Amendment to the detriment of the spirit of it."

      Actually, there's a good argument why this may be unconstitutional: this is regulation of conduct that is happenning (at least in part) outside the State of Washington. There's a reason that wire-fraud laws are federal, and this shouldn't be any different -- I'd e

      • ever-loathed ACLU in promoting the letter of the First Amendment to the detriment of the spirit of it

        The ACLU does not determine what is legal; they merely present the cases that they think have merit. Blame the courts, particularly the Supreme Court, if you feel that they are misinterpreting the First Amendment.

  • That's just a bandaid on the problem. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pg110404 ( 836120 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:30PM (#12560943)
    Some of the better places to go to get spyware are places in russia or developing countries, etc.

    The advantage and disadvantage of the internet is that you can go access web sites from anywhere.

    By making it tough for any group/organization to spread their malware from washington state, means they'll go elsewhere to host their stuff.

    Suppose all the spyware people jump ship and go elsewhere, somebody WILL find a site that has it and will get the spyware.

    It's like passing a law that makes it illegal to skid out of control and hitting a particular tree in the hopes of eliminating accidents.

  • AOL's AIM (Score:4, Interesting)

    by yrogerg ( 858571 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:30PM (#12560945)
    Have you ever tried installing AIM from AOL? It install links everywhere regardless of if you tell it 'no' in the setup process. Maybe they'll finally change this.
    • What's interesting is that the MacOS X version installs really smooth without leaving crap all over. I wonder if that's because OS X users complain more than Windows users, or just because AOL's given up targetting ads to Mac users...

      It also has nice features that no other IM clients have, like text-to-speech. (iChat can speak the name of the sender, but AIM can speak the name, message, or both. Very handy.)

      • Re:AOL's AIM (Score:2, Insightful)

        by mindstrm ( 20013 )
        From what I've seen, mac users have higher standards. Unlike the bulk of windows users, mac users tend to know with confidence how their computers are supposed to behave.. and anything that messes with that doesn't have much chance of gaining a foothold in the market.

  • maybe the religous fundies should promote this law (Score:3, Insightful)

    by hurfy ( 735314 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:35PM (#12561003)
    ""Opening multiple, sequential, stand-alone advertisements in the owner or operator's internet browser"

    hehe no free porn for Washington :)

    We know what at least one state congresscritter is up to...

    Sounds all warm and fuzzy but actually doing anything is doubtful...at least til califonia catches up.

    I believe you cant make automated telesales calls here but several computers havent read THAT law either :(

  • Alexa (Score:5, Insightful)

    by HermanAB ( 661181 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:40PM (#12561050)
    So, will MS finally stop shipping Alexa with IE?

  • Huge Loophole, Crappy Bill (Score:4, Informative)

    by Erris ( 531066 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:41PM (#12561056) Homepage Journal
    Of course M$ loves this one. Check out this wopping loophole:

    These prohibitions do not apply to any monitoring of a subscriber's internet service by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service for network or computer security purposes.

    So, when M$ looks at and deletes your files for supposed copyright violations, that's a "security" issue and they are OK. It does not matter that they have all of the other definitions of spyware and are much more invasive, they are a "software provider" doing it for "security".

    The definition is so broad that it's hard to imagine who is not a "software provider" doing something for "security". Oh wait, now I know, anyone Microsoft does not like is not a "software provider".

    A real spyware law would spank M$, HP and many other "software providers" for all the things this bill legitimately complains about and then allows.

    • Considering that M$ is ultimately culpable for enabling such malware, I look forward to the windoze users class action. In their own home state, no less. Whatever support M$ put behind this wasn't too well thought through.
  • Considering their actions (through contraction of Overpeer) to smuggle spyware in through windows media files..
  • So now they'll have to outsource spyware writers to third world countries? AND move the company's there?

  • Real Player (Score:5, Interesting)

    by m00nun1t ( 588082 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @05:51PM (#12561138) Homepage
    Like many others, I consider Real Player to essentially be spyware.

    I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Real are based in Washington State. So what's the impact here, for both current and future versions of Real Player? Would make an interesting test case.
  • Hmm.. Recently I played Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, which installed StarForce without my knowledge or consent--and which doesn't uninstall ever unless I download the uninstall tool.

