Slashdot Mirror
Top Web Businesses Oppose Utah Spyware Law
theodp writes "According to MediaPost.com: 'Some of the Web's leading content and technology providers have taken action to lobby against Utah's controversial Spyware Control Act, which is awaiting the governor's signature. Web publishers and businesses including AOL, Amazon, Cnet, eBay, Google, Microsoft, and Yahoo! signed a letter to the bill's sponsors arguing that the bill could create serious repercussions for the entire online community. The parties to the letter warned that the bill could interfere with computer security and would also impair the delivery of local, targeted ads'."
I dont see a problem:
Under the bill, any software that reports its users' online actions, sends personal data to other companies, or serves pop-up ads without permission is prohibited.
How hard is it to get permission? All you have to say is: "Do you want to be informed of the best deals in your area?", and %90 of people will say: "Sign me up!". Im sure it will be easy to get around this law if a company wants to. And given the profit motive, why wouldn't they?
Overly broad anti-technology bills considered harmful. Film at 11.
-- Sigh --
Is this yet another example of technologically illiterate politicians eagerly passing bills without bothering to find out what the law is going to do?
At first, I read the post and thought, why are all these businesses opposed to this law? It must be a good law if a lot of big corporations don't like it.
But after reading the article, I think that the legislators' efforts went off half-cocked, and they let one company write the bill to suit themselves.
I wonder why these big companies waited until after the bill passed to begin lobbying. If the governor signs the bill, isn't it going to be a lot harder to get rid of it?
I'm in favor of laws limiting spyware and adware, but I think it's important to get it right the first time. If the FTC doesn't even have a definition for spyware, it's back to the drawing board.
You are in error. No-one is screaming. Thank you for your cooperation.
For example, the parties to the letter warned that the bill could interfere with computer security by preventing information technology and security companies from collecting data to analyze and prevent virus attacks, and would also impair the delivery of local, targeted ads.
If they are that concerned about security they could have AV companies include a [X] "Report viruses to Foo.com AV Central" option to eliminate that minor complaint and be compliant with the new law. As for targetted ads.. well, that's what they're really concerned about. It's a multi-million (billion?) dollar industry. Screaming about how bad the bill is for security is just a smoke and mirrors game.
I only hope that the spyware people don't go after the AdAware or Spybot Search & Destroy folks under the guise of the DMCA.
The way things today are going though..
Trolling is a art,
I doubt anyone is surprised by Microsoft's, AOL's, etc, complaints, but Google and the like? That seems a bit odd.
Do they believe that later legislation will "restrict" even more things that affect their buisness, or do they sponsor spyware?
your "targeted ads" are going to be discarded because someone thinks they're spyware, maybe the ads should be re-thought?
There are four boxes used in defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order.
There's a difference between a *relatively* benign cookie stored in the browser and a trojan spyware program as bundled with kazaa, comet cursor, etc.
Having said that, I'm not sure legislation is the best way to take care of this. Can't we use existing laws in court to fight spyware?
While this could potentially be welcoming, I fail to see it actually enforcable. With many programs that contain spyware, you agree to their terms of services which more than likely includes that 1. they may redirect you. 2. You allow them to update/install what they want ... and so forth.
Further more there are programs that may not be spyware, but are milicious, and problematic for users (like RealOne).
..local, targeted ads..
So, since I live in Wisconsin, I should be seeing tons of ads for cheese and beer..?
That's why those of us who give a damn do this:
- Refuse most cookies
- Block malicious servers with HOSTS files
- Mozilla (Block Images from Selected Server)
- Spybot/Ad-Aware (If in Windows)
Althought admittedly, this phrase is interesting:
"Under the bill, any software that reports its users' online actions, sends personal data to other companies, or serves pop-up ads without permission is prohibited. It does contain certain exceptions that some industry analysts have deemed "self-contradictory," such as "cookies" used for personalizing Web pages, and ads served by HTML or JavaScript."
That completely outlaws a crapwad of software there.
However, as a lot of spyware is non-U.S. in origin, it won't curb all of it.
Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
So we want them to deliver "local targeted ads"?
FUCK NO!
We want NO FUCKING ADS AT ALL!!!
Jesus christ, someone aught to drill into their skulls, maybe they'll find some valuable air which can be released back into the atmosphere...
I'm amazing. You aren't. SUCK IT
Yep... this is an interesting problem. The bill says (1) A person may not:...
(c) use a context based triggering mechanism to display an advertisement that partially or wholly covers or obscures paid avertising or other content on an Internet website in a way that interferes with a user's ability to view the Internet website.
That could be read to say program that removes any part of the website from the user's view and replaces it with either something else or even plain nothingness is prohibited. So many non-spyware user-friendly uses of technology could get caught in the crossfire...
( damned overuse of underline and italics hurts the eyes! ) .. and at first glance it does appear rather broad. Can't really go into detail, at least not without suffering serious eye injuries, but I think those people may be on to something, considering the bill just about kills any form of advertisement, including the few kinds of advertisement which we do not mind. Much... ( Google's AdSense anyone? )
Hate me!
I agree that the law looks flawed, and it's okay to protest. What I don't understand is, where were these guys when another flawed law passed congress?
This is a nice try by a well intentioned legislator, but a state law will have very little effect on the operations of Internet companies not operating from their state. Let's face it, the United States has trouble geting its laws to regulate offshore casinos and offshore-based music download services.
