Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Officials Wary of Spyware Measures

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the erring-on-caution's-side dept.

Nofsck Ingcloo writes "News.com is reporting thusly: 'Two Federal Trade Commission officials ignited a political firestorm on Thursday by criticizing proposed laws targeting spyware and suggesting that the measures might harm legitimate software products, too.' During an appearance before a House of Representatives panel, FTC Commissioner Mozelle Thompson said the measures were the wrong approach to spyware and adware. Basically he is advocating a 'don't throw the baby out with the bath water' approach."

10 of 242 comments (clear)

  1. Wonder how much... by Zondar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    he gets from these so-called "software companies" in contributions?

    1. Re:Wonder how much... by sohojim · · Score: 5, Funny

      Actually, FTC Commissioners are appointed, not elected, according to this page:

      http://www.ftc.gov/bios/commissioners.htm

      I don't think government employees can accept "contributions" from companies -- granted, that's just for "over the table" contributions.

      What's funny is that the Trade Commissioner listed after Mozelle on this page is named "Orson Swindle."

    2. Re:Wonder how much... by thrillseeker · · Score: 5, Interesting
      I don't think government employees can accept "contributions" from companies -- granted, that's just for "over the table" contributions.

      What's funny is that the Trade Commissioner listed after Mozelle on this page is named "Orson Swindle."

      Orson Swindle spent six years being tortured by the North Vietnamese in a Hanoi prison. He came back from that without breaking and with his honor intact - I suspect he's a little beyond being bribed than the average whining slashdotter could even understand.

    3. Re:Wonder how much... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      First the average whining slashdotter above was making a joke based on his name.

      Second honor in one scenario doesn't mean honor it all. I know nothing of Mr. Swindle so I assume he's an okay guy until he proves otherwise (which is unlikely since I'm unlikely to ever meet the man and he's unlikely to ever be in a high level scandle that makes CNN) but the thing that irritates me is the assumption that he's stand up because of an event 30+ years in the past. Yes he did good, yes he was honorable, yes it was important...no it was not the sole act by which he should always be judged from now on. I appreciate Mr. Swindle's service to this country and I thank him for his honor in a time of emense hardship and torment but that does not make him above questions or reproach should he be involved in something shady.

      Honor and honesty are life long pursuits and those that don't see that (i.e. cops who cover up for other cops, soldiers who hide war crimes because of justifications of brotherhood, preachers who betray financial trusts in the name of God, and in general any of the any means necessary causes out there, et. al.) are the enablers of corruption in our society.

      That said again I'm pretty sure the slashdotter was making a lame joke based on his name...get a life and see if someone can't remove that chip from your sholder.

  2. Chuck it by nycsubway · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Heave the "baby" out with the bathwater. Spyware is called spyware because of what it is. There's no mistaking a legitimate program that user chooses to install. In my opinion, if the user knows its being installed than its not spyware. If the user doesn't fully know whats being installed than it is spyware, and that type of software should be chucked out with the bathwater.

    --
    http://github.com/gbook/nidb
    1. Re:Chuck it by jafomatic · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the user doesn't fully know whats being installed than it is spyware

      And how exactly do you propose to verify this beyond a doubt? Consider the old RealPlayer, which some of us were willing to install that first time, that required non-beginner knowledge to fully remove.

      You and I may know what we're installing, and we might also consider it pretty stupid-easy to go edit out the thing's entries from our windows registry, but that doesn't mean your below-average-or-average user will comprehend this. Those are exactly the people who are most affected by spyware.

      The rest of us already know how it got there and how to get rid of it.

      --
      ::jafomatic
    2. Re:Chuck it by platypussrex · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The article quotes the FTC guy as saying that if Spyware laws were implemented, then every time one did an install of something such as Office there would be hundreds of "helper" programs that would need permission, or warning, or whatever.

      I can see his point... if the user is asked for a blanket permission at the start of the install then it negates the purpose of asking permission for the spyware components but if each individual program asks permission, it would take all day.

      So what's the solution?

    3. Re:Chuck it by grahammm · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes, but the bug reporting in Mozilla asks your permission before it sends any data. Also it allows you to preview what it is going to send

    4. Re:Chuck it by Mr+Guy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No one seems to mind the checkboxes that already come when installing massive multicomponent programs such as Windows or Linux to begin with. You know the ones, they have tree hierarchies and let you select the features you want and not to select the features you don't.

      Solving the problem for MOST legitimate software is as simple as requiring any software by a third party to have it's own checkbox and explanation of what that software does. Require a set of privacy keywords that is legally enforcable in those explanations. For example, a legal description for Gator may contain three keywords words: ADVERTISEMENT POPUP PHONEHOME. They could define as many keywords as the public wants, performing a "spyware function" without notifying via the keyword would trigger heavy fines. Requiring a link to a privacy policy wouldn't be a bad idea, assuming that policy had any legal weight to it.

      --
      Never confuse volume with power.
  3. As in real life by Alcoyotl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    We have regulations on what people can and cannot do with private property, why should an online computer be treated differently ? Oh yeah, they flash a so called licence agreement to the user just to be on the safe side of the law, that you dismiss by either clicking yes or no (read the very fine prints). That is unnacceptable. Any program installing on a computer should clearly show how to exit the installation process, and better, unsollicited installs should be banned altogether. I'm talking about thoses occuring when you just load a web page. You never asked to install anything, or never wanted to do so, yet something asks you install it, often in a deceptive manner.

    This shouldn't be too difficult to pass such a law, and legit businesses will adapt very well. As a matter of fact, legit businesses already have adapted : a clear warning or information page with a link to the install program. Plain and simple.