Slashdot Mirror


U.S. To Impose Spyware Control Laws

ArbiterOne writes "BBC has the story: A bill has been introduced into the U.S. House of Representatives to control the proliferation of spyware and malware. The proposed bill would force programs to inform the user before installing programs, and require that spyware be easily removed. A study by EarthLink found that the average user has 28 spyware programs on their computer!"

402 comments

  1. I'm just a bill on... by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 1

    If anyone could provide a link to the bill that is mentioned in the article (which they neglected to even name) it would be appreciated, the article is broad and doesn't go in to the technical details that I'm sure ./'ers are interested in.

    --
    Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
    Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
    1. Re:I'm just a bill on... by autiger · · Score: 5, Informative
    2. Re:I'm just a bill on... by jjleard · · Score: 1

      Can someone find out who is funding these two? I see from PolitcalMoneyLine.com that Mary Bono has received $50,250 from "Communications, Technology" and Ed Towns has received $43,864. Unfortunately, I'm not a regsitered user and cannot drill down to see exactly from whom those donations originated.

    3. Re:I'm just a bill on... by MEATLOCKER · · Score: 1

      Actually, H.R. 2929 was totally re-written as an amendment in the past couple of months by Florida Congressman Sterns. The text can be found here:

      http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Markups/0617 20 04markup1314.htm

      It essentially makes clearer differentiation between what is considered legit and illegit, and pretty much allows you to do whatever you want to computers that you own, which include your employers monitoring their employees with Spyware and spouses monitoring each other or their children.

    4. Re:I'm just a bill on... by MEATLOCKER · · Score: 0

      Here is what actually passed - the amendment to HR 2929, on Thursday: H.L.C. AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF A SUBSTITUTE TO H.R. 2929 OFFERED BY MR. STEARNS Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the following: SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE. 1 This Act may be cited as the ''Securely Protect Your- 2 self Against Cyber Trespass Act'' or the ''SPY ACT''. 3 SEC. 2. PROHIBITION OF DECEPTIVE ACTS OR PRACTICES 4 RELATING TO SPYWARE. 5 (a) PROHIBITION.--It is unlawful for any person, 6 who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected 7 computer, to engage in deceptive acts or practices in con- 8 nection with any of the following conduct with respect to 9 the protected computer: 10 (1) Taking control of the computer, including-- 11 (A) utilizing such computer or computing 12 services to send unsolicited information or ma- 13 terial to others; 14 (B) diverting the Internet browser of the 15 computer, or similar program of the computer 16 used to access and navigate the Internet, to one 17 F:\M8\STEARN\STEARN_059.XML F:\V8\061604\061604.386 June 16, 2004 2 H.L.C. or more Web pages not of the owner or author- 1 ized user's choosing; 2 (C) accessing or using the modem, or 3 Internet connection or service, for the computer 4 and thereby causing damage to the computer or 5 causing the owner or authorized user to incur 6 unauthorized financial charges; 7 (D) using the computer as part of an ac- 8 tivity performed by a group of computers that 9 cause damages to another computer; and 10 (E) delivering advertisements that a user 11 of the computer cannot close without turning 12 off the computer or closing all sessions of the 13 Internet browser for the computer. 14 (2) Modifying settings related to the computer's 15 access to or use of the Internet, including by 16 altering-- 17 (A) the Web page that appears when the 18 owner or authorized user launches an Internet 19 browser or similar program used to access and 20 navigate the Internet; 21 (B) the default provider used to access or 22 search the Internet, or other existing Internet 23 connections settings; 24 F:\M8\STEARN\STEARN_059.XML F:\V8\061604\061604.386 June 16, 2004 3 H.L.C. (C) a list of bookmarks used by the com- 1 puter to access Web pages; or 2 (D) security or other settings of the com- 3 puter that protect information about the owner 4 or authorized user. 5 (3) Collecting personally identifiable informa- 6 tion through the use of a keystroke logging function 7 or similar function and transferring such informa- 8 tion from the computer to another person. 9 (4) Monitoring, or analyzing the content of, the 10 Web pages or other online locations accessed using 11 the computer. 12 (5) Inducing the owner or authorized user to 13 install a computer software component onto the 14 computer, or preventing reasonable efforts to block 15 the installation or execution of, or to disable, a com- 16 puter software component, including by-- 17 (A) presenting the owner or authorized 18 user with an option to decline installation of a 19 software component such that, when the option 20 is selected by the owner or authorized user, the 21 installation nevertheless proceeds; or 22 (B) causing a computer software compo- 23 nent that the owner or authorized user has re- 24 F:\M8\STEARN\STEARN_059.XML F:\V8\061604\061604.386 June 16, 2004 4 H.L.C. moved or disabled to automatically reinstall or 1 reactivate on the computer. 2 (6) Representing that installing a separate soft- 3 ware component or providing log-in and password 4 information is necessary for security or privacy rea- 5 sons, or that installing a separate software compo- 6 nent is necessary to open, view, or play a particular 7 type of content. 8 (7) Installing or executing computer software 9 on the computer, without the permission of the party 10 named as the provider of the software, to deceive the 11 owner or authorized user about the identity of the 12 person or service responsible for the functions per- 13 formed or the content displayed by such computer 14 software. 15 (8) Installing or executing on the computer one 16 or

    5. Re:I'm just a bill on... by Bombcar · · Score: 2, Funny

      Don't forget:

      SUBSECTION C 1.56.34 Q

      Posting text to Slashdot.org without paragraph breaks shall be punishable under the "Use Preview" Act of 2005.

    6. Re:I'm just a bill on... by Metasquares · · Score: 1

      http://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.asp ?CID=N00007068&cycle=2004

    7. Re:I'm just a bill on... by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      "diverting the Internet browser of the computer, or similar program of the computer used to access and navigate the Internet, to one or more Web pages not of the owner or authorized user?s choosing;"

      Does this mean defaulting IE to MSN is now illegal?

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    8. Re:I'm just a bill on... by bstone · · Score: 1

      According to the link above for H.R. 2929, it "Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit the transmission of a spyware program to a covered computer (one used by a financial institution or the Federal Government)"

      Unless the Federal Government is "using" my computer to track what I'm doing, it looks like my system isn't covered.

    9. Re:I'm just a bill on... by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Was modified in the second link to say "(1) COMPUTER; COVERED COMPUTER- The terms `computer' and `covered computer' have the meanings given such terms in section 1030(e) of title 18, United States Code.", which probably just reads the same. Don't count on seeing this modded up so people can find out about it though, this one tree has probably had more substance than almost any other, yet they haven't touched any of the posts.

      --
      Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
      Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
  2. I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    NONE!

    1. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Klingensor · · Score: 1

      Yea! I wonder which are on my OS/2 (ecS) system....
      No, I don't wonder. I know exactly how many are there. That number is ZERO.

    2. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Chess_the_cat · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wonder how many are on my Windows machine? Oh wait, none. It's not that hard to keep spyware off your machine. Goodness. I guess the key is "the average user...". Ah well.

      --
      Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
    3. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. My brother has Windows machines that are locked down solid. He knows what he's doing.

      I'm writing from an OS/2 machine, with which I've taken no precautions at all. It is out on the net naked....

      My brother spends x-hours/week at a cost of y-bucks/hour to take care of his jewels.

      I do nothing.

      Now, my serious stuff runs behind bunches of security, and never sees the internet at all. But fooling around on a machine dedicated to fooling around is a lot of fun. In my many years running OS/2, never once have I had a problem.

    4. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We've all heard of security through obscurity, but I suppose we can chalk this one up to security through inferiority.

    5. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

      I suppose youre right, it is a matter of education but most people dont have time to be learning all the vagaries and particulars of activex, javascript, cookies and all that technical crap.

      yesterday I found a randomly named file running in the background of parents machine and it took me a good half an hour to find out where it had come from.
      it was actually a trojan downloader that had been installed by another file which had been driveby downloaded from an apparently harmless looking site:

      dishonest website here

      and if i ever meet any of those assholes who run that site in real life theyre getting a slap.

      --

      ------
      beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
    6. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wonder how many are on my Windows machine? Oh wait, none.

      Ah yes, the beauty of network booting Windows C/O a linux box. Yes the average user wouldn't be doing that, but hey, knowledge is power.

      Of course, you could just avoid IE and Lookout Distress like the black plague. Not me though, the blue E is is more addictive than heroin, its my binky, I can't give it up....my preciousss.

      --
      "If you feel you are getting emotionally attached to a piece of software, please seek professional help." -A public service announcement from your local SA chapter.

    7. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by iamacat · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It's not that hard to keep spyware off your machine

      No? You will be able to avoid clicking a yes button on an Active X install dialog box which is obscured by a popup window or comes in a serious of several other sensible Yes/No questions, while you are looking for some information in a hurry? How about unpatched IE exploits that don't ask for anything.

      Yes, you can run Mozilla. But then you are replacing part of what Microsoft says is the OS. You might as well run cygwin with X server and no native Win32 programs and then compare your security to other people.

    8. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by HangnJudge · · Score: 1

      Yup - none I've been a computer user since 1972 and a Mac user since 1984 no malware here - ever I'm constantly having to clean off my Windows machines I'm forced to use at work Stupid waste of time and to my mind the best arguement for a more heterogeneous population of operation systems on the net

    9. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by cbelt3 · · Score: 1

      Sure, but the average user is, basically, unaware. They are trying to get their work done, or their game loaded, and they've been so inured to clicking "OK" to every damn popup that they have no idea what they are agreeing to. Reminds me of the Dilbert "The House is Coming for you" series of cartoons. Until the OS makes things a little more secure (like, um, say telling the user that they cannot stay logged in as an admin for more than 5 minutes without solving some sort of intelligence and/or paranoia test..), we're always going to have these problems. Especially since nations cannot cleanly make laws that affect a non-national phenomenon like the 'new. "Think of it as evolution in action". (Larry Niven)

    10. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by king-manic · · Score: 0

      No? You will be able to avoid clicking a yes button on an Active X install dialog box which is obscured by a popup window or comes in a serious of several other sensible Yes/No questions, while you are looking for some information in a hurry? How about unpatched IE exploits that don't ask for anything.

      insightful my ass. I work on 4 different windows boxes and none of them have any spyware. Just don't be an idiot and install a whole bunch of crap or start looking for "warez" or "pr0n" on the net and you likly will never ever get any spyware except cookies. Now if you do go looking for warez and pr0n. Just run spybot + adaware and you'll get most fo the shit off.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    11. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Halfbaked+Plan · · Score: 1

      Please go to the OS/2 control panel and turn on the telnet and ftp servers. And please post us your IP.

      Thank you.

      --
      resigned
    12. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A dumbass user might get spyware installed by some obscure popup window, but most users on here I think aren't stupid enough to click away at that shit. All one has to do for the average user is (atleast under Windows XP) install Service Pack 2. Active X controls are not automatically allowed anymore.

    13. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bullshit.

      The weather channel's little weather gizmo includes a spyware payload, courtesy of Gator, who they've teamed with. More and more and more reputable sites on the internet are teaming with these scumbags because they're making money off the misery of others, and legitimate sites like money.

      All you have to do is surf to a payload-bearing website using IE, even a fully patched IE, and you will get infected. Not even a yes/no dialog, just simply hitting a website that has some banner or other element that's using some exploit that MS hasn't written a patch for, and voila, you're infected. That's insane.

      Run spybot and adaware? So in other words, you HAVE gotten infected before? I thought you said none of them have spyware? Oh, I get it, none of them have spyware now. And you're touchy about the subject because you, the all-knowing god of IS, got infected. I see. There's counseling available for your feelings of inadequacy, I suggest you seek it.

      Listen. If you run IE on Windows, you will get infected. These scumbags are now teaming with legitimate, non-porn, non-warez, sites. Do you Google for technical results? Good. Now you're going to untrusted sites, any number of which may do this to your system.

      Sticking your head in the sand and saying it doesn't exist is nonsense. Or that only lusers will get infected is nonsense (after all, it happened to you, right?). This is a real problem, spyware = virus in my book, and damn it, it should be in everyone's book.

      FYI, my boxes at work aren't infected either. However, since I use Mozilla, that's to be expected.

    14. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Czmyt · · Score: 1

      They can attempt to end it with legislation but that probably won't have any effect. The solution is going to continue to be a good interceptor like Norton Antivirus 2004, and for those already infected, good cleaner like SpyBot Search & Destroy and Ad-Aware.

    15. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by king-manic · · Score: 1

      Hey AC. The point was it doesn't happen to me. Except the cookies, which you get too now STFU.

      --
      "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
    16. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      The weather channel's little weather gizmo

      Lots of little gizmos, as you call them, are bundled with this shit. That's why before you accept these useful and "Free" gifts you should ask youself what these companies are getting by providing them.

      --I-- actually DON'T get spyware, and I do have AdAware and Spybot S&D, but more often than not they only remove a bunch of cookies.

      A little bit of common sense is all it takes to keep yourself clean. Invariably you might download something from a reputable site and find yourself cussing them and removing it moments later when you've found out it was cursed. But here is where it pays to be a knowledgable user.

      None of my boxes are infected, and I didn't even need to run away from the problem by using Mozilla. After all, it doesn't matter WHAT browser you use if the spyware comes in via other means.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
    17. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      --I-- actually DON'T get spyware
      Good for you. Perhaps I should point you to a website that will use an unpatched exploit in IE so that you can finally get off your freakin' high horse and come back to reality with the rest of us.

      A little bit of common sense is all it takes to keep yourself clean.
      And again, I cry bullshit. You latch onto the one example I made to point out that legitimate sites are teaming with the scumbags now and then proceed to ignore the follow on sentences. You try to tie them together when, in fact, they are clearly seperate.

      YOU DO NOT HAVE TO INSTALL A SINGLE PROGRAM IN ORDER TO GET MALWARE INSTALLED ON YOUR SYSTEM. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS OPEN IE, POINT YOURSELF TO THE APPROPRIATE WEBSITE, AND IT WILL SILENTLY AUTO-INSTALL ON YOUR SYSTEM. IE CAN BE COMPLETELY PATCHED, IT DOESN'T MATTER SINCE THEY'RE USING AN UNPATCHED EXPLOIT.

      Is that clear enough for you? I hope so, because you're going to take a very, very nasty fall off that pedestal you've placed yourself on. Assuming you're going to continue to be a moron and argue this point, I sincerely hope you fall sooner instead of later, because others will continue to be hurt as you infect them with that bullshit you call knowledge.

      After all, it doesn't matter WHAT browser you use if the spyware comes in via other means.
      And to end your reply on this note means that you completely missed the point, which is why this reply was necessary. Boy, too bad your MCSE test didn't cover reading comprehension.
    18. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my Mac? Oh wait... by Jace+of+Fuse! · · Score: 1

      And to end your reply on this note means that you completely missed the point, which is why this reply was necessary. Boy, too bad your MCSE test didn't cover reading comprehension.

      And you speak of high-horses?

      You being unaware that it is possible to lock down a machine so that those exploits people like to gripe about are no longer effective, right?

      I don't even know why I'm bothering replying to this post. You are very obviously ill informed. I never once suggested that I would dare browse the web with a stock install of Windows, and I wouldn't even go so far as to say I'd do it after getting all of the Windows updates.

      YOU DO NOT HAVE TO INSTALL A SINGLE PROGRAM IN ORDER TO GET MALWARE INSTALLED ON YOUR SYSTEM. ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS OPEN IE, POINT YOURSELF TO THE APPROPRIATE WEBSITE, AND IT WILL SILENTLY AUTO-INSTALL ON YOUR SYSTEM. IE CAN BE COMPLETELY PATCHED, IT DOESN'T MATTER SINCE THEY'RE USING AN UNPATCHED EXPLOIT.

      That you would YELL this horribly misguided statement proves that you are one of the majority who does not realize what it takes to lock down a Windows machine.

      There's more than just patching a machine. One must also adjust the horribly inappropriate default settings. Installing adware prevention software is an obvious step. Last but not least, there is installing software that strips the utter bullshit from incoming HTTP connections (Zone Alarm Pro does this quite nicely).

      Sure, some sites don't "LOOK" like they should. Many are littered with big red X's and more ofthen than not activeX controls don't work as they should. I'd rather grant such access on a site by site basis anyway. Stripping the bullshit with something like ZAP ends up with just as many sites that don't work as I would have if I were using Mozilla, only now I have the option of allowing the site access to work properly if I so decide I must.

      It's anti-Microsoft people like you that irritate me. You're so wrapped up with your Emaculate Misconceptions that you fail to recognize that most of YOUR problems with Microsoft are YOUR own inadequate knowledge. Yet you'll be quick to bash any user who dislikes Linux for that very reason.

      So there is nothing wrong with MY reading comprehension. You're just not as knowledgeable as you think you are, ass-wart. If you're going to hate Microsoft, choose to hate them for all of the many legit reasons. Don't hate them because you're an idiot.

      --

      "Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"

      Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
  3. But what about SunnComm? by The+Importance+of · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Will this bill make it illegal for "copy-protected" CDs to add malware to your computer through autorun? Will they be required to make it easy to remove the malware?

    1. Re:But what about SunnComm? by dsanfte · · Score: 5, Funny

      The term "mal" is French. I cannot believe, as a patriotic citizen, that you would endorse or condone the use of language from the mouths of the Republic's enemies! Traitor! This is not the act of a respectful, honorable, patriotic citizen. You will be punished for this act of treason, let me assure you.

      --
      occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
    2. Re:But what about SunnComm? by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

      I sure hope so, because this would really piss off the RIAA by making people aware of what these CDs are doing.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    3. Re:But what about SunnComm? by DrEldarion · · Score: 4, Informative

      Actually, it's Latin. The French (along with the other Latin-based languages) just inherited it.

    4. Re:But what about SunnComm? by XryanX · · Score: 2, Informative

      The prefix 'mal' means 'bad'. I'm sure the RIAA would try to argue that their copy protection is good, not bad.

      It'd be interesting to see how the Congress handles that issue.

    5. Re:But what about SunnComm? by boarder8925 · · Score: 1
      Will this bill make it illegal for "copy-protected" CDs to add malware to your computer through autorun? Will they be required to make it easy to remove the malware?
      No.
    6. Re:But what about SunnComm? by cdrudge · · Score: 2, Funny

      Freedomware just doesn't have the same ring to it. Malware is bad. The French are bad (well...not good). Frenchware?

    7. Re:But what about SunnComm? by lpret · · Score: 2, Funny
      The terrorists have already won if we allow malware on American computers!!1

      Therefore, we need more boobies! no logic, i just like the thought

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    8. Re:But what about SunnComm? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      I agree. We need women like that chick with the three ha-has in Total Recall. What I never get when I watch that movie is why Benny wishes he had three hands. Clearly at that point you should be wishing for two hoo-hoo-dillys and a bottle of baby oil.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    9. Re:But what about SunnComm? by InfiniteWisdom · · Score: 0, Troll

      The French are bad (well...not good)
      Same thing. They're either with us or against us.
      - Dubya

    10. Re:But what about SunnComm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If anyone is "bad" it's the USA

    11. Re:But what about SunnComm? by Grax · · Score: 1

      Congressman: "We can't allow you to install this software on people computers without their permission"
      RIAA: "We can't support you in the next election"
      Congressman: "Maybe we can. Would you like to install a program that blows up their computer if they copy mp3s off the internet too? Can I bring you a cup of coffee too?"

    12. Re:But what about SunnComm? by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Good thing they're against us - redeems them for all the bad food and lack of bathing.

      OTOH, Alizee...

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    13. Re:But what about SunnComm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ahh... Alizee... as it happens, I'm waiting for a bunch of Alizee stuff to finish downloading off edonkey... yummy, god bless the French sluts.

    14. Re:But what about SunnComm? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Osama, how do you post from inside your cave?

      - Infidel in USA

  4. Believe it or not... by rd4tech · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I had once to repair a user PC (average Joe's) with about 1447 installed whatnot... (according to adaware) It was taking the darn thing 35 minutes just to boot up and was veryyyy slow when operating. And she was having quite a powerfull machine too..

    1. Re:Believe it or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      With only 110 less they would have been 1337!!

    2. Re:Believe it or not... by dealsites · · Score: 4, Interesting

      That sounds pretty resonable. On a side note, I bet the PC makers kinda like spyware. After all, it will eventually slow down the average joe's PC, and unless he knows how to remoe spyware, he might upgrade to get a "faster" PC.

      --
      Live deals updated in real time. Over 500 a day!

    3. Re:Believe it or not... by Anath · · Score: 1

      And you would have won a free Gmail account.. Oh, wait...

      --
      The earth is 98% full, please delete anyone you can!
    4. Re:Believe it or not... by rd4tech · · Score: 1

      The chick with the 1337 computer... :)

    5. Re:Believe it or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      PC makers hate spyware because of all the tech calls "why is my PC so slow?"

    6. Re:Believe it or not... by pjt33 · · Score: 1

      There's some overlap. A typical spyware program will show as about 20 entries in AdAware IIRC from the time I removed a few from my brother's computer. It lists the running process(es), executable, registry keys, any related cookies, etc. separately.

    7. Re:Believe it or not... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1
      Ok, I'm a little rusty on Windows because I haven't used it for web browsing in the past few years. How do all of these things get installed? Did she have to click "yes" on an ActiveX install dialog 1447 different times, or is there a totally automatic way to hijack the computer?

      If its an automatic breakin, aren't there already recently passed "get tough on cybercrime" laws on the books that would classify the spyware author as an unlawful combatant or something?

    8. Re:Believe it or not... by alphaseven · · Score: 1
      I had once to repair a user PC (average Joe's) with about 1447 installed whatnot... (according to adaware) It was taking the darn thing 35 minutes just to boot up and was veryyyy slow when operating. And she was having quite a powerfull machine too..

      Is that 1447 including cookies? I hate how adaware equates cookies with spyware.

    9. Re:Believe it or not... by MBCook · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yep.

      I fix computers for people in my neighborhood. I'm the guy they call when they don't know how to do something, or they got a new DVD drive, or something isn't working. I've seen that happen a few times.

      Just a week ago I was called to help a nice lady setup her new Dell and copy the files off her old Gateway. She bought the computer because she was tired of the Gateway always crashing and being slow and such. Every few minutes a "Explorer has crashed" dialog would come up. I can understand why she hated it.

      So she bought a new Dell. Well, when copying files over I noticed what the problem was on the old Gateway. Tons and tons of spyware. Things loading in the tray, in startup, in IE, chaning preferences, causing popups, everything. She thought the computer was just "old" and was having problems, when it was all the spyware. I told her I could fix it, but she wasn't interested.

      Now the fact is she had other reasons for getting the new PC. She wanted a flatscreen to get more desk space. She had a camcorder and wanted to be able to make DVDs of family movies and other such things. Her old computer would have been fine for her other tasks (like surfing and e-mail and word processing), but she really would have needed a new one to make DVDs and CDs and such.

      But the point is, I can EASILY see tons of people buying new computers due to spyware. If it wasn't for that, why wouldn't Dell and other ship somehting like Ad-Aware on the computers they sell?

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    10. Re:Believe it or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      We got some HP Pavillions at work, and they came with various spyware packages already installed (including WildTangent).

      Pretty irresponsible on HP's part. We spent a day just blowing the configurations away and reloading to be sure there weren't other things on there we couldn't find.

    11. Re:Believe it or not... by lpret · · Score: 2, Interesting

      On a side of that side note, I'd like to add that that is how I got my "play" computer. A friend of mine needed help because she got a new computer, I asked what happened with her old one and she said it didn't work. I told her I'd take a look at it and she said I could have it -- monitor and all. I now have a nice 1.8 ghz dell that had about 2300 pieces of malware on it. It's now my box that I try different distros on and test my home-rolled knoppix.

      --
      This is my digital signature. 10011011001
    12. Re:Believe it or not... by Synkronos · · Score: 1

      No, there are various automagic ways to hijack IE, mostly through unpatched versions but also through lax security settings. That's why I run FireFox, which means I only really get tracking cookies for adsites.

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    13. Re:Believe it or not... by XryanX · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Can you introduce me to some of your friends?

      All kidding aside, one of my friends got 3 1/2 free hours of tattoo work(~$300 at the price this particular artist charges) simply for removing spyware, running through scandisk and defrag, and taking unnecessary items out of msconfig.

      She ended up getting a Tux tattoo.

    14. Re:Believe it or not... by Ryosen · · Score: 1

      1447? You do realize that AdAware reports cookies and registry entries as well as executables, right? I find it highly unlikely that there a single machine would be infected with 1447 individual applications.

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    15. Re:Believe it or not... by flamingnight · · Score: 1

      "She"?

      Can you introduce me to some of your friends?

    16. Re:Believe it or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After running CWShredder, Spybot S&D, and Ad-Aware, The average Comcast user has anywere between 200 to 900+ spyware exploits on their machine. People think their antivirus programs like Mcafee or Norton are keeping this stuff out of their machines and they don't.

    17. Re:Believe it or not... by Soul-Burn666 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I've guided a friend thru ad-aware and it found, listen very well... not less than 11,000 items.

      I was once very surprised when ppl have over 100. Then I met ppl with over 1000. But this one really hit the top.

      So what if they might be mostly tracking cookies, 11,000 is not a number to underestimate.

      --
      ^_^
    18. Re:Believe it or not... by luminate · · Score: 1

      Does anyone else find it incredibly funny (and perhaps a bit disturbing) that this comment was modded +4 funny? ;)

      Sheesh. The mods around here are too easy.

    19. Re:Believe it or not... by NuclearDog · · Score: 1

      I have it (Firefox) set to ask me before accepting cookies, so the only cookies I end up with are cookies that I deem required, which are definitly not tracking cookies (basically only cookies holding my username).

