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.
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...
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.
At least thats how I remember it.
Lasers Controlled Games!
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.
(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.
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
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.
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?
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.
... 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