If you don't like the laws of the jurisdiction you're setting up an Internet company, it's far too easy to set up shop in a more friendly jurisdiction. With this law being clearly written by somebody who isn't bothering to carve out a nice safe territory for targeted ads, Utah will basically lose any bit of the Internet content industry it has left to other states.
only effect on security banning spyware could have is to IMPROVE it. fucking spyware. sick of removing it from people's computers. it might affect computer sales tho. With no more spyware on their computers, newbies will be able to get by with a much slower machine. The loads of spyware make people complain that their 2.4Ghz P4 isn't fast enough and help sell the 3.2s etc, so that even with it's bogged down by spyware it still feels like a 2.0
At least thats how I remember it.
Lasers Controlled Games!
With Free Software, things like this would not happen.
BS. IF linux gets adopted by the mainstream desktop market, you can bet your ass that spyware will quickly follow. And the mainstream desktop users will be just as helpless and unable to stop it as they are now.
"The parties to the letter warned that the bill could interfere with computer security and would also impair the delivery of local, targeted ads"
Isn't that the point? That's a warning? I hope it's a promise. I'll keep my computer secure, thanks, I don't need someone like MS telling me how to do it.
Stupid sexy Flanders.
I do not want to install their malware, nor should I think it should be legal to trick the user to install it either. If the users knew what kind of program it was, they would not install it. But it has to be hidden behind OS updates, Media Players, shareware, helper programs, toolbars, and other things.
Find another way to make money, I am not buying their defense of Spyware/Adware one bit.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I've always been puzzled as to how this works. I know there should be lots of cases of such things already (Sharman Networks, for example) where a "local" law is used to prosecute someone from another area.
With the Internet being what it is, how do we effectively enforce such things? Seems like a lot of chest-pumping without much effect. More politicians posturing? So how can local laws be enforced on a global community? (besides pissing enough people off to get the DMCA slapped on you and ruin your US travel itinerary a la Dmitri)
GOOD.
'nuff said.
...and would also impair the delivery of local, targeted ads.
'nuff said.
The result, after some negotiation and input from Net companies, is a bill that bars companies from installing software that reports its users' online actions, sends any personal data to other companies, or pops up advertisements without permission. It contains some loopholes: Advertisements served by ordinary HTML or JavaScript are exempted, as are the ordinary "cookies" often used to help personalize Web pages.
I still don't see how this is bad. Sure it has 'enforcement' issues, but it carries a $10,000 fine, it might serve as a good deterrent.
Still Mud? Try www.phoenixmud.org!
(b) recover the greater of:
(i) actual damages; or
(ii) $10,000 for each separate violation of this chapter.
(3) In an action under Subsection (1), a court may:
(a) increase the damages up to three times the damages allowed by Subsection (2) if the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this chapter; and
(b) award costs and reasonable attorney fees to a prevailing party.
---
1: Download adware
2: Sue
3: Profit!!!!
---
Bahama vacation here I come!
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
this crap ware would exist in Linux as soon as the user base got big enough to have a proffitable segment of morons, who don't know to check the MD5 hashes (or even what they were). yes propritary software created this problem, but free software alone will not get rid of it
I used to have a cool sig, back when I cared
And in other news:
The NRA is against gun control laws.
Anti-abortionist demonstrated at an abortion clinic.
Muslim extremists sent threatening letters.
The stock market is crashing.
And the sky is falling...
Mod +5 Drunk
Companies like Claria and WhenU, for example, are legal adware providers, although each has been involved in high-profile lawsuits over their software. Both companies still face pending legal action.
What are they smoking? Claria is spyware.
Criminey Sakes already!
* It's my computer, bought and paid for.
* It's my software, bought and paid for (and/or acquired free, legally).
* It's my bandwidth, bought and paid for (on a monthly basis).
Let me decide what to do with it.
If I want to load up my HD with bloatware, spyware, malware or whatever, as long as it harms no one else... who the hell cares?
If, on the other hand, I want to run my system cleanly, block out all malware sources with a HOSTS file, install anti-spyware and anti-virus software and do whatever else I see fit... again... who the hell cares?
It's my choice to run my computer and my software to twiddle my own bits as I damn well see fit.
If the government doesn't know anything about what the hell it is regulating, it out to stay the hell out of trying to do anything with it.
The problem with socialism is that they always run out of other people's money. - Margaret Thatcher
You answered your problem in your post. The first part of part (c) states "to display an advertisement". The application is only prohibited if it replaces content or ads with more ads. Replacing it with blank space is fine.
It kind of reminds me of an old Knight-Ridder News Service wire where it was explained why the inscription on the metal bands used by the U.S. Department of the Interior to tag migratory birds had been changed.
The bands used to bear the address of the Washington Biological Survey, abbreviated
Wash. Biol. Surv.
Until the agency received the following letter from a camper:
The bands are now marked Fish and Wildlife Service.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
See, the problem is, Spyware jerks (like Gator) always CLAIM that what they are delivering is (a) with permission, (b) wanted, and (c) delivering some sort of benefit to the consumer.
And it takes a hell of a lot to debunk that.
The BIG one is to get shitholes like Gator to stop using "trickler" apps that reinstall the program if the user tries to remove it.
read that again:
(c) use a context based triggering mechanism to display an advertisement that partially or wholly covers or obscures paid avertising or other content on an Internet website in a way that interferes with a user's ability to view the Internet website.
you specifically have to paste an advertisement over someone elses' website for this clause to refer to you.
posting "plain nothingness" only counts as advertising if you're selling nothing! ^_^
--
Why are the people who call Bush a dictator the same ones who want to take away our guns?
Not true.... I'm a NRA card carrying, Whitetail hunting, handgun owning Independant. The way I see things currently is Bush is killing free speach and needs to get out of office!!
Why worry? Each of us is wearing an unlicensed "nucular" accelerator on his back.
