Congressional Anti-Spyware Bill Introduced

CRCates writes that U.S. "Senator Conrad Burns has introduced new anti-spyware legislation. The bill would make it difficult to for software to download and install itself without the user's knowledge. The bill would also require notification, consent, and procedures for easy removal."

Comments

Easy removal

[zcat_NZ]

I have yet to find any spyware that wasn't easily removed

Re:Easy removal

[dickiedoodles]

I have yet to find any spyware that wasn't easily removed

I'm more worried about the stuff I might not of found

Re:Easy removal

[00420]

I'm more worried about the stuff I might not of found

Do what I did. Open the task manager and do a Google search for each of the processes.

You may find something that nobody's aware of (I did - and it got submitted to Spybot)

Re:Easy removal

[jpop32]

Do what I did. Open the task manager and do a Google search for each of the processes.

Which works well if the nasty is listed as a separate process. Which is not always the case. For example, all services go under a couple of master-processes (svchost.exe, services.exe). Furthermore, nasties don't need to be resident, they can be invoked when an activity of interest takes place. So you may miss it, except for a couple of seconds they do their bussiness.

Thin line...

[ERJ]

Although I hate spyware as much as the next person, I am not so sure that the government should control it. The problem I see with the above is that it defines spyware more by the distribution method then the purpose.

I can definetely see a purpose for software to download updates, patches, etc automatically. Privacy concerns is what spyware is really about.

Re:Thin line...

[the real chahn]

But, the software should still ask for your permission to download those patches. I have no problem with my computer telling me that there are new patches, device drivers, etc. available. I do have a problem when it downloads and installs them without telling me, because it could mess up my computer. I've had devices that were working perfectly fine all of a sudden crash because of a new driver, and I want to be the one that decides whether or not I need to update.

Where are those two comments?

[ObviousGuy]

Off-topic, I admit, but there seem to be 2 more comments than are displayed here in this story. Where'd they go?

Spyware is a scourge, but how likely is it that this kind of weak-willed legislation will make spyware any better? Not likely, IMO. Not to mention that the law puts a muzzle on the 'free speech' of spyware authors, this law will probably go down in flames like all other anti-spam measures.

This is almost completely meaningless

[lightspawn]

Most spyware actually informs users somewhere in the very long license agreement, and would not be affected by this.

Completely criminal spyware - installed completely without the user's knowledge (such as that found on some discs claiming to be music CDs) is already illegal.

This is just a 'feel-good' measure which will not actually change anything; at least the intent, unlike CAN-SPAM, wasn't evil here.

Re:This is almost completely meaningless

[zcat_NZ]

Interesting point;

Although it's not spyware (afaik) many of those 'copy protected' CD's do install software without warning, for the sole purpose of interfering with the normal operation of the computer.

How the hell is this _NOT_ illegal already?!!

And why is nobody being prosecuted for it? There's no shortage of hard evidence.

Wait a sec...

[Fubar420]

Do the ActiveX controls that ask Y/N in IE count?

I use mozilla so that hardly bothers me, but a lot of people just assume that if a link (see AIM virii/trojans/"games" and the like) is sent to them, that the warning is part of the game?

Most activeX controls say 'I'd like to install something now...' and people just assume yes as the correct answer... They _do_ give consent, even if its kinda foolish to do so.