Slashdot Mirror


Judge Halts Utah's Spyware Law

TheFarmerInTheDell writes "According to CNet News, a judge in Utah has granted an injunction to WhenU.com to temporarily halt the state's new anti-spyware law from going into effect. WhenU filed suit in April asking for an injunction, and this judge has decided that their claim of abridging their First Amendment Rights has enough merit to issue the injunction. What about our rights not to have to deal with this scumware?" (This previous post mentions Ben Edelman's research on WhenU and other spyware makers' activities.)

32 of 390 comments (clear)

  1. Free speech? by KoriaDesevis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    So when does their 'right to free speech' end and my right to be left alone on my personal computer, in my private residence, begin?

    1. Re:Free speech? by ukalum · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Their right to put software on your computer will last a lot longer than your rights as a private citizen as long as they spend more money on political parties than you do.

    2. Re:Free speech? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When you clicked "Yes", their right began.

    3. Re:Free speech? by orthogonal · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So when does their 'right to free speech' end and my right to be left alone on my personal computer, in my private residence, begin?

      No one is forcing you to install WhenU's software.

      And one can imagine customers who might knowingly and willingly install WhenU's software because they perceive a benefit to doing so: Google's toolbar might be considered spyware -- it sends every url you browse to Google; but you receive the benefit of getting Google's page rank for the url, and Google gets the benefit of seeing who is browsing where.

      Now, if the software tells you honestly that it's sending information about you to its creators, or sending ads to you, you have a remedy that requires no law, no governmental action: you can decide to uninstall the software. If the software spies or spams you without telling you honestly that it's doing so, you have a remedy in the form of existing laws against fraud or the like -- or possibly new laws that more narrowly target deceptive software.

      But none of these remedies require intruding on First amendment rights. So why do we need an overly-broad law that does?\

      First Amendment (and many would argue, Second Amendment) rights are the cornerstone of all other rights: the First Amendment exists to guarantee that you can stand up, get together like minded citizens, and explain why you think the government is not doing the right thing (and the Second, to have the mens to resist tyrannical government, but let's no digress). Since without that right, all other rights can be trampled without anyone having a chance to speak up about it, it's very very important to make sure that right isn't infringed even a little bit.

      So in order to preserve that right from tampering, we -- as free men -- have to also put up with things -- Ku Klux Klan rallies, spam, WhenU's software -- that we may detest. Because the cure is far worse than the disease. Once we let government say there exists a class of things that can't be talked about, we risk that class be extended or used as a precedent to stop people from pointing out when the Emperor has no clothes.

      I'm sorry for the inconvenience, but I'll take WhenU's spam over some Ministry of Truth's deciding what can't be said, any day.

    4. Re:Free speech? by Egekrusher2K · · Score: 4, Interesting

      "If the software spies or spams you without telling you honestly that it's doing so, you have a remedy in the form of existing laws against fraud or the like -- or possibly new laws that more narrowly target deceptive software."

      Oh really? Have you read about anyone successfully pursuing this? These cases don't even make it to court. The laws on fraud, for some strange reason, don't apply here. Try telling a lawyer that you want to sue a company because they installed software on your computer without your consent, and they are going to laugh at you.

      Now, don't get me wrong. What you said is valid in theory. However, the execution of these laws is very, very poor.

      --
      Listen to my experimental-industrial-techno!
    5. Re:Free speech? by Cyno01 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Speech for profit (advertising) is not protected by the first amendment. And especially not in your own home, on your machine, with your bandwidth being used. Also, you are correct, no one forces us to install this software. It does it itself. I'm sure there are people out there that use the features that bonzai buddy or anything have to offer, but do you think they searched and activly downloaded it? Joe and jane user were probably like "It just appeared one day, isn't that neat."... People who run around putting stickers on bus stops and street signs can be charged with vandalism. How is this different?

      --
      "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    6. Re:Free speech? by Dinosaur+Neil · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech...