      --
      This statement is forty-five characters long.
    20. Re:Believe it or not... by LabRat007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Largest number I've found is 1335 on a single machine. I'm thinking about changing my service call pricing from hourly to "per spyware item removed". ;)

      --
      "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
    21. Re:Believe it or not... by a-dac · · Score: 1

      had one with around 3500

    22. Re:Believe it or not... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are absolutely right! I get contacted by many, many people who say they want a new computer because "the old one is so slow". When I investigate, invariably, they have tons of spyware on it. After cleaning, the system is almost always at least twice sa fast.

      It must be mentioned that these are all Windows computers. It must also be mentioned that damned near everyone is using IE 6.0. They are spyware magnets!

      [donning tinfoil hat]
      Does Microsoft have an agreement with spyware manufacturers? Why in the hell do they make it so easy for people to corrupt Windows systems?
      [doffing tinfoil hat]

      Most of them I try to convert to Mozilla. Those that do; I never hear from again. Those that don't; I make a lotta money from!

    23. Re:Believe it or not... by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I worked on one on New Year's Eve that was almost as bad. Win98 box with 853 pieces of crap found by Adaware. The machine was horribly s-l-o-o-o-o-o-o-w. It was bad. All the extra toolbar things were stepping on each others' toes. Kind of funny too I suppose.

    24. Re:Believe it or not... by rd4tech · · Score: 1

      Same thing happened to me, and the bonus was that I couldn't download adaware from internet becase one of the spyware's was redirecting all requests. I asked the girl how was she downloading things from internet and she told me "I use the OTHER internet", after a while I grasped it and she was using Explorer to access web pages, which seems to be less malware-obeyable. Non the less, I couldn't download adaware with explorer too, so I ended up using FTP from the command line and directly connecting to the server. That solved it. But what a time waste!

    25. Re:Believe it or not... by mgcarley · · Score: 1

      where i used to work, we used to ask customers if they wanted ad-aware or spybot installed on their new machine. more often than not, we got a blank face, but some customers knew about it.

      some even used to complain to me that they find ad-aware too difficult to download because it offers multiple download locations...

      --
      Founder & COO, Hayai India (hayai.in) / USA (hayaibroadband.com) // t: @mgcarley
    26. Re:Believe it or not... by macdaddy · · Score: 1

      I ended up doing command line FTP in Windows too for adaware. It's was ugly but it worked. :-)

  5. Bloody obvious by hattig · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It is a shame that things like this need to be made law.

    I expect that spyware already falls under the Computer Misuse Act 1990 in the UK regarding modification of a computer system without the user/owner being aware.

    As far as I am aware, these bits of software are viruses and should be treated as such. Including the writers of said spyware.

    1. Re:Bloody obvious by Krunch · · Score: 2, Interesting
      As far as I am aware, these bits of software are viruses and should be treated as such. Including the writers of said spyware.
      I always wondered why {spy|mal}wares aren't in antivirus databases.
      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
    2. Re:Bloody obvious by Cylix · · Score: 1

      The same thought occurred to me... well it occurrs to me everytime I sit down to clean out a system.

      In fact, Symantec might whine about virus attacks and spread all the paranoia they can to boost sales, but in the end all they really need to do is revamp their product to include a spyware/malware scanner.

      Why not, it's your system and if you don't want their crap on there it is your right to remove it.

      So yeah, currently all systems in the user reign of terror usually have adaware and spybot in addition to at least AVG (free).

      While the number seems a bit high... I'm not really sure what they are counting in that study. I've seen systems with an incredily high number and those systems have been unusuable.

      It's crazy... it's sad when your business model reflects that of a virus.

      --
      "You should always go to other people's funerals; otherwise, they won't come to yours." -- Yogi Berra
    3. Re:Bloody obvious by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      Interesting... I use AntiVir on my windows system, and it has got rid of some items I would class as spyware (IE hijacks mostly) calling them 'trojans', which is exactly what they are, especially since they usually have an automatic internet 'update' mechanism for installing even more crap.

    4. Re:Bloody obvious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm not sure if this is true today, but in the past spyware that did not attempt to spread/infect other computers on a network were not classified as viruses. But I think Symantec has changed their mind and the latest version of Norton will remove lots of trojan programs.

  6. Why use legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is legislation necessary here? this is a problem that could be solved with just a little technical nous.

    Instead, we get another law, pretend it's enough, and find it's as toothless as the paper it's written on.

    1. Re:Why use legislation? by Scott+Wood · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Because, like spam, it is a behavioral problem, not purely a technical problem. System break-ins and e-mail worms can be prevented by technical means as well, but that doesn't mean it should be legal to carry them out.

    2. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Why is legislation necessary here? this is a problem that could be solved with just a little technical nous.

      Fine. You go to 290 million people in the U.S. and educate them -- every man, woman, and child -- on how to deal-with, avoid, and remove spyware. God knows that learning about sypware should be the key goal in everyone's life. The guy investigating prostate cancer online after bad news from his doctor? He should stop what he's doing and take lessons from you about spyware.

      Next, we can get rid of laws prohibiting muggings and just teach everyone self-defense. We can make identity theft legal and just teach people how to prevent it.

      Everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized.

    3. Re:Why use legislation? by Dmala · · Score: 1

      Why is legislation necessary here? this is a problem that could be solved with just a little technical nous.

      It's also a problem that could be solved with a little common sense. Do you know how many instances of spyware my Windows box has had? One. I had switched from Mozilla to IE to view a site that wasn't working correctly, and I accidentally clicked he wrong button on the dialog. I knew what had happened instantly and immediately took steps to rip the fucker out.

      Now granted, I am a /. reading nerd, and I know more about computers than the average joe, but it doesn't take any great technical knowledge to actually read a dialog when it appears on the screen and click "Cancel". Even IE these days doesn't install this crap automatically. I hate it when I'm fixing a computer for someone, and they tell me that all this spyware "just installed by itself." I always just smile and shrug, but in my head I'm screaming, "LIAR!!"

    4. Re:Why use legislation? by volkris · · Score: 1

      Yes, it is very much like spam, a behavioral problem.

      The computer operator instructs his computer to do things and allow things that he doesn't really intend.

      Personally, though, I don't agree with laws that involve protecting people from themselves.

      Those pointed to as the bad guys in this case are doing nothing that the computer's operator didn't tell his computer to do, at least indirectly. They're doing nothing wrong.

      Personal responsibility take another hit.

    5. Re:Why use legislation? by volkris · · Score: 1

      You don't agree to be mugged.

      You DO instruct your computer to install this stuff.

      Huge difference.

      People need to take responsibilty for their own computer usage. If they're not informed enough to use a computer then they need to not use it. It's that simple.

      This law is no different from one that would make it illegal to format your own hard drive and delete your own files. What, you didn't know that the file would be gone forever? Well obviously it's not your fault you weren't sufficiently educated. There oughta be a law...

    6. Re:Why use legislation? by Trillan · · Score: 1

      I find myself agreeing with you. As much as I loathe spyware, this law will just move the distribution points for it overseas.

      Spam and spiyware both have technical solutions. They're just extreme enough or have big enough side effects that we haven't used them yet.

    7. Re:Why use legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh yeah, I remember now! I completely forgot that I clicked "accept" for that invisible software installation to get pop-up porn ads. Now that you mention it, I also remember the invisible disclaimer on every web site I visit stating that it will install tracking and ad software. You can't possibly be that dense to think that the user is accepting this software when they don't even know it's happening

      Let's look at an example shall we? Say you went to get a tune-up. The mechinic looked at your engine and decided you really needed a V-6 instead of the current 4-cylinder. So, he changed out the engine (without telling you), and promptly charged you a few thousand for the engine replacement. By your logic, he was completely justified in doing so. *You* drove the car into the shop, *you* gave them permission to work on your engine, and *they* chose to perform a "service" without telling you. Mechanics can do a lot of things in an attempt to finish a tune-up, but replacing the engine is not one of the expected activities.

      *Users* start up their browser, *users* navigate to a website, and the *website* does more than it was asked for. The costs incurred are machine slow-downs, possible loss of personal information that could lead to identity theft, and potentially gaping security holes.

    8. Re:Why use legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you do not instruct your computer to install this stuff. Some of these install themselves without a prompt, without a physical installer, they install by making use of any number of holes that Microsoft hasn't patched yet.

      Visit the site, get malware. No prompt. No popup. Silent installs. The days of popup installation confirmation windows are over. The malware folks weren't getting enough installs that way, now they're getting even more malicious.

      Do you Google? Then sooner or later you'll hit a site with one of these. If you're running IE on Windows, your days of bragging to lusers will be over.

      As for myself, I run Mozilla, at least when I'm on a PC. For the rare site that Mozilla doesn't work on, after trying a billion different ways to make Mozilla work with it, I make a careful decision on whether or not I trust it enough to run IE on it. Most of the time I just go to another site. Only for critical things like windowsupdate.microsoft.com do I give in.

      If it was just pr0n and warez sites with this stuff, I'd be chiding people too. But when legimate places, like The Weather Channel, start bundling Gator with their little weather application, that's when I realized this stuff has gone way out of control. I'd trust TWC not to join up with these scumbags, why the hell shouldn't the average joe? I do DNS tricks to stop some of this stuff from working at the office (meaning it doesn't communicate back to the scumbags), but there's just so damned many of them...

    9. Re:Why use legislation? by Atmos189 · · Score: 1

      Why even come up with a law, I'm sure we can settle the spyware problem by simply either all converting to Linux, or all Windows users should go download something called Firefox or Mozilla/Opera. That would solve all of our problems, right?

    10. Re:Why use legislation? by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      You DO instruct your computer to install this stuff.

      Just like if you telnet to your computer and sniff your password and use it to log on, well you left your password in the open, and you DID instruct your computer to let anyone in who has your password and username.

      Fraud is generally illegal, even if you write out the details in the small print. Since there's no benefit to the user, and the user generally doesn't want them there, the only reason the user agreed is deception.

    11. Re:Why use legislation? by volkris · · Score: 1

      In the end a computer is just a hunk of metal sitting there until you tell it what to do. Nothing can happen in a computer without the operator's permission, though this permission doesn't have to be express (just as you don't have to give the mechanic permission to turn each screw individually).

      The website does nothing. Without a computer to operate the website is never accessed. Only the computer does something.

      In the end the only way anyone can install something on my computer is through my permission or through my decision to run software allowing the installation. Either way it is through MY decision, and hence MY responsibility.

      These laws do nothing but try to blame the other party when I have given him permission to install things on my computer.

    12. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      You DO instruct your computer to install this stuff.

      What a load! People instruct their computer to install apps and the spyware comes along for the ride. How many people instructed their computers to install software that pops up porn ads every time they use the web? Do you think that they said "gee, that sounds like the software for me"?

      People need to take responsibilty for their own computer usage. If they're not informed enough to use a computer then they need to not use it. It's that simple.

      What makes you think that you know so damned much about computers that I or any other expert couldn't do damage to your system? Hell, you can't even enter a URL into your profile in Slashdot and have it work.

      I'll make you a deal: I'll put you in a room with ten foods, each of which lists all ingredients. Five of them will include deadly poisons. You choose what to eat. If you die, tough. If you don't know enough about chemistry and biology to recognize deadly poisons, then you need to stop eating. It's that simple.

      This law is no different from one that would make it illegal to format your own hard drive and delete your own files.

      That is an incredibly stupid thing to say! How many people would reasonably expect that installing something called "Download Accelerator Plus" would put spyware or adware on their computer? Wouldn't most of them thing "that will make my downloads faster"? You act like people installed apps with names like "Fuck_Up_My_Computer.exe" and "I_Want_My_Computer_To_Tell_Some_Stranger_Every_Si te_That_I_Visit.exe."

    13. Re:Why use legislation? by volkris · · Score: 1

      Yes, fraud is bad, wrong, and should be fully prosecuted. However, this stuff is often not fraud.

      A lot of times (I hear) things get installed on computers because users have, in effect, set their computers to accept commands and install stuff without any authentication at all. So long as no information is falsified, nothing wrong has happened. The computer is being used precisely as the operator set it up.

    14. Re:Why use legislation? by volkris · · Score: 1

      Who says you have to have a popup, prompt, or installer to get permission?

      Users end up running programs that in effect accept commands from other people on the internet without any authentication or restriction. This is the user's choice, as uninformed as it may be, and when a user tells his computer to execute any old command that comes across the wire he really has no place to complain when the computer does it.

      Without an operator's instructions a computer is just a hunk of metal. That a computer does something, installing a program or whatever, itself indicates that the operator has told the computer to do it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been carried out.

    15. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Users end up running programs that in effect accept commands from other people on the internet without any authentication or restriction.

      Maybe someone will mail you a box of Anthrax. If you open it, then that's your choice, as uninformed as it may be, and when you are dying from it, you have no place to complain.

      Without an operator's instructions a computer is just a hunk of metal. That a computer does something, installing a program or whatever, itself indicates that the operator has told the computer to do it. Otherwise it wouldn't have been carried out.

      So fraud should be legal? I should be legally allowed to claim that setup.exe contains a fileshareing program when it really contains spyware? That's what you're telling all of us: It's always the user's fault, regardless of what he was told. I could sell anti-virus software that formats the hard drive and that would be the user's fault for running setup.exe.

      Talk about blaming the victim! You should be a defense attorney for rapists with your attitude.

    16. Re:Why use legislation? by dvdeug · · Score: 1

      A lot of times (I hear) things get installed on computers because users have, in effect, set their computers to accept commands and install stuff without any authentication at all.

      So if you don't fence off a piece of land, it's okay for me to go in and install spycams all over the place? If I agree to paint your bedroom and don't mention that I'm installing webcams except on the fourth page of the agreement in 12pt print?

    17. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      If you were right, then there would not be such a groundswell of opposition to spyware. But you aren't right. The problem is so bad that congress has had to get involved because of complaints from constituents.

      You act like everyone on the planet should know what ActiveX is, whether it should be enabled or not, what Java does, what Javascript does, how to reverse engineer setup.exe programs, etc. That's just asinine. You don't allow people to legally exploit security flaws. That's like saying that it should be legal for someone to steal your car if you forget to lock the doors.

    18. Re:Why use legislation? by MonkeyBoy · · Score: 1

      Using Mozilla is extreme? That simple choice will stop 99% of them, assuming you don't download free system tray gizmos and similar "free" software.

      Seriously, I can still visit websites. It's a browser. It works. It's not extreme by any means. It seems like folks have gotten hung up on old versions and haven't given recent versions a spin. It's really improved these last couple releases.

      I'm probably going to send out a company-wide email next week alerting users to it's presence on the fileserver, since I'm tired of cleaning out spyware on their systems. Yeah, they do hit "OK" to strange dialog boxes, yeah, they do download "free" software - basically if Norton doesn't stop them, they'll go ahead and do it no matter how insane it seems.

      "Oh look! Someone loves me!" (click) (click)

      Dear lord I wish Symantec would start labelling these things as a virus...

      BTW, making spyware illegal will have one good effect - companies based in the US, or with US subsidiaries, will no longer team up with these scumbags. That, to me, is the #1 intrusion vector. Installing some little free gizmo from an otherwise reputable company that comes with a massive spyware payload that installs other spyware, that in turn installs other spyware, and so on.

      --

      Moof!

    19. Re:Why use legislation? by Trillan · · Score: 1

      No, I'm talking about the bigger problem -- Mozilla does a MUCH better job of securing the gates, but a web browser isn't the only gateway. And what happens once the application gets through the gates?

      It would not be impossible to design an OS that does not allow spy ware. There would be certain tradeoffs, but perhaps they are worth doing. Likewise, it would be entirely possible to add built-in virus checking to major operating systems.

      To a certain degree, safe usage will always require a savvy user. There's a limit to how safe you can make things for non-technical users. But I think we're still well away from that limit.

    20. Re:Why use legislation? by RedBear · · Score: 1

      Two words: natural selection.

      Everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized.

      The parent poster got +5, Insightful for this (at the moment), which makes me sad. Because he's missing something BIG here. This universe could care less what should be happening. If you (and those around you) are ignorant, no amount of laws will keep you from being victimized. Laws don't keep anything from happening, except slightly, in a general way, sometimes. Laws punish those who do the victimizing, but only after they've done it and only if they can be caught. Laws punish the victimizer for creating a victim. By their very definition, they can't keep you from being victimized, since they only operate after the fact! The parent poster seems to believe that no one should ever need to be taught self-defense or how to avoid identity theft simply because we have laws against those things.

      This is the same logical fallacy commonly held up by gun control advocates: i.e., You don't need a gun for self-defense because the police and their laws are here to protect you. The problem with this is that the police, except in rare situations, do not and cannot "protect" you. The police attempt to prevent crimes, but mostly what they do is enforce laws and investigate crimes that have already happened. That's when those laws come into effect: after someone has been victimized. The police will be happy to show up at your door 45 minutes after you've called 911, and grab the guy who shot you in the head and throw that book of laws right at him. I feel safer already! I have a book of laws protecting me! Too bad it didn't stop the bullet. In the same way, the police cannot protect you from spyware, no matter how many anti-spyware laws are enacted. If you're lucky they will go after the guy who has already victimized you and thousands of others like you.

      The laws can't protect you, and 99% of the time the police can't protect you, so who's left? You, and those around you. You should be responsible for yourself and as many other people as you can handle, and the same for those around you. Teach them to be responsible for themselves and for you. My gosh, it's like a beowu^H^H^H^H^H^H web of personal and social responsibility. A web of personal and social safety and protection. It may not protect you from all things, but it's your best and only chance at protection in this universe. Personal responsibility, and cooperation.

      So yes, get rid of the laws and become more self-reliant and this nation or any other would be better off in the short and long run. All laws can be brought down to a simple rule anyway: Don't hurt others unless it is absolutely necessary for your own survival and you have exhausted all other alternatives available to you, and when someone needs help surviving, help them.

      In other words, mods, the parent post is not insightful in the slightest. It is not insightful to say that people shouldn't have to know about their universe in order to live in it safely. It's a big, bad universe. Anyone smarter than a thumbtack has the potential of learning enough about their computer to realize that they are being victimized by these spyware companies, and subsequently to realize that they are being victimized by whoever designed the software they use that allows this spyware easy access to their computer. If people would just take a bit of personal responsibility there would be no spyware or malware, because the company who makes their software (who shall remain unnamed) would have been forced by natural selection market pressures to create a product that isn't so vulnerable to such things.

      It's not about learning everything there is to know about spyware. It's about learning just enough to navigate your universe safely, and not putting up with being a victim. Personal responsibility should come from both the people designing the softare and the people using it. If it doesn't come from the former there should

    21. Re:Why use legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A web browser isn't the only infection avenue, certainly, but the completely blow-the-doors-off nature of how easily they infect you, without a prompt, without a warning, without anything except viewing a web page, certainly makes it the first line of infection.

      I've been hunting down infection vectors of systems at work, and it's web browser over 90% of the time. That last 10% is the variety that trojan themselves along with a legitimate software.

      The tools and widgets that you install that bring along this stuff, that's what would really help with legislation. Outlawing this tying of products together, where a product with legitimate, intended use also installs a whole sundry of other programs with nefarious purposes, that's pretty much only going to stop with legislation. I just don't think it'll stop until US companies are forced to realize that they're going to have to pay large penalties for something that isn't really getting them all that much money.

      The majority of programs I've witnessed doing the trojan route are "big names" that average people trust, like AOL, or Weather Channel, who make a program that people want to install, and they think it's better than running the shareware/freeware route where they're worried about it formatting their drive. But because the "big name" is greedy, they're allowing the malware to trojan on into the host system, trading their good name for cold hard cash. Because the light hasn't been turned on these cockroaches yet, their executives actually think this is a GOOD thing. Outlawing spyware would mean that AIM installed, well, AIM. Gosh, what a crazy thought.

      I'd say that public outcry against this would help, but man, these things are so insidious, so hard to remove, so hard to even detect in some cases, that I don't think we could get enough people together. The majority of people are staring at their computer wondering why it's running so slow, or getting so frustrated with the slowdown that they're buying a new computer. Crap, I've helped over a dozen people at work (and it's a pretty small company) not buy a new system by simply pointing them to Ad-aware and other removal tools.

    22. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      The parent poster got +5, Insightful for this (at the moment), which makes me sad.

      I got it because I deserved it. Now I'll give you the benefit of my insight and explain why.

      Because he's missing something BIG here. This universe could care less what should be happening.

      "The universe" isn't publishing filesharing apps loaded with spyware. It's not putting up online games in an effort to trick kids into putting spyware on the family computer.

      If you (and those around you) are ignorant, no amount of laws will keep you from being victimized.

      You are ignorant. You may not be ignorant about computers, but you are ignorant about many things. It should be illegal to victimize you based on your ignorance. I shouldn't be legally allowed to sell you breakfast cereal loaded with Ecstasy just because you don't know that "MDMA", shown in the list of ingredients, is the chemical name for Ecstacy -- or because you didn't carefully read that list of ingredients.

      Laws don't keep anything from happening, except slightly, in a general way, sometimes.

      Absolutely untrue. Laws shape decisions by individuals and corporations. A large corporation is probably not going to bundle spyware with their software if they know that there is a $1000 per copy penalty for doing so. Some guy who's thinking of trying to steal passwords to porn sites is likely to consider whether it's worth $1000/copy to trick people into putting his spyware on their system. He may be prepared for the minimal risks associated with using purloined passwords to access porn sites, but he may look at a large fine and/or jail time for releasing spyware and decide the risk is too great.

      The parent poster seems to believe that no one should ever need to be taught self-defense or how to avoid identity theft simply because we have laws against those things.

      You know damned well that is a vile distortion of what I wrote. I said that we should not abolish laws against muggings and identity theft and, instead, rely solely on self-defense classes and education about preventing identity theft.

      So yes, get rid of the laws and become more self-reliant and this nation or any other would be better off in the short and long run.

      "Get rid of the laws"? Get rid of laws against rape, burglary, murder, identity theft, robbery, child pornography, etc. and we'd be "better off in the short and long run"? Wow! You really are way out there, aren't you?

      It is not insightful to say that people shouldn't have to know about their universe in order to live in it safely.

      Again, another distortion about what I said. I said that "everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized." I did not say that people should not have to know anything. What do you know about chemistry and biology? If I put a list of ingredients in front of you, could you tell me, with certainty, if the product was safe to eat? Should I be legally permitted to poison you if you are ignorant about chemistry and biology?

      Anyone smarter than a thumbtack has the potential of learning enough about their computer to realize that they are being victimized by these spyware companies, and subsequently to realize that they are being victimized by whoever designed the software they use that allows this spyware easy access to their computer.

      So some ten year old kid who wants to access an online game on the family's computer should understand the ramifications of spyware, be making value decisions about privacy, and should send a message to Microsoft about his displeasure with their OS design? Don't waste our time with the tired 'kid's parents should be surgically attached to him 24/7' argument, because that's not reality.

      This problem does not require legislation.

      Yes, it does, or spyware would have ceased to exist long ago. It needs legislation because large corpor

    23. Re:Why use legislation? by RedBear · · Score: 1

      You missed (or choose to be blind to) my entire point. There are already a dozen laws that make writing and distributing viruses illegal, so why do viruses still exist? Viruses are already illegal twelve times over, what good will it do to make them illegal thirteen times over? Very, very little, in the real world.

      "The universe" isn't publishing filesharing apps loaded with spyware. It's not putting up online games in an effort to trick kids into putting spyware on the family computer.

      Oh, so it must be some other universe doing all that stuff. I guess it doesn't happen in this universe. You might want to think about this one for a while. Like a couple of decades. It's sort of a Zen koan type of thing. You'll figure it out eventually. Maybe.

      Absolutely untrue. Laws shape decisions by individuals and corporations. A large corporation is probably not going to bundle spyware with their software if they know that there is a $1000 per copy penalty for doing so.

      Uh, no, they will just make their spyware conform to the law so that it will be legal, but it will still be spyware, and ignorant people will still install it. They aren't making spyware illegal, they're just requiring it to have a slightly more informative installation process. A few people will have the chance to protect themselves by being smart and actually reading the warning label. Stupid people will still wind up with an average of 28 pieces of spyware on their computer, because they don't know why they should care about their personal information and besides, the spyware came with such neat features! Yummy! And they will still have no clue why their computer has ground to a halt. The laws don't protect you from yourself.

      You know damned well that is a vile distortion of what I wrote. I said that we should not abolish laws against muggings and identity theft and, instead, rely solely on self-defense classes and education about preventing identity theft.

      I know exactly what you said, I read it several times. The corollary to what you said is that we don't need to rely on self-defense or education, because we have these wonderful laws, you know. You did not say that we should have both the laws and the education, and rely on the education for prevention and the laws for punishment. You just freaked out and said we shouldn't ever think about getting rid of any laws, while implying that they somehow protect everyone from their own ignorance. Which is, to put it succinctly, completely incorrect.

      So some ten year old kid who wants to access an online game on the family's computer should understand the ramifications of spyware, be making value decisions about privacy, and should send a message to Microsoft about his displeasure with their OS design? Don't waste our time with the tired 'kid's parents should be surgically attached to him 24/7' argument, because that's not reality.

      You're a real riot. Send a message to MS about his displeasure with their OS? If the parents had done their job, either Microsoft's OS wouldn't be on the computer, or it would be a better OS. They wouldn't need to be surgically attached to anyone. But since people tolerate shitware, look where we are. With something like 100,000 viruses and worms trying to attack our systems every day, even though worms and viruses have been illegal since before the first one was created. The children are in danger largely because of the parents putting up with it all and remaining ignorant for decades.