Sig changed for readability by G.W.
Yeah, like less advertising rammed down our throats...less spam, less spyware?
US Democracy:The best person for the job (among These pre-selected choices...)
I don't think we need Utah legislators dictating technology to us. Maybe I'm cynical after looking at other tech-laws. Do we really want laws written by someone who needs an assistant to write an email? I think everyone in my office has a computer that operates about 20-30% too slow due to spyware/adware. Maybe people should increase security on their browsers and watch what they download. While a law against spyware sounds cool, I just believe it's going to backfire on us somehow. Anyway this law wouldn't even protect against Gator (or whatever they're called) anyway :)
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
That might be true, you will probably see adware grow in the linux desktop market, but at least if you download and run some, other user with different id's will not get popops. All you need to get rid of them is to create anew user and start over, not reisnatll the hole OS !!!!! (that piss me off since my room mate messed up with my computer and now i'm stuck with this and the only solution to get rid of this for good is to re-install. anti-popops software don't worth crap, you better never get adware if you need a clean system (like I like).
That'd be a +5 funny if it weren't for the whole SCO thing. Try again, please.
Umm.. the About dialog box is NOT a context-based triggering mechanism.
Google signing, but microsoft signing the letter as well... good or bad?!?
[blue] - The Ministry of Information approved this message...
I'm not sure whether this is supposed to be actual "news" or just a PR release. I know nothing about the actual bill, but this article definitely did not help me understand it. Why is Slashdot covering such a biased piece?
Turns out the FTC is gonna be hosting Spyware workshop here in DC in April. FTC Workshop Information
The workshop is titled Monitoring Software on Your PC: Spyware, Adware, and Other Software and will take place on April 19, 2004. It is open to the public and there is no attendance fee.
On the site is information on how to submit a public comment to the records of the event.
Still Mud? Try www.phoenixmud.org!
Is this yet another example of technologically illiterate politicians eagerly passing bills without bothering to find out what the law is going to do?
H2O mixup creates scare
I don't fault folks for not knowing what dihydrogen monoxide is, but for charging ahead, guns blazing, completely unburdened by the thought process. Sounds like presidential material to me.
Which means that your browser, which routinely sends each web site you visit a referring URL, is spyware in Utah.
Well, except for Internet Explorer, that is. Since IE is part of the operating system, it is excepted from the definition of spyware by subsection (5)(c).
I'll leave it to the foilhats to decide whether Bill Gates has been donating heavily to the Mormon church.
Ceci n'est pas une sig.
Let's say you're sitting at a Starbucks, drinking some coffee. You hear a song over the speakers you happen to like. All you have to do is call out: "Could I get this on a CD, please?"
You, sir, have just written the most succinct analogy of the Slashdot mentality I have ever read.
Not really. "Free" software implies source code is available. With source code available, I would be able to determine when, from where, and to where any data it collects is going. I can also remove that part of the code, recompile it, distribute patches that remove that part of the code for other people, and so on. People would then be free to use my modifications instead.
Only if the software in question is closed source, and hence not Free, would this situation continue. In a Free situation, it is possible that some people might not use my modified version, but with enough people knowledgeable about it, it could become the version people are mostly refered to.
(c) use a context based triggering mechanism to display an advertisement that partially or wholly covers or obscures paid avertising or other content on an Internet website in a way that interferes with a user's ability to view the Internet website.
That could be read to say program that removes any part of the website from the user's view and replaces it with either something else or even plain nothingness is prohibited. So many non-spyware user-friendly uses of technology could get caught in the crossfire...
No it doesn't, it says replacing it with an advertisement is prohibited. It's very specific. It sounds like a great law to me.
None of those companies offer porn sites. If you want to talk to top web businesses you need to talk to a porn site!
They should all download and intsall STFU 1.0 from our buddy Mike Anderer.
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing. Emo Philips
BS. I can't bloody well get Firefox to install things when I'm trying under Linux. In an OS that makes installing anything a major operation only really undertakeable when logged in as root (and thus can't be done accidently while clicking around in a web browser logged in normally), it just ain't gonna happen...
"Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
Why would you need an ad for cheese and beer? You're probably already consuming plenty. It's like selling freezers to eskimos.
Instead you'll get ads for Lactaid and AlAnon.
What, it will interfer with companies plaguing me with ads I didn't ask for? Shocking!
Maybe someday Microsoft and the rest will get a clue. There is a reason pop-up blockers are so widely used.
Wouldn't this bill effectively make Windows XP illegal? Not to mention a number of RFC's? I've never given my computer permission to send broadcast packets on my network, yet it appears to be full of them?! What about a PING, I don't give my permission for PING to respond to unsolicited requests, yet it keeps responding! Heck even my Linksys router is illegal..
Mod +5 Drunk
Spyware MUST be outlawed. Otherwise, don't be surprised when, say, Google starts telling you, "Sorry, we just tried to install our 'tracking' software on your system and failed. Please take your searches elsewhere."
It doesn't matter. If the code for all the spyware out there was available, do you think the average user would even know about it let alone what to do with it? The don't have the ability to modify and recompile source code and they never will.
If and when OSS makes it to the mainstream desktop, the average user will have no real concept of what OSS is and they won't even care.
This is very simular to the spam debait, only becuase its the ones that go out of there way to hide who they really are, and where it came from.
...
I hate spam as much as everyone else. I have a series of filters I use to get rid of as much as possiable. Even then, it only works about 98% of the time.
If I install AIM, they have a little bar that shows ads. That doesn't bother me. I get a free service from them, then just have to have a SMALL add in the "buddy list". Small price to pay.
