Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Utah Sees First Spyware Case

Posted by simoniker on from the i-spy-controversy dept.

denlin writes "According to a story at The Register: 'Overstock.com is set to become the first company to take action under Utah's new anti-spyware law. The company has filed a complaint against online retailer SmartBargains in the third district court in Salt Lake City. Utah's spyware law, the world's first, only made the statute book on 3 May. Utah is the only state with current spyware legislation, although California and Iowa are considering their own versions of the law.'"

12 of 123 comments (clear)

  1. I think I speak for all of us... by James+A.+R.+Joyce · · Score: 0, Insightful

    ...when I say that it's about tupping time . I just hope that they can't wriggle their way out of it with an appeal.

    --
    I'm selling my K5 acct.
  2. This will be interesting... by Dozix007 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wonder if they will actually get anywhere. While Spyware is annoying and intrusive, the people who put it on your computer are generally in the right by their agreements. Most people that get spyware are uninformed, and ignorant. If you open unsolisited email, or if you download P2P, and other such software, you will end up with spyware.

    1. Re:This will be interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful
      the people who put it on your computer are generally in the right by their agreements. Most people that get spyware are uninformed, and ignorant.

      You can't make a legal contract if you are uniformed or ignorant. This is why shrinkwrap license are rarely (ever?) held up in court.

    2. Re:This will be interesting... by devilspgd · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, nothing Windows-specific about spyware, other then the fact that the vast majority of idiots who are willing to install spyware happen to use Windows.

      If you're willing to download and install Bonzai Buddy or anything similar, you'll do it in your operating system of choice.

      If Linux ever gets a foothold into the desktop market place, you'll see spyware popping up there too

      --
      Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, but teach a man to phish...
    3. Re:This will be interesting... by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Anything that tries to trick a user into downloading and installing it is crap and shouldn't be tolerated.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  3. A question by neilcSD · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's what I have always wondered - why do merchants say the 1st amendment protect intrusive advertising? Seems to me that if someone doesn't want to hear it, they shouldn't be forced to. Faxers, spammers, all try to hind behind the constitution. I thought the First Amendment only protects free speech, it does not guarantee an audience. Also, it really isn't free speech if it costs people something is it (bandwidth, etc)?

  4. Hooray for Iowa by autopr0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    IA was one of the few states that had an anti-spam law on the books before the federal government stepped in and fucked everything up with there idiotic (yes you) CAN-SPAM act.

    Hopefully more states will follow suit and things can quiet down for a while before the Fed steps in and legalizes it.

    --
    autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
  5. Re:This might work. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Yeah. Honest presentation of a learning experience. Who'd'a thunk it? The whole point of /. is to maintain your 733t image and karma.

  6. not in the right anymore by r00t · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spyware authors may have been "in the right"
    prior to this law. Why do you think the law
    was passed? :-) An EULA contract is nothing
    when it goes against the law.

  7. How is this the first? by Zen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Maybe LL Bean should have filed suit in Utah instead of in Maine? Yes, it's different because this one will test Utah's new law. But this sounds like exactly the same problem, and since the story's short on details, it could even be the same culprit (claria).

  8. Legal virusus by scifiber_phil · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Spy ware is nothing but legal virusus in my book. Some legal mumbo-jumbo in a EULA saying that I agree to allow you to install third party crap that does god knows what is just unethical and should be illegal. The fact that most of this stuff then ferments to a greater level of scum by spying on me etc. just adds to the insult. NOONE would knowingly agree to ANY of the things, if the EULA were actually truthful about all the effects of clicking on the "I Agree" button. The social engineering done by the lawyers in these EULAs is no differrent then the social enginneering in an email getting someone to open an attachment. The results, in my book are the same. Now I've got a virus on my machine. Both should be equally illegal.

  9. Re:the wrong direction by c+era · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually, overstock.com does have legal grounds to sue. Here's the prohibited conduct part of the law:

    13-39-201. Prohibited conduct.
    (1) A person may not:
    (a) install spyware on another person's computer;
    (b) cause spyware to be installed on another person's computer; or
    (c) use a context based triggering mechanism to display an advertisement that partially or wholly covers or obscures paid advertising or other content on an Internet website in a way that interferes with a user's ability to view the Internet website.
    (2) It is not a defense to a violation of this section that a user may remove or hide an advertisement.

    What overstock.com is sueing over is section 1.C & 2. We're talking about adds that goto a compeditor from their site. The thing with these pop-ups, is that they present a deal that looks like it could be from overstock.com and when the user click on it, they goto SmartBargains instead.

    Think of this along the lines of Wal*Mart paying someone to put a posterboard with Wal*Mart advertisements on it, and go into near by Target stores and tell Target's customers to goto Wal*Mart instead. Who's the one doing the unethical advertisement?