Slashdot Mirror
Spyware Fines OKed By House
glimmy writes "The US House of Represenatives passed a bill that imposes fines on the use of Spyware by a majority of 399-1. This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though."
← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)
How tight or loss will this definition be??? can any organization apply for it. Or will it be only for government spy agencies? How about foreign ones? The article has this line in it " The House bill approved Tuesday explicitly permits snooping software built by the FBI (news - web sites) or spy agencies secretly collecting information under a court order or other legal permissions affecting federal departments." Ok which courts? US? ones, how about if N. Kora spy agency got court orders to investigate some one in the US (ya right really like this will happen but just for the sake of the question please give me this one) will that be allowed? Now how about company X higher a company in China, that gets a general court order there to do spy ware, and lets say for further argument, lets say this chines corp gets "classified" a spy agency? Is that legal, or is the lay written that only US spy agencies? How about the spy agencies ones from our friends to the North Canada, lets say they are investigating some one that is part of organized crime there, but lives in the US? Or is this just another feel good law, like the can spam law? I would hope this does decrease spyware (but how many of these spyware organizations are just going to move off shore?) I am tired of cleaning it off of friends computers, (one reason I make it a part of my procedure, no mater what I do, I install spywareblaster)
Put on tin foil hats now?
How would you like to be the one guy who voted no?
The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
Nice, but when are they gonna do the same thing for straight up ad-ware? Ad-ware has many virus like qualities and totally screw up your windows box, but if it isn't spyware then this bill won't touch it from what I can tell.
Barton acknowledged that experts had recently found more than 60 varieties of spyware installed on the panel's own computers. He said all the spyware programs had been installed without the permission of computer users.
Wow, I'm glad to see my tax money going to good use . . . funding an "expert" to figure out that spyware had been installed without permission! My tax dollars doing EXCELLENT work there! Hip Hip Hooray for government idiocy!
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
I'm not a vegan because I love animals, I'm a vegan because I hate plants!
the FBI exemption is fine by me as long as my 4th ammendment rights remain in place.
because if they have the right to spy on your computer, they also have the right to break down your door and arrest you.
and plus, I don't think that FBI spyware will be infectious or anywhere nearly as intrusive as the spyware most windows users see.
of course, this all doesn't effect me since I use a mac.
I could also avert the whole FBI thing by switching to BeOS or some other obscure platform which the spy thing hasn't been ported to.
really, all I think this is going to do is help catch scammers, spammers, virus writers, and script kiddies.
the ends are worth the means.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
No, he sticks to what he believes. Read his website and see.
While we may not agree with how he voted, it is rather nice to have a rep in DC that isn't a complete and total whore who changes their mind 50 times per second.
Sounds too good to be true.
The bill's bans against spyware would begin 12 months after it becomes law and would automatically expire after 2009.
Oh, it is.
I wonder what the exact definition of spyware is according to that bill ?
/. when you read this is spyware, while the gator and 30 browserhijacks/toolbars/etc you volunteerly installed and accepted thru a 30 pages long eula isnt ?
Theoretically the cookie set by
Not to mention various pieces of software that installs on windows machines when you try play a regular audio CD..
Its imho a good thing to ban spyware, but im just really unsure what to ban..
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
The same logic was used days after 9/11/2001 to pass the usa patriot act.
That way of thinking isn't a sane way for a goverment to run.
This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.
You left this out from the article:
The House bill approved Tuesday explicitly permits snooping software built by the FBI (news - web sites) or spy agencies secretly collecting information under a court order or other legal permissions affecting federal departments. There excluded when they have a court order, issued by a judge for cause. They can't just do it willy nilly for kicks.
You know, cops can also run red lights and speed when they're chasing suspects too. On no! abuse of power!! Sheesh.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
As long as the fines are payable to the person who had to deal with them and remove them then I'm fine.
) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
... we can trust them, can't we?
That's an excellent point. However, I doubt that most of the members of Congress knows what an ActiveX is. I guess this will create a loophole for the lawyers to argue about for years.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
If I download a program called Weatherbug because it tells me that it will give me quick access to the weather, and then I find out that there were also many other stipulations in the 'user agreement' that 1% of people read, it's spyware.
IMO, Realplayer is spyware, AOL Instant Messenger is spyware. There oughta be a crackdown on dishonest software. When Realplayer starts with all the subscription defaults as deactivated, except for the ones conveniently out of view, SPYWARE. When AOL Instant Messenger wants to put wild tangent bullshit on my computer when AIM used to be for IM'ing people, SPYWARE. Sorry, but it's dishonest programming and doesn't give people enough options for how to disable it or even realize that it's there. Weatherbug does not have anything other than small text about its spyware.
Also, Microsoft is at fault. It's usually just one-click 'yes or no' that decides whether or not the average user has infinite spam, goes to coolwebsearch.com at default, and loses a reliable internet connection... 'Install on Demand' should be disabled by default. I once had spyware installed.. turns out I clicked 'yes' one time when I was just quickly closing popup windows.