What I don't agree with, is companys that install spyware without telling you about it. They NEED to say they are going to install it, and when you uninstall the application, the spyware needs to be uninstalled as well.
Another thing, which is how they get you to install there spyware. I had a problem a while back, I went to some silly joke website. It asked if I wanted to install Macromadia Flash. (Notice the spelling) Since this was a new latop, I said sure. From that day on, every 12 hours and everytime the laptop booted up. It would ask if I wanted to install "free scratch cards". Funny, there is a EULA, and an accept button. No decline / cancel / exit button, no close button, etc.
Everytime you would delete the file, it would reappear a few hours later. Still to this day, I can't figure out how to get rid of it. I did however find a way to disable it, but its still on my machine.
That should be illegal. You should be required to tell the user WHAT they are REALLY installing. Misspelling company names and what not should be considered as fraud. Bundling spyware with other freeware apps without mentioning this to the user should also be illegal.
Hijacking browsers and making it very difficult to change, or reset should also be illegal. I had a friend of mine whos machine was taking over so bad, that is browser only had 1 inputbox. No back and forward arrows, no stop or refresh. Just a inputbox which submits to a spyware search engine. Which interestingly enough returned the SAME results as google, even had the same style. The difference is, the names where changed and there was ads ALL over the place. It was so bad, that a reinstall of windows was the best option.
I don't have a problem with ads on freeware apps. As long as
1) I am told about it
2) When I uninstall the freeware app, the spyware goes along.
3) It doesn't damage my system by hijacking it.
4) There isn't fraud as to the source of the application or its install methods.
until (succeed) try { again(); }
to give Utah back to Mexico?
And how many users do you think would use root by default? You can use restricted accounts on WinXP but no one does...
They're two completely different issues, anyway. I'm not surprised that people like the parent poster are out there.
Think about it this way. When the Bill of Rights was written, it made a lot of sense to let people carry guns and form militias that would deter the federal government from getting too uppity.
Nowadays, this just doesn't make sense. If you want to be able to counterbalance the US army with your citizen militias in 2004, citizens must be allowed nukes, fighter jets, and so on -- muskets simply won't do. Not only is it a little too expensive for me to build my own nuke, it's also a really bad idea for any one person to have that kind of destructive power (most people would agree on this one).
So the amendment is obselete and needs revision. The constitution is designed to be changed. I don't know what level of armament a citizen *should* be allowed in today's US, but we need to figure that out using modern arguments, examining other countries with weaker/stronger laws, etc..
And no matter how you feel about Bush's foreign policy decisions, you having a gun at home (even if it's fully automatic) isn't going to make a damned bit of difference to him.
Okay, I'm done now.
if linux were to become more mainstream, the majority of users would be running their systems as root for the sole reason you stated. Windows XP allows you to have restricted access, yet hardly anybody uses the feature. If Linux gets adopted as a mainstream OS, Spyware, Viruses, and all kinds of goodies will follow. There are few viruses now because if they can hit .1% of a userbase, they'll go after the largest userbase.
[If you attempted to RTFB, you understand...]
Then simply changing 5
From: (a) software designed and installed solely to diagnose or resolve technical difficulties; To: (a) software designed and installed solely to diagnose, prevent, or resolve technical difficulties; --changes in bold--`Friggen' resolves the 'so broad it gets benevolent software' problem.
Or has someone else found something I [completely plausably given the fustercluck of formatting and politi-bloat] missed?
Agreed, they probably wouldn't. but IF the code were available, then someone would have an easier time figuring out what is causing the problems on someone's computer and it would be almost trivial to make a fix for it. I think IF code were available, it would reduce the problem somewhat.
However, what chance is there that some adware company would release Free Software? They'd most likely package it up in someone elses binary like they already do.
In the case of linux though, and many other multiuser, access controlled systems, the bad effects would sort of be minimalized in that unless you were acting as some priviledged user when you installed the adware, it wouldn't effect every user, just you.
surely the impairing the delivery of ANY ad, targeted or otherwise is a wonderful thing.
Also microsoft are complaining but i thought i heard somewhere they are puttting pop-up blocking in the new IE, some slight irony/hypocrasy/i cant think of the word
But then, requiring all stuff open source would remove a lot of incentive for doing a lot of specialized stuff.
I have no problem with something like a core algorithm for a motor control being proprietary, or maybe databases - but I feel strongly that one requirement that should go in exchange for the legal mandate of keeping my nose out of it is that it be very clear that the responsibility for what the code does rests squarely with the one claiming ownership of the proprietary code and takes *all* legal liability for *any* consequences of using that code.
The business caveat for Open Source code is that in exchange for letting you in on its innards, is that you are supposed to read and understand the code, and thereby know its actions when executed.
Code doesn't lie. If it doesn't do what you expected, there is no one out there responsible for it. You may contact the author, or support organizations, and you are free to negotiate suitable arrangements for technical support if you can't read or don't have the time to tune the code so it does exactly whatever it is you wanted.
It sure looks to me that they see this Utah legislation as throwing a monkey wrench into their business plan of first snaring an audience, then once they become dependent on their services, then requiring them to install proprietary software. Pacific Bell did that to me. I went for years on their dialup. Suddenly I start getting emails from them telling me its mandatory that I visit their website and download their proprietary Yahoo code. I read the EULA, and again saw all those disclaimers of any liability, as well as implicit permission to share my stuff with their marketing partners. I just about puked at that point. I hated to kill that account, but I had to.