      The fact that you can buy a gun to compensate for your inability to defend yourself using your own strength, speed, and intelligence is proof-positive that it's possible to circumvent natural selection.

      Wow. You truly are a god, sir. Am I to understand that you can dodge a bullet? Amazing. Here's another corollary for you, in your own words no less: "Screw all you weak people who aren't super-strong, super-fast, and super-smart. If you can't dodge bullets like me, you shouldn't be allowed

    24. Re:Why use legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, and making this insulting and personal really backs up your point well. Not. Would you like some ketchup with your tripe, sir?

      Hello RedBear,

      Since it's obvious you haven't "met" fmaxwell before, let me tell you a little bit about this wee beastie. His specialty is issueing blanket statements in strong sounding language with little or no forethought, then blasting anyone who dares to disagree with his (obvious) genius as an idiot - unfit to share the same threads of discussion as the words which drop from his keyboard like pearls of golden wisdom. I suspect some lasting effect of childhood trauma is responsible for his inability to grasp the concept of a "point of view" and his reflex to hurl his feces around whenever he doesn't get his way (ie when each and every one of his posts isn't *immediately* followed by a whole list of "MOD PARENT UP" posts). In his mind, a special delivery invitation to be the new slashdot editor is only days away - and has only been delayed because the current editors can't seem to understand the depth of his genius. Add to that his overwhelming addiction to that "Reply to This" link - born from the notion that whoever speaks last "wins" - and you have all the ingredients for that most obnoxious of slashdot denziens: the involuntary troll (which I here and now dub "the fmaxwell").

      Please enjoy the remainder of your conversation, but I dare say you will find better places to spend yor time than argueing with the likes of this. Like the proverb said: "never wrestle with a pig - you both get all dirty and the pig likes it"

    25. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Since it's obvious you haven't "met" fmaxwell before, let me tell you a little bit about this wee beastie. His specialty is issueing blanket statements in strong sounding language with little or no forethought, then blasting anyone who dares to disagree with his (obvious) genius as an idiot - unfit to share the same threads of discussion as the words which drop from his keyboard like pearls of golden wisdom.

      Basically correct, except that there is plenty of forethought behind my posts.

      I suspect some lasting effect of childhood trauma is responsible for his inability to grasp the concept of a "point of view"

      "Point of view"... Right. Every time that someone says something absurd, we should just say it is their "point of view" rather than telling them that they are wrong.

    26. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1
      You missed (or choose to be blind to) my entire point. There are already a dozen laws that make writing and distributing viruses illegal, so why do viruses still exist? Viruses are already illegal twelve times over, what good will it do to make them illegal thirteen times over? Very, very little, in the real world.

      But you don't seem to understand that we are discussing spyware, not viruses, and that the law we are discussing would make illegal much of the spyware which is legal today. A major corporation might be willing to include clandestine spyware with their program now because it's legal and they believe that it will generate revenue. Make it illegal, and they won't include it. Virus writers rely on anonymity to avoid being caught. The publishers of major software packages don't have that option.

      Oh, so it must be some other universe doing all that stuff.

      No, people and corporations are doing it. Railing against the entire universe is absurd.

      I guess it doesn't happen in this universe.

      Why would you guess that?

      You might want to think about this one for a while. Like a couple of decades. It's sort of a Zen koan type of thing. You'll figure it out eventually. Maybe.

      No, it's not particulary insightful. It's simply blaming "the universe" for the actions of a few immoral corporations and individuals.

      Uh, no, they will just make their spyware conform to the law so that it will be legal, but it will still be spyware, and ignorant people will still install it. They aren't making spyware illegal, they're just requiring it to have a slightly more informative installation process.

      "Spyware" implies clandestine activity and it's not so clandestine when the user gives informed consent. If someone wants to install software on their computer which sends every keystroke back to some major corporation, I'm not about to call for laws making that illegal. What I, and the authors of the bill, object to is efforts to sneak spyware onto computers.

      If the parents had done their job, either Microsoft's OS wouldn't be on the computer, or it would be a better OS.

      [sarcasm]It would be impossible to write spyware for Linux. No way that anyone could do that.[/sarcasm] Quit blaming the OS for the malicious actions of spyware authors. There is nothing inherent in Linux or BSD that would prevent spyware from being installed on it.

      The corollary to what you said is that we don't need to rely on self-defense or education, because we have these wonderful laws, you know.

      Absolutely untrue. What I wrote:
      Next, we can get rid of laws prohibiting muggings and just teach everyone self-defense. We can make identity theft legal and just teach people how to prevent it.
      See how I highlighted "just"? Notice that I did not say "instead" or imply, state, or hint that these things should not be taught now.

      Wow. You truly are a god, sir. Am I to understand that you can dodge a bullet?

      I thought that you understood the term "natural selection" when you used it. Natural selection is the process, described by Darwin, whereby desirable genetic traits are passed on because those posessing the traits survive longer and breed more successfully. For example, an early man who was stronger, faster, or more intelligent would be more likely to prosper and breed than his weaker, slower, or more feeble contemporaries. Introducing a gun into the mix could allow a individual with less desirable traits to survive and breed when natural selection would not have allowed it.

      Oh, and making this insulting and personal really backs up your point well. Not.

      Your entire post was aimed at convincing moderators that my post was not insightful, distorting what I wrote, and putting me in a bad light. Don't complain when my reply is not filled with warmth and good tidings.
    27. Re:Why use legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Point of view"... Right. Every time that someone says something absurd, we should just say it is their "point of view" rather than telling them that they are wrong.

      Ah but you see, I was talking about *you* (although your misunderstanding goes furthur in illustrating my point than almost anything I could say).

      You see, whenever you explode into the discussion in your signature way ("Another Reason Why I Am Always Right" by fmaxwell), you are giving us your point of view on the subject, not the gospel truth. Common courtesy tells us to attack the idea and not the person, and that should cut both ways: an attack on your position is not an attack on you! You seem to take any discussion of your point of view as a personal attack on yourself, and vehemently reply in kind with an enthusiasm that boggles the mind of all but the most immature amongst us.

    28. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      You see, whenever you explode into the discussion in your signature way ("Another Reason Why I Am Always Right" by fmaxwell),

      Actually, I prefer to think of it as "Further Proof that I Continue to be Right", but why nit-pick over titles? ;-)

      you are giving us your point of view on the subject, not the gospel truth.

      If I'm right, then it is the truth. If I'm wrong, then it's not.

      Common courtesy tells us to attack the idea and not the person, and that should cut both ways: an attack on your position is not an attack on you! You seem to take any discussion of your point of view as a personal attack on yourself, and vehemently reply in kind with an enthusiasm that boggles the mind of all but the most immature amongst us.

      I try to keep my replies appropriate based on what I am replying to. When someone states that my position is idiotic or "not insightful in the slightest", it is an attack on me. If they say "I disagree because...", that's a wholly different matter and elicits a different tone of response. If someone distorts my position to create a straw-man argument to shoot down, then I reply with vigor (an example of which can be seen in this thread).

      By analogy, suppose someone told you that your shirt was hideous. I think that you would take offense at that because you chose that shirt. You chose to wear it. They are, in essence, telling you that you have bad taste. The same is true when someone dismisses your position as being idiotic, weak, "not insightful in the least", etc. It's the product of your intellect.

      I will also admit that I took offense at the way he addressed his reply to "the mods" ("In other words, mods, the parent post is not insightful in the slightest.") rather than to me. He wanted his "point of view" be taken as the "gospel truth", dismissing everything I wrote without the courtesy of even discussing it with me in a public forum.

      Yes, I am strongly opinionated and I will defend my positions vigorously. If you want to discuss your disagreement with my positions, I will try to show you the courtesy of continuing the discussion so long as we both are getting something from it. I will spend hours researching to support my positions as I feel that is being intellectually honest. If that offends you, I'm sorry.

    29. Re:Why use legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I'm right, then it is the truth. If I'm wrong, then it's not.

      This isn't a peer reviewed scientific publication, and the overwhelming majority of discussion here does not break down into "right" and "wrong". Your original "insightful" post concluded that Everyone should not have to know about everything just to avoid being victimized.
      That's an opinion - you can't possibly call that right or wrong.

      When someone states that my position is idiotic or "not insightful in the slightest", it is an attack on me.

      No, it is an attack on your position, you see your position != you. Just because somebody didn't start their comment with "humbly begging your pardon master maxwell, but I think you'll find that..." doesn't mean you can go off half cocked calling people idiots - and "he/she started it" is the usual excuse of toddlers. Your page touts over twenty years of experience in embedded systems development - or somesuch - which puts you in the late thirties to mid fourties age bracket... in any case, way too old to act like an eight year old. We have more than enough of those around here already.

    30. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      No, it is an attack on your position, you see your position != you.

      Go home and tell your wife that her dress is hideous and see if she sees that as an attack on her dress -- because her dress != her. I hope that you have a comfortable couch.

      Just because somebody didn't start their comment with "humbly begging your pardon master maxwell, but I think you'll find that..." doesn't mean you can go off half cocked calling people idiots

      You distort common courtesy into something absurd. Starting off with "I disagree" and directing the post the person to whom you are replying is hardly the same as kowtowing in the manner that you describe.

    31. Re:Why use legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go home and tell your wife that her dress is hideous and see if she sees that as an attack on her dress -- because her dress != her. I hope that you have a comfortable couch.

      Hey, just because you married a moody bitch doesn't mean you have to take it out on the rest of us ;)

      You distort common courtesy into something absurd. Starting off with "I disagree" and directing the post the person to whom you are replying is hardly the same as kowtowing in the manner that you describe.

      And you need to get a thicker skin: RedBear's reply isn't any more rude or insulting than your post, which doesn't seem to meet your sudden criteria for "common courtesy".

    32. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      And you need to get a thicker skin: RedBear's reply isn't any more rude or insulting than your post, which doesn't seem to meet your sudden criteria for "common courtesy".

      Maybe you're right. I looked at the two and didn't see it that way, though. I replied to the person and didn't encourage third parties to mod him down. No sense in beating a dead horse, though.

    33. Re:Why use legislation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe you're right. I looked at the two and didn't see it that way, though. I replied to the person and didn't encourage third parties to mod him down. No sense in beating a dead horse, though.

      HALLELUJAH!
      There is hope for you yet my son.
      Now - and be honest - didn't that feel good?

    34. Re:Why use legislation? by volkris · · Score: 1

      I specifically said fraud should be illegal and prosecuted strongly. If you tell someone to install a filesharing program and it's really a virus, then this is fraud and should be prosecuted. However, if you send someone an unlabeled exe without making any claims to its contents and the user still opens it he is entirely responsible for the result.

      Yes, I do blame the victims, then the victim is responsible.

    35. Re:Why use legislation? by RedBear · · Score: 1

      "humbly begging your pardon master maxwell, but I think you'll find that..."

      Oh, oh my, please stop, that's just too funny. Please, sir, may I have another? Muwahahaha! I'm going to have to remember to use that exact phrase from now on if I ever reply to fmaxwell again. Hell, that's good enough for use on anybody! Good stuff.

      Thanks for the heads-up on fmaxwell. You and I are in perfect agreement. Too bad you're posting as anon.

      Cheers.

    36. Re:Why use legislation? by RedBear · · Score: 1

      But you don't seem to understand that we are discussing spyware, not viruses, and that the law we are discussing would make illegal much of the spyware which is legal today.

      But I do seem to understand. You think that making spyware illegal will stop it from happening, even though its illegal equivalent (viruses) have not been stopped in the slightest by a dozen or more laws. The illegal counterparts have been going strong for decades. Even if the law did make spyware completely illegal, there will still be spyware in the form of trojans and backdoors made by anonymous people instead of (or possibly for) corporations. But the law doesn't even go that far, it just requires the spyware to inform the user better during installation about what it will do. Spyware will not magically become extinct because of a law.

      No, people and corporations are doing it. Railing against the entire universe is absurd.

      Who's railing against the universe? All I ever said was that these things happen in this universe, not that the universe causes it. Yet, it an abstract way the universe does cause everything that happens, since nothing would happen if the universe didn't exist.

      No, it's not particulary insightful. It's simply blaming "the universe" for the actions of a few immoral corporations and individuals.

      Of course there is no guiding force behind the universe, so there can be no blame. I do not blame the universe, I simply state what is and what isn't. Not what I want and what I don't want.

      "Spyware" implies clandestine activity and it's not so clandestine when the user gives informed consent. If someone wants to install software on their computer which sends every keystroke back to some major corporation, I'm not about to call for laws making that illegal.

      Ok, fine, I guess from now on there will be no spyware. It will all be "monitorware", and that will be just fine and dandy and legal. How much you want to bet that this new monitorware will tell you exactly what it does behind the scenes in simple enough English to allow the common person to understand what it's doing? The level of information you'd have to make the average person read through to really understand what a sp^H^Hmonitorware app is doing makes it ridiculous to think that most people will really have an informed decision in the end.

      And you're still not going to stop the already illegal "spyware" (trojans, backdoors). It's going to keep on coming regardless of this law or any other. At least, as long as the technical problems aren't solved and the users are still ignorant. You've solved nothing while creating a new class of computer software that you will have to have some intelligence to avoid installing. Monitorware, I love it. Nobody pays attention to EULAs, why would they pay any attention to a message informing them that their computer will be monitored when they're trying to install a cool new game?

      [sarcasm]It would be impossible to write spyware for Linux. No way that anyone could do that.[/sarcasm] Quit blaming the OS for the malicious actions of spyware authors. There is nothing inherent in Linux or BSD that would prevent spyware from being installed on it.

      I guess you've missed the fact that there are these big holes in Windows and IE that allow software to install itself on your computer without any user interaction just by going to the wrong website or previewing the wrong email, or just by being connected to the Internet. When these get fixed I'll stop "blaming" the OS for being unsafe. I don't blame the computer for the actions of spyware or virus authors, I blame the computer for letting the spyware and viruses on my computer so easily.

      See how I highlighted "just"? Notice that I did not say "instead" or imply, state, or hint that these things should not be taught now.

      "Just" is a very ambigous word with several different meanings. Perhaps I interpreted it differently than you meant it. That doesn't mean

    37. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      You're just another asshole who lacks the courage to defend your ill-conceived position. Go away little boy. You've wasted enough of my time.

    38. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      However, if you send someone an unlabeled exe without making any claims to its contents and the user still opens it he is entirely responsible for the result.

      However, that is seldom how spyware gets installed. Typically, spyware is installed when someone downloads and installs an app. The spyware is either secretly installed or there is some well hidden, confusing verbage hidden in page 11 of the "license agreement." Example: Audiogalaxy filesharing app. Install filesharing and get spyware.

    39. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      You think that making spyware illegal will stop it from happening, even though its illegal equivalent (viruses) have not been stopped in the slightest by a dozen or more laws.

      Viruses are not the illegal equivalent of spyware. Viruses are anonymous. Spyware reports back to an IP address or domain. Corporations don't release viruses for profit. Corporations do release spyware for profit.

      But the law doesn't even go that far, it just requires the spyware to inform the user better during installation about what it will do. Spyware will not magically become extinct because of a law.

      It's not magic at all. When people realize what's being installed, they will, most of the time, hit the cancel button.

      How much you want to bet that this new monitorware will tell you exactly what it does behind the scenes in simple enough English to allow the common person to understand what it's doing?

      A simple government-mandated warning like "this software collect information from your computer's storage and reports it to corporation X" would probably be good enough. Is the average person confused by the government-mandated warnings on cigarette packs?

      I guess you've missed the fact that there are these big holes in Windows and IE that allow software to install itself on your computer without any user interaction just by going to the wrong website or previewing the wrong email, or just by being connected to the Internet.

      The majority of spyware is installed by users willingly running an executable. And while it's far from perfect, Windows is far better than it was in the bad old days of Windows 98.

      So natural selection ceased to function when animals with their natural brains started making tools a few million years ago? It's something that only happened in the distant past? Darwin never said that. What difference does it make what happened 50,000 years ago before civilization existed? Guns exist today, they are part of the universe now. That means in order for your genes to prosper today it will often not matter how fast, strong or smart you are if the other guy has a gun and you don't.

      You just answered your own question with that last sentence. Guns allow stupid, weak, and slow people to take intelligent, strong, and fast people out of the gene pool -- consistently. That pretty much destroys natural selection. I'd agree with the argument that tool-making should lead to better survival, but most of the people who kill with guns couldn't make a pointy stick given a knife and a tree -- much less make a gun.

      Regarding those "less desirable traits", desirable to whom?

      Desirable from the standpoint of survival of the species. There is no particular skill involved in shooting someone at close range with a pistol. Point and squeeze the trigger. The species will not have a better chance of survival because clinically insane people like Mark David Chapman can kill people like John Lennon.

      Making a personal attack to say that I'm making up for something by defending myself with a firearm is ridiculous,

      It wasn't ridiculous, but it was uncalled for in a (mostly) civil debate and I regret having written that (and other things). I have a bad temper and need to learn to count to 100 more slowly.

    40. Re:Why use legislation? by RedBear · · Score: 1

      Viruses are not the illegal equivalent of spyware. Viruses are anonymous. Spyware reports back to an IP address or domain.

      Backdoor type trojans report back to an IP address or IRC server quite often. It spys on your computer, illegally. Thus, illegal spyware, or the illegal equivalent of spyware. So we don't go quibbling over the word virus, viruses, trojans and worms are basically in the same class.

      It's not magic at all. When people realize what's being installed, they will, most of the time, hit the cancel button.

      This is commonly known as wishful thinking. An objective double-blind study of human nature regarding software warnings like this will show that you are vastly overestimating the intelligence of the general population, and/or how much they actually care about protecting their information. Just because you and I care doesn't mean everyone else does. I've made this mistaken assumption often, too.

      A simple government-mandated warning like "this software collect information from your computer's storage and reports it to corporation X" would probably be good enough. Is the average person confused by the government-mandated warnings on cigarette packs?

      I'm betting there's no way in hell that "the government" will actually mandate something even close to that clear. Oh, and by the way, about a quarter of the population still smoke cigarettes and it didn't go down just because of that little warning, so you're not proving anything that way.

      You just answered your own question with that last sentence. Guns allow stupid, weak, and slow people to take intelligent, strong, and fast people out of the gene pool -- consistently. That pretty much destroys natural selection.

      No, no. You missed my whole point again, even though I tried to make it so clear. Natural selection is a big abstract process. It doesn't have any particular purpose or job, it's just a way for us to describe something that happens over time in a population. Individuals in a species get killed off, and we call that natural selection. It's job is not to pick the best organism. In many cases it utterly fails in this, even in what you would call the "natural" world. Yet the species as a whole survives. If the best organism is not picked often enough, sometimes the species dies out. That's called extinction, and it has happened a million times even before homo sapiens existed. Besides which, there are two counterpoints to your statement:

      1. Guns are not mobius strips, with only one side. They will point in either direction. They let smart, strong, and fast people take out the slow, stupid, weak ones just as easily as the other way around. A gun is an inanimate object that can be used to equal effect by either type of person or anything in the middle.

      2. Being smart, strong or fast is not necessarily the best way to survive. Case in point: Sharks, cockroaches and tree sloths are not smart. The tree sloth is not fast. Cockroaches are not strong. Yet these species survive because they are well adapted to their environment. It has in fact been argued by many brilliant scientists and writers that sentience may be the downfall of our species. The other 99.999999% of species on this planet get along without sentience just fine and will continue to do so for as long as the planet is capable of supporting life. Sentience is merely an abberation in the process of life trying to survive.

      Desirable from the standpoint of survival of the species. There is no particular skill involved in shooting someone at close range with a pistol.

      First, the only trait that is desirable from a survival standpoint is one that helps the species survive. This is one of those concepts that's so simple it's difficult to understand unless you really think about it. Survival traits for a species are not always the same as survival traits for an individual. Salmon survive as a species just fine, but the individuals spawn and then immediately

    41. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1
      Backdoor type trojans report back to an IP address or IRC server quite often. It spys on your computer, illegally. Thus, illegal spyware, or the illegal equivalent of spyware. So we don't go quibbling over the word virus, viruses, trojans and worms are basically in the same class.

      What the legislation is addressing is Microsoft (or equivalent) releasing something like a "media player" that reports back to Microsoft with a list of all music you listen to, what software you have on your computer, and what web sites you visit. That kind of software is currently legal.

      This is commonly known as wishful thinking. An objective double-blind study of human nature regarding software warnings like this will show that you are vastly overestimating the intelligence of the general population, and/or how much they actually care about protecting their information. Just because you and I care doesn't mean everyone else does. I've made this mistaken assumption often, too.

      If there was not a groundswell of opposition to spyware, Congress would not be considering legislation to ban or heavily regulate it. Not to be cynical, but Congress doesn't pass laws unless it gets them votes or donations.

      I'm betting there's no way in hell that "the government" will actually mandate something even close to that clear.

      Did you think that RJ Reynolds decided on that wording on their own? The government has already shown a willingness to issue edicts requiring clear labeling.

      Oh, and by the way, about a quarter of the population still smoke cigarettes and it didn't go down just because of that little warning, so you're not proving anything that way.

      Logical disconnect: I said that the government-mandated warnings on cigarette packs showed that the government had shown a willingness to impose clear warning label requirements on private industry. People's values, acceptance of their own mortality, response to addictive substances, and peer pressure all factor into smoking. Whether smoking rates went up or down after the warnings has no bearings on how people would react to warnings about spyware.

      Natural selection is a big abstract process. It doesn't have any particular purpose or job, it's just a way for us to describe something that happens over time in a population. Individuals in a species get killed off, and we call that natural selection. It's job is not to pick the best organism. In many cases it utterly fails in this, even in what you would call the "natural" world. Yet the species as a whole survives. If the best organism is not picked often enough, sometimes the species dies out.

      I submit that you do not fully understand Darwin's principle of Natural Selection. It is not a random process where "failures" of the process lead to extinction. Animals which are best adapted to their environment have a statististically better chance of survival. "Organisms" aren't "picked." Individuals survive because of a genetic trait that gives them an advantage. Maybe it's a long neck which enables them to reach food that others cannot. Maybe its because they run faster and can better escape preditors. Maybe it's thicker fur that lets them survive in colder winters.

      You also apparently do not recognize the difference between Natural Selection and selections made by man. From Charles Darwin's The Origin of the Species, Chapter 4: Natural Selection

      How will the struggle for existence, discussed too briefly in the last chapter, act in regard to variation? Can the principle of selection, which we have seen is so potent in the hands of man, apply in nature?

      As you can see from the passage above, Charles Darwin differentiates between Natural Selection and selection made by "the hands of man."

      Secondly, I have a lot of experience with firearms and I can assure you that it isn't easy to hit something with most pistols even at close range. What you see in the movies is total bullshit.

    42. Re:Why use legislation? by volkris · · Score: 1

      Right.

      Like you said, users install the spyware.

      They make the decision to run software including spyware, even if it's as a bundle, and so they really have no place to complain to the courts.

      Complain to the software company all you want, but the company did nothing wrong.

    43. Re:Why use legislation? by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Like you said, users install the spyware.

      Yes, in the same way that someone chooses to eat food which, unbeknownst to them, contains poison.

      They make the decision to run software including spyware, even if it's as a bundle, and so they really have no place to complain to the courts.

      When they are mislead into believing that the software is a game and it really is a game plus spyware, they do have every right to complain to the courts.

      Complain to the software company all you want, but the company did nothing wrong.

      False and deceptive advertising isn't wrong? Misleading consumers isn't wrong? Using a game as a trojan horse to install spyware isn't wrong? Maybe on your planet.

  7. It's About Time by Ridgelift · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Once installed, it can redirect web searches, install bookmarks or bombard a user with pop-up ads tailored to other search terms. It can also drain computing power, crash a machine and, in the case of the most malicious spyware, steal confidential information

    A friend of mine works for a technical call center for a large US hardware manufacturer. The contract he works on is supporting notebook computers.

    A customer recently called in because his computer was running slow. After installing and running ad-aware and spybot, the customer had over 4600 spyware programs. Yes, you read that right, over 4600 spyware programs. It's a miracle that thing ran at all.

    Legislation to curtail spyware is long over due. An operating system that is resistant to spyware is already available, and it ain't Windows.

    1. Re:It's About Time by DrEldarion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Are you sure it was actually 4600 different programs? I find that hard to believe - It seems that the computer wouldn't run at all with that many programs running in the background.

      Could the "4600" number have been the total number of spyware programs running, files found, and registry keys found?

    2. Re:It's About Time by betelgeuse-4 · · Score: 1

      Were all 4600 actually programs? A lot of the stuff Ad-aware picks up is things like cookies and registry values.

    3. Re:It's About Time by Zocalo · · Score: 1
      Yes, you read that right, over 4600 spyware programs.

      Yes, but Ad-Aware, Spybot S&D and most other spyware removal tools would have counted a cookie from an ad bureau as a "program" in your quote above. While I wouldn't class a cookie as a program, they do enable large scale information gathering and hopefully will get explicitly covered by the wording of the legislation to avoid any loopholes. And on the subject of wording, the phrase the legislators need to remember is "failure to have the opt-in checkbox off by default is a breach of the legislation".

      Whether it'll be effective or not is a different matter of course, but at least it should be a little easier to track down the infringers of this legislation than those of U-CAN-SPAM.

      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    4. Re:It's About Time by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      My GF was just saying that she worked on a machine two weeks ago that had over 2500 pieces of spyware on it.

      2500 individual pieces, not registery entries and other associated files, but 2500 pieces of spyware on a P3.