They ought to impose the same kinds of restrictions that credit card companies have. When I get a CC add, I can instantly sort through all the bullshit. When Capital One sends me their junk mail, I can open it up and instantly see that $79 a year credit card membership fee is a ripoff. In software, you have to read through a longwinded user agreement - often only available after the software is already downloaded and installed.
The average user is stupid. But, it's not always only stupid users that are being deceived. The software itself lies about its purpose.
--- We need more Ron Paul!
Some interesting questions come out of this:
1. Do corporations who install spyware on employees computers now face penalties? (unless of course the employee signed something consenting to the spying)
2. If I were to run a packet sniffer on a network, does that count as "spyware"?
How about 80 page disclaimer of legalise and jargon, and title it "Terms of use"? As if one would click "NO" after purchasing $1000 computer and then bothering to download whatever software you need for it.
I suggest you read Slashdot
"According to this article [...], it was "Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas."
He sure ain't toeing the official Republican party line on this one, is he? The Hon. Ron needs to change his party affiliation if'n he's gonna use common sense like that.
Oftentimes the bullshit isn't in the software itself, but in the removal mechanism. If I notice a piece of software eating up my system resources, generating popups, sending an unreasonable amount of outbound traffic, first thing I want to do is head to the Add/Remove programs control panel, click "remove" and be done with it. I don't want to click Yes and No 4 times questioning why I want to uninstall, I don't want to enter randomly generated keys to uninstall, I don't want to hunt for registry keys and hidden files to manually uninstall, and I sure as hell don't want shit to reinstall upon reboot.
Any software to the contrary is in violation of my personal space within my computer, and should be liable for whatever time or money I spend removing it from my computer. EULAs be damned, if I install an application claiming to display weather, that's all I expect it to do. If I notice 4 or 5 other applications installed along with it, whose installations weren't made obvious to me at the time of the original app's installation (no, fine print EULAs are not obvious notification), the publisher of the original application should be held liable.
Disclaimer: I run linux at home, but work for a small computer repair shop. Roughly 90% of the jobs we do are cleaning spyware. Just today I ran into a little bugger that replaced a built in winsock DLL with it's own mangled version, where it would generate popups and install AdDestroyer and Wintools on boot if an internet connection was present (Windows 98). Yes, the registry was cleared of ALL startup entries, the system.ini was thoroughly inspected, and all startup folders were empty. Task managed showed nothing but Explorer and Systray running. Yet so long as there was an internet connection, within 10 minutes, HijackThis would report wintools and addestroyer set to run on bootup, with the respective programs present in the program files folder, despite having been deleted from safe mode command prompt only via deltree.
I don't know about the rest of the world, but I think that's bullshit. Bullshit for me to have to clean it over and over, and bullshit for the customer to have to pay for that cleaning over and over. (while good for business, I'm morally opposed.) There should be hefty fines/prison terms/death penalties handed out to software vendors who do not provide proper uninstallation procedures, or valid contact information upon installation of their software.
Give it a rest, man. First you find the bill offensive..("The recent attempts by the American Government to control this beast are not only offensive to me as a Canadian but also stupid as it is easy for the makers of this software to simply move their operation.") and then you'd admire it..("Though I would love a flashing screen that says, Kazaa is installing spyware on your system, I don't see it a a viable option")
If you are, as a Canadian, truly offended by the bill (as you say you are), then its time for you to re-check your citizenship. What are you offended by? The fact that we, as citizens of the United States, want to take a stand against spyware? If your offense is that we think we can control the rest of the world, then the problem is yours -- we are simply setting a standard. Geez.
Today I got a call from one of our clients we take care of about spyware problems. Now they have all the latest and greatest in cleaning tools. They all are net savy and don't click every box that pops up. Well some got so bad today they wouldn't function. The woman's in charge was the worst and I know this lady does know how not to screw things up and she was swearing up and down. "I haven't done anything!"
Well 4 hours later for 2 people we get everything cleaned back up. I set the "Tea Timer" on Spybot S&D and set it to show a prompt when it hit something. (setting the prompt is something I have never done before). I fire up IE and the home page is msn.com and BANG "Cannot download file AvenueA, Inc". FROM MSN!!!! Yes folks trying to download in the background from an ad image. Coming from machine name view.atdmt.com and it hiding behind the image trying to sell you msn broadband service!!!
They call this "Trusted Computing"?
Yes friends not only will MS sell you a holey OS but then we will pirate it from you using their own exploits in their browser!
I called MS and of course it wasn't us. (even offer to send them the logs and the captures from the network, but I don't know what I am talking about...) After 3 hours I talked with a supervisor that "acted" like he cared. Well log files don't lie and neither do I.