It seems to me the largest vector for viral infections is the use of any programs ( which, by their very nature, require permissions to run and access the TCPIP stack ) to execute rogue scripts. Microsoft's stuff is full of it. Linux would be too if it were as popular. I do not see the problem as being OS-centric, as rogue programs and exploits can be written to exploit an executable under any OS. Any other programs demanding executable permissions ( plug-ins, etc. ) out there only open up yet more security problems. Anyone who has surfed the net notes that an ever-increasing number of webmasters are now requiring the use of some specialized plug-in to view content instead of just using the standard way of doing the exact same thing. These specialized plug-ins are wide open for spoofing and tampering, as by their nature, once installed, they are given the keys to the kingdom.
It looks to me this legislation would effectively bar the trickery of demanding installation of plug-ins ( which may well have ulterior motives unseen by the downloader ) to view content.
I feel a lot of the internet businessmen have been watching the supermarkets and their "value cards" and have been thinking of implementing it on the web. I get the idea each has been tinkering with getting their proprietary bots in our machines much like the supermarkets coerced their cards into our wallets and purses. This legislation looks like it throws a monkey wrench into that plan.
Go for it. It may ( like the DMCA ) need some adjustment later, but for now, it sure looks like it will help curb the flow of exploitable code people are demanded to install at the whim of webmasters who inflict this on their visitors.
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
Hey man, just because Linux is Open-sourced, doesn't mean that apps (read: potential spyware) that runs on it is open-source. Do you think Oracle opensourced their DB when they released it for linux?
Q: Is it any easier in linux to packet sniff the data coming/going from your PC? Cause that's the only way you can analyze whats going on behind a closed-source app. And if Linux were mainstream, you better believe the spyware (along with a lot of non-spyware) would be closed-source.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
I can understand Google and Amazon having a problem with this bill because it will effect their advertising revenue. But the qustion you have to ask is why is Microsoft complaining? Is MS using spyware to monitor how you use your computer and what software you have installed? Call me paranoid, but I do think it is something we should be asking.
Windows is as solid as quicksand.
This is unbelievable. My mind is blown to see Google on this list as well. Have they sold out, now!? This Bill is about SPYWARE! What does spyware have to do with ads? Unless a company purposely wants to fool a user into showing ads this bill shouldn't affect those comapnies in any way. They just need to get permission. What's the problem? This is unbelievable... opposing an anti-spyware bill. If that's not the most blatantly obvious sack of bullcrap anyone's ever seen, I don't know what is. It's crap like this that makes me glad the nukes will fall soon.
I'm not anti-microsoft. I'm anti-bullshit. Which means I'm anti-microsoft.
Gee, wouldn't THAT suck. Allowing people to use the 'Net without constant harrassment from marketers would surely provoke an outcry from the outraged Net populace.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
Yeah.. a lot of repurcussions might happen from this bill being passed: not having to run ad/spyware scan utils on a daily basis, not having to call me (your friendly neighborhood IT guy) everytime your computer starts going slow (and it's almost always because of adware/spyware), not having your personal information transmitted all over the internet without your permission, no more invading your privacy (which should be illegal to begin with!), and not having a ton of security flaws in your system due to buggy spyware/adware code.
Sounds like some terrible repurcussions.
It surprises me that so many big companies signed this letter. Any big legitimate company _SHOULD_ ask your permission first anyway, and it sounds like if they do ask your permission, its letit. And the ones who dont, have lost a lot of respect from me and I refuse to use any of their software/services.
Honestly, I would much rather have a company ask my permission (and hell, I might even be inclined to accept, if they have enough respect to at least ask me first), than to have them deceitfully plant software on my machine.
Hey man, just because Linux is Open-sourced, doesn't mean that apps (read: potential spyware) that runs on it is open-source. Do you think Oracle opensourced their DB when they released it for linux?
You are right. But the orininal poster seemed be talking about Free software. Software is "Free", if, among other things, source code is freely available. I'm well aware of binary distribution of applications for Linux. I was speaking theoretically, to continue the original posters use of "Free".
However, it is my opinion that if you can stick to a policy of running only Free software, you can reduce the chances of running such malware by accident.
if you dont contact your elected officials and tell them about your issues and concerns or if you dont actually take action about your complaints then nothing will change!
No it doesn't, it says replacing it with an advertisement is prohibited. It's very specific. It sounds like a great law to me. One word alone is rarely specific... and notice nobody bothered to define "advertisement" for the purposes of this law.
From the article:
"The parties to the letter warned that the bill could interfere with computer security and would also impair the delivery of local, targeted ads."
Yeah, THAT'S THE POINT. The law will not interfere with computer security. The law will cause most major companies to have to resort to 3rd party gator-like advertisements which will affect computer security. What a way to spin it!
Often wrong but never in doubt.
I am Jack9.
Everyone knows me.
I read the article and thought "what a bunch of whiners!" and then read the legislation. Wow. One of the side effects is to make it illegal to have a targeted ad trigger based on a federally registered trademark. So, it becomes illegal to have an ad system (even if the computer owner explicitly wants it!) to detect "1800contacts" or "windows" or the like as triggers for suggesting cheaper contact lenses or linux/open source etc.
I hate ads as much as most people, but I know of people who do actually use this stuff on purpose - they're also the type of people who collect coupons etc. Should it be illegal for them to install software to look up cheaper/better alternatives?
It seems to me that this is more about a company trying to protect is business models than about consumer interest or spyware/adware/etc.
The first time I ran into adware, I got pretty ticked off about it. I was running a pop-up killer, yet I was still getting pop ups, at Google and my bank even.
Google put a link on their page "Why Google doesn't use pop-ups", I clicked it, and I read all about [ad/spy]ware. I quickly discovered Ad-Aware, and removed gator from my system. I'm embarrassed that I had it and didn't know it, but, to continue my story....