    5. Re:It's About Time by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      You said a place that services laptops. Toshiba has a 4600 (one of their best, actually). I find it impossible that there are 4,600 (4 thousand, six hundred) things running on top of normal OS stuff. I think you're confused...

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    6. Re:It's About Time by Dark+Lord+Seth · · Score: 1
      Legislation to curtail spyware is long over due. An operating system that is resistant to spyware is already available, and it ain't Windows.

      I call FUD.

      MS Windows isn't the prime target for spyware because of it's rather poor record, it's the prime target because 95% of the people out there use some form of Windows and thus the number of clueless retards using Windows is higher then with MacOS or Linux. Blaming spyware on Windows is flawed, because spyware on Linux is realistic, possible but simply not profitable enough. Nor are Linux users ( generally ) retarded enough to actually install bonzibuddy_2.4.0.(rpm|deb|tgz|ebuild(?)).

      Yet. If Linux gets enough market share, some spyware, virusses and other crap WILL come to Linux. Never EVER underestimate the stupidity of the average computer user.

    7. Re:It's About Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Umm - hey clueless - he was talking about OS X, not Linux. The fact that linux is resistant to spyware doesn't mean much if the OS can't really do anything useful (and I'm still waiting for someone to prove me wrong on that point.)

    8. Re:It's About Time by SomeGuyFromCA · · Score: 1

      Record adaware scan: forty thousand plus.

      --
      if the answer isn't violence, neither is your silence / freedom of expression doesn't make it alright
    9. Re:It's About Time by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Some of those registry values are as bad as programs. They direct IE to visit sites that run lots of tasty javascript and ActiveX.

    10. Re:It's About Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah - as if a girl would know the difference. I hate to break it to you, but individual you are referring to as your "GF" is probably some perverted 40-year old dude who plays a girl on the internet.

    11. Re:It's About Time by Mesaeus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It probably is, however the biggest number I've seen with MY customers (about 30 average Joes and Janes) is about 1400, spread over four user accounts (so a lot of it was duplicate stuff). 4600 traces of spyware is an ungodly amount, I had hours and hours of clean up work with the 1400 one. 90% of spyware can be automatically cleaned with Spybot and Adaware, but the remaining 10% can be a tough cookie to get rid of permanently.

    12. Re:It's About Time by dmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Yet. If Linux gets enough market share, some spyware, virusses and other crap WILL come to Linux. Never EVER underestimate the stupidity of the average computer user.

      I don't entirely buy it. By that logic, Apache should be exploited far more often than IIS. Is has more than twice the marketshare so it should be targeted more. But it isn't. IIS accounts for more exploits in ABSOLUTE numbers than Apache. This is directly due to Apache's design and the Apache Project's diligence in patching holes.

      Most of this crap is autoinstalled through browser holes. Linux browsers don't have known holes that stay unpatched for months and months. As Linux becomes more mainstream on the desktop, I have little doubt someone will come up with something intelligent for autoupdating as well. Linux simply isn't as hospitable by design to malware. Even with more Linux in the hands of clueless users, it will be more work to exploit with malware.

      Now if we can just get Lindows to force the creation of user accounts on install. Its optional now and that isn't good enough. OSX style software installation is the only other thing end user Linux really needs in this regard. OS X is a decent target for this sort of thing and they don't suffer from it either. That is as much due to OS X design as it it's statistical significance.

    13. Re:It's About Time by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Would it be possible to write an extension to Konqueror that displays pretty mouse cursors when you visit certain sites (and by the way displays a load of pop-up ads and phones home with your browsing habits)?

      Absolutely, yes.

      Would it be possible to presuade clueless computer users to install it.

      Again, yes.

      I get a lot of viruses in my spam folder, and most of them try to persuade the recipient to run a binary executable. Some even put it in a password protected zip file. It may be a security flaw with Windows/Outlook, but more importantly, it is a security flaw with the person sitting on front of the screen.

    14. Re:It's About Time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmmm...I guess answering email, browsing the web, writing term papers, doing CS homework, and developing software is not your idea of useful.

      So, why are all of the above activities not useful?

    15. Re:It's About Time by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 1
      By that logic, Apache should be exploited far more often than IIS.

      Not neccessarily. Although Apache has more total installs, which one is Joe "Look ma! I've got my own webserver!" Clueless more likely to be using -- and is therefore a better target? Most webservers are administrated by people with some technical knowledge, so the web server market is not a analogy to the desktop OS market.

      A Unix-based OS is probably more secure than windows, but the fact of the matter is that there are still quite a few security problems. For instance, a common tactic right now is to install spyware along with other programs ... how will using linux prevent that?
      --

      How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
    16. Re:It's About Time by Alexis+de+Torquemada · · Score: 1
      A customer recently called in because his computer was running slow. After installing and running ad-aware and spybot, the customer had over 4600 spyware programs. Yes, you read that right, over 4600 spyware programs. It's a miracle that thing ran at all.

      Not if 4550 of them were just browser cookies.

    17. Re:It's About Time by Ridgelift · · Score: 1
      Are you sure it was actually 4600 different programs? I find that hard to believe - It seems that the computer wouldn't run at all with that many programs running in the background.

      Could the "4600" number have been the total number of spyware programs running, files found, and registry keys found?


      I'm not sure, it's what he told me, however I think we can safely assume he meant over 4600 detected instances of spyware, whether they're actual executables, cookies, webbugs, registry entries, etc.

      Either way, it's a lot of stuff. It something that (hopefully) legislation will address. It just seems asinine to me that the average computer user must run:

      A Firewall

      Anti-Virus program

      One or more Anti-Spyware programs

      And then on a regular basis:

      Make sure they've downloaded the latest fixes for their operating system's defects

      Regularily update and run their anti-virus

      Frequently update and run their anti-spyware

      I mean, for crying out loud, IT'S A COMPUTER! Weren't computers supposed to do these sorts of things on their own? The fact that human intervention is required is pure muda, a waste of time and energy.

  8. I have to ask... by Motherfucking+Shit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Why is it that the Beeb has the scoop on a pending US bill, before I can find this story in any of the major US media outlets?

    --
    "BSD: Free as in speech. Linux: Free as in beer. Windows 10: Free as in herpes." --Man On Pink Corner in #52607549.
    1. Re:I have to ask... by Khaed · · Score: 1

      The US Media doesn't jump at a chance to cover computer related issues. With the news items of the last few days*, this isn't really a huge issue for the US media. If it were a virus or something that was "big news" to the average person, then we'd hear about it. But most people don't understand what spyware and malware are. *American beheaded, terrorist killed, the 9/11 commission saying on thing, Cheney saying another, Putin saying he said this and that about Iraq... plus the Peterson trial. lot of things the media is going to go crazy covering. To the point where everyone but addicts get tired of it.

    2. Re:I have to ask... by cgenman · · Score: 1

      You do know all that the major US media news outlets do is re-run BBC stories, right?

    3. Re:I have to ask... by thrillseeker · · Score: 1
      Why is it that the Beeb has the scoop on a pending US bill, before I can find this story in any of the major US media outlets?

      Because the U.S. media hasn't figured a way to blame the problem of spyware on the Bush administration yet.

    4. Re:I have to ask... by southpolesammy · · Score: 1

      The first rule about US media coverage of US Gov't is you do not talk about the US media's coverage of the US Gov't. The second rule....

      Carry on citizen...Big Brother is appeased.

      --
      Rule #1 -- Politics always trumps technology.
    5. Re:I have to ask... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except for local politics, at least, some of the time. Notice how the BBC usually manages to write original content on those american stories it does write though

    6. Re:I have to ask... by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      It's on the US sites. The kid that submited the article lives in Munich: This is my weblog. It contains miscellaneous stuff happening with me (C.J.T.) here in Munich.

      He's in 10th grade. That's about 15, right?

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    7. Re:I have to ask... by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      This is not always such a bad thing, as the average slashdotter knows more about computers than every news reporter in the U.S. combined will ever know about them. I just love it when I hear some clueless news reader talking about the newest virus that could "break your internet" and recommends users protect themselves by deleting all email.

    8. Re:I have to ask... by Tuxedo+Jack · · Score: 1

      Because companies like Claria, WhenU, and CoolWebSearch have ample incentive to kill it in commission before we get news of it.

      --

      Striking fear in the authors of godawful fanfiction, I am here, appearing in darkness, Tuxedo Jack!
  9. correction by bl8n8r · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The average WINDOWS machine has 28 spyware programs on it.

    --
    boycott slashdot February 10th - 17th check out: altSlashdot.org
    1. Re:correction by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

      Actually, the average Windows machine would have more than 28 if Macs and Linux systems which have none are included in this survey as well.

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    2. Re:correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't people refer to Windows-only when they say 'PC'? Earthlink's study said the average PC, not the average computer.

    3. Re:correction by Stigmata669 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In all fairness, the average machine is a WINDOWS machine. Mac/Linux/Unix desktops are just statistical outliers.

      --
      Yawn.
    4. Re:correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or, perhaps, OS/2....

    5. Re:correction by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      Some times. Not always. It's ambiguous.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    6. Re:correction by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      $ uname -a Linux aragorn 2.4.25-gentoo-r2 #2 Mon May 31 12:54:31 EDT 2004 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

      I dunno. This is a "PC". I don't have any spy-ware either.

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    7. Re:correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey nerd-breath - My Mac does EVERYTHING I need a computer to do, with no viruses or spyware! Stick that outlier up your butt and smoke it.

    8. Re:correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should look in a mathematical book for the term "outlier"

    9. Re:correction by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 1

      The average machine IS Windows. Even Windows 95 machines probably outnumber every non-Windows OS machine combined.

    10. Re:correction by Graff · · Score: 1
      $ uname -a Linux aragorn 2.4.25-gentoo-r2 #2 Mon May 31 12:54:31 EDT 2004 i686 Intel(R) Pentium(R) 4 CPU 2.40GHz GenuineIntel GNU/Linux

      I dunno. This is a "PC". I don't have any spy-ware either.

      Hmm, let's see...
      % uname -mpsrv
      Darwin 7.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 7.4.0: Wed May 12 16:58:24 PDT 2004; root:xnu/xnu-517.7.7.obj~7/RELEASE_PPC Power Macintosh powerpc
      Yep, I have a "PC" also. Look it says it right there at the end. In fact, it is a p-p-p- power pc!

      No spyware either - unless you count Microsoft Word which sends out packets to your LAN, trying to see if you are running a copy on another computer. I quickly blocked that piece of spyware from being so noisy...
    11. Re:correction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. An average windows machine has even more, perhaps even 28.00001.

    12. Re:correction by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      ^^^^^
      Informative.

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    13. Re:correction by Graff · · Score: 1
      Informative.

      Heh, you also. Ahh well, karma is not all it's cracked up to be. I wouldn't count on either of us getting positive moderation out of this.

      On a side note, I like the images at the link you have in your sig. The keyboard and the mouse are probably from stock photography but I always grin when I see that equipment being used in images. Free advertising and all! :-)

      Yeah yeah, I'm a typical Mac-head. At least I'm not a typical rabid, frothing-at-the mouth, drink the Kool-Aid, fanatic nut Mac-head!
    14. Re:correction by xanadu-xtroot.com · · Score: 1

      Yea, I know. It's not really my site. It's a close friend of mine's site. I've made him aware of the "backwards" keyboard a few times now... (and yea, that's Mac hardware in the pics. :-) That part I won't mention since I don't want him to change it (sorry, I can't afford a Mac, but like power and security, so I use Gentoo... :-) ).

      --
      I'm not a prophet or a stone-age man,
      I'm just a mortal with potential of a super man.
    15. Re:correction by Stormcrow309 · · Score: 1

      Prove the results. What is the criteria for spyware? What was the size of the survey group? What is the OS breakdown? What was the #s of the types of spyware? Were did the defining list come from? What is the % of error? Prove the % of error.

      Doing my part to prove how bent statistic numbers can be

      --

      In God we trust, all others require data.

  10. IE of course by simetra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It would be interesting to see what percentage of these "victims" used IE as their browser exclusively. I only use IE for sites written by fanboys which require IE. Otherwise, I use Opera. For kicks, I ran spybot on my pc at work and all it found were about a dozen cookies. The techie who suggested doing this says that the typical pc on our network has anywhere from 20 to 50 bad things. Go figure.

    --

    "Would it kill you to put down the toilet seat?" -- Maya Angelou
    1. Re:IE of course by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      It's not IE's fault - it's the fault of stupid users. I use IE exclusively and haven't EVER had a spyware program on my computer because I'm not dumb about it.

      The problem is that the computer-illiterate have somehow gotten it into their heads that clicking "yes" to any window that pops up is a good thing. I'd be willing to bet that a good portion of them don't even read the window before clicking "yes". Of course, if they did read the window, they'd most likely be all excited to have an "AWESOME NEW PROGRAM that remembers their passwords!" and click "yes" anyway.

      The only way this will stop is by educating users. Even this law probably won't help, since people will just say okay to the installer anyway. Take your average user and tell them to install a program - chances are they'll just click "next" furiously until the installer is done. Do they have any idea what was on those previous pages? Nope. Do they care? Nope. Just putting an extra screen in there saying "Hey, we're installing these spyware programs, k?" isn't likely to change much.

    2. Re:IE of course by XryanX · · Score: 1

      "I use IE exclusively and haven't EVER had a spyware program on my computer because I'm not dumb about it."

      Well, there's spyware that's bundled in with legite software. WildTangent(comes with AIM) is the one that pops to mind. You also have the stuff that comes with file-sharing software.

    3. Re:IE of course by Synkronos · · Score: 1

      Clicking 'yes' is not the only way to get infected - unpatched IE systems are vulnerable to various exploits that can force an un-agreed to install.

      --
      Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
    4. Re:IE of course by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Once again, though, that can be blamed on the users who don't patch their systems and/or have poor security.

    5. Re:IE of course by nolife · · Score: 2, Informative

      It's not IE's fault - it's the fault of stupid users.

      If you believe that, you are no further ahead than the people you reference.

      An analysis of the 180 Solutions Trojan.

      A NTBugtraq post with info.

      There are many many other sources of info that describe how software and malware get onto your computer using combinations of holes in Windows and IE that does not present the user an acceptance screen. The links referenced are just a sample of what is out in the wild, they are not exceptions, they are the norm.

      The only way this will stop is by educating users

      I hear ya..

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    6. Re:IE of course by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      I realize that IE/Windows isn't the most secure combination ever in its default form, but properly configuring the browser and OS and patching religiously will take care of most things. A firewall, virus scanner, and some creative proxomitron filters will take care of anything else that presents itself.

      I've been using Windows/IE my entire life (well, not counting the C64 days), and haven't once had a virus, worm, trojan, or spyware.

    7. Re:IE of course by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      I do a similar thing on my Windows boxes, except I use Mozilla. But my main windows box is shared, it only takes one uneducated user to click 'yes' once and the machine will eventually be flooded.

      I often have 'clear up sessions' on the computer where I run AdAware, update the virus scanner, check out anything suspicious, etc. Last time I did one was when my MOZILLA home page was hijacked.

      Now I have a program called 'DNSKong' that blocks ads and spyware accociated sites system-wide, by being acting as a DNS proxy which simply returns that the site does not exist if it is on the block list. Havn't had a problem since I installed it, but I inevitably will, considering the stuff my brother installs. At least IE hijacks and the like have convinced him to use Mozilla...

    8. Re:IE of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I only use IE for sites written by fanboys which require IE. Otherwise, I use Opera.

      Opera could give me a blowjob while browsing the web and I STILL wouldn't use it. I refuse to use a stupid web browser which has the audacity to charge money for it. Give me a fucking break, that's so 1996 of them. Don't even mention the stupid adware version of it because it's no better. There's a billion completely free browsers out there that are better.

    9. Re:IE of course by Shdwdrgn · · Score: 1

      I work for a support desk for a company that uses IE exclusively. By the time someone calls us due to performance problems with their PC, Adaware finds on average about 200 items. While waiting for that to run through, we generally try to educate the users on how to run Adaware for themselves, and how to avoid further infections.

      You wouldn't believe how many of these folks have hotbar simply because 'a co-worker told them it was great'. These same people are absolutely shocked when I inform them that their own computer is now sending out these same emails to everyone in their address book advising people to install this program.

      I think what gets them the most is the fact that spyware is forging emails in their name, from their own computer. As long as it scares them into taking some responsibility in what they click or install, it works for me.

    10. Re:IE of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful
      I realize that IE/Windows isn't the most secure combination ever in its default form,

      That's an understatement.

      but properly configuring the browser and OS...

      Do you enter the "Advanced" of "Internet Settings" often? Then you know how heinously unfriendly that long list of checkboxes is! It virtually shouts "You don't wanna go here! Leave it alone!". Windows users are conditioned to obey such signs.

      ...and patching religiously will take care of most things.

      That's what system administrators do. Most users don't treat their computer religously, ever. Nor should they have to.

    11. Re:IE of course by nolife · · Score: 1

      That is the point, look at all the things you listed that should be required, configured, and maintained just so the *average* person can browse the web with IE. That combination of items is not something you can blame on the "stupid users need trained".

      --
      Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
    12. Re:IE of course by DrEldarion · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I'm taking it to an extreme.

      Telling Joe User to run Windows Update once in a while (or just keep auto-update on), stop installing things they're unfamiliar with (spyware/trojans), and keep a virus scanner updated and running should take care of any problems they have. This should NOT be too difficult for anyone that is actually willing to listen.

    13. Re:IE of course by kmactane · · Score: 1

      I don't even use it for that. If someone's such a fanboy that s/he's made a site that only works in IE, I figure I probably don't really need to read the thing.

      Instead, I use IE solely for the purpose of looking at my own sites. Any time I'm doing Web design, I make sure to check it out how it looks in the browser that most of the world is using. (Yes, of course I write gracefully degrading/cascading HTML and CSS. But just because it's functional doesn't mean it will look good.)

      And since I know I haven't put any spyware on my own sites, I don't have to worry about IE's security.

    14. Re:IE of course by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, it would. At my job we roll out systems that have both IE and NS but make no mention of the spyware problem to the public except when our techs are already servicing a system that needs it removed. About one in every 30 users with spyware problems has Netscape as their personal choice.

      Free mouse cursor software and countless stacks of IE "search bars" are part of the downloaded goodies that make their way into these systems.

      While using IE, my protection software warned me of an unauthorized activex download. Within seconds I heard the modem dial and caught on, running to unplug my phone cable. I saw the dialer's brand new modem connections in the Networks and Dialup Adapters section.

      Sadly, these aggressive dialer programs come up only in objectionable sites and it is shameful to tell your friends and relatives that you removed something that can *only* get to their computers by going to porn sites. IE users? Go to their root folder and see how many fake "get free porn" folders you can find there, or this-same-motive dialers in their DUN folder.

      Here's another thing: You have broadband? You should run Spybot and Ad-Aware like the parent says. Your computer doesn't need a username / password combination, so someone you already know will go on the web without the wondrous shield that alternative browsers provide to us geeks. People never ask if you have Netscape or Opera, but they WILL ask where IE is if you've hidden it.

    15. Re:IE of course by MonkeyBoy · · Score: 1

      What we're trying to tell you is this: Taking those steps will not help you.

      Right now, at this very minute, with a fully patched version of IE, you can visit a freakin' website and have malware silently installed on your system. Whatever the really nasty ones are currently doing, Microsoft hasn't patched yet. Hitting Windows Update isn't a cure if the exploits the malware is using aren't patched. When they patch that exploit, they'll find another one to use. That, to me, means they've taken a step into virus/worm territory in terms of maliciousness.

      It's complete and utter insanity that by visiting a website, simply visiting a website, that software can be auto-installed on your system. The fact that it can be done, at all, is completely inexcusable in my book. IE needs a ground-up rewrite or something.

      As a result of this, I simply don't use IE. It's a drastic solution, but I find it works quite well, except for microsoft.com and a few other annoying little bitches who won't code their websites properly. Most I refuse to visit, but unfortunately a couple are relevant for my job, so I have to.

      Also:
      Antivirus programs don't detect, nor prevent the installation of, malware. There are seperate products that detect and remove these things, but they're not included with antivirus software. Frankly, I think given how malicious these things have gotten, they SHOULD be considered a worm/virus, but it looks like Symantec/McAfee/etc. wants to sell you a second $50 box.

      BTW, I'm listening, buyt I'm just trying to explain that the state of affairs has advanced within the past few weeks. And I assume you're simply ignorant of the tactical shift they've made (from patched exploits to unpatched exploits).

      --

      Moof!

  11. A step in the right direction.. by Anath · · Score: 4, Funny

    It is, but I can't see it being useful.

    Unless it contains decent punishments of course, like say.. Dragging the Spyware foisting bastards out into the street and shooting them in the back of the head, or some sort of testicle electrode device (like a "home detention" prisoner, goes off whenever the spyware "calls home")

    --
    The earth is 98% full, please delete anyone you can!
    1. Re: A step in the right direction.. by Cornelius+the+Great · · Score: 1

      "...or some sort of testicle electrode device (like a "home detention" prisoner, goes off whenever the spyware "calls home")"

      Some spyware authors probably wouldn't consider that a punishment, but rather a bonus.

      --
      Sigs are for losers
    2. Re: A step in the right direction.. by ScrewMaster · · Score: 1

      Yes, and only effective on those that actually have testicles.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    3. Re: A step in the right direction.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      2 years later:

      All surviving spyware writers are females. Lacking testicles, they emerge as super spyware-writers as their male colleagues got their balls fried. The law enforcers are baffled. How does one attach testicle electrode devices to those without a pair (not even half a pair)? Unable to fight spywares, all Wintel computer users in 2006 adapts by typing with one hand while the other hand is on the mouse, constantly zapping the spyware windows.

  12. How did Earthlink conduct this "survey"? by setzman · · Score: 4, Insightful
    A recent survey by the US internet provider Earthlink found that the average computer was packed with hidden software, such as cookies tracking online habits.

    It uncovered an average of 28 spyware programs on each PC scanned during the first three months of the year.

    How exactly was Earthlink able to detect the installed spyware? Tracking outgoing requests that were related to known spyware apps? Or did they allow users to run software that reported back to Earthlink for this survey?

    --
    C:\>
    1. Re:How did Earthlink conduct this "survey"? by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

      Earthlink offers a spyware blocking program to its customers and also a free web-based version. I assume they can glean some survey information from the users of these tools.

    2. Re:How did Earthlink conduct this "survey"? by k4_pacific · · Score: 1

      And if they did run a program that reported back to Earthlink, was it too not counted as spyware?

      --
      Unknown host pong.
    3. Re:How did Earthlink conduct this "survey"? by EvanED · · Score: 1

      It could have been opt-in, or even a conspicuous opt-out.

    4. Re:How did Earthlink conduct this "survey"? by mallardtheduck · · Score: 1

      I think that was the parent's point...

    5. Re:How did Earthlink conduct this "survey"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EarthLink is a front for the Church of Scientology.

      I would not trust any survey put out by this criminal organization.

    6. Re:How did Earthlink conduct this "survey"? by sowth · · Score: 1

      Considering the article refers to cookies as hidden software, their numbers probably don't mean anything. If they don't even understand the fact a cookie isn't software[1], then how can they count the number of spyware programs? What are they classifing as spyware? Web browsers? They don't know what they are talking about.

      [1] Cookies are data! Also, desireable login cookies (such as for your bank, slashdot or webmail) would qualify as "cookies tracking online habits."

  13. Pointless - another law to make them look good by jimmy+page · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Again, 90% of the spyware ppl will either find away around it or trick ppl into downloading it. This is spam in another form.


    At least the lawmakers *look* good.

  14. 28 on average? by qualico · · Score: 2, Insightful

    That's conservative.
    If you include the cookies and registry entries that number has been into the hundreds for the clients I have been removing spyware, malware and adware from.

    When clients asked how they can legally do that, I can only point to the fact that it says so in the obfuscated end user agreement the company bets your not going read.

    SO if this law is passed, just how will it be enforced?

    1. Re:28 on average? by Steinfiend · · Score: 1

      As previous articles on Slashdot have mentioned, the 28 does include cookies. Its debatable as to whether cookies should really be included in a report like this because of their lack of "payload".

      Yes they report specific pieces of data to the originator but they don't have the ability to gather other information or damage the system.

    2. Re:28 on average? by crackshoe · · Score: 1

      hahahahah. Enforcement isn't what they're trying to do -- they're trying to look busy and responsive.

      --
      Don't worry - its just stigmata. Pass me a napkin and don't you dare tell my mother.
  15. Google's position paper... by LostCluster · · Score: 4, Informative

    It's been on Slashdot mentioned before, but a good starting point for this kind of legislation is Google's Proposed Software Principles defining what honest programs should be doing.

  16. Yes, I am a cynic by segfault7375 · · Score: 2, Insightful


    This is great except for the fact that companies like Claria (aka Gator) will simply buy a politican to say that their "products" are not spyware, and therefore not covered under this bill.

    1. Re:Yes, I am a cynic by LostCluster · · Score: 2, Informative

      I don't even think they need to change anything they're doing, since Gator at least requires an affirmative confirmation to install and politely cleans up when asked to. As bad as they are, at least they're playing by the proposed rules already.

    2. Re:Yes, I am a cynic by mark-t · · Score: 2, Interesting
      The solution to this is to have the bill define the behaviours necesary to qualify as "spyware".

      An extremely broad definition wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing in this case either...

      For example, spyware would be any software which collects and reports details about the user's computer or the user's activities to a party that has not previously obtained permission to perform administration duties on that particular computer. Said permission can only be obtained either by virtue of property ownership, or by explicit (and verifiable at both ends) agreement between the owner of the computer and the party that performs administration on it.