      That's the abridged version, but the intent is as obvious as it is simple. The people who put the constitution together were worried that a government that suppresses free speech would become the same sort oppressive state they'd just fought a revolution to escape.

      But notice this; while the constitution grants free speech, it does not guarantee that you will have an audience! The government can't (well, shouldn't, at least) stop free speech, but when someone says specifically and emphatically that they don't want to hear it, then the intrusive speech is an invasion of privacy.

      As far as spyware goes, I think it would be poetic justice if everyone who's been dinged by spyware charge the people responsible with theft a la the "Hacker Crackdown" of yore. If Ma Bell can claim millions of $$ for a single document "theft", imagine what the general populace could get for spyware activity. Alternately, just charge the spyware people as "peeping toms", spying though (ahem) Windows. Keep it simple and take advantage of existing laws...

      --
      "I'm a scientist! I don't think, I observe!" - Dr. Clayton Forrester
    7. Re:Free speech? by Karl+Cocknozzle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No one is forcing you to install WhenU's software.

      Maybe this is true, maybe it isn't. We've seen countless examples in our organization of a user getting a pop-up ad for "Free" software that claims to give them some sort of benefit, and watched in horror as clicking "No, thanks" installed the software anyway. Yes, we proactively block access to the servers and IP ranges of known spyware companies at the firewall, but this costs us time (and thus, money) to maintain. But since the scummers (scummer == spammer for the scumware universe) often have multiple hosting providers setup round-robin for load balancing, it is an on-going, ever shifting battle. If we over-react and ban access to a large hosting provider, we risk blocking legitimate traffic that flows through the same outfit.

      Perhaps this law should be repealed and re-written in such a way as to target only nefarious software packages (like "CoolSearch", the unremovable beast from Central Asia) while allowing honest vendors to market software based on advertisements. You're right when you say that freedom of speech allows us to speak out about attempts to restrict our other rights, but misguided to think that stopping marketers from essentially stealing people's personal information for their own gain somehow equates to a police state. You're intentionally not adressing the issue that I pay for my connection and PC, and therefore should have control of what is on it. And I shouldn't have to police my "Add/Remove" programs list every day, or run AdAware every time I boot up to guarantee that only the programs I want are on my machine.

      And one can imagine customers who might knowingly and willingly install WhenU's software because they perceive a benefit to doing so

      Any perceived benefit to these programs is probably the result of deceit and fraud. One can only imagine that people "knowingly and willingly" install it if you ignore every usablity study of the internet over the last few years. They've found that the #1 and #2 complaints of internet users are the number of ads, and the "unclosable-in-your-face" nature of pop-ups. On the side, I help small businesses with their networks and desktop machines. In the last year, the number of companies contacting me about spyware prevention has quintupled. Removing and preventing spyware now represents about 40% of my "on the side" income.

      If a user perceives a value to Gator, MyWebSearch, or coolsearch, it is only because they don't understand that these programs are the majority source of their biggest online annoyance. When I ask customers "Why did you install it?" the answer is, nearly every time, "I didn't know it would pop-up 1-million ads/harvest my surfing habits/log all of my keystrokes for the Russian mob."

      Perhaps these companies should rethink their business model. If people really "want" WhenU's products (or Gator's, or anybody elses) then they should have no problem with being required to, up-front, tell the user truthfully what the program does. Any complaint about having to disclose this information only proves their sleazy, underhanded intent.

      If the software spies or spams you without telling you honestly that it's doing so, you have a remedy in the form of existing laws against fraud or the like -- or possibly new laws that more narrowly target deceptive software.

      Despite the fact that spamming using other people's connections counts as fraud, theft, and possibly conversion, we saw exactly ZERO criminal prosecutions until a federal anti-spam law was passed. (That it is mostly ineffective is an argument for another thread.) At that point, law enforcement saw that they could get a prosecution, and started investigating and arresting people.