I did a hell of a lot of research about ad-ware and spy-ware, and I wrote a very detailed letter to the FTC about it, what it was and why it was wrong. I waited with bated breath for their response. Here's what I got:
Thank you for writing to us about unsolicited commercial email (UCE). UCE is a very big problem in the US, and we're working on a solution.....
Thanks guys.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
One should also take note that the reason these big companies are so opposed to this anti-spyware bill is that the information gathered by companies such as Gator, Comet Cursor, Doubleclick, Wildtangent, etc... serves as a veritable goldmine for marketers inside MS, Amazon, and a whole bunch of other big companies. If they know what we're browsing, how we're browsing, then they know what we like, what we used to like, and what we don't like. Knowledge like this is what marketers DIE for. They have an undying urge to understand the consumer, and the spyware companies can (and most likely do) provide this information for a price. This is obviously a fight to took keep this information flowing smoothly.
When I do a search on Google, the little ads on the right are frequently for Toronto area businesses, and usually relevant to my search. (Hell, I get google.ca when I type google.com unless I force it not to.) They're probably doing it via IP address rather malware or cookies, but since they do provide local targeted ads, they're right to be concerned that this law is too broad.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
"It's embarrassing," said City Manager David J. Norman. "We had a paralegal who did bad research."
You have to love the world today when the best that they can come up with is some lame excuse about how it was someone else's fault.
Sorry David, if you have to rely on everyone for even some of the most basic knowladge then you really don't deserve to be a public offical.
Really, I know what I'm doing...Ohhhh, look at the shiny buttons!
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I wrote a column for our local paper last year saying that this was a problem that was going to get out of hand, and went on to say that if a person wanted to ...let's say make a politician look bad, all they had to do was put some scripting into a site that would install itself into a computer and sit back and download kiddie porn into the host machine, then find a way to get the politician to go to the web site. Give it some time, then report him. Bingo, kiddie porn on joe congressman's machine. (way oversimplified, but you catch the drift)
Poor slob in England less than 8 months later went throught the same ordeal.
And as far as maliscious coding is concerned, browser hijackers and the such, this should be illegal, period. And pop ups are making a computer do something a person did not specifically state that they wanted it to do. This should also be illegal.
Spyware should only be allowed if the "allow 3rd party information gathering" button is checked on a person's browser. No, wait, there isn't one, is there? WELL THERE SHOULD BE.
Yes, there are ways around all of this, that's why we have brains, but let's face it, we have laws to protect the ignorant from themselves as much as from others...
Karma: Bad is the liberal way of saying this guy won't drink the kool aid here on slash dot. I wear my Karma with pride
the parties warned that the bill could impair the delivery of local, targeted ads!
Can't they come up with something more significant? Oh no! my ads aren't targeted! quick format the HD!
I guess the man's eating crow now. *groan*
TANSTAAFI: There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free iPod.
... is curtilage.
Nothing about "privacy", it's more simple than that. It all comes down to who owns the machine... who is accountable for what it does, and who has authority of what it does.
Spyware is all about authority, without accountability. Period.
In real life, though you cannot have one without the other. Consider the typical business, or household setup - you have...
a) A hardware device, and Dad (or the sysadmin) owns it. He's the one the feds will arrest, first, when his IP address is linked to a pile of kiddy porn.
b) Software licenses, owned by the licensee. Note that this person is *not* usually the same dude as the hardware owner... consider co-locations, or consider the game that Mom bought, to put on Dad's machine, for little 5 year old Billy to play.
c) Users. These are the people who actually use the software, in concert with the hardware. Note that they own neither.
You can see how authority, and especially accountability, come into play. Little Billy has no accountability, therefore he cannot have any authority. Giving him authority means he can bind Dad into any license agreements that come down the pike; despite that Dad may have explicitly forbidden such agreements.
Likewise, Mom only has authority over the software license. She has no implicit rights to any of the hardware... she cannot loan it to a friend, sell it, lease clock time, or whatever. She can do whatever the hell she wants with the license, however, because it's hers... which includes letting Billy take one of her seats. Billy cannot reassign the seat she's given him, however, unless she agrees. After all, come License Violation Time, it'll be enforced against HER, not Billy.
Same goes for the hardware - when all is said and done, Dad (or whoever owns the hardware) is going to be implicated.
The perfect world respects this setup. In fact, it adds another layer - the Network Guy.
The Network Guy owns all the cables, switches, routers that connect the machines to whatever. In the perfect world, he hates everyone... bandwidth is precious, and every packet is metered and paid for in blood. He has the right, since HE OWNS IT, to demand only certain types of traffic occur, and he has the right to demand that noone may deviate from his plan.
The hardware owner pays the blood to the network guy, and he hates him for it. He also hates the software licencees - they're forever encumbering his machines, and he doesn't do it lightly. In fact, he demands (since HE OWNS THEM) that noone has any right to install anything, nor bind him to nor involve his hardware with any EULAs or whatever, period. CPU and drive assets are precious commodities, and those machines exist exactly to fulfill HIS purpose, and noone else's. He also hates the network guy, since the network guy is forever allowing packets to bounce off his NIC - which the machine reacts to, and causes an unauthorized change in state in the machine. The network guy has no right to cause such changes, unless the hardware owner has specifically agreed that those types of changes are allowed. The hardware guy is only allowed to cause specific changes in state of specific pieces of the network, and the networ guy is only allowed to cause specific changes in state of specific hardware devices.