      I think something like that would probably do the trick.

    3. Re:Yes, I am a cynic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Er. Not entirely. Gator comes bundled with other software by and large. You want the other software. While the fact that they explain that Gator is going to be installed is, at best, buried somewhere in the EULA that pops up, and who the hell reads those things anyway?

      So now you've got some free little gizmo that you really like and a big nasty Gator living on your system. You can't use the gizmo without Gator. Yet people, most people, don't understand that there's anything installed except that little gizmo. Gator hides in the background. That, to me, is pretty underhanded.

      Yeah, I know, we should all read the average 50-page EULA that comes up, but even my eyes glaze over on those things, and I'm just skimming them for the important bits. Frankly, I think all spyware, including Gator, should be outlawed. That will prevent reputable US companies from including it with their software. Maybe this means the free gizmos will go away, but... it probably just means there'll be less gizmos around.

  17. a lot of spyware already 'informs you'... by seibed · · Score: 5, Interesting

    a lot of spyware already 'informs you'... its just that the average public just clicks right through all of the legal stuff anyway.

    1. Re:a lot of spyware already 'informs you'... by Darkon · · Score: 1

      Exactly. Wouldn't the dialog boxes IE already spews out asking "do you want to install and run Gator/CometCursor/BonziBuddy/spyware-of-the-month? " already meet at least the first requirement of this law? How much spyware actually gets installed completely silently?

    2. Re:a lot of spyware already 'informs you'... by Naffer · · Score: 1

      I was attempting to clean up a friends computer a few days ago when I noticed that spyware was coming back within minutes of uninstallation. After a bit of snooping I found that I had missed one program which set the default activeX download option to "enable" so it could download and run new spyware. The first thing I did was permenantly disable activeX downloading on the computer.

    3. Re:a lot of spyware already 'informs you'... by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I think it depends. Aksing you to OK software without telling you what that software does is wrong. Yes, users should beware and not click every OK button, but that shouldn't absolve the malware maker's legal liability if that OK button doesn't have plain language explaining what the software does.

  18. It might work by 14erCleaner · · Score: 3, Insightful
    You know, this actually has a chance of being effective, unlike the anti-spam laws. Spyware is pretty useless if it doesn't report home on its spy results, so it should be possible to trace programs that violate the law back to those responsible.

    Of course, the definition of "spyware" is critical. Legislatures in the past have had a hard time defining computer-related terms without making them too broad (for example, is your web browser spyware? After all, it's sending cookies back to all kinds of web sites!)

    --
    Have you read my blog lately?
  19. And what will it help? by klingens · · Score: 5, Funny

    I am sure this new law will be a overwhelming success story like the recent CANSPAM act.
    And now excuse me, I need to clean my Inbox again.

  20. 28.... 28!!! by joeldg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    People have on average 28 spyware programs?
    holy crap!!

    well, at least this is another notch in the belt of opensource.

    That just amazes me. I tried a while back to see how easy it was to create one and installed a windows machine and hacked together an easy directx control that installed itself on page load and changed (just for testing) the word "Yahoo" into the word "Shit" and then had fun surfing aroud on "Shit! mail" and "Shit! autos".. It took a total of about two hours to create in Delphi and I am a unix programmer not a windows programmer.

    Just thinking how easy it would have been to make one that replaced 460x80 images with one from one of my servers and this really does not surprise me.

    1. Re:28.... 28!!! by Nazadus · · Score: 1

      I'll admit, even I have been hit three times becuase I used IE, however for the most part it's more of a social problem than anything. It's the clicking through EULA's without caring. For example, we have someone in recieving who liked Gator becuase it stored her information and put it on a web-page when appropriate, however had she read (and understood) the EULA she would have not installed it. We cant use Firefox/Mozilla becuase of misc problems, so they are stuck with IE (for now). I think business's should offer a basic teaching class for internet etiquette and basic knowledge. I say busienss's becuase it would benefit them more (or at least some of the smaller ones who don't have the easily enforced corporate policies) to spend a few hours teaching their employee's. Yes, I know they should be fired or whatever punishment deemed fitting, but in a small/medium company you can't just up and do that for something as small as being ignorant on computers, becuase most of the people you hire aren't the brightest in computers but they are excellent at there job.

      --
      "Do or do not. There is no try." -- Master Yoda (Half man, half muppet)
    2. Re:28.... 28!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And in a similar amount of time, I can throw together a Mozilla/FireFox plugin to do the same thing, and try to install on page load.

      What it comes down to is that if the end user to stupid enough to say yes, then they deserve what they get.

    3. Re:28.... 28!!! by joeldg · · Score: 1

      you my friend..
      you might have the saddest ever response to a question I have ever posed...

      read what you wrote...

    4. Re:28.... 28!!! by joeldg · · Score: 1

      I normally will *never* respond to a AC post..
      However...
      WTF are you talking about you complete moron?

  21. I wonder who has by JohnnyGTO · · Score: 1

    my 84 ?

    --
    Si vis pacem, para bellum! For evil to succeed good men need only do nothing!
  22. A good first step, but not far enough. by blockhouse · · Score: 2, Insightful

    What we really need is an act that would BAN malware, etc. altogether.

    Not as if it really matters. This bill, if passed, would only drive malware underground, and it'll be much harder to control. Viruses have been illegal for *years* but we all know how much they continue to plague humanity.

  23. 300+ cases by Derg · · Score: 1

    i was doing a bit of a cleanup and secure job on my girlfriends roomates comp yesterday and found well over 300 pieces of spyware and malware, not counting legitimately installed adware. I cannot feasibly imagine how this happened, but most of it seemed to be multiples of each kind, and when counted that way the count is down to about 75 different pieces of crap. guh when will people learn??

    --
    I'm a little tea pot.
  24. Copy Protected CD's by Professor+Calculus · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I wonder if this will destroy SunnComm's copy protected CD model? The CD installs software on a Windows machine without user permission to prevent them from accessing it directly. Obviously this can be bypassed with the infamous Shift Key "Hack" anyway, but it works for most people cause they don't know what it is doing in the background. This bill could force SunnComm to get the user's permission to install the software, and even Joe Shmoe could bypass it then.

    1. Re:Copy Protected CD's by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately, it appears the bill is specifically limited in scope only to cover programs that transmit information about the user, how the computer is used, or things that are stored on the computer to someone else over the Internet.

  25. Only 28? by kyoko21 · · Score: 0, Redundant

    My roommate's computer had over 50 malicious executables that I had to uninstall... talk about a pain in the butt... *sigh*

  26. Not Really Enough by Steinfiend · · Score: 2, Insightful

    A key congressional panel endorsed a bill that would force the makers of spyware to notify users before installing any software on their PCs.

    As someone closely involved in the ISP Tech Support business anything that can help eliminate this problem would be gratefully received. I'm not sure this is going to have ANY effect though. 'Legitimate' (if that's not an oxymoron) spyware installers already notify users through an EULA or similar. The illegitimate ones don't care about the law anyway so will ignore this. What we really need are steep penalties for offenders when they are identified.

    Oh, users who don't click on any message that flashes in front of them without reading it first would be helpful too.

    1. Re:Not Really Enough by gcaseye6677 · · Score: 1

      As you pointed out, spyware companies can certainly word their installation screens and agreements to get around many spyware laws, but I think the most important provision of a spyware law would be the one saying that it is illegal to create self replicating software that was intentionally designed to be difficult to uninstall. That would get rid of the most damaging kinds of spyware, or at least make their creators responsible for the costs of cleaning up infected systems. I would, however, be curious to see what effect a law like this would have on some of the uninstallable Microsoft OS patches and even some of the software (try uninstalling the .net framework).

  27. Sigh.. Below Average Again.. by sparkane · · Score: 2, Funny

    I only have 0 spywares on my ENTIRE network. :(

  28. My law by Apreche · · Score: 0, Troll

    This law is probably going to read something like this...

    If you make spyware you pay fines or get sued or go to jail or something. Obvious loophole included.

    My law would look like this:
    If you get spyware on your computer, you are no longer allowed to use a computer.

    The logic is that you need a license to drive because driving poses a risk to others. Well, I think the rest of this paragraph is implied so I wont bother typing it. Catch my drift?

    --
    The GeekNights podcast is going strong. Listen!
    1. Re:My law by Prod_Deity · · Score: 1

      "My law would look like this:
      If you get spyware on your computer, you are no longer allowed to use a computer."

      You're preaching to the congregation.

    2. Re:My law by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah and if you ever burn your toast once we'll take away your toaster.

      Get my drift?

      Are you saying that people not bright enough to toss Windows and load Linux (or buy a Mac) shouldn't be allowed to use a computer?

      What about the cell phone virusses? Are you going to take away their phones?

      You've drifted beyond reality.

  29. Re:I wonder which 28 are on my ? by awfwal · · Score: 1

    Oh wait... NONE!

  30. 29...30...31...32... by immel · · Score: 3, Funny

    28 pieces of spyware on the drive 28 pieces of spyware Go to download.com get a "Removal app" 29 pieces of spyware on the drive! _
    But seriously, there are a lot of apps out there pretending to be "spyware removal programs" that are actually spyware themselves. ACCEPT NO IMITATIONS!

    --

    10 Bits= $.25
    100 Bits= $.50
    110 Bits= $.75
    1000 Bits= 1 byte
    1. Re:29...30...31...32... by Mesaeus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and most of the small time spyware removers that DO work copied their database from the Spybot and Adaware apps, and then have the gall to ask for money.

    2. Re:29...30...31...32... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      But seriously, there are a lot of apps out there pretending to be "spyware removal programs" that are actually spyware themselves.

      SpyWiper, for instance.

    3. Re:29...30...31...32... by deinol · · Score: 1

      But seriously, there are a lot of apps out there pretending to be "spyware removal programs" that are actually spyware themselves. ACCEPT NO IMITATIONS!

      This is very true. I do computer support for a living, and I am often called to remove spyware and viruses. A recent visit I looked at the computer, saw that it was full of spyware, and went to google to search for the download page to ad-aware. Whatever spyware program was running redirected the search to a page that looked a lot like google, and returned results to sites with "ad aware" which definitely was not produced by lavasoft.

      The spyware makers have been slowly evolving more and more clever programs. Legislation won't really help, except to say yes, this really is bad. As far as I am concerned, they are all viruses anyway.

      Needless to say, I now have a USB flash drive on my keychain with adaware and spybotsd on it, along with a number of symantec's virus removal tools.

      --
      Got Apathy?
  31. Misleading title: it's not the law, only proposed by scruffy · · Score: 2, Informative

    This is only been proposed in one of the two US legistlatures. There are a few hurdles to pass before it becomes law, if ever.

  32. Doh! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Once again, our older and wiser brethren have decided to make laws about issues they certainly know little about. Apparently, someone forgot to tell them that spyware installed by a website hosted in some foriegn countries may not be covered under our U.S. law *gasp*. It's really funny how the election process works.

    1. Vote for someone who wants to be in office whether or not he/she has any real experience.
    2. Watch helplessly as he/she fsck's up your county/city/country for a few years.
    3. Loudly complain about how fscked things are.
    4. Vote for another schmuck who promises to fix things.
    5. Lather, rinse, and repeat.

    It's amazing. If company's were run like countries, the entire world would be an economic cluster-fsck. If law makers were actually required to know a little about things like economics, technology, science, etc., they might actually be able to make laws and regulations that actually help the people they are meant to help, and not the company's/special interests they really help.

  33. HELP slashdot... Movable Type Blog Problems... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    MT problem: http://www.crookedtimber.org/archives/001832.html Soooo, it turns out that moving a Movable Type blog from one host to another using MT's "Import" facilities works OK -- up to a point. An unforeseen problem is that the MT installation in our old home had a couple of other blogs running on it prior to the birth of Crooked Timber. This meant that archived CT posts on that system didn't have IDs starting from 00001.html --- they started from 200-odd. Posts on the new host do have IDs starting from 1 (or 31, actually, for other reasons). The upshot of all this is that if links to this blog are currently broken -- e.g., if you linked to a CT post from a few months ago from your blog, that link will still bring you to this site, but to the wrong post. That's not good. Now. What I want to know from the MT whiz kids who read this blog is, can this be fixed? ...

  34. Possible method of identification and removal by willith · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I deal with a lot of spyware/adware at work, and one of the big problems is that the user usually has no idea why the advert windows are popping up, nor from where they're coming.

    I'd love to see spyware makers be forced to provide a small link at the bottom of *each advert window* that says something like, "This advertisement is being shown to you by $NAME_OF_PROGRAM. Click here for more information." Then, you could click the link and be taken to a page with a brief description of what the program is and what it does, and how to remove it. If it was installed because you installed KaZaa or whatever, it should say so there, too.

    Perhaps I should torture myself further by dreaming up more completely reasonable but totally impossible things...

    1. Re:Possible method of identification and removal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to see spyware makers be forced to provide a small link at the bottom of *each advert window* that says something like, "This advertisement is being shown to you by $NAME_OF_PROGRAM. Click here for more information."

      While I agree with your intent, I seriously doubt that some malware author in eastern upper Albonistan is going to RATGAS. (really and truly give a shit)

    2. Re:Possible method of identification and removal by jesterzog · · Score: 1

      I deal with a lot of spyware/adware at work, and one of the big problems is that the user usually has no idea why the advert windows are popping up, nor from where they're coming.

      I recently helped a friend clean the spyware off her home computer. She certainly wasn't stupid. She'd just installed XP Home and expected it to work, trusting the people who sold it to her. (Well it said it would work on the box.) By the time I got to it, it was missing about the last 15-20 critical updates and it was hopelessly overrun.

      She honestly didn't know what to do. She's constantly run off her feet working, studing by correspondence (for which she needs constant net access) and doing substantial amounts of charity work. Meanwhile whenever she turns on her computer she's bombarded with advertising -- much of it quite disgusting by normal standards. She's absolutely lost control of her web browser (yes, it's IE) which now constantly and randomly redirects her to websites that she clearly doesn't want to look at. If she leaves her computer unattended for more than an hour it's almost guaranteed that the desktop will be full of porn advertisments in a place where her kids can easily walk past and see them.

      On an unpatched system, it'd collapsed to this state within the space of a couple of months. Presumably a spyware app or two had snuck in through security holes and proceeded to install massive amounts of additional spyware.

      So I spent a couple of hours installing and running adaware, installing the past X number of critical updates, and doing what else I could. Even then it left all the crap on the start menu and desktop -- sometimes hidden in other program folders -- and we probably didn't pick up all of the applications. I'd have suggested a complete reinstallation except she simply doesn't have the time to spare right now.

      We also went through the Add/Remove programs dialog and snared a couple of apps there, although some of them really didn't want to leave. I know this isn't going to get everything, but it's amazing how much we still found. Ironically she was very uneasy at leaving these things called "HotFixes" installed. To the uninformed who's frantically trying to recover from porn-promoting spyware, it looks just like more spyware. Microsoft seriously needs to reconsider its naming scheme.

      Lots of people (especially on slashdot) seem to label others as stupid if they don't keep their system up-to-date, but I think that's completely unfair. Ignorant is a much fairer and more representative description, and it shouldn't be expected that everyone will take time out of their day to understand their computer any more than people might take time out to understand their microwave or their car.

      I really do think that desktop computers have become too complex. The same box is expected to do a million different things, and because of that there's more to understand than most people are ever likely to comfortably learn.

  35. Misleading Statistic by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The statistic "the average user has 28 spyware programs" is misleading at least if not plain wrong.

    Two reasons:

    - The Earthlink studied counted certain cookies as spyware. Whether some cookies are spyware or not is debatable. However, cookies *are not* spyware programs.

    - The average user is the wrong metric to look at. The median would have been more relevant.

    Personally I think most users have a small number of *spyware programs*. But lots of cookies.

  36. Not what you think by z0ink · · Score: 2, Informative
    Safeguard Against Privacy Invasions Act - Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit the transmission of a spyware program to a covered computer (one used by a financial institution or the Federal Government) by means of the Internet, unless the user of the computer expressly consents to such transmission in response to a clear and conspicuous request or through an affirmative request for such transmission.

    It looks like this bill is only designed to protect banks and their own boxes. Better luck next time Average Joe American.
    --
    Steal This Sig
    1. Re:Not what you think by qbwiz · · Score: 1

      Luckily, Spyware programs are indiscriminate on which computers they install. Claria (Gator) and other companies might soon be destroyed by this law, which would fix the problem.

      --
      Ewige Blumenkraft.
  37. Alarmist or facetious? by fname · · Score: 3, Insightful

    28 spyware programs? No, that's not at all what Earthlink said. They did I study counting the number of spyware programs, adware programs and tracking cookies, and found an average of 28 per computer. Someone, either malevolently or ignorantly, decided to trumpet this as 28 spyware programs per PC. Even though the number seems on the face of it absurd (it is), most reporters and Slashdotters don't bother digging in & figuring out what the number really means.

    So I don't know if the writer & editor thought it was funny or true, but either way, stating that the average computer has 28 instances of spyware is outright false.

    1. Re:Alarmist or facetious? by fname · · Score: 3, Informative

      OK, I found some links to back up my claims. First, here is the initial BBC article mis-characterizing Earthlink's study. Here's a guy who did some shoe-leather work to point out the falsehood in Earthlink's study, along with some more helpful links. Enjoy.

    2. Re:Alarmist or facetious? by fname · · Score: 2, Informative

      Sorry to keep replying to myself. But I would be remiss if I didn't point out that Earthlink intentionally tried to mislead the press & the public when they trumpeted their results by creating their own definitition of spyware. Only 0.35 real spyware programs er computer, by the way. Here's Earthlink's original press release, and the actual report. I still blame the press for dropping the ball, anyone who bothered to read the actual report would know that the press release & headline is a bunch of hot air.

    3. Re:Alarmist or facetious? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thank you, I was plowing down the page looking for someone who would notice this error and point it out. After all, when I do a scan on my windows box I'll find 5 or 6 cookies, does this mean I have 5 or 6 spyware programs installed? Of course not, just means I've gone to a couple sites that have cookies used in a slightly different way than intended. This is just another figure from earthlink to trump up their service because they want the average user to think that these problems go away the second you switch to earthlink, not that *GASP* the user has to think before clicking on that Yes to security permission.

    4. Re:Alarmist or facetious? by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

      While you're right the press release is trumpeting the results of the report, the numbers don't pan out to 0.35. Adware is spyware, though a relatively benign form. Michael Moncur obviously would like to only include the total system monitors and the trojans. If you include adware, the figure goes up to ~5.38 such programs per Earthlink scanned computer. I wonder if that includes email viruses or worms. It seems clear to me that spyware is any software that spies on a user and sends that information to a 3rd party. Though by that definition, Windows Media Player is spyware.

      --
      Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  38. Spyware awareness by Synkronos · · Score: 1

    If nothing else (it will be extremely difficult to police, after all), this bill will hopefully increase spyware awareness amongst the average n00b user. While most users are aware of the need for up-to-date antivirus packages, especially after the recent spate of high-profile hits, most are blissfully unaware of programs like Spybot Search and Destroy or Lavasoft AdAware, which I feel are just as critical a part of my security armoury as my firewall (ZoneAlarm) and my AV (NAV).

    On a slight aside, Norton AV does include a certain amount of spyware scanning in their latest version (NAV 2004).

    --
    Playing poker with a joker and some Uno cards
  39. My bad by awfwal · · Score: 1

    That was suppose to say (!windows)

    I guess that's what the preview button is for. Duh.

    1. Re:My bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironic. You just demonstrated the nature of the problem (idiot users who are incapable of performing simple tasks).

  40. what earthlink used... by fugas · · Score: 1

    for anyone interested, this is the spyware scanner tool that was by used EarthLink to come up with their stats.

  41. Spyware situation out of hand by amaiman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The spyware situation on the Internet is really starting to get out of hand. Every time someone asks me to fix their computer, it's loaded down with spyware. I remove it, and then a week later it's full of it again.

    The problem lies in several places:

    1) Users running insecure operating systems and browsers. This isn't going to change, your average user is going to continue to use Windows and IE.

    2) User stupidity. "Hey, that message says there's a problem with my computer, I'd better click 'Yes' to fix it." or "It said I had to click 'Yes' to enter that web site." User stupidity is also not going to change any time soon.

    3) The creators of the spyware viruses. I would call many of these programs viruses, because in my opinion, any software unintentionally installed that resists removal attempts is a virus. Even with anti-spyware software, some of these things are a real pain to remove from a machine.

    Legislation is a step in the right direction, however it's not going to solve the problem, since the Internet is global. The spyware companies will also find loophooles/small print and other ways to keep doing what they're doing anyway. Writing viruses is illegal, and people still do that on a consistent basis.

    The only solution to the spyware program is a targeted campaign to teach users how to recognize spyware and not get it installed in the first place. Combine that with a list of common software that installs scumware (such as RealOne Player) and educational materials on how to install real anti-spyware software (not just more spyware that claims to be), and then we can slowly start to move towards lowering the number of infected machines.

  42. What about (insert bad thing) from Outside US? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1

    Even if the law works perfectly in this country (doubtful), there's still a big world full of Bad Guys out there, willing to send you shit over the dub-dub-dub.

    --

    They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    1. Re:What about (insert bad thing) from Outside US? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
      Are you suggesting it is time to turn off all connections outside one's country? That seems like a step backwards to me.

      Personally, I think the solution is to lose the idea of client-side Internet installation and processing, period. If a web server wants to show you something, it can bear the brunt of displaying the animation, running the CGI, etc.

      No flash, no java, no director, no VBscripting, no ActiveX, no subrosa plugins, no "new windows" or popups, no NOTHING.

      In the context of web surfing, web sites would deliver server side programs, image files, animation files, straight HTML, and CGI forms. Nothing else. In such an environment, we can share information just fine, but we can't share infections by web surfing. You should have to do something different - like an FTP download and subsequent extraction and install - if you want to actually let something run on your computer.

      --
      I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
    2. Re:What about (insert bad thing) from Outside US? by Esion+Modnar · · Score: 1
      Are you suggesting it is time to turn off all connections outside one's country?

      Nope. Quite the opposite. Like it or not, the Internet is a worldwide medium. (And I happen to like that!) Passing this law or that is not going to matter a whit to those outside our borders. They will continue to write and distribute programs however they see fit.

      What our esteemed members of Congress don't get, is that to the majority of the Internet populace, their (Congress's) actions are irrelevant.

      So until we have One World Government (don't want that either, thanks), legal (as opposed to technical) approaches to computer annoyances, are doomed to failure and/or simply being ignored.

      --

      They say the first thing to go is your penis. Well, it's either that or your brain. I forget which...
    3. Re:What about (insert bad thing) from Outside US? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's what the spammer who's currently living in an old nuclear missile silo thinks, but let me explain my thoughts on this...

      You are a citizen of this country. You have to abide by the laws of this country. If you pay someone outside this country to commit illegal acts within this country, you are still guilty of breaking the law. If you hire a hitman to kill someone, you don't get to run off scott free when the plot is uncovered.

      Companies who want to do business in this country, again, have to abide by the laws of this country. If they affect the citizens and other companies in this country, they will find themselves penalized. Only by companies leaving this country completely can they avoid this. Just as I can't open up a bookstore in Germany and start selling neo-nazi propaganda without penalty, they cannot open up shop here and ignore the local laws.

      Therefore this global theory of yours only works if two guys in the Czech Republic figure out how to make cash from US citizens without ever setting foot in our country. And seeing how most of the time the ideas that come up in those situations revolve around bank fraud, even then they can't avoid punishment since the Czech Republic will extradite their sorry asses (assuming they don't get lynched).

      As for how to catch the aformentioned missile silo guy? He has to file his taxes like everyone else. And if he's making money off illegal acts, it's going to be all nice and documented in his books. And if it's not, he's guilty of tax evasion.

  43. Definition of Spyware by i8a4re · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Since we all know how technical majority of politicians are, I can just see them basing this whole bill on the definition of spyware. If you ask any of the companies that make spyware if their product is spyware, everyone will say that it isn't. This is just going to lead to millions of dollars being wasted on deliberations as to the definition of spyware etc.

    This bill it just an attempt to treat one problem. Why don't they make an ethical software bill where all software is required to follow certain standards. Don't worry about the user being informed of the reporting of their personal info. There are too many ways to legally get the consent of the user like a 349575 page EULA. Just focus on things like being easy to find and uninstall. This would make all spyware as we know it illegal. Also, required all software list the legal name of the individual(s) or company that developed the software.

    While I think that spyware and virus writers should be summarily executed, we all know that it is better to treat the source of the problem. Do something like imposing a small fine for every piece of software they install on your computer without giving you the ability to uninsall it with less than 10 clicks and no visiting a website (that doesn't exist) to complete the uninstall process. Figure $5 per violation, they'll be out of busines in no time.

    --

    If I drive fast enough at the red light, it'll appear green.
    1. Re:Definition of spyware by macdaddy357 · · Score: 4, Informative
      28 programs is reasonable. I am a computer repair technician, and spend every day cleaning up this garbage for people. If you count the cookies, and not just actual programs, then the average user has over one hundred spyware items.

      The common user never imagines that just clicking on a pop-up window, hoping that will make it go away gives someone the right to take over their computer. They don't "get it" that kazaa is bundled with spyware either.

      As for EULAs, even if people did read those things, they are in legalese jargon. No one understands that gabbledegook, so no one can possibly give informed consent to it.

      I see a lot of brand new computers running like a 386 trying to use Windows XP because of spyware. I am surprised more people haven't given up on computers completely. If this new law is as full of loopholes as it seems, then people swearing off computers is still the inevitable result of spyware.