    Would this violate this law? I think it should. I wish I'd known about the StarForce installation--I wouldn't have bought the game.

  • Goodbye Copy Protected CDs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by shogun ( 657 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @06:16PM (#12561338)
    Won't this ban some of those 'copy-protected' CDs that automaticaly install some kind of driver through auto-run?

  • Great and everything... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Zach978 ( 98911 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @06:19PM (#12561357) Homepage
    I like it, but I don't like legislators getting used to writing bills dealing with the Internet...

    They get their foot in the door and we might be in trouble...
  • Well it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But I have the feeling this will be difficult to enforce, with the exception of cases involving untrusting spouses. It's like outlawing rain. Or declaring war on Algebra. It looks good on paper, but seems entirely unfeasible.
  • Like many here, I think this law will do a whole lot of nothing.

    But as for the comments about Windows and its security holes, and how we should blame Microsoft, I don't agree with this either.

    I don't think criminals who break into your house shouldn't be blamed because lockmakers, doormakers, or windowmakers (no relation) should have made their wares of sturdier materials.

    People use Windows out of momentum and because they feel they have no choice. Microsoft would clean up its act if consumers forced th

  • valuable legal principle - accountability (Score:4, Insightful)

    by heretic108 ( 454817 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @07:40PM (#12562011)
    From this Bill it seems that an important legal principle is being established - when code written by Alice runs on Bob's computer, then Alice has the same accountability for her (code's) actions that she would have if she were physically allowed into Bob's home or office.

    If Alice was an interior decorator who, on gaining access to a client's home, did stuff like:
    • Changed all the speed-dial numbers on the telephone
    • Installed listening/recording devices in all the rooms
    • Modified the TV/video so it overlays ads of her choice over the top of programs (in addition to the regular ads screened by the station)
    • Duplicated door keys and alarm codes and sold these to others
    • etc
    then Alice would be doing hard time at Club Fed or Her Majesty's.

    So why should it be any different with software?

    When someone runs your software on their computer, they have admitted you into their sovereign private space, and you have a responsibility to behave in a manner respecting this. Well done, Washington. I note also that the Australian Democrats party has introduced similar legislation, which God-willing will also pass.

  • That does it. (Score:3, Funny)

    by Zillatron ( 415756 ) on Tuesday May 17, 2005 @08:33PM (#12562465)
    I will now change my registration information information for the things that won't operate without registration to:
    • DOB: 1901-01-01
    • Gender: F
    • Income: Under $X,XXX
    • Children: 0.3
    • e-mail: not@today.con
    • Address: 123 Main, Anywheresville, WA 99999

    I'm just not worth your time to try marketing to me. Even on legit registration they get my area code followed by 555-1212. I'm listed. Look me up.

  • The summary of this bill here at Slashdot seems to suggest it outlaws keystroke logging, but in fact it's a bit more specific and talks about transmitting, etc. Still, one thing that disturbs me is fragile wording like:

    (a) Through the use of a keystroke-logging function that records all keystrokes made by an owner or operator and transfers that information from the computer to another person;

    It looks to me like if you just skip recording characters every now and then, you're safe on that point. Or if you transferred the data first to another computer and then maybe a person or program or corporation or someone's dog picked up the data instead of having it transferred to them.

    It probably needs at least some wording like "substantially all" instead of "all", and "entity" instead of "person".

    I doubt this is the only problem with the legislation, it was just the first thing I saw when I spot-checked that one sentence.

  • This is absolutely mindless (Score:3, Insightful)

    by TractorBarry ( 788340 ) on Wednesday May 18, 2005 @02:58AM (#12564260) Homepage
    This is moronic !

    So we have a flawed operating system that doesn't give the user (when in Administrator mode) the required tools to remove software from their o/s. It also makes it trivially easy for malicious third parties to install software on the o/s.

    And the answer is to pass legislation to try to prevent said operating system being exploited ?

    This is completely Mindless. It's like letting a colony of wasps build a nest in your bedroom then treating each individual sting without ever looking at the nest.

    Mindless I say... What they should have done is pass a law telling MS to fix their fucking rotten o/s. That MIGHT have done some good.

Slashdot Top Deals

Do molecular biologists wear designer genes?

Close