The software licensee is hated by all, and hates them all back. This person has no home, and has no implicit rights to anything other than, exactly, delegation of the licensed seat(s). This person is free to agree to whatever EULAs, terms restrictions, mortgage payments, or other encumberances... all day long, it matters not. However, they have no right to any of the hardware, nor any of the network - both of those resources must be negotiated for, separately. Both the hardware owner and the network guy will refuse to be bound by any terms in the license, since they have no interest in it, and both refuse to delegate any of their authority to the licensee. After all, she's a Typhoid Mary.
F
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
I don't want a law banning adware/spyware.
I want a law that imposes HUGE fines for companies who do. If they wanna clog up the internet with this crap, fine, but the company who's products/services are being solicited should pay about 0.001% of the total dollar value of the company for every popup/banner/etc. At least half of this fine should go to the people whose property and time are being invaded and wasted. And none of that "oh, we had their permission to do this" bullshit. Nobody knowingly installs spyware on their machine (at least, without making some attempt to get rid of it.) When this kind of lowlife advertising starts turning a loss instead of a profit, it will stop overnight.
Don't like it? Fine a new way to peddle your wares.
A ridiculous monstrosity of redundant verbiage. But funny.
Notice they make an exception for JavaScript, but not for Java Applets or Servlets? (Part 1, section 5b, iii). I suppose Utah will be searching sourceforge for violators.
They also make an exception for obtaining the name of your operating system (Part 1, section 5c). They're legislating $ENVIRONMENT_VARIABLES?
This kind of thing should be up to the user. Why don't they fix health care.
...would also impair the delivery of local, targeted ads
Isn't that one of the major goals, especially if u happen to be "shopping for porn," you certainly don't want to get an ad for viagra/cialis/etc. (even if u need it or not).
Judges aren't idiots. They're not going to define a blank space as an advert. At the very least, an advert has to promote some entity - what entity does a blank space promote?
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Mod the parent up because this is true. Lobbiests AND companies do this. They, literally, write the bills for the legislators.
I had a very close friend tell me she wanted to be a lobbiest (she has a background in politics, Bush campaign, prominent position, etc.) During the course of the conversation, I asked her what she would actually be doing - as in "what do lobbiests REALLY do, day to day?" - and she says, "write bills and get them in the legislator's hands".
We went on and on about this because I was fascinated. We talked about the draft process and how a bill actually made it through the process (and got to the congress critters). I mean, she tells me they actually put the words on the page and then hand the critters the document as a bill. That's it. What shocked me so hard was the fact that it was sooo smooth and "simple" that it defied description. While I knew it went on, I just didn't realize it was so blatant. But it is.
True enough that I feel compelled to write about it (as an AC) here on Slashdot.
The part that embarasses me as an American? That applies to both of the major party candidates.
I think you should have to vote on a ballot without names or parties. Their should just be a list of their honest views and their platform, and next to that their voting record on those issues. No rhetoric. No "invoking the flag," thank you Mr President. No BS catch phrases like "bring it on," thank you Mr Senator.
Of course, most people would go to the poles, read what was in front of them, get disgusted, and leave with their ballot unmarked.
Sarcasm and hyperbole are the final refuges for weak minds
One more silly thing coming out of the Beehive State. With a population of less than three million, leading the nation in the use of local providers (including one run by the Mormon Church), why doesn't the online community quit lobbying, and just quit serving this obviously very disturbed constituency. Unplug Utah!
Maybe it's an ad for nihilism.com?
..MATRIX, UTOPIA, SCO, this thing. I am sick of hearing about Utah and their crazy stupid ideas on how to fuck up our internet. Can we vote them off the island?
Error: Id10t detected
Am I the only one who finds it ironic that the linked article requests a cookie good for over 30 years?
I've seen doubleclick ads show up here on /. as recently as the other day..
Hmmmmmmmmm??????
There's a long list of things it might interfere with, unfortunately...For example:
Mormon underwear, and delivery of local, targeted ads.
Fruit basket creation, and delivery of local, targeted ads.
Various small farm animals, and delivery of local, targeted ads.
The square root of Bob Dole's left ass cheek, and delivery of local, targeted ads.
It's good to know that these online providers want to protect all that important stuff for us!
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
At one time loans and credit accounts were the scourge of the common person with no patients for reading long verbose contracts. Many a person was mislead into loan terms that would make you puke today. Then along came the "truth in lending" laws that require a standardized disclosure section for all loans, credit cards, etc. Now when I get a credit card application in the mail, all I have to do is flip it over and look for this well organized table. It lists my interest rate, payment terms, fees, penalties, etc. No guessing; I know in 5 seconds exactly what I'm getting myself into.
We need the same plain, simple disclosure for all software that will install on the computer displayed when installed; a requirement that all installed software show up in the package management system as installed (i.e. control panel); and a method to query that plain, simple disclosure any time we want through the package management system.
Without this, all those laws will do is force tracking companies to further obscure the EULA and "trick" us into giving consent. Anyone want to help draft a disclosure table and its contents?
Maybe bills should be submitted in a machine friendly format with a high semantic markup.
Then we can run it through "politicalware" to extract the salient points, and point out conflicts and other issues.
If everyone's going to inudate the political process as a means to get their bill through (overwelm your opponent). Then one needs to use 30 years of conputing to tame the beast.
Uhm, no.
Gator claim #1: "Oh, they downloaded something we're partnered with (Divx even) so they implicitly agreed to the installation." And Gator pays EVERYONE to include their spyware with the install and bury the agreement somewhere in a click-through box.
Gator claim #2: "The trickler is only there to update and fix the software if problems happen." - but in reality, it's ALSO there to reinstall itself if you use Ad-Aware, Spybot, or any of the other programs designed to get RID of Gator. And of course Gator's "uninstall" doesn't exist, you have to uninstall whatever it came in with (assuming you can figure out what it was), and then it leaves the trickler in place...