      --
      How ya like dat?
    2. Re:Definition of spyware by Slack3r78 · · Score: 1

      I work doing computer maintenance, and trust me, 28 is lowballing it. These days, most of the machines we get in are having trouble with viruses and spyware, and it's not unusual to see a machine with 30 or 40 spyware programs running. If you were including tracking cookies, it very easily gets into the hundreds. Remember, we're not talking about your average slashdot reader; we're talking about your average clueless user. There's a world of difference.

    3. Re:Definition of spyware by rrowv · · Score: 1

      No, its very easy to get that many. When you first get that one piece of VX2.BetterInternet (as happened to me a few days ago), it will just download a new spyware every half hour. I ended up with 9 programs within a few hours on my laptop. These aren't just cookies. They're independant programs. Needless to say that laptop was flattened afterward. It can happen if you get nailed badly enough.

    4. Re:Definition of spyware by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      28 is probably what you get when you average the slashdot readers with the AOL users.

      And remember, the people who take their computer for repair are probably worse than average.

    5. Re:Definition of spyware by Kryxan · · Score: 1
      speaking of repair. Anyone who takes their computer to a repair place and forks over $100 just to reformat their computer is definitly below average. trust me, I have known some of these people. They would rather pay someone than let me do it for free cause I might mess something up. Maybe I should go get my A+ ceritfication just so i can point at something to say im not a moron.

      anyway, I had a point here, oh yeah. its a bell curve like everything else. most of us have 0 spyware, maybe a dozen or fewer items for some of us if you count the cookies. its people like us who skew the curve over so much, because so many of us have no spyware. I have seen computers with over 100 items of spyware programs, plus the registry entries to keep these programs alive if you try to delete them. i have known people to ententionally install spyware like gator because it has some useful feature, far be it from me to know what that was, but they would insist they needed it. and most people think who cares when i tell them they have spyware, they seem to think that its ok to have someone watch what they do on the net, to slow down thier computers, and waste space on thier hard drive.

      the fact that we need legilation to protect some of us from our own stupidity is just frightening.

    6. Re:Definition of spyware by WD_40 · · Score: 1

      I too do computer repair/service as a side business and 28 is quite low. The other day I fixed a computer with (including tracking cookies, registry entries, the whole shebang) had over 2,500 items. Before I cleaned it up, the computer was unusable.

      --

      "With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine." -- RFC 1925

    7. Re:Definition of spyware by LabRat007 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I primarily do onsite repair for home users in my area of the states. I continually run into top end machines that can't even funtion because of the number of spyware items running. Its become the most common service call I get. Kinda crazy but spyware has actually made me a whole lot of cash (I'm not a bastard about it though - I show all the customers how to use adaware at the end of the day). My person largest number found to date is 1335 items (mostly tracking cookies but still - damn!) Whats yours?

      --
      "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
    8. Re:Definition of spyware by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      28 programs is reasonable. I am a computer repair technician, and spend every day cleaning up this garbage for people. If you count the cookies, and not just actual programs, then the average user has over one hundred spyware items.

      Yeah, but you (and the other repair techs who replied) only see computers that are already experiencing technical difficulties (and that are mostly owned by computer neophytes).

      -a

    9. Re:Definition of spyware by eponymous+flower · · Score: 0

      I've only seen a couple users' computers that had more than a few hundred Windows spybots, but last week I worked on a computer that had 8000+ variations of the latest Windows viruses and worms.

      --
      You say self-important egomaniac like it's a bad thing. - Peter Dragon
    10. Re:Definition of spyware by Master+of+Transhuman · · Score: 1

      Excuse me - most computers ARE owned by "computer neophytes" by definition.

      And how many people do you think are doing business these days cleaning spyware off home computers? I just started my tech support business and out of my first 3 clients, I had one with spyware it took me two visits to get rid of since it had registry keys and dlls all over hell on the machine. Ad-Aware was not enough for this thing.

      Or do you think there are half a billion Windows MCSE's out there?

      Oh, wait, MCSE's...Maybe you're right.

      --
      Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
    11. Re:Definition of spyware by Jhorid · · Score: 1

      2081 (ad-aware using the default smart system-scan) Win ME computer. My customer use this computer at work(!) for accounting(!), e-mail and various web surfing ;)

    12. Re:Definition of spyware by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      Anyone who takes their computer to a repair place and forks over $100 just to reformat their computer is definitly below average.

      Not having any computer intelligence does not make a person "below average". Just because something is common sense for you or me, doesn't mean everyone knows what's common. I'm sure the grammar, punctuation and spelling of your post would drive an English teacher crazy.

      You'll hopefully figure that out in your life. I'm guessing you're below 22, and meeting old guys with that attitude is often a bad thing. Makes me think of narrow minded religious belt types. Although, I've met some really brilliant engineers that are like that. You can't make any rock solid stereotypes about people.

      We've always had legislation to prevent us from our own stupidity. Too many lawyers. Let people kill and injure themselves and say, "Well, you knew smoking was bad for you. Your cancer doesn't deserve you getting any money from the tobacco companies".

      I'm ending this before I fall off my soapbox and hurt myself.

    13. Re:Definition of spyware by Arcanix · · Score: 1

      A friend of mine who has an extremely old computer with Windows 95 running on it but has broadband access asked me to take a look at his computer because it was freezing up when it booted to the desktop. I ran Spybot S&D and he had at least 40 different spyware (Spybot removed 10,000 registry entries or files) that would run on startup, of course this computer had gone 5 years without any removal so it's really not that suprising.

    14. Re:Definition of spyware by Vexar · · Score: 1

      They mean the average earthlink user has 28 spyware programs. Think about that a minute. That is quite an accomplishment if it isn't cookies. I mean, you'd have to be hitting a true variety of sites to accomplish that. I know there are more than 28 spyware programs out there, but goshers!

    15. Re:Definition of spyware by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      Excuse me - most computers ARE owned by "computer neophytes" by definition.

      Neophyte means "newly converted". I don't see how that follows from the definition.

      -a

    16. Re:Definition of spyware by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 1

      Not having any computer intelligence does not make a person "below average".

      Hmmm... well actually, given that some people do have computer intelligence, not having any computer intelligence does make you below average in terms of computer intelligence.

      -a

    17. Re:Definition of spyware by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      Well, golly! Next time you come into my shop with mechanical problems, and I hose your ass, please keep that in mind.

      Just make sure you mention, "slashdot" when I write your report so I can add an extra $700. That's how it works with Rolls-Royce customers. The RR add-up is sad, but true. The shop I worked for, would NOT let a RR customer out without spending $1,000.00 dollars.

    18. Re:Definition of spyware by LabRat007 · · Score: 1

      Like just using ME isn't bad enough. Poor Bastard.

      --
      "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
    19. Re:Definition of spyware by fizzboy · · Score: 1

      I personally have found over 2400 items on one computer that I worked on. A coworker then smashed my record by finding over 4000. He forgot to screenshot it, though.

      --
      -- "Never call your girlfriend 'Butterball'. Not even once."
    20. Re:Definition of spyware by LabRat007 · · Score: 1

      Hell, now I'm thinking I might just do a fresh install on one of my systems and try for the record. Maybe it could develope into some sort of poorly concieved sport. ;)

      --
      "Capital punishment makes the state into a murderer. Imprisonment makes the state into a gay dungeon-master"
  44. /. Story covering earthlink study by Pahalial · · Score: 1

    here - don't know why this link wasn't in the story itself, but if anyone has any questions about those figures, go there.

    --
    Stuff.
  45. Re:My law (correction) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Using an unnetworked computer is like using a car on your own private race track.

    Using a *networked* computer poses a risk to others.

    Your law should look like this:
    "If you get spyware on your computer, then your Internet connection gets yanked."

  46. Definition of spyware by God!+Awful+2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Do they mean 28 actual spyware programs? That seems pretty hard to swallow. Or do they mean 28 tracking cookies (which are OS independent).

    -a

  47. More indepth read by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 1

    FULL DETAILS: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:H.R.292 9:

    Major highlights (and these are some BIG things people):

    REGULATION OF EULA's:
    (1) LOCATION OF LICENSE AGREEMENT- The terms of such license, contract, or agreement shall be set forth on a World Wide Web page and the mechanism by which the user of the covered computer agrees to such license, contract, or agreement shall be included on the same page.

    (2) NOTICE- The terms of the license, contract, or other agreement shall--

    (A) include provisions, that are clearly stated and prominently displayed, which specify that agreement to such license, contract, or other agreement constitutes consent to transmission of the spyware for purposes of subsection (a); and

    (B) clearly explain the purpose of including the spyware.

    REQUIRES COMPANY IDENTIFICATION:
    (3) IDENTIFICATION- The name of the person or entity transmitting the spyware, a valid physical street address of such person or entity, and a functioning return electronic mail address for such person or entity shall be included on the World Wide Web page referred to in paragraph (1).

    ENFORCEMENT
    (a) ENFORCEMENT THROUGH FTC ACT-

    (1) UNFAIR OR DECEPTIVE ACT OR PRACTICE- A violation of any provision of this Act or any regulation issued under this Act is an unfair or deceptive act or practice unlawful under section 5(a)(1) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45(a)(1)).

    (2) GUIDELINES AND OPINIONS- In order to assist in compliance with this Act, the Federal Trade Commission may issue generally applicable guidelines and, upon request, advisory opinions with respect to specific types of acts or practices that would, or would not, comply with this Act.

    (b) CRIMINAL PENALTIES- Whoever--

    (1) violates section 2(c) or the regulations issued under such section, or

    (2) knowingly violates any other provision of this Act or any regulation issued under this Act,

    shall be fined under title 18, United States Code, or imprisoned for not more than 1 year, or both.

    --
    Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
    Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
    1. Re:More indepth read by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      So, if this act does what it claims, it should technically make the (recently mentioned on Slashdot in the Games section) Starforce copy protection illegal, because that installs and modifies your system without informing you.

    2. Re:More indepth read by MSZ · · Score: 1

      Which would be a good thing.

      All these invasive "copy protection" systems do little to hinder illegal distribution but make honest users' life difficult.

      --
      The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
    3. Re:More indepth read by Goldberg's+Pants · · Score: 1

      Not denying it's a good thing AT ALL. I just had to remove that Starforce shit from my system due to the fact is fucked over my CD writer.

      I hope it does pass. As you say, NONE of these protections defeat piracy in any way, they just fuck over legitimate consumers, and unless you're tech savvy, you have no idea why your CD writer just choked, you're external hard drive just got destroyed etc... (all "side effects" of Starforce I've seen happen to people.)

  48. Timezone difference, probably by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The good ole UK gets a five-hour jump because of the way the shape of the Earth creates night, and human physiology requiring sleep, and human society preferring to sleep at night.... :-)

  49. Since You Asked... by reallocate · · Score: 4, Informative

    First, the BBC doesn't have a scoop. I've been reading about the story for days. This piece is almost certainly a pickup from Reuters or another agency. (If it was a Beeb piece, the story would have a Beeb byline.)

    Second, you haven't seen it on the evening TV news because it isn't that much of a story. The bill, one of several on the same issue, made it through one House subcommittee. If it passes and is signed into law, then it might merit mentioning on "major US media outlets?.

    If spyware wasn't in the news this week, you'd likely not be seeing this story get any play at all. The story is, in fact, getting play because it make a nice sidebar for the other story this week about most PC's being infested with dozens of spyware programs.

    --
    -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    1. Re:Since You Asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Second, you haven't seen it on the evening TV news because it isn't that much of a story. The bill, one of several on the same issue, made it through one House subcommittee. If it passes and is signed into law, then it might merit mentioning on "major US media outlets?.

      If bills only make the news when they are passed, how are you supposed to write to your congressman and tell them that they are terrible and shouldn't be passed / brilliant and should be passed?

    2. Re:Since You Asked... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      The world is full of information that doesn't make the evening news every day. Like what happens in Congress. Try looking for it.

      Unless, of course, you'd rather sit on your duff and wait for someone else to tell you what's going on...and then bitch and whine because you don't know anything.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    3. Re:Since You Asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if it's a law that is important enough to mention on the news when it's passed, then surely it's important enough mention *before* it's passed?

    4. Re:Since You Asked... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Sure, let's invent time travel so newscasters can go back and report on a new law as soon as it's introduced.

      The Congress passes hundreds of bills each session. Do you expect the media to predict which will pass and which won't?

      In any case, nothing has happened here. Congress has not passed this bill. The bill survived a vote in a single committee. (That committee probably has a website, too, so you could look it up and see what it says about this issue.) It will be considered by other committees before, and if, it comes to a vote in the House. If it passes there, then it goes on to the Senate.

      As I said, except for this week's scare sotry about spyware, the BBC had no reason to run this story. Committee votes on bills happen every day, plus there are several other similar spyware bills under consideration, as well. The fact that one of them was just approved by one committee gave the agency that wrote this piece (Reuters, I suspect) a good hook.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    5. Re:Since You Asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You completely misunderstood what I was saying. I didn't say "mention the ones that will get passed". I said "if they are important enough to mention when they get passed, then they are important enough to mention beforehand".

    6. Re:Since You Asked... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      Again, how is anyone supposed to know beforehand which bills will be passed, important or not?

      Let's say a dozen bills are introduced dealing with the same subject. Let's then suppose that a news outlet decides the subject is important. Do you expe ct them to report on each of the 12 bills, or to, somehow, predict which one will actually pass?

      As I said earlier, if a bill is important to you, you don't need to rely on the media. You can follow its progress in Congress yourself.

      Besides, the media's job is not to decide what's important. Their job is to provide content of interest to the widest possible audience.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    7. Re:Since You Asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, how is anyone supposed to know beforehand which bills will be passed, important or not?

      Again, you've missed my point. I'm not saying "mention the ones that will be passed". I'm saying "mention the important ones". It's plain English. If you are in any way confused, please re-read until you get it.

      Let's say a dozen bills are introduced dealing with the same subject.

      Then report the ones that are likely to get the most backing and highlight the major differences between them. And how common is it that a dozen similar bills are introduced at the same time anyway?

    8. Re:Since You Asked... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      >>'I'm saying "mention the important ones"

      To repeat, who's to say what's important? Do you want the media to decide this? How? You're beating on one example of something you think is important that wasn't reported to your liking. The fact that you think this issue is important doesn't mean either that it is important or that the mass media should cover it.

      >>"how common is it that a dozen similar bills are introduced at the same time..."

      Very.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    9. Re:Since You Asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To repeat, who's to say what's important? Do you want the media to decide this? How?

      They already decide which are important and which aren't. They just do it after they have passed, by which time it's too late. Your original post:

      If it passes and is signed into law, then it might merit mentioning on "major US media outlets?.

      I hate repeating myself, but you aren't listening to what I am saying.

      If it's a law that is important enough to mention on the news when it's passed, then surely it's important enough to mention *before* it's passed?

      I'm not arguing the merits of mentioning this particular law above others. I'm arguing the merits of reporting while there's still time to do something about them against reporting on things that have already passed into law.

      If you don't get this, please just re-read the thread until you do. It's all there in plain English. At no point do I say that this law should get extra special attention. At no point do I address the mechanism for deciding whether a law is important or not. Those issues are othogonal to this one.

    10. Re:Since You Asked... by reallocate · · Score: 1

      >>"f it's a law that is important enough to mention on the news when it's passed, then surely it's important enough to mention *before* it's passed?"

      The anser to that is: No.

      Again, I ask: How are the media to determine what is important enough to merit reporting? Thousands of bills are introduced every session. Each of those bills is considered important by someone. Are the media to report on all of them simply to avoid the charge that that they are evading their responsibility?

      And, again, how are the media to forecast which bill will pass and be signed by the President? Are they to waste their customers' time reporting on "important" legislation that is, in the end, defeated?

      No. The media are not responsible for deciding what legislation is important. The media are responsible for reporting newsworthy material, not for providing the American public with a daily primer on the routine activities of government. Each indvividual, not the media, has the responsibility to remain informed about any piece of leglislation he believes is important. That information is freely available in the public record.

      --
      -- Slashdot: When Public Access TV Says "No"
    11. Re:Since You Asked... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Again, I ask: How are the media to determine what is important enough to merit reporting?

      And again, I say: they already determine this. If you can't follow a simple English sentence, responding to you is pointless. Goodbye.

  50. IE cache by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Clear IE cache and that will remove a lot of the tracking spyware cookies which show up as spyware. Then the spyware checkers will run faster.

  51. Misleading study by wolfemi1 · · Score: 3, Funny

    "A study by EarthLink found that the average user has 28 spyware programs on their computer!"

    No, the average EarthLink user has 28 spyware programs on their computer :P

  52. Business opportunity! by eyepeepackets · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Perhaps some quality folks like Google can offer up a service whereby Joe Sixpack can browse to a website and get his Winbomb box serviced, much like he takes his car to a service station: He pulls up to the website, orders a cleanup/tuneup from the website, website cleans all the crap off his machine, checks his security settings, makes a few recommendations with the offer to do it for him on the spot, shows him a few ads whilst the PC is being serviced and then waves goodbye, telling him that his machine is being rebooted and will be ready to roll after it comes back up.

    What is that old adage? When faced with a bunch of lemons, make lemon pie? I forget but you get the idea.

    --
    Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
    1. Re:Business opportunity! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like a great idea! and we can fund it by bundling adware in the ActiveX cleanup tool!

  53. It can't be 28. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm sure it's not 28 spyware programs, but rather 28 things which adaware or spybot finds and theres a big difference between the two. And does that number include tracking cookies? (i wouldn't count that as spyware anyway)

  54. Article is a little light on details. by mahbidness · · Score: 1

    Full body of the bill in question (H.R. 2929), researched here:

    HR 2929 IH
    108th CONGRESS
    1st Session

    H. R. 2929 To protect users of the Internet from unknowing transmission of their personally identifiable information through spyware programs, and for other purposes.
    IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
    July 25, 2003
    Mrs. BONO (for herself and Mr. TOWNS) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on Energy and Commerce

    A BILL
    To protect users of the Internet from unknowing transmission of their personally identifiable information through spyware programs, and for other purposes.

    • Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

    SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    • This Act may be cited as the `Safeguard Against Privacy Invasions Act'.

    SEC. 2. FTC AUTHORITY TO REGULATE TRANSMISSION OF SPYWARE PROGRAMS.

    • (a) PROHIBITION OF TRANSMISSION WITHOUT CONSENT- The Federal Trade Commission shall, by regulation, prohibit the transmission of a spyware program to a covered computer by means of the Internet, unless the user of the covered computer expressly consents to such transmission in response to a clear and conspicuous request for such consent or through an affirmative request for such transmission.
    • (b) TRANSMISSION PURSUANT TO LICENSE AGREEMENTS- The Federal Trade Commission shall, by regulation, establish requirements for the transmission of a spyware program to a covered computer, by means of the Internet, in any case in which the transmission of the spyware program, or any information, program, or communication together or in connection with which the spyware program is transmitted, requires any affirmative action on the part of the user of the covered computer to agree to a license, contract, or other agreement which is made available on the World Wide Web, as follows:
      • (1) LOCATION OF LICENSE AGREEMENT- The terms of such license, contract, or agreement shall be set forth on a World Wide Web page and the mechanism by which the user of the covered computer agrees to such license, contract, or agreement shall be included on the same page.
      • (2) NOTICE- The terms of the license, contract, or other agreement shall--
      • (A) include provisions, that are clearly stated and prominently displayed, which specify that agreement to such license, contract, or other agreement constitutes consent to transmission of the spyware for purposes of subsection (a); and
      • (B) clearly explain the purpose of including the spyware.
      • (3) IDENTIFICATION- The name of the person or entity transmitting the spyware, a valid physical street address of such person or entity, and a functioning return electronic mail address for such person or entity shall be included on the World Wide Web page referred to in paragraph (1).
    • (c) NOTICE OF COLLECTION OF PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION- The Federal Trade Commission shall, by regulation, prohibit the use of any spyware program that is transmitted to a covered computer by means of the Internet for collecting any personally identifiable information from the covered computer, unless notice that the program will be used for such collection is provided--
      • (1) in any license, contract, or other agreement covering the spyware program or the information, program, or communication together with which, or in connection with which, the spyware program is transmitted; and
      • (2) in another prominent location, as the Commission shall provide.

    SEC. 3. ENFORCEMENT.

    • (a) ENFORCEMENT THROUGH FTC AC
    --

    "It is a solemn thought: dead, the noblest man's meat is inferior to pork."

    1. Re:Article is a little light on details. by UnCivil+Liberty · · Score: 1

      Also refer to the Amendment entitled the SPY ACT ("Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act") linked to above.

      --
      Distributed proteome folding @ WorldCommunityGrid.org
      Team Slashdot - Members:#1 Run Time:#1 Points:#1 Results:#1
  55. On the other hand... by AntiOrganic · · Score: 1

    You don't think they'd be saving a ton of money on tech support calls for "MY COMPUTAR IS FLOODED WITH POPUPS" if they would put some sensible policies to place to deflect spyware? I'm quite convinced that the money wasted on supporting these people far outweighs the profits they bring in from the odd user who buys a new computer instead of popping in the System Restore CD.

    1. Re:On the other hand... by MBCook · · Score: 2, Insightful
      That's a very good question. But many of the people that I deal with have basically given up on tech support for such things because it's such a paint to call. Long hold times, people who can't speak English or have a very heavy accent, terrible suggestions (want to change your wallpaper? Reinstall Windows), etc. They avoid tech support many times, just like I do. They only call for MAJOR things (computer won't turn on, can't get sound, etc). For things like "X crashes" or such.

      It probably is more profitable to take those few calls and sell new systems. I guess they can't account for the hidden factor that shipping ad-aware (or other such software) would not only lower tech support calls, it would probably encourge good will and customer satisfaction which means more sales and more referals to the company. But factors like that are hard to track, so they go for the instant sales.

      This is all speculation. If someone has 1st hand knowledge, I'd LOVE to hear it.

      --
      Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
    2. Re:On the other hand... by rocca · · Score: 1

      No, most call their ISP for stuff like that unfortunately.

  56. But now how will I know by foidulus · · Score: 1

    what products I am supposed to buy, since the "helpful" computer won't tell me anymore?

  57. Removing Spyware - a Primer by Fourmica · · Score: 5, Informative

    I'm head desktop geek for a publishing company in the United States, and I spend more time dealing with this crap than any other single problem.

    I've been getting asked quite a bit lately what exactly it is I do when I clean up someone's machine. The problem is, while some of my techniques are easily documentable, alot of it comes from just eyeballing the situation and figuring out what doesn't look right.

    I watch the Slashdot threads regarding spyware often and, until recently, have merely lurked. Today I registered, so I can share this with everyone. It may be a bit off topic, but let us be real - legislation isn't going to take care of this problem anymore than it has spam. Some of you probably know all this already, but I hope that those who don't get some use out of it. Obviously I can't take any responsibility if you screw up your computer, so be careful out there!

    Note: Use Mozilla or Firefox. Not using IE will prevent 99% of all spyware infection. I highly recommend it, for yourself and your friends and family. This is the number one step you can take to prevent spyware and hijacking, as well as preventing weekend trips to the inlaws/cousins/siblings to clean up their infected machines :-)

    What is Spyware?

    Spyware, Adware, Malware, Crapware, Roachware (because just when you think you've gotten them all...); all of these terms refer to a virus-like category of software which is placed on a computer for the purpose of generating revenue, usually either by displaying popup ads, redirecting search requests from within the browser, or collecting demographic information.

    The programs themselves can end up in a number of different places:

    - As an item in the Run key in the registry (the listing of startup programs you
    see in MSConfig) - Specifically,
    HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\Software\Microso ft\Windows\Curr entVersion\Run or
    HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Microsoft\Windows\C urre ntVersion\Run

    - As a Browser Helper Object (BHO), a class of ActiveX control originally designed for extensions to Internet Explorer, such as Toolbars. The Google Toolbar, Yahoo! Companion, and Acrobat Reader plugin are all examples of BHOs

    - As a link, EXE or DLL file which is placed in a URL, such as a default Search URL or the Home Page. IE uses a set of URLs to control its automatic search behavior. When these URLs are triggered - or the home page is opened - either the page is opened containing ads which the URL is designed to impress, or the EXE or DLL is called to generate popups, verify it is still installed, etc

    - As a registered DLL which is loaded on startup as an operating system component (Nasty!)

    For the executable files loaded on startup, these programs - in addition to their main ad generating function - will generally check to see if their components are still properly installed, and if they are not, they will reinstall themselves. This is why you will often see spyware mysteriously come back after you think you've succeeded in removing it.

    Many of these programs will also alter Home Page and Search URL strings, so that every time the browser is opened or a search takes place, an ad impression or page hit is generated by the program's controller.

    The nastiest of all these programs will have more than one process running at any given time, watching its companion processes - so that if you kill one, its partner launches itself again. It's like Whack-a-Mole, but without the cheap prizes they give you for tickets.

    Most of this stuff gets installed piggyback with things like Comet Cursor, browser "skinners", various toolbars, downloadable games, etc. The nasty ones, however, will use security holes in IE to install themselves without the user having any clue. Others act as "gateway programs" - once one of them gets on, the others get carte blanche.

    Now that you've got the basics on what this stuff is, it's time to look at removal techniques.

    --
    *** formica has quit IRC (connection reset by phear)
    1. Re:Removing Spyware - a Primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Just a small note about the host file. I have run into a virus of some kind that places a whole bunch of entries for 127.0.0.1 that pointed to all the antivirus sites that I knew about (even their update servers) easy to fix, but it isn't detected by any program that I know of, just makes it impossible to update any of the AV programs.

