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."

94 of 429 comments (clear)

  1. Please define spy agencies? by mpost4 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Please define spy agencies? by baximus · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Better yet - Please define "spyware". A lot of internet users and anti-spyware companies consider browser cookies to be a form of spyware. Does this mean that I will end up having to recode all my web pages to not use cookies, in order to avoid a fine?

    2. Re:Please define spy agencies? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 5, Informative
      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?
      This is an American law affecting American companies, american citizens, and american institutions. Set up shop outside the border and you're immune, sadly.
      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    3. Re:Please define spy agencies? by FrYGuY101 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Tell me where the US government has domain over the citizens and organizations of other countries?

      --
      "If we let things terrify us, life will not be worth living."

      - Seneca
    4. Re:Please define spy agencies? by rts008 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Only Microsoft has that kind of control

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    5. Re:Please define spy agencies? by mlk · · Score: 2, Interesting

      if so, then having a P3P file, and let the user choose to block?

      --
      Wow, I should not post when knackered.
    6. Re:Please define spy agencies? by heli0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please define "spyware"

      Here are the criteria specified in the bill

      http://thomas.loc.gov
      H.R. 2929

      (1) Taking control of the computer by--

      (A) utilizing such computer to send unsolicited information or material from the protected computer to others;

      (B) diverting the Internet browser of the computer, or similar program of the computer used to access and navigate the Internet, away from the site the user intended to view, to one or more other Web pages, such that the user is prevented from viewing the content at the intended Web page;

      (C) accessing or using the modem, or Internet connection or service, for the computer and thereby causing damage to the computer or causing the owner or authorized user to incur unauthorized financial charges;

      (D) using the computer as part of an activity performed by a group of computers that causes damage to another computer; or

      (E) delivering advertisements that a user of the computer cannot close without turning off the computer or closing all sessions of the Internet browser for the computer.

      (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;

      (C) a list of bookmarks used by the computer to access Web pages; or

      (D) security or other settings of the computer that protect information about the owner or authorized user.

      (3) Collecting personally identifiable information through the use of a keystroke logging function or similar function.

      (4) Inducing the owner or authorized user to install a computer software component onto the computer, or preventing reasonable efforts to block the installation or execution of, or to disable, a computer software component by--

      (A) presenting the owner or authorized user with an option to decline installation of a software component such that, when the option is selected by the owner or authorized user, the installation nevertheless proceeds; or

      (B) causing a computer software component that the owner or authorized user has properly removed or disabled to automatically reinstall or reactivate on the computer.

      (5) Misrepresenting that installing a separate software component or providing log-in and password information is necessary for security or privacy reasons, or that installing a separate software component is necessary to open, view, or play a particular type of content.

      (6) Inducing the owner or authorized user to install or execute computer software by misrepresenting the identity or authority of the person or entity providing the computer software to the owner or user.

      (7) Inducing the owner or authorized user to provide personally identifiable information to another person by misrepresenting the identity or authority of the person seeking the information.

      (8) Removing, disabling, or rendering inoperative a security, anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology installed on the computer.

      (9) Installing or executing on the computer one or more additional computer software components with the intent of causing a person to use such components in a way that violates any other provision of this section.

      --
      Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
    7. Re:Please define spy agencies? by xs650 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Iraq. Next question.

    8. Re:Please define spy agencies? by jginspace · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, this is the "Spy Act", as opposed to the "I-Spy" act (4661).

      Looking at the provisions it seems the attribution "Spyware" is more a case of hype though. The act is much wider in its scope than what a /. reader would define as spyware.

      1B,C,D,E could be paraphrased in a nanosecond by the average /. reader. Leaving the most important provision: "utilizing such computer to send unsolicited information or material from the protected computer to others".

      And yes it does contain a provision banning "Collecting personally identifiable information through the use of a keystroke logging function or similar function."

      This part, "Removing, disabling, or rendering inoperative a security, anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology installed on the computer." ...would be easy to break. I suppose the action has to be "wilful".

    9. Re:Please define spy agencies? by mcrbids · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?

      This is a pretty simple legal issue - one that deserves much less delineation than you apparently imagine.

      In this case, a "court order" would be an order by a court having jurisdiction over the area in question. In other words, you aren't going to be held accountable in California for a Mexican court - they have no jurisdiction over you. Similarly, you won't have to worry about federal court, either, unless you operate in one of a few select areas that fall under federal jurisdiction (EG: Bank robbery, interstate fraud, etc)

      There's no need to specify which court, because a court order cannot by definition apply in an area outside its jurisdiction.

      --
      I have no problem with your religion until you decide it's reason to deprive others of the truth.
    10. Re:Please define spy agencies? by secretsquirel · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thanks, I think I pretty much get what this bill says now. Well I guess now windows is illegal then; or did I misread that.

    11. Re:Please define spy agencies? by zx75 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Set up shop outside the border and you're immune, sadly.

      Sadly? Excuse Me?

      Ok, I'm as much against spyware as the next guy, and from what I've read this seems like a pretty good, well intentioned bill.

      But I am MUCH more opposed to having a foreign country impose its laws on me, restricting the freedoms that I possess according to my country's laws than I am to spyware.

      Please, think before you say such things, people around the world are just as opposed to having the US impose its laws on them, as you would be in the opposite circumstances.

      --
      This is not a sig.
    12. Re:Please define spy agencies? by julesh · · Score: 2, Informative

      No -- most other adware the advert can be closed by closing the application in question. The law (as quoted) stipulates that the user must not have to close their web browser, but does not have the same requirement about any other application that may be running.

  2. How do I register my company as a spy agency? by 3770 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I'm sure that I'll get other benefits as well. Maybe I can get search warrants for my former girlfriends new boyfriend.

    It is worth looking into.

    --
    The Internet is full. Go Away!!!
  3. By clicking OK... by JorDan+Clock · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Spyware isn't as secretive as they seem to think it was. Much of it is installed with full knowledge of it's existance, but many people ignore the functions of what they download. I really doubt this will do anything at all because people will keep downloading things like WeatherBug, and think that all it's doing is reporting the weather...

    1. Re:By clicking OK... by BasilBrush · · Score: 2, Informative

      RTFA. The bill outlaws spyware that hasn't asked for the users permission to be installed or to do whatever spying it is that is done. Spyware that you elect to install will still be perfectly legal. Much of the spyware that is floating around is of the kind that is secretive. Most people that run adaware are unpleasantly surprised, and it's not because they forgot. It's becasue stuff has been installed without being asked for.

    2. Re:By clicking OK... by brