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'."

Comments

Politicians and technology, again.

[The I Shing]

-- 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.

Re:Politicians and technology, again.

[bludstone]

"they let one company write the bill to suit themselves."

People dont realize how epidemic this is in American politics. The politicians often don't even write the laws, they _literally_ allow companies to write the laws, and simply sign what they are given into law.

It even got to the point where laws are copyrighted, and one had to pay hundreds of dollars simply for a copy of the law. Someone posted a copy of the law online and was met with copyright complaints.

see here. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?n avby=search&case=/data2/circs/5th/9940632cv0.h tml

of course, they eventually found in Veeck's favor, http://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/99/99-406 32-cv2.htm but it still must be noted.

heres a slashdot article on it:
http://slashdot.org/yro/01/05/13/1921223.shtm l

I could also post a flurry of links regarding American fore-father's worries about the growing strength of "company" and to watch out for its influence on the government, but that would be preaching to the choir.

Smoke & Mirrors

[grub]

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..

If you think that...

[BgJonson79]

your "targeted ads" are going to be discarded because someone thinks they're spyware, maybe the ads should be re-thought?

local, targeted ads?

[Gr33nNight]

..local, targeted ads..

So, since I live in Wisconsin, I should be seeing tons of ads for cheese and beer..?

Re:local, targeted ads?

[mopslik]

So, since I live in Wisconsin, I should be seeing tons of ads for cheese and beer..?

What about those folks that live in Dildo, Newfoundland?

Never mind the fact that it's located right next to Spread Eagle...

So broad, anti-adware and kid-proofing is spyware!

[LostCluster]

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...

Let me control my own computer!

[blcamp]

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.

You're not paying attention.

[Moryath]

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.

Re:You're not paying attention.

[s13g3]

Uhm, I dunno about you, but it would take absolutely no effort on my part whatsoever to debunk the above claims. Period, paragraph, end-of-story, I do not want advertising, advertising software, tracking software, special deals/offers, targeted marketing, tracking cookies, malware, spyware or anything other than the app I specifically downloaded or the web-page I specifically viewed. I don't give a d4mn if MS or Yahoo! (whose mail service I use) thinks this has security implications for them, as that's total BS of the pointy-haired boss variety.

If I went to gator.com (or whatever their website is) and downloaded their marketing software, that would be one thing. But I haven't, and never will. My guess is 98% of people wouldn't either. I don't want to be plagued by their crap. If I wanted to be some kind of running marketing/advertising survey participant, there are places I could go to do that (e.g. NPDOR.com) As it is, I don't even plug my satellite IRD or cable receiver (yes, I have both) into the phone line b/c I don't want them reporting my viewing statistics. I am not a guinea-pig for Nielsen, and neither is my PC.

So yah, fsck MS and Yahoo! and the rest. Destroy all spy/mal-ware and tar-ball and feather the spammers! I shouldn't have to run software on my PC to find out if some asshole webmaster or programmer is hunting for my name/email/home address/surfing habits, etc. Spyware, malware and the like are just overblown viruses (and just as malicious in many cases), and should be treated by the authorities as such. If Y! can and wants to denote my viewing habits within their site, that's fine. I subscribe to their service and use their hardware. If I click on an ad link (I won't), they can track that without ever installing software or cookies on my PC. Sure, that takes some horespower from their servers and space in their DBase, but I don't recall signing up for a Y! "Help us cut costs" distributed computing project. If I should provide my real name, address, or zip code to Yahoo! (I haven't, and won't) and they say they reserve the right to use that info, that's also ok, assuming I'm made immediately aware of this in very plain text at the top of the EULA. I even fed them a nearby zip code... I don't mind that there's an ad on my email page; That's how they make their money. I still won't click-thru, but they get paid by the impression, so if they want to send me ads local to Atlanta, that's ok, just so long as they

• keep their grubby paws out of my box!

The Internet may be the next big advertising medium (it's gotta pay for itself somehow), BUT MY PC IS NOT!

Final thought for close. It is permissible for neighborhoods and office parks, etc., to put up signs saying "No Soliciting". This means that you can't just walk onto mine or someone else's private property and harass them to buy something. People have been shot for less. There is a sign outside of my neighborhood that says "No Soliciting". Boy/Girl Scouts are ok in my book. Jehovah's Witnesses and Insurance salesmen offend me, and I don't want them at my door bugging me. The law gives me the recourse, when properly posted, to have these people fined or in some cases arrested. Used to be bulk mailin my Snail-Mail box. That was bad enough but went away with the internet (USPS must miss those days). SPAM in my email box is just as bad. But installing software/cookies without my consent (something no one will *EVER* get legitimately) is no different than a salesman violating my personal privacy and property to come into my home and pitch me stuff I don't want. I almost never watch TV. Never mind the lack of content on the tube ('cept for Stargate, Enterprise CNN/FNN, and Discovery Wings), the advertising is obnoxious... Can't even legally get a filter to tone down the volume of commericals. But I do suscribe for that content. Thank any and all G-d's that ISP's don't operate th

Biased Article

[Percy_Blakeney]

I hope that nobody is using this article as a base for their opinion of this bill. That had to be one of the most biased articles I've read lately. Here's just a few of the problems:

• Googe, Yahoo, cNet, and eBay are involved, but the writer never directly quotes them, favoring to paraphrase their letter.
• There are no opposition quotes.
• The only quoted source is Avi Naider, who is the CEO of an adware company that is hurt by the bill.
• MediaDailyNews is not an unbiased source; it is in their best interest to see this bill fail.

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?