    2. Re:Removing Spyware - a Primer by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      Most spyware comes disguised as the divx player or gatorsoft comment cursers or the weatherbug from aol.

      I use to use these programs and had no idea they were spyware untill I became educated in this manner.

      To this day I can not watch my own porn because they require divx which in turn installs SPYWARE!

      Tell the average joe that? IE is not the problem and can be patched to make it more secure.

      Its the stupid commit curses "Would you like to install" fruad that is going on.

    3. Re:Removing Spyware - a Primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you install divx codecs from within a codec pack it will not install the spyware, i prefer the k-lite mega codec pack

    4. Re:Removing Spyware - a Primer by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      I never heard of the codec packs? I assumed it had to only come from Divx. I will take a look.

    5. Re:Removing Spyware - a Primer by Camel+Pilot · · Score: 1

      Thanks for joining and sharing this information which is timely for me since I spent the entire morning cleaning up my kids computer.

      One other site I have found useful is here that gives a good run down on some of the unidentified tasks in your task list. The site appears to be a bit dated as some of the newer spyware programs are not listed. The new trend appears to be that spyware forks its own processes which they randomly name so that you cannot track the file on google or even your disk. Apparently some spyware will copy and rename itself, launch the new file and then erase the file. Bastards!!!

      Being a Unix guy I find it troubling that you cannot find which dll's are loaded and what program is referenceing them. I often find that I cannot delete a @#$# piece spyware because it has a dll loaded. I guess admin is not root on Windows.

      Does anyone know of way to find the file path for a loaded task in the task list. This seems like an essential piece of information.

    6. Re:Removing Spyware - a Primer by Complicity · · Score: 1
      if you install divx codecs from within a codec pack it will not install the spyware

      Hold on a second, you don't need to install DivX from a codec pack, you can use the DivX installer just fine and it will not install any spyware if you install the free codec (not the ad-supported Pro version). Get the spyware-free (as it's always been) version here

      Also, a lot of those codec packs are trouble themselves in other ways. Avoid them if you can.

      --
      - c -
    7. Re:Removing Spyware - a Primer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      XP doesn't have deltree but it does have "rd /s"

      doskey deltree=rd /s

    8. Re:Removing Spyware - a Primer by sheepster · · Score: 1

      One of the best sources for finding help on removing individual spyware files (it often comes down to this - especially with some of the newer variants) is a good spyware forum full of people to help you identify and remove it.

      Without some of the public forums I would never have dealt with some of the stuff I've picked up. Look2me had one that kept reinstalling itself no matter what I did and the forums gave me enough information to get it straight.

  58. I'ts not on your Amiga also... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'ts not on your Amiga also... and your point would be?

  59. Does the 28 include Windows XP? by penginkun · · Score: 1

    Does the 28 include Windows XP? Because I'm pretty sure that product activation would qualify as "spyware".

  60. Confirmation by Luscious868 · · Score: 1
    A study by EarthLink found that the average user has 28 spyware programs on their computer!

    Which confirms what we all already know, that the average computer user is an idiot.

  61. It may not be ineffective by erroneus · · Score: 1

    I have, like many here, also been responsible for cleaning many of these ridiculous "marketting tools."

    On some level, everyone involved knows what they are performing morally questionable acts. That fact isn't deterrent enough. Many of these programs make great effort to prevent their removal which is pretty strong evidence the authors and distributors are aware that these annoying programs are rejected by the very people to which they wish to market.

    A criminal law is certainly needed in order to punish these people who create and distribute these programs. In order to mark a clear distinction between "honest enterprisers" and "despicable bastards" the law must be present to define exactly where the lines are to be drawn between the two. After that, there will be at least one or two people put into prison because of it just as the "too weak" anti-spam laws have.

    Consider which is worse? To do too much or to do too little?

    To do too much could cause irreverible damage. To do too little is forgivable and correctable.

  62. So - what's new? by whm · · Score: 1

    The proposed bill would force programs to inform the user before installing programs, and require that spyware be easily removed.

    Hey guess what - people are already informed when these programs are going to be installed. I'm not aware of anything that requires zero user interaction to install, do you? It's either bundled with some other app (seems like this would still fall inside the bounds of this law) or it's through a popup in IE. So instead we'll have spyware programs asking for user confirmation in addition to IE asking for user confirmation - but what difference is that going to make? People already blindly click on the IE security popups.

    So oh well. I guess we'll see if this makes a difference, but it seems that the often very subjective distinction between spyware and legit-ware will remove any hope that legislation is going to solve this problem.

    - whm

    1. Re:So - what's new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I'm not aware of anything that requires zero user interaction to install, do you?
      Yes, I do.

      In the last few weeks a new wave has been launched that install silently, apparently using a backdoor in IE that isn't patched yet.

      Evidently getting people who blindly click on those dialogs wasn't good enough, now they want to attack you and me, people who know something's wrong when an odd popup comes up when we've purposely blocked popups, or when Google search results bring us to somewhere other than Google.

      Yes, attacking that last 5% of all computer users is really working out well for them, what with legislation suddenly being brought to bear on them, what with news articles being written about their malicious nature, and the list goes on. People who had no idea that this stuff wasn't supposed to happen now know, as a result of attacking that 5%, that these companies exist.

      Watch how they scuttle like cockroaches when the lights are turned on.
  63. Like it matters? by Ryosen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Do people who write malicious software really tremble any time some dillusional congress critter gets it in his head to attempt something like this? Are people really deterred by any (alleged) action taken by ANY goverment, let alone the US?

    Seeing as how well the CAN-SPAM act has been working out, I'm not going to hold my breath expecting great things from this bit of rubbish, either.

    Educating the masses on how to protect themselves is the only way to defeat spyware and viruses. (Well, that and don't use IE). But, then again, it's the educated masses that the government fears the most.

    Aw, screw it. Maybe they should make you take a drivers test before you get on the Information Superhighway®.

    --

    Ryosen
    One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    1. Re:Like it matters? by leperkuhn · · Score: 1

      I would say the benefit of such laws is that if the person is caught who wrote the spyware they can be punished. I know i would love to see someone brought up on charges for spyware, assuming it's a legit charge and not checking for updates or something like that.

      --
      http://www.rustyrazorblade.com
    2. Re:Like it matters? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      But the problem is to view video files you need divx. Divx installs spyware, etc.

      That is the problem. Joe user will be envious when his friend Mike can watch all the porn to his heart content with Divx and he can not.

      What if Joe user wants AIM to chat with his gf? Guess what? Weatherbug is now installed which includes spyware.

      What if he visits a website and see's these cool commit curses and wants them? Now he has another spyware worm.

      Its a trojan horse in my book and should be illegal.

      We need legislation and protection. After all do we have no police force and just educate people on how to use guns on the streets or do we have our state governments hire a police force to protect us? Same principle applies.

  64. A nipple for your thoughts? by fyngyrz · · Score: 1
    Hey, Benny's just thinking of giving the chick some foreplay - you insensitive clod.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  65. Another useless law by zushiba · · Score: 1

    I hate to say it but more drastic steps are needed to put even a dent in the spyware/malware problem. All laws can be loopholed and the average PC user will not patch their system against such things. Until someone takes the law into their own hands and starts distributing spyware/malware destruction tools the same way that spyware and malware are delivered, there will never be an end to it. I seriously wonder just how much the the worlds bandwidth is taken by spyware, malware and spam. I bet the number would surprise a lot of people.

  66. There is an easy way to make spyware disappear by dcavanaugh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Taxation on the program, per installation, and a tax on the ads devivered via spyware. While we're at it, maybe a tax on each byte of data sent outbound via spyware. Killing spyware is then a simple act of following the money and taxing the hell out of those who distribute or benefit from it.

    1. Re:There is an easy way to make spyware disappear by cfalcon · · Score: 1

      So what's "spyware"? It's like porn- we know it when we see it- but that means that you'll have a hard time putting exactly what it *is* into law.

      For instance, is Opera adware because they serve ads to my machine?

      Your idea is:

      1- Identify spyware.
      2- *If* spyware is inside the Right Country, then analyze activity of spyware company.
      3- Using analysis, tax the company. ... and you then imply that you would take step (3) to the logical conclusion of making it impossible for spyware to do business.

      The purpose of economic regulation is not to destroy an industry. Especially not that, if you are able to do steps (1) and (2), you can just make (3) be "... and now, since they have broken the law, throw them in jail / assess them with huge civil penalties.

      The problem people complain about isn't "Oh, there is just too much bad spyware in the world.", which taxing it *might* be aimed at fixing. It's "Why does this deceptive program install itself when I clicked yes once (or just visited a website once)". In other words, if you and I agree that it is spyware, we probably would like it better if it didn't exist, not we instead gave the government an agendy for keeping it around (it lines their coffers, and soon there'd be some powerful spyware lobbyist grooming his Congressdude for some "Protect Our Children" bill that incidentally outlaws Mozilla).

      Or, don't set the system up to give the guard dog a steak automatically whenever a burglar enters.

      Another thing: once you start taxing computer activities, you open the door to something that means a per-installation fee that must be paid to the government- this is highly incompatible with free software, and this is the very thing we'll see being pressed for if free software ever really gets the noose around the neck of enough powerful software companies.

  67. france bashing by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

    Can someone explain why americans love bashing France, in a manner of history.
    I thought the french helped the americans with their struggle against the UK for independence.

    1. Re:france bashing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy to explain. Americans are racists.

    2. Re:france bashing by sindarin2001 · · Score: 1

      As far as I understand, I think it comes from World War II, where the US had to "save" France. Some people evidentally think that the French are a weight on the American people, especially after the whole Iraq incident. Personally, as an American with French blood, get sick and tired of the the French bashing.

    3. Re:france bashing by Councilor+Hart · · Score: 1

      Well, I am european, not French though. So thanks for helping out in WWII.
      I don't think however that such gratitude should mean going along with whatever you - as in USA - do.
      Nothing against US. Much against it's policy, I am afraid.
      Merci pour votre response.

    4. Re:france bashing by chimpo13 · · Score: 1

      I think a lot of the US attitude in general is based on our actions in WWII. We, the people, haven't figured out that in whole we're a bully nation. We remember WWII, where we actually did some good, and we discredit everything else.

      So here D-Day is huge, it's about how the US saved Europe with a bit of UK help. No mention of Stalingrad & the Eastern Front where Russia wiped out most of the German army.

      After all, we recently stopped Saddam from blowing up another World Trade Center and releasing anthrax into our population. Keep people thinking of the US as that, and we'll do fine.

    5. Re:france bashing by Trailwalker · · Score: 1

      Prior to the Revolution, France was the major competition to the expanding English colonies. See French and Indian War, inter alia.

      The French government aided the Colonies in their struggle for independence only as part of a larger effort to defeat England. Louis XVI was no admirer of liberty and indepencence.

      After the Revolution, the fledgling United States had an undeclared war with Napoleonic France. The XYZ Affair was not one of the high points of American French friendship.

      During the Civil War, Napoleon III favored and gave aid the the Confederacy. During the Civil War he installed Maximillian as the Emperor of Mexico. Post civil war stationing of Union troops along the southern U.S. border put a halt to Napoleon III's support of Maximillian and doomed Maximillian and his empire to a bloody end.

      The French didn't find much to like about us until they got themselves ground down during WW1, which they unnecessarily helped bring about. This was the 3rd. Republic of La Affair Dryfus. After the conclusion of that war, France went back to its usual anti-Americanism.

      At the start of WW2, France lost quickly and spent five years under German occupation. The symbol of France became Charles DeGaulle, an egomanic with delusions of omnipotence. His political policy consisted of hating his "allies" more than the Germans.

      Following the heroic liberation of occupied France by DeGaulle and his minuscle army, only slightly supported by a few million American and British troops, succeeding French governments made anti-Americanism a central tenet of their policy. They never saw an enemy of America whom they couldn't find a way to love or an American goal they couldn't oppose.

      Fortunately for the United States and the rest of the civilized world, France is a smallish place that is but a relic of Imperial Past. Unfortunately, misinformed U.S. politicians got us into Viet-Nam in an attempt to bail the French out of another of their misadventures.

      The blood and treasure expended in two world wars and Viet Nam have long since repaid the French. I often suspect that they would have been better being incorperated into the Kaiser's Germany. They would have had better spelling, an orderly government and been kept in their proper place.

  68. Re: Wow! Read the EULA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    yesterday I found a randomly named file running in the background of parents machine and it took me a good half an hour to find out where it had come from. it was actually a trojan downloader that had been installed by another file which had been driveby downloaded from an apparently harmless looking site:

    and if i ever meet any of those assholes who run that site in real life theyre getting a slap.
    If you read the EULA would you see any red flags?

    By installing the Software, you understand and agree that the Software may, without any further prior notice to you, automatically perform the following: display advertisements of advertisers who pay a fee to BetterInternet, in the form of pop-up ads, pop-under ads, interstitials ads and various other ad formats, display links to and advertisements of related websites based on the information you view and the websites you visit; store non-personally identifiable statistics of the websites you have visited; redirect certain URLs including your browser default 404-error page to or through the Software; provide advertisements, links or information in response to search terms you use at third-party websites; provide search functionality or capabilities; automatically update the Software and install added features or functionality or additional software, including search clients and toolbars, conveniently without your input or interaction; install desktop icons and installation files; install software from BetterInternet affiliates; and install Third Party Software.

    In addition, you further understand and agree, by installing the Software, that BetterInternet and/or the Software may, without any further prior notice to you, remove, disable or render inoperative other adware programs resident on your computer, which, in turn, may disable or render inoperative, other software resident on your computer, including software bundled with such adware, or have other adverse impacts on your computer.

    No problem dudes! MAKE MY COMPUTER FASTER!
  69. Thats an understatement... by nukem996 · · Score: 1

    27 peices of spyware on the average computer? I do computer maintance as a part time job. Thats the very least people have. Usally its around 200, ive seen it go up to 1500. This bill will do about as much as the can spam act. The best way for people to combat spyware is to go mozilla at the least, dumping win would be the best way.

  70. Re: Wow! Read the EULA by sentientbeing · · Score: 1

    the eula is meaningless if the software was installed simply by visiting the web site or clicking on a link.

    Abettterinternet is just one example among a vast number of dodgy sites visited by uneducated users.

    --

    ------
    beware he who would deny you access to information, for in his mind he dreams himself your master
  71. wrong by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

    the cost of dealing with the support calls, plus customer dissatisfaction (remember, people _never_ blame themselves, it's always either the OEM or Microsoft's fault) dwarfs the extra profits from selling an extra box or two. People don't think: "Boy this Dell is slow, time to buy a new Dell", they think: "Boy Dell sucks, time to buy an Emachines".

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
  72. Cool - this will outlaw DRM by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Insightful
    on the order of the crapware^H^H^H^H^H^H^"security features" the music industry insists on plaguing the planet with.

    don'tcha just love it when one hand of Corporate America Chops Off the other hand? It's kind of like watching a slow motion train wreck, or a circular firing squad.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
    1. Re:Cool - this will outlaw DRM by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This law will make the "security device" from the music industry illegal. But, this law prevents the DRM from being applied, a violation of DMCA, so this law is also illegal. Since this law is illegal, the music industry can install the "security device" which is a form of spyware according to DMCA which makes DMCA illegal and ...

      Ouch. My head hurts.

  73. If he wants to keep using a computer online... by rsilvergun · · Score: 0, Troll

    he should. Or he should stop bitching, take it to a shop and pay $60 dollars every 3 months when the computer becomes unusable. If I can shell out $60 bucks for an oil change every 3 months (I'm lazy, and I like to use full synthetic), why the hell should a computer user who's willfully ignorant (i.e., he doesn't understand his computer, and he doesn't want to) get by paying $35 bucks once a year to some over worked tech, and never expect another problem a day in his life?

    --
    Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    1. Re:If he wants to keep using a computer online... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      Or he should stop bitching, take it to a shop and pay $60 dollars every 3 months when the computer becomes unusable.

      And you can pay $60 every 3 months when I come by and put a brick through your window. Don't complain to the police because it's your fault for not learning enough about home security to prevent it.

      If I can shell out $60 bucks for an oil change every 3 months (I'm lazy, and I like to use full synthetic), why the hell should a computer user who's willfully ignorant (i.e., he doesn't understand his computer, and he doesn't want to) get by paying $35 bucks once a year to some over worked tech, and never expect another problem a day in his life?

      You don't understand the difference between regular maintenance and repairs necessitated by malicious acts (like the bundling of spyware)? Would you mind paying $60 to replace gas that I siphoned out? Are you going to push to have gasoline theft made legal and then blame the victims for not having locking gas caps?

    2. Re:If he wants to keep using a computer online... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      Screw that. If I leave my doors open (not unlocked, open) in a bad neighborhood, then I deserve what I get. And I'm not talking about maintenence, I'm talking about the basic things you should know before and during computer use. computer != car. Computers are not as easy to use as cars. They're never going to be. People want them to do too much for too little money. My point is, if poeple want a computer as easy to use as a car, they ought to be prepared to shell out $20,000 dollars for the thing, and a f**Kload more when it breaks.

      I never said I wasn't in favor of spyware being illegal (I'd argue it is under current anti-hacking laws).

      Oh, and when my brother's appartment got robbed, and they caught the guy, the police did _nothing_ (except for giving back those few posessions of my brother's the guy hadn't managed to sell, to wit: some old tapes). When my brother moved out of the apartment, the guy was still living there. Little f**ker doesn't even have to pay back the money he made selling my brother's things. So if you through a brick through my window, I'm gonna call a glass repair man, shell out a couple hundred bucks and get on with my life. Maybe after the 20th brick/window combo, the cops'll arrest you for the night.

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    3. Re:If he wants to keep using a computer online... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      computer != car. Computers are not as easy to use as cars. They're never going to be.

      You are the one who came up with the flawed car analogy, not me. You're the one who likened repairing the damage done by some malicious spyware to routine oil changes, not me.

      Not everyone who uses a computer is going to be a computer expert. Kids will use their parents' computers. Old people who just want to stay in touch with family members will use computers. I don't agree with blaming the victims and telling them to suck it up every time some prick convinces their 12 year old kid to download some online game loaded with spyware. Screw that. They should be pissed off and not be blaming themselves.

      Oh, and when my brother's appartment got robbed, and they caught the guy, the police did _nothing_ (except for giving back those few posessions of my brother's the guy hadn't managed to sell, to wit: some old tapes).

      That doesn't sound like the model for how the police should deal with all crimes.

      When my brother moved out of the apartment, the guy was still living there. Little f**ker doesn't even have to pay back the money he made selling my brother's things.

      Your brother had the opportunity to sue the kid for civil damages. If he had done so, the courts would probably have required that the kid/parents pay restitution. You can't expect the cops to play judge and jury, too. They have no power to make the kid pay money.

    4. Re:If he wants to keep using a computer online... by rsilvergun · · Score: 1

      You just keep missing my point, I'm not sure how you do it. The point is (to spell it out): If you're going to make use of technology, you should learn the basic set of skills needed to do so, or pay someone else a great deal of money so that you do not have to learn those skills. The source of my anger is that people who use computers are both unwilling to learn the necessary skill set _and_ unwilling to pay for their ignorance in cash money. The car wasn't so much an analogy, as a direct correlation. In both cases you have a technology that requiers a skill set for trouble free use. Consider an automatic transmission verses a manual one. It's certainly easier to use an automatic transmission, but they're a _lot_ harder to fix when they break. I have an automatic transmission, as such I am prepared to pay a lot more to have it repaired when it breaks than if I had a manual transmission. My point is, if people want trouble free computer without any understanding, they should be coughing up way more dough for it. If they were, I'd be making a pretty good living selling it to them. What it comes right down to is, I'm pissed off because people (Americans in particular) think they can have something (trouble free, super easy computing + total ignorance of computers) for nothing ($35-$200 dollars a _year_, most people pay 3 times that to drive their cars in a month).

      Oh, as for suing the kid, yeah right. If my Brother had that kind of money, he wouldn't be living next door to a crook. It wasn't a kid (sorry if I gave that impression, I'm more or less ranting) it was a 20+ year old mentally retarded sociopath. Is that the way it should work? No. Does it? Yes.

      Anyway, thanks for listening to me rant this long :).

      --
      Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
    5. Re:If he wants to keep using a computer online... by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

      You just keep missing my point, I'm not sure how you do it.

      Let's just say that it could be at either end and I won't get nasty about that.

      The point is (to spell it out): If you're going to make use of technology, you should learn the basic set of skills needed to do so, or pay someone else a great deal of money so that you do not have to learn those skills.

      It's one thing to say that you should be willing to pay for an expert in any field where you lack expertise. I have no problem with that. What bothers me is the notion of treating repairs after spyware, worms, viruses, and other forms of digital vandalism as if they were routine maintenance like backups, deleting unwanted files, or installing OS patches. It's not.

      My point (to spell it out): Spreading spyware, trojan horses, viruses, worms, and other malware should be illegal. When something like that infects someone's system, they have every right to be angry. They should not view it as a normal cost of having a computer. They should not blame themselves for not being more computer-savvy.

      It would be great if everyone could develop the technical skills to be expert in every facet of their lives, be it digital television, computers, automobiles, or high-end audio. But that's just more and more unrealistic as technology marches onwards, becoming ever more pervasive and complex.

      Oh, as for suing the kid, yeah right. If my Brother had that kind of money, he wouldn't be living next door to a crook.

      You don't need to hire Perry Mason when the person has been caught by the police. He could go into court, no lawyer at all, and get a hefty judgement. Whether he could collect is another story, but he doesn't need to hire an attorney to sue someone for stealing his stuff.

  74. Press release by rice_burners_suck · · Score: 1
    For immediate release: Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT) announced today the availability of new technology that allows content providers to deliver compelling images, such as movie trailers and pop-up advertisements for penis enlargement, to consumers. By leveraging innovative technologies, content providers streamline compelling enterprise solutions.

    The new technology, dubbed Windows XP, also allows content providers to retrieve information from consumer desktops, such as usage patterns, automated bug reports, and passwords sniffed from the user's keyboard. The technology require only that a consumer plug a computer running the innovative technology into the Internet, and content providers can then locate that computer and send their content, including audio, video, innovative pop-ups, worms, and viruses, to it.

  75. Good Links For You... by Corbin+Dallas · · Score: 2, Informative
    If you're running a Windows PC:

    Ad-Aware

    Spybot-S&D

    Every Windows PC needs these installed, updated, and run at least once a week. You need both: sometimes one will catch something that the other won't. Even then you are not 100% safe. For really nasty Spyware:

    HijackThis!

    Note that HijackThis! is NOT for joe user! Removing the wrong entry can disable legitimate apps. Also, for IE users:

    • Click 'Tools', then goto 'Internet Options...'
    • Click on the 'Advanced' tab, and look for the 'Browsing' section.
    • Make sure the following options are unchecked:
      • Enable Install On Demand (Internet Explorer)
      • Enable Install On Demand (Other)
      • Enable third-party browser extensions (requires restart)

    • Now click on the 'Security' tab. Make sure the 'Internet' zone is highlighted.
    • Click on the 'Custom Level...' button.
    • Make sure you have the following settings:
      • Download signed ActiveX controls: Prompt
      • Download unsigned ActiveX controls: Disable
      • Initialize and script ActiveX controls not marked as safe: Disable
      • Run ActiveX controls and plug-ins: Enable
      • Script ActiveX controls marked safe for scripting: Enable



    You could set up tighter ActiveX permissions than this, but doing so would disable Windows Update, which is just as dangerous.
    --
    Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.
  76. Yeah. by Renraku · · Score: 1

    And what will they say?

    That the spyware is going to slow their computer down by 20%, or constantly download streaming AVI files to play in a banner window its about to pop up?

    No, its going to say that its improving your internet experience. Or is about to give you a better deal to a Flordia vacation. Or that its going to make your life better.

    How 'bout legislation requiring that each piece of spyware be registered through some kind of tracking agency that decides if the spyware is actually a piece of software that the person might willingly install?

    Who's going to install something that says its going to popup banners on your desktop every 3 minutes on the dot? Or something that says its going to transmit your personal usage information to some corporation so they can send you more spam? Who's going to install something that takes up 30% of your system resources so it can go off like a fucking ape whenever its raining nearby?

    --
    Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
  77. It isn't hard to keep a Windows system clean. by Silverlancer · · Score: 0

    No programs required. No messing required. No firewalls/linux gateways required. No spybot/hijackthis/adaware required. No antivirus scanner required.

    Its known as Firefox. Use it, love it, never worry about adware/malware/spyware ever again.

  78. Another law that means well but goes the wrong way by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    This is a stupid law, spyware can be stopped with basic security, what we _really_ need is laws to protect people who write anti-adware software, you should be allowed to infringe trademarks and copyright of advertisers and say "this software will get rid of x and y adware" and the advertising pigs shouldnt have any power to sue you for somehow 'infringing' on their business model, maybe they don't already but i wouldnt be surprised. The same goes for pop-up blockers etc (and tools in general but thats off-topic)

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
  79. [tinfoil hat mode] Why only a BBC link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Why do we have to go to England to get news about America?
    • nothing important happens in England, so the BBC has no choice but to cover American politics,
    • the American news agencies are way too busy covering celebrity criminal trials, so they were unable (or forgot) to send a reporter,
    • the American news agencies are involved in a conspiracy to hide relevant news about US democratic process from US citizens,
    • the submitter has an irrational bias for the BBC,
    • I have an irrational bias against the BBC, or
    • some combination of all the above
  80. Who's fault is it? by Secrity · · Score: 1

    Why are the users not blamed for allowing this crap to be installed? The age of PC innocence is OVER. There is no reason that users should not KNOW that using computers can be dangerous.` Users should at least read enough of the EULAs to see that something is being loaded on their machine. Clicking through EULAs is just as stupid as running mail attachments. I realise that it is possible that some of the malware is 'stealthy' or are cookies, but the vast majority of it is legitimate software in the sense that it DOES require that a user click through a EULA. Why is it that these users are always seen as victims and are not held responsible for their actions?

  81. Man, I hope you're right but thing you are wrong by gone.fishing · · Score: 4, Interesting

    A good portion of my day is spent dealing with spyware. I've noticed that in the past several months it has gotten worse, in some cases far worse.

    A law in the United States will only affect those companies with a legal presence in the United States. Many, many companies that offer software aren't in the U.S. Even if the law is effective on companies here, it will just migrate to somewhere that it isn't regulated and those Kaaza type companies will still be immune.

    While I hope you are right, I think that you are wrong and I guess that my attitude is that it is probably better dealt with using technology than laws. The loopholes in technology are easier to close.

    My ideal solution would be a system that would detect all types of malware and security threats and know how to fix them automatically. I'd like to see one component be "forward looking" where it would monitor computers and forward suspicious activity to a database that would be used to identify new threats in an almost real time manner. Of course this in and of itself could be considered "spyware" by some (because it would be reporting activity on your computer). But if all of a sudden xyzabc.dll started appearing on hundreds of computers in a short period of time, a human could evaluate it and figure out if it is a threat. If it is, it could be blocked on uninfected machines.

  82. jurisdiction makes these laws moot by SuperBanana · · Score: 1
    You know, this actually has a chance of being effective, unlike the anti-spam laws.

    Why? Malware companies will avoid prosecution exactly the way spammers do- by operating out of a country which doesn't give a flying fuck about US laws.

  83. What implications are there for system mangaement? by csoto · · Score: 1

    There are automated tools that can invisibly install software (that's one of their strengths) that administrators can use to deploy things (automatic patch updates included). Does the bill allow for these?

    --
    There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
  84. Good thing I'm above average! by RyoShin · · Score: 1

    /counts more than 40 *wares on a computer

    It's actually not mine, but someone from the place I work. They have a laptop that gets to connect through a regular modem, and for some reason, they weren't a restricted user...

  85. Re:Cookies are not spyware by eltoyoboyo · · Score: 1

    Cookies are used by large marketing firms to track your viewing habits at popular web sites. The spying can only be done if a particular PC's browsing habits can be traced to a particular registered user. It is no different than collecting credit card information, phone numbers, and zip codes at retail stores. However, if you value your privacy (And who doesn't on /.) ,then you need to reduce the number of cookies your browser (Mozilla, Opera, IE) accepts. IMHO cookies do not CONTROL or FORCE your computer to do anything.

    The more insidious forms of spyware such as "coolwebsearch" exploit IE browser holes and redirect your browsing. Microsoft, Opera, and Mozilla coders have been patching lots of different security exploits. Some might argue that Mozilla and Opera a farther ahead in this game.

    --
    Have you Meta Moderated t
  86. Criminal charges for spyware CEO's by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    Here me out since I dont want to appear extreme.

    This legislation will do nothing as EULA's pop up anyway telling them they are part of a "mass marketing service" aka spyware.

    I consider these horrible things worms and viruses! They install backdoors, slow down systems, slow network traffic, and cost corporate American tons of money.

    I worked at my university in a computer lab last semester and have seen 3 ghz pentiumIV machines turn into 486's, saturate the t3's with traffic, and some even install keyboard loggers just like real virii! Tell me how this is not a worm? What if a student uses a pc for a credit card transaction? A hacker would have everything right there to do real damage.

    They are as bad as spammers and I would love to ring my hands around their developers necks.

    It needs to be outlawed. How many people are being hurt financially individuals, and businesses? What is the cost of damage claria (formerly gatorsoft) and divx doing compared to worm infestations? Network traffic goes up too. I am sure the telecomunitcaion market and Cisco love spyware too for that reason.

    If something runs unathorized on someones computer that does damage then it ILLEGAL under my book and the author should be punished. After all I could be thrown in the slammer by hacking into my neighbors system right? Why not for a CEO whose products costs hundreds of millions in lost productivity?

  87. Problem for Security Patches? by Punchinello · · Score: 1

    It first glance I liked the idea of a law that requires a program to be easily removed. This would make spyware (and some badly written, but useful software) easier to remove when I choose.

    But then I wondered about certain security patches that say, "Once this Security Patch is installed it cannot be removed." I see this with Windows all the time and suspect it applies to other OSs in certain cases.

    The law will need to be carefully written to exclude OS patches and the like or we could have a mess.

    --

    Remember... ZG9uJ3QgZm9yZ2V0IHRvIGRyaW5rIHlvdXIgb3ZhbHRpbmU=

  88. Re:Cookies are not spyware by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

    But where do you draw the line?

    Companies who do this shit have lawyers who look for loopholes. After all gatorsoft could consider commit cursor just a simple program with cookie functionality and not spyware, etc.

    Tracking should be illegal since EULA's are not legally binding documents anyway. If you want to track fine but not on someone elses cpu cycles.

  89. Study Methodology, Getting Consent? by harlows_monkeys · · Score: 1
    First, without information on their methodology, that Earthlink study is worthless. If the sample consisted of people who went to Earthlink and ran Earthlink's spyware scan, then that will be heavily biased toward people who suspect that they have spyware.

    Second, a large chunk of spyware does get consent already, to the extent that it asks first, and only installs if the user says it is OK. The problem here is that most users don't read dialogs. They treat any dialog that is not obviously directly related to something they are specifically trying to accomplish as an annoyance and they click on whatever it appears to take to get it to go away.

    What is needed is a standardized "consent manager". Any program that wants to install, etc., would invoke the consent manager, which would tell the user what the program wishes to do, give the company's privacy policy, etc. There should also be a standardized set of items to include in privacy policies. The consent manager could be told by the program what the company policy is on each of those, and the consent manager could display those in a table or something, instead of buried in the EULA, and highlight those that differ from what the user desires.

    Users might then learn that when they see a dialog from the consent manager, it is something that is important, rather than an annoyance to click through.

  90. Re: Wow! Read the EULA by jonbryce · · Score: 1

    In other words, it will make drive-by downloading illegal - if it wasn't already illegal.

    In the UK, it is illegal under the Computer Misuse Act, and I'm sure there is an American equivalent of this.

  91. 28 Spyware programs? by dilweed · · Score: 1

    A study by EarthLink found that the average user has 28 spyware programs on their computer!

    Yep- 28. And I'm getting $60 an hour to get rid of it.

    Lemonade, boys. Make lemonade.

    1. Re:28 Spyware programs? by base3 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Shit, and I'm only charging $40. Please tell me you're on one of the coasts :).

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  92. Useless by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    A lot of spyware programs come along with other simi-legit programs and the user IS notified, and they give permission to install, among other things.

    While i despise spyware, how can you blame an industry when the users refuse to read the agreements?

    Just what we need, more laws that do nothing to help people, only to create a larger government.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  93. Four Minute Abu Ghraib video when Saddam ran it. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    According to Senate sources, this four-minute video, comprised of several clips, came to be after several verbal and written inquires were made to the Defense Department at the start of 2004. It is an edited version of several different tapes, totaling between one and two hours, discovered after the regime's collapse. The translations of the words heard on the tape were provided by the Department of Defense.

    "You don't appreciate what happened in that prison until you see it."

    The first film clip opens with the camera showing a man standing in a bland, mostly empty room. The camera pans down to show his right hand. Folded rugs are visible in the background. The clip jumps to footage of scrub-clad "surgeons" with rubber surgical gloves severing the man's hand at the wrist. First the skin is peeled away with surgical knives and tweezers; ligaments, tendons, muscle, and bone underneath are exposed. Then the gloved hands wielding the knives begin to slice, shredding through the sinews, slashing muscle, breaking bone, until the hand is ultimately detached and plopped onto a green cloth, as yellow, pulpy tissue spills forth.

    "You don't appreciate what happened in that prison until you see it."

    The next clip opens amid Saddam Fedayeen -- Fedayeen means "those willing to die for Saddam" -- chanting loudly: "With blood and spirit we will redeem you Saddam." The Fedayeen stand barking and clapping in a courtyard. A blindfolded prisoner, forced to his knees and held in position has his arm outstretched before him along a low concrete wall. A masked member of the Fedayeen raises high a three-foot-long blade and ferociously slams down on the man's hand, slicing through his fingertips. The victim is wailing, howling, screaming in agony.

    The swordsman-torturer, not sufficiently satisfied with his first effort, raises the sword again and drives down once more on the man's immobile hand. This time he severs the fingers closer to the knuckles as blood spurts cartoonishly from his hand spilling over and down the concrete slab. The victim emits a wail I have never heard -- could never imagine hearing -- from a grown man, this time louder, harder than the first.

    The camera then turns to the assembled Fedayeen as they continue rhythmically chanting.

    "You don't appreciate what happened in that prison until you see it."

    In the third clip, a prisoner sits on the ground, his arm tied with white cloth, strips to a wooden board resting on a gray concrete slab. A man stands before him with a sword, this blade is wider than the last. He, too, strikes down on the man's hand, severing it from his right arm as the prisoner recoils in pain. The camera then quickly darts to the man's hand resting on the dusty ground several feet away as it was launched a considerable distance from the prisoner due to the force of the torturer's chop.

    "You don't appreciate what happened in that prison until you see it."

    When Mel Gibson's movie The Passion was released, several critics harped on the scenes where Jesus is flogged mercilessly by Roman soldiers. The brutality was so extreme, critics charged, the depiction bordered on parody -- it was not a credible rendering of what could have happened to Jesus.

    In the fourth clip in the Saddam torture film, it's clear Gibson's cinematic vision of just how depraved men can be was not divorced from reality.

    A tall prisoner, stripped to the waist and blindfolded has his arms tied before him to a white pole, his bare back exposed. Black-clad Saddam Fedayeen surround him, jackal-like, as one begins to pound on his back with a black rubber whip. With the man screaming, his scourged back arching backward, shoulders and arms frantically struggling to block the blows, one of the Fedayeen torturers is heard to say "no situation more honorable than truth over falsehood." Thwack! Thwack! Thwack! The prisoner's knees buckle as he crumbles into a hump on the ground from the blows, crying out in pain. Another Fedayeen grabs his hands and pulls hi

  94. Even worse....removing spyware violates the DMCA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It won't be long before those maggots who make the spyware code it in such a way that removing the spyware (or trying to) somehow 'violates' the The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

    Don't laugh. I bet they're trying to figure out how to do it right now.

  95. "Personal Responsibility" my ass. by Xhad · · Score: 1

    Besides the incorrect assumption that all spyware requires confirmation from the user, your position is the equivalent of saying that date rape via roofies should be legal because if the chick didn't want to have sex, she shouldn't have accepted a drink from a stranger.

  96. spyware by 1337baloni · · Score: 1

    why is everyone mad at the people who write the spyware. They should be mad at microsoft for writing such a horrible operating system, or the users (who are even dumber) for running it.

  97. Easy to remove? What the hell does that mean? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    They want spyware to be "easy to remove". So what the hell is "easy"? Is it "easy" to go to ControlPanel/AddRemovePrograms and somehow recognize the fact that "Search Bar Pro" is actually spying on you in secret and needs to be removed? Just KNOWING about AddRemovePrograms puts you in the top 20% of all computer users.

    The ideas in this proposal are chock full of that kind of logic hole.

    By now, it's clear that legislation doesn't "fix" these kinds of problems.

    We have experience with trying (unsuccessfully) to use the law to control spam, hacking/cracking, P2P/piracy, pornography, and personal data abuse. In every case, the effect is next to nil.

    They say that the definition of insanity is doing exactly the same thing as before, and expecting different results.

  98. shitware == bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this isnt really a personal freedom problem, it targets more of these internet companies that make their money off nothing but putting SHITWARE on your computer, and honestly i wouldnt mind seeing companies like gator, and ultimatesearch getting their heads blown off.

  99. mod up by poofyhairguy82 · · Score: 1

    Great reply

  100. Impose? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A bill proposed in the house is hardly set in stone. In fact a large portion of bills are thrown out before they come anywhere even close to being a law.

    To say that these restrictions are being imposed is an overstatment. At best the above mentioned restrictions are being considered.

  101. My business! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Some of you may not realize it, but spyware == businesss. I do software development, but I run a tech support business on the side. 60% of our work is "we can't stop the pop-ups" or "my computer takes too long too boot". I hate to say it, but there is a small local industry created because of spyware.

    Without it, I'd have to put two people out of work. So there is an economic upside.

    Maybe you dislike it so much because you have to waste your time removing it from relative's computers? (Shameless business plug coming up).

    We do spyware removal, virus scan, windows updates, clean out temp files, and defrag all for $25, flat fee. It's done remotely so no one has to enter the home. If you'd actually be interested in this check out www.churtle.com and tell your family members/friends that you're too busy and it's only only $25 for someone else to do it.

    1. Re:My business! by mdwh2 · · Score: 1

      Without it, I'd have to put two people out of work. So there is an economic upside.

      Hello Broken Window Fallacy.

      That some people may be employed by cleaning up the damage caused by spyware is offset by the fact that your customers could be spending their money elsewhere - and likely on areas that are either more beneficial or productive to society than fixing up damage.

      If you disagree, I guess you won't mind someone popping round to your business and breaking your windows? ;)

  102. Thanks a lot! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Thanks a lot for taking the time and effort to write this. As a Linux guy, I do not know these kinds of Windows issues as well as I would like; I have printed out what you have written and will review it for next time a buddy has a computer screwed up by spyware.

    I also like the "use Mozilla" comment. :)

  103. Does this really apply to "the average Joe"? by SpammersAreScum · · Score: 1

    The original H.R. 2929 Summary says: "Directs the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to prohibit the transmission of a spyware program to a covered computer (one used by a financial institution or the Federal Government)...". In other words, the law would not apply to "the average Joe's" computer. The substitute uses the term "protected computer", but I did not see a definition of that term, or any other indication as to whether the coverage has been broadened to include privately-owned computers or not.

  104. IT people should stop complaining!! by Stevyn · · Score: 1

    Now this may sound utterly rediculous, but think about it. 5-10 years ago, fixing windows machines consisted of getting drivers to work, DLL conflicts, IRQ conflicts, and of course the poorly written windows versions based off DOS.

    With Windows 2000 and XP and plug-n-play, those problems I listed above are gone for the most part. I can't remember the last time I had to hunt down the proper DLL. The only driver issues I've had when installing windows 2000 was on obscure hardware, which linux had trouble with as well (on the same machine).

    So what is left for IT people to fix? Windows updates, antivirus updates, and running ad-aware. All this requires a lot less know-how than which inturrupt a legacy NE2000 Ethernet card should be on (it's 11 if I remember correctly ;) ).

    What I'm saying is that when a computer went to shit a few years ago, you really had to know what to do to fix it. Nowadays, it's "run this program" or "install this update." That difficult problem solving requirement has gone away. If it weren't for viruses and spyware, windows 2000 and XP machines wouldn't need much attention and the IT staff wouldn't have work. Face it, once the network is set up and you have a bunch of machines, most of the maintainance is just playing janitor with spyware.

    I use linux now and ironically I'm back to the old days. When a program crashes, it's because I updated the wrong library (think dll hell) or my nvidia is acting up (it broke after no config changes a couple times required a recompilation of the kernel module). I'll admit I get more satisfaction when I figure out the problem and solve it than I did with running ad-aware. However if I was hunting down foo.so.4 for 40 computers at my workplace, I'd probably rather go back to running ad-aware. One thing to remember is that when you fix somebody's computer who doesn't know much about computers, you get the same appriciation if you recompiled the kernel or removed gator for the fifth time.

    Don't get me wrong, I think IT people who bitch about spyware shouldn't turn around and be appriciative of it, they should just remember how things used to be. If this is the career you chose, you're going to be a janitor half the time. Deal with it.

  105. Stuipd people, Stupid Journalists... by slappyjack · · Score: 1

    A recent survey by the US internet provider Earthlink found that the average computer was packed with hidden software, such as cookies tracking online habits.

    Last I checked, a cookie was NOT a program.

    I mean, look... cookies have been around forever in internet terms. You think someone writing a technology article would have at least known to check on what the fuck a cookie actially is.

    Thanks to this article, any Joe Sixpack who reads it is now going to be calling his ISP tech support free line screaming "I GOTS ME COOKIES! HOW DOES I GIT RID OF THEM? YOU PUT THEM THERE, DIDNT YA?!?!?!?!"

    Lovely.

    Then, after he figures out how to turn cookies off, he'll call back screaming about how his "internat dont work no more!"

    double lovely.

    Go ahead, ask me again why I'm a misanthrope.

  106. Doesn't go far enough by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just the other day, I encountered a Windows PC at work that was infested with NCase, SAHagent and a few other nasties. Ordinarily I would just have installed Linux on it, but this one belonged to a beancounter who needs Windows in order to run Sage, for the benefit of Group Head Office. So instead, I went searching for spyware removal tools. Could I find one that included the source code?

    Could I fuck.

    So how am I to know that it has done its job, and not simply installed even more spyware, adware and other crap?

    I ended up going to PriCey World and buying a copy of Windows XP Home Edition, 'cause Honest Eddy wasn't around with his vanload of paper-labelled CDR's, more's the pity. (Before you say two wrongs don't make a right, I happen to believe copying software is not wrong, so that's still only one wrong.) And this cost A HUNDRED AND EIGHTY QUID! OK, so it wasn't my money, but still ..... Can you believe that? 180 pounds, that's like a week's wages at my old job, for a freaking operating system! And a crap one at that! It's not even fixed the problem, 'cause the damn thing is still going to be just as susceptible to malware as it ever was.

    To make matters worse, my boss now has photographic evidence of me installing Windows on a PC, which he can use for blackmail purposes.

    Still, once I've got me an assistant to do the donkey work, I'm going to sit down at my terminal and code a functional replacement for all the parts of Sage that we actually use. And then I'm going to take great delight in nuking Windows off the beancounters' PCs {I might need to leave one alone to act as a translation engine, if I can't successfully hack the file formats Sage uses}. And Group Head Office can fucking learn to deal with it it.

    As far as I am concerned, any operating system that lets a computer get hijacked is unfit for purpose, and Microsoft are guilty of aiding and abetting offences under the Misuse of Computers act.

    There is only ONE way this sort of thing is EVER going to be stopped, and that is when it becomes a CAPITAL OFFENCE not to include the source code with every piece of software you ship.

  107. Bah by rtconner · · Score: 1

    Then only comfort I derive from this is that now the average user will have only 27 spyware programs on their computer instead of 28.

    --
    023AD01("Child", "Evil");
  108. Spyware is already illegal by Tokerat · · Score: 1


    5 years ago, a spyware program would be considered a virus, the installer a trojan. These days, it's a business model? C'mon, it's installed without telling the user! Does this mean viruses are legal?

    --
    CAn'T CompreHend SARcaSm?
  109. I think I'd rather see by Choco-man · · Score: 1

    an option upon install to simply *not* install the spyware in the first place. If they're telling you it's there, but requiring that you install it as part of the process, one should be able to circumvent the 'easily removeable' portion of it alltogether, and simply elect not to install it in the first place.

  110. and English got its Latin from French by tinkerton · · Score: 1

    a lot of it anyway. There isn't that much direct latin influence.

    In your phrase, candidates for french are:
    actuellement, langage, autres, baser ,justement, hériter.

    And mr nextlevel:
    Patriotique, cité, langage, république,ennemi, trahison, respectable, honorable, punir, acte, assurer, condoner.

    Of course we should be talking about old , and Norman, french. There's your way out...

  111. Median is much more informative by karlm · · Score: 1
    A few users with tons of spyware will affect the mean greatly, while the median number of spyware programs per computer is much less affected by the statistical outlyers. I generally find the median less misleading than the mean. Then again, maybe I am just an idiot that has problems with means.

    --
    Copyright Violation:"theft, piracy"::Anti-Trust Violation:"thermonuclear price terrorism"<-Overly dramatic language.
  112. Also good for consumer privacy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There should also be a law protecting consumers from companies that share customer databases. When I do business with a company I'm exchanging money for goods or services. If they want to expose me to risk and annoyance by sharing my information with third parties, and even those mother fucking "partners", I should be asked first, IN ALL CASES, and have the right to refuse.

    Thank you and burn in hell you assholes who disagree with me.

  113. Re: by cpuenvy · · Score: 1

    Bah...

    Those are the easy money customers!!!

    --
    DISCLAIMER:

    I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.

  114. Re:I wonder how many testicles the avg Mac user ha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There all women? Damn, I gotta join a Mac club.

  115. Second prize by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    was two weeks in Philadelphia.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  116. Did Earthlink count itself? by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    Earthlink alters the Internet Explorer binary.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  117. This will not help by Hrodvitnir · · Score: 1

    "I'd love to see spyware makers be forced to provide a small link at the bottom of *each advert window* that says something like, "This advertisement is being shown to you by $NAME_OF_PROGRAM. Click here for more information."

    Most users immediately close any popups without looking at them. However, I would like to see this simply because I work at a university help desk. This way when I go to remove all the spyware from a machine after the user says "I didn't download anything" I could tell them exactly what they did to get it.

    --
    "There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
  118. Re:You choose to use a vulnerable browser/OS by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You choose to use MSIE, which is known for it's security holes. Even with Sasser, you chose to use windows, which opens up services to the internet by default. So yes, you chose to let the Sasser worm install itself because you ran an OS vulnerable to it. How about TAKING SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY.

  119. What color is the sky on your planet? by sean.peters · · Score: 1
    Yes, you can run Mozilla. But then you are replacing part of what Microsoft says is the OS. You might as well run cygwin with X server and no native Win32 programs and then compare your security to other people.

    This is the most ludicrous statement I've seen on Slashdot in quite a while. Running an alternative browser is just like stripping out every bit of Windows and replacing it with cygwin?

    "Don't like genuine GM parts? Sure, you could use generic ones, but then you might as well completely remove your car's gasoline engine and replace it with a boiler and steam turbine and then compare your performance with other people's."

    I'm as suspicious of MS as the next guy... but let's not let Bill Gates bashing degenerate into paranoia.

    Sean

  120. Once upon a time... by jaghatarjankare · · Score: 1

    There were a few shareware authors who were given the chance to make money even before they found anyone to buy their products. GetRight was one; Opera another. Banner ads was all it was, you see. Very innocuous, and it supports the poor wannabe programmer as the product is improved enough to make sales.

    Then for a facile price, the user can get a key to get rid of the hated advertising.

    Things were bad enough then, but then bigger money started taking over. Yet the shareware authors stuck with it.

    I think we're missing a great point here: the proliferation of spyware is due in part to the cooperation of shareware authors. Which seems ironic, even paradoxical, as one would assume good ethical programmers would be against such practices. Evidently they're not.

    I think we have to shuffle some of the blame on the shareware authors. I think we have to pressure them to stop cooperating with these vermin. Without carriers, the parasites cannot survive.

  121. Re:Not illegal unless $5000 in damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Unless you can prove $5000 in actual damages, installing a trojan horse is not illegal. That means that spyware using MSIE exploits to install is perfectly legal, because there is not $5000 in damages.

  122. If... by electrofreak · · Score: 0

    If you don't use IE and download stupid little programs that seem suspicious, then you shouldn't have any spyware on your computer. It works for me!

    --
    I need a sig.
  123. Re: Not illegal unless $5000 in damages by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is a US equivelant, but it requires $5000 USD in damages or it is not illegal. Yes, that means you could break into someone's computer and delete c:\windows, and it would be perfectly legal in the USA.

  124. I've seen that in action... by Xhad · · Score: 1
    My first spyware infection told me exactly what program was causing it. I then found that the program named did appear in my add/remove programs in Windows, and after one of my friends told me what Ad-aware was I installed it and found nothing.

    If all spyware was like that I'd have no problem with it.

    Honestly I wouldn't be surprised if the larger websites start hitting spyware makers for making it look like the advertisements are coming from the websites and not from some covertly-installed program. Surely companies would object to spyware makers "earning" advertisement dollars on the company's content, when all the ill will goes to the company.

  125. Re:You choose to use a vulnerable browser/OS by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

    You choose to use MSIE, which is known for it's security holes. Even with Sasser, you chose to use windows, which opens up services to the internet by default. So yes, you chose to let the Sasser worm install itself because you ran an OS vulnerable to it.

    No, most people did not "choose" anything. They got a computer with IE and Windows and used it. What is a typical person supposed to do? Figure out how to install and use OpenBSD? Learn how to use netfilter/iptables to create firewalls? Write their own OpenBSD equivalent to TaxCut before next April 15? Get the kids a copy of gcc instead of the PC video game that they wanted at CompUSA?

    Most people who aren't on Slashdot 24/7 have lives. They don't have time to devote to studying their computer so that criminals can't damage it. They don't have time to become expert on computer technology. They aren't going to learn how to compile new kernels or type cryptic Unix command lines.

    How about TAKING SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY.

    How about TAKING SOME FUCKING VALIUM? There are plenty of things you don't know jack shit about, but you use them anyway, don't you? Should it be legal to fuck you over any time that you aren't an expert? Should a burglar be found not guilty because you chose to use cheap Yale locks? Should the police come over and tell you to "take some fucking responsibility" if it happens?

  126. I apologize. by fmaxwell · · Score: 1

    I did not read your response when I wrote the prior comment. I assumed that you had taken a parting shot and left. I apologize.