      There are probably a few reasons it took a federal law with criminal penalties to get somebody arrested and under the threat of imprisonment, but mainly its the fact that law enforcement is

      --
      Who did what now?
  2. Utah Utah Utah.... by davejenkins · · Score: 4, Insightful

    *sigh*
    I grew up there. It is a really nice place if you like the outdoors-- skiing in the mountains, hiking in the deserts, river rafting... But damn if the judges aren't screwy when it comes to protecting all sorts of hair-brained business schemes.

    Ya know all those herbal supplemental crap adverts in your spam? Half of those companies are based in Utah. Ya know all the data-mining goofiness going on? Those ding-dongs are ex-Novell clowns looking to cash in.

    Basically, if anyone can go before a judge and say that "Law X interferes with my right to potentially screw suckers out of their idiot cash", then that judge will slam that law into the ground. It's like they take the nasty edge of libertarianism in commerce but forget the rights of the individual privacy that go along with it.

  3. Free speech? What about property rights by nebaz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By putting spyware on the computer, they are in effect breaking and entering into your property. This is NOT a free speech issue, any more than someone spray painting on the side of your house is free speech. It is tresspassing.

    --
    Rhymes that keep their secrets will unfold behind the clouds.There upon the rainbow is the answer to a neverending story
  4. Umm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    In response to:


    What about our rights not to have to deal with this scumware?

    I am not sure we have any such right really. Privacy is not a consitutional right. Laws have been passed to protect our privacy in certain situations and that is good. But there is nothing that makes our privacy an irrevocable right that would extend beyond what has been legislated. Utah did the right thing by passing this law since it strengthens individual privacy. The courts however should hear the case if free speech is at stake, which I doubt it is since most spyware doesn't talk to you or express itself cause that would reveal that it was there. So I think the legality issues need to play out, but I think we should all watch our tone since ignorance is a dangerous thing...

    1. Re:Umm... by nightsweat · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually the courts have ruled in the past the 9th and 10th Amendment contain a right to privacy

      Amendment IX:
      The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

      Amendment X:
      The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

      --

      the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
    2. Re:Umm... by Durandal64 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Yes, ignorance is a dangerous thing. In this case, it's dangerous because you didn't know that the Supreme Court interpreted the 4th amendment protections against unlawful search and seizure as implying a right to privacy, so the idea is perfectly valid.

  5. The DMCA Defence by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Remember, if you try to find out what WhenU's spyware is doing on your computer, WhenU can sue you for breaching their copyright/patent/encryption/whateverthehelltheyfel like on the basis that the transmissions were encrypted, or that their program is protected!

    OK huge exaggeration, but remember that WhenU is essentially trying to argue that you have less rights than they do over your own computer. This is the tenent of DCMA supporters. Users cannot be trusted with what they do on their computers, ergo we must administer their PCs for them. WhenU simply extends this to actions you take browsing the web.

    Acts like the DCMA have taken away a huge number of rights from computer users, so don't be too surprised if WhenU win the right to, basically, remotely administer your PC by force. As long as they get government backing and/or say that spyware fights terrorism, they might very well succeed.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
  6. First Ammendment Rights by lkaos · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What about our rights not to have to deal with this scumware?

    What about our rights not to have to hear hate speech!

    What about our rights not to have to see minorities in the same store as us!

    Your right to be "left alone" just doesn't exist. Just stop downloading software. It's not hard.

    --
    int func(int a);
    func((b += 3, b));
  7. Great more money for me! by nlinecomputers · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I service PCs for a living and this spyware shit is really paying the bills. It's great that I get more work but you feel dirty like you are having to work on a sewer line.

    I'm glad I have the work but also dislike having the need to do the work. I think alot of people of turning away from the internet because of all this spyware crap.

    --
    Slashdot, home of supporters of free software, free music, and free speech.Except for Moderators that disagree with you.
  8. What ever happened to justice? by FictionPimp · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I guess they wont mind if I put some buggy software on their systems then?

    But seriously, why can't they be sued for cybercrime? If installing software without permission is perfectly legal, I have some keylogging software I would like to put on my banks PC's. I wouldn't argue privacy, I would argue the fact that they are putting software on your computer without your knowledge, that may cause problems in your system critical applications such as porn.

