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?
-- 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!
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...
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.
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)
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
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.
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.
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
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.
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."
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(); }
I hate ads as much as the next person, but a couple of ads sure beats having to pay for services online.
I may be alone here, but personally I never really minded ads, and sometimes I actually miss those plain old static banners. Every now and then I'd click on one if it was something that caught my interest, and I even managed to pick up some decent bargains occasionally. As a matter of fact, I never even considered blocking any ads until they became so distracting that I couldn't read a sites content for fear of retinal burn from all the obnoxious flashing going on, so now I simply block everything I can.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
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]
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
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.
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.
... 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
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.
Nope... I've not missed the point... This IS my point. BS, BS and *more* BS. I did not implicitly agree to shit besides the fact that I wanted to install DIVX, and NOTHING BUT DIVX. Bundling gator software in so it autoinstalls without me knowing it or having a choice in the matter is like like passing a bill in the house that just happens to contain a a tidy little $5mil raise for your local senator on page 396 in a 2 pt. font. It's pure trash.
/. trolls, here are gonna hide in the corners, report everything you do to our home office, smoke cigars, and torment your cat. Hope you don't mind. They don't eat much, I swear."
As for their second claim... Let's imagine a travelling salesman walks onto my property, picks the locks on my door and walks into my house. He proceeds to note everything in my home on his little PDA, and send all this info back to his home office. I finally find him lurking in a corner of my attic, where he proceeds to pitch me on something, and as I'm |1ck1N5 his a$$ out the door, he sez, "But I have great offers! Are you sure you want to do this." My response is a resounding (Robin Williams impersonation here) "FSCK OFF".
So, sumn bitch shoulda gone to jail in the first place. I didn't invite him in; He invited himself the same way Gator does. Actually, to make it more accurate, instead of him picking the lock, say he sneaks in the back door while I let my buddy Dr. DivX in the front door, when no one is looking.
So, I've thrown him out. I was nice enough not to call the cops this time. Later this evening, I'm about to go to bed (Dr. DivX is no longer even in the house), when, lo and behold, I find our Gator-skin-boots salesman hiding under my bed. "SPECIAL OFFERS!", he cries. "FSCK OFF 0R D|3!!!!!!!!!!", I reply.
His excuse for coming back in? "Well, there's a driveway, and it leads to a door, and, well, if you didn't want me in your house, you wouldn't have put a door or any windows on it."
"WTF are you talking about," I ask.
"STFU and RTFM," the guy says. "There's a door on your house, so that's an open invitation for me to come in."
"Well, WTF about the 2 locks and deadbolt on the door???"
"Oh... Those... Well, y'see, I happen to have this handy-dandy universal garage-door remote control, and I used that 'cuz I really need to inventory your house and what you watch on TV. BTW, these little techno-gremlins and their buddies, the
"Wait one damn second here... GET THE HELL OUT."
This is the point where I set the salesman on fire.
Hence my original point. I don't give a d4mn what they CLAIM I agreed to, it's total 5]-[1+. I didn't agree to do anything but install an app, and that does not include agreement to install somebody eles's piece of shit speware (i liked the typo... it's my new word for spyware) package. I never have and never will voluntarily install this shit or anything like it on my PC (note, PC, stands for PERSONAL computer, not PUBLIC), and no one can resonably debate with me otherwise. It will simply never happen. Therefore, Gator is invading my privacy and trespassing on my PERSONAL computer which resides on my PRIVATE property, and so they and all the other like them should be dealt with as the hijacking information terrorists they are.
If it's illegal for the FEDERAL GOVERNEMENT and it's agencies to conduct an unlawful search of me or my property (and that includes my computer network) without a warrant, why isn't illegal for Gator to do so?
Answer, it IS illegal. Problem is, the businesses and the technolgically unwashed dunderheads that are in office don't want you to know this. They think they are above the law (which needs to be re-worded and updated), and we have to do everything that we can to make sure these bills go through... Preferrably with penalties just as stiff as those for tresspass and illegal search and seizure... As in I beat them about the head with a flaming trout until they HAVE seizures, at which point they are twitching, and on fire. Yes, yes, I like that mental image VERY much.
"Inveniemus Viam Aut Faciemus" 'We will find a way... Or we will make one!' --Hannibal of Carthage
We're not talking about servers on a company network where quotas are enforced and not everyone is 100% trusted. This is about home desktops. If you screw up your userland, it's still a big deal if you're the only person using it.