No this is no joke. I wish it was. At least the problem is solved for our client. We blocked msn at the firewall
A point about this I'm not really a M$ basher hell I've made my living on NT since 3.51. True I perfer Linux but have always siad that M$ was ok and you could TRUST them. Well that ended that today. As I said I don't lie especially to people who are paying me and putting their trust in me so the next time I am asked "Can you trust Microsoft?" the answer will be NO!
I want to know the names of the spyware produced by FBI, CIA, or NSA.
Any help would be much appreciated !!
Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
Section 1B would seem to me to cover what Verisign did a while back when they were redirected unregistered domain names, or am I mistaken? Any lawyer types care to comment?
Keith D.
People want to enjoy the benefits of using computers, but don't want to be responsible for what they do with them.
A computer, after all, is a tool that we use. What it does it does on our behalf. It only does what we tell it to.
If I choose to buy a computer with spyware, or whatever, on it, I am choosing to buy a computer with that software on it. If I choose to install a piece of software, I am choosing to install that piece of software. If I choose to make these choices without finding out what these pieces of software actually do, I am making that choice, and am responsible for the consequences.
But hang on. One of the wonderful things about computers, about software, is that we don't need to read the software in order to use it. The computers do that on our behalf. One of the most wonderful things about software is how we can use it without finding out every single thing that it does.
On the one hand, I am responsible for what I have my computer do, I am responsible for what I allow my computer to do. But on the other, one of the greatest benefits - if not the greatest benefit - of software is that I don't need to find out everything about what it actually does in order to use it.
Open Source is itself a solution to this problem. It's really just peer review. It's open, it's transparent, it's democratic, and it works. By choosing open-source software, and by choosing the right open-source software, I am choosing software that has been, and continues to be, thoroughly and publicly peer-reviewed. If I'm not sufficiently satisfied, I can still examine the source code myself, or hire someone to examine it for me. Wonderful!
The point of this is that it is possible to reconcile taking responsibility for software choices with the benefit of being able to use software without having to read all the way through it. This means that there is no excuse for using software, or allowing computers to do 'unintended' things, without taking responsibility for that.
But many users now seem so steeped in a culture of 'blame the computer', 'blame the software providers', and so on, that re-education is what's really required. Of course, it's more than understandable that so many computer users have ended up with this 'I'm not responsible!' attitude - how can they be when the only software available is effectively secret? How can users be responsible for what the software does when they can only go by what the providers of that software tell them?
If I have a choice between a piece of open-source software, and a similar piece of closed-source software, and I choose the closed-source software, I am choosing to use that software even if it does other stuff that I don't even know about. I would have to take responsibility for that, as I could have chosen the open-source, peer-reviewed software instead.
But if there isn't an open-source option available - what then? How are users supposed to know whether or not a piece of software they need isn't going to do something they'd never agree to? Users need to demand open, independently-verifiable software. But for that to happen, users first need to be educated.
The new law in the US is the wrong solution to an unnecessary problem. It further reinforces the idea that we are not responsible for what our computers do on our behalves. It panders to those who want to enjoy their rights, but don't want to be responsible for the consequences of how they exercise those rights. It treats computer users like children who are too young to take responsibility for their own choices.
We need to work to liberate computer users from the shackles of misconception.
Freedom of expression includes the freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas expressed in software form.
>They only get installed via user consent.
No.
I spent a couple of years working with laywers and asked them to decode a couple of these spyware EULAs. They really couldn't. The language is purposely bad and misleading and written in a way to play down any privacy violations. If people knew what they were getting into they wouldnt install this stuff.
Spyware by its nature already is illegal in many jurisdictions.
Some "installers" are really just browser exploits.
>You don't outlaw mere annoyances.
Yes you can. At 3am my neighbor can't blast his stereo and keep me up all night. Its illegal to leave dog poop on the street. etc. I live in the real world not in the libertarian magical fairy forest.
Lastly, Ron Paul is richer than you and me and can easily pay someone to clean out his PC every so often. This is not an option for most users. It should be self-evident that "libertarianism" is just a fancy way to say "classism" as those with wealth can get goods, services, peace and quiet, etc that others should have access to.
See also: the cronyistic Ownership Society
(2) Modifying settings related to use of the computer or to the computer's access to or use of the Internet by altering-- (A) the Web page that appears when the owner or authorized user launches an Internet browser or similar program used to access and navigate the Internet; (B) the default provider used to access or search the Internet, or other existing Internet connections settings; Section 2A Microsoft are chargable as MSN Messenger ask you if you want to set your homepage to MSN Today (Box ticked by default) Section 2B Google Labs are chargable beacuse the Google Toolbar asks you if you want to set your search page to Google (Box unticked by default)
Have you metaroderated recently?
A while back, public schools were required to install content filters. These divert the intended porn web page to a web page saying "naughty, naughty". I guess this become both required and banned under Law.