  9. First Amendment Rights? by David+H · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why do companies have rights the same as people have rights? It seems odd to me that companies aren't punished like people, but they want to be treated like people. I personally would love to see a corporate death sentence. If your products kill people and someone in the company knew it, the company should be instantly disolved.

    Personally, I think the US needs a corporate bill of rights, and those rights need to be seriously limited compared to my rights. Any first amendment rights should end where personal irritation begins.

  10. A matter of security by thewiz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    IMHO, I believe the U.S. Government needs to get involved with shutting down these spy- and mal-ware companies due to National Security. Having worked as a contractor in military facilities, every Windows-based system attached to the internet I've worked on in those facilities, has been loaded with spy-ware. And I'm not talking about military-sanctioned keystroke loggers and system management tools.

    I've never been comfortable working with unclassified (but potentially sensitive) data on a system that I know has spy-ware on it. It wouldn't be difficult for someone to collect sensitive data from those machines with spy- or mal-ware. A little side note here: it's possible to use information from unclassified documents to determine classified information.

    Regardless of whether the system is military, government, or your own personal PC, I see spy- and mal-ware as a form of trespassing. Someone sneaking software onto your PC is no different than someone breaking into your house and stealing your drivers license, social security card, and other personal information. What these companies do has nothing to do with free speech.

    --
    If "disco" means "I learn" in Latin, does "discothèque" mean "I learn technology"?
  11. While I hate spyware by Gr8Apes · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm probably going to be modded WAY down for this

    I cannot 100% disagree with their position. If someone is foolish enough to click through the agreement and installs spyware, as repulsive as it is, who do they really have to blame except themselves? As long as they don't act like a virus and stealth install along with another program as some programs have been known to do, I don't see how you can complain. Basically, as long as they agree, they agreed. Are you going to sue MS for typing "format c:" and then losing your system?

    I should mention that Hotbar is fresh in my memory from having to step my dad remotely through the painful removal process (no network access thanks to hotbar, sort of ironic;). However, the fact that is is painful, or even if it could not be removed at all, is not cause for legislation. Otherwise, I'd like MS to be the first victim. Ever try to uninstall an IE hotfix that causes problems? How about that "Outlook security fix"? Can't see your JPGs anymore? Tough. So, while I agree that Spyware sucks rocks, I don't think Utah's legislation is very well thought out or even correct.

    I think a better law would actually address personal privacy. The more I think about it, the more I think I like the EU's privacy laws, and perhaps the US should step up to that level of privacy protection. (Be hell on advertisers, but who really gives a sh!t about them anyways?)

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  12. Hacking is free speech, too. by gusanofeliz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Has anyone done any reverse engineering of any of this spyware stuff? I mean, I would love to run a program that spoke gator.com's protocols and connected to their servers, reported endless amounts of bogus data to pollute and help render worthless all of their covertly gathered data that they value so much. Seems that this could be the only way to fight back.

  13. Free Speech vs Invasion of Privacy by Zondar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    If I walk up to some woman on the street, stand beside her and start digging quietly through her purse, making notes of what stores she's shopped at, her telephone number, her address...

    Then I go visit her house, quietly walk in and make more notes about her life, use her phone to call it in to my associates...

    I'd be arrested for so many violations of the law it wouldn't be funny. So why the hell is this tolerated in the virtual world?

  14. I agree... by |<amikaze · · Score: 4, Insightful


    A bit of background information. I'm a computer tech that deals with the general public. Despite keeping my job alive, I really do hate spyware. This software causes a fair-sized chunk of my customers' problems, and it gets repetitive to keep having to uninstall it. That being said, I think we have to look at the bigger picture.