The worst of it is that Gator's trickler then drops in a ton MORE components that Gator is partnered with, like that browser hijacker New.Net.
I'm almost at a loss to begin answering, because to me it's obvious that none of Linux's protections help here at all. The main problem is that the user can be fooled into pressing whatever buttons are needeed.
.bashrc, etc., to launch them on login. Copy an app like Mozilla to a hidden file, apply a binary malware patch, and change the desktop menu/icon to point to the hacked copy. Download a hacked glibc to a hidden locatin and set LD_LIBRARY_PATH in .bashrc to point there - then any kind of horror is possible.
It's really a two part question: how will the malicious code get run initially, and how will it insert it's back doors. There are many ways - here are some of the more obvious.
Initial Running: probably by the same mechanism that spyware uses today. Offer a "free download" with the spyware bundled. The same people that run it on Windows will run it on Linux. And don't say they won't have root - they will have to have root if Linux replaces Windows. Anyhow, root is not really needed, as I'll show.
Creating Backdoors:If the malware is installed by root, anything goes. Daemons added to the rc scripts, possibly a rootkit to cover up, possibly kernel modules that add all sorts of nasty advertising hooks. Imagine if every time text is read from a file or a socket, a brief ad is prefixed. Yuck!
If the user merely runs the malware once under his own ID, many tricks are still possible. Immediately launch a background process that continues the malware installation after the "bait" app exits. Hide malware executables in densely populated directories like the browser cache, and modify
Of course, you can cheat and use a buffer overflow for the initial install, but to stay congruent with Windows spyware we should assume tricking the user into running a "bait" application.
OK, I'll have a shot.
Honest Views:"I believe in America, in keeping America great, and it standing up for the core beliefs of this great nation. I believe that America is for every American, and nobody should be left behind. I believe that we must work harder than ever to preserve our freedom, build the economy, and defend America."
Voting Record:Voted YES on the WARMFUZZYBUNNY act, a law that will defend Americans from evildoers. Voted YES on the PROTECTOURECONOMY act, a splendid law that will give $1000 to every American. Voted YES on the STOPTHEIF act, which will defend America's vital intellectual property from cyberthieves so future generations can enjoy our vibrant cultural heritage.
This is not the place for rhetoric or flag-waving, but I must point out the simple fact that my opponent, while holding the same views and voting for the same bills, is a bad choice because either (a) He has no experience in government at this level or (b) He is a Washington Insider, with more allegiance to lobbyists and special interests than to voters. Amen.
Of course, most people would go to the poles
Here in Canada, we just go to the Canadians.
You articulate the argument well, but I think it's a flawed argument. How often does artillery come into play in a coup? There are lots of reasons a government might hesitate to shell its own towns.
By the time there is a serious enough divide to cause an uprising, the government and military will also be somewhat divided.
Look at the Vietnam war. Weren't normal rifles more useful to the Vietnamese than artillery?
If the citizens need parity with the military, it's not in artillery but in c3i - encrypted radios, mapping and map-sharing systems, etc. But these systems would need a complete rethink to become more peer-to-peer and less dependant on centralized command.
As for your point about training, I think it applies even more strongly to ordinary military rifles. I think a small group of trained soldiers can win over a large group of untrained people with the same equipment. That was probably equally true in 1776.
the government goes halfway around the world to exterminate terrorists, but when it comes to domestic terrorists, they dont do anything.
It's an obvious urban legend - if the guy thought that "Wash. Biol. Surv" was cooking instructions, how did he know where to send the letter?
context-based triggering. CONTEXT-based triggering.
Probably. I actually found it on the Guardian Unlimited Talk board's "Any good jokes?" thread (sadly deleted now, for reasons that have enraged regulars there, even if, for the most part, they were the same jokes posted again and again.)
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
They can just ask. As long as they didn't gather any personal info ( email, home address, etc. ) I would not have a problem with it.
I can't afford a sig!
> most people would go to the poles,
North or South? I believe you mean POLLS.
Sounds a lot like this article.
This has got to stop somehow. Hey, maybe California should make a proposition to stop this! Wonder how far this would go?
There's nothing like a stupid knee jerk reaction by uninformed legislators doing something about stuff they are clueless about. The only thing worse than something like this, is when the feds do it, and nullify some state law that does better.
--robin
...Boycott Disney
"software that display advertisements...pop-up windows... without permission"
Details: A Close Reading of Utah's Spyware Control Act.
Ben Edelman
I agree that that's the impression you'd inevitably get after reading the article. That's clearly what the article's author wanted! the question is: What impression would you get after reading the bill? Or after listening to the sponsor of the bill defend it?!
For an alternative perspective, check out my A Close Reading of Utah's Spyware Control Act. I go through the bill's major provisions, then take a close look at the specific concerns raised by its critics. I received a copy of a letter they sent to bill sponsors, so I can examin the arguments in considerably greater detail than, for example, the MediaPost article.
Ben Edelman
Jack,
You're right that the bill would be awfully overbroad if it did what the article says it does. But the article is wrong. Read the bill and see for yourself.
Or, better yet, read my FAQ-style analysis and see 1) what the bill really does, and 2) what the article got wrong.
A Close Reading of Utah's Spyware Control Act
In short: Software that reports users' online activities is only prohibited under the bill if the software lacks a proper license agreement and uninstall program. So plenty of programs can still report users' activities, so long as this is properly disclosed and so long as users can change their minds later.
Ben Edelman
For those still reading --
I'm told that Governor Walker signed the bill into law today.
Ben Edelman
benedelman.org