    Spyware isn't some kind of magic software that spontaneously appears. Admittedly, it can be a bit deceptive, but still prompts you for an installer. The problem is that people install software blindly without considering the outcome of their actions. If a perfect stranger, without identifying himself as an employee from a company you knew about, showed up at your house asking to poke around on your computer for a while, what would you do? You would slam the door on his face, and make a mental note: "No, I do not trust content from the Gator company"

  15. Browser mods against spyware? by WoodstockJeff · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Part of the request exchanged between a browser and a http server is a list of encodings and languages accepted by the browser and user. Is there a way to modify popular browsers to send, say, "Pragma:no-spyware-accepted" and "Pragma:no-tracking-software-accepted" on each request, to indicate in advance that you do not accept such software, despite (mistaken) click-throughs?

    Granted, no spyware company is going to pay attention to such things, but it might be useful if you participate in a class-action claim against such a company for installing damaging software on your system without your permission.

  16. I am a very strong proponent of free speech. by the_rajah · · Score: 4, Insightful

    But I am also a very strong proponent of my right not to provide the venue for speech I don't want. It should be that extremely simple. My computer is my property and, as others have pointed out, another party placing something there without my permission is trespassing.

    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain

    --


    "Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
  17. How bout third amendment? by thecorndogofdoom · · Score: 5, Interesting

    How about third amendment? Right against unreasonable search and seizure...normally applicable to physical search by the police...but what about "seizure" of personal information without permission...that's theft. Utah judges are bullshit. I know the 3rd amendment is intended for the government, but maybe it ought to be considered extensible in this circumstance? Actually, I'm surprised no-one has brought up harassment either (that I've heard of thus far).

    --


    -- Tim
    Asst. Mger - Software Team, CSU College of Business
  18. Unfair! by mixmasterjake · · Score: 5, Funny

    Hey, I never clicked on any license agreement. None of the warez that I downloaded even had one. The other day, this crack I ran had a spyware attached to it. I never clicked "agree" to anything. That's totally unfair!

    --
    TODO: come up with a clever sig
  19. WhenU ... by Rick.C · · Score: 4, Funny
    Jimminy Cricket sings:

    WhenU click upon a link
    Makes no difference what you think
    WhenU click upon our link
    Your base are belong to us.

    --
    You were 80% angel, 10% demon. The rest was hard to explain. - Over The Rhine
    "Math in a song is good."-Linford
  20. Ultimately Money Talks by blueZhift · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As I'm sure others have said in the past, ultimately the best way to eradicate spyware is to punish the companies that benefit from it in the marketplace. If we as consumers simply refuse to patronize companies that use such distasteful marketing methods, spyware would just shrivel up. Those of us who are knowledgable should spread the word and make those paying the spyware makers regret it.

    Spyware, like spam, fluorishes because there is money to be made. There's no room in our capitalist system for morals, privacy, or common courtesy. But if lacking these starts to hurt in the pocketbook, then we'll see some progress.

  21. How to convince the judge by jridley · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Have some magnetic signs made up advertizing the local adult bookstore. Next time the judge stops at a stopsign, run up and slap the sign on the side. For bonus points, figure out somewhere that he won't notice it for a while; perhaps on the rear passenger door, he might not see it.

    To simulate the trouble it can be to remove the crap from your system, slather some superglue on the backside before doing this, so that it'll be expensive and time consuming to remove and will cause damage that will also be expensive to fix.

    I see NO difference between this and some of the more obnoxious spyware lately; they're both hijacking my property without my knowledge or consent in order to promote their own business interests.

  22. Spyware Costs! by spidergoat2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I'm spending more and more time cleaning spyware at work. It invades computers then I have to get rid of it. I have a laptop someone just brought in that's filty with the stuff. I spent several hours at a friends house last night cleaning her PC. It's time to start sending bills to Spyware companies for these cleaning services. In fact, as I sit here, I believe that's what I'm going to do. I'll send invoices to these firms, then take them to small claims court when they don't pay. Who's with me?

  23. An excellent idea! Mod parent up! by swb · · Score: 4, Insightful

    That's an excellent idea! Data pollution of gator and other spyware would be excellent; they would either have to change their format, obsoleteing thousands of infested PCs, or just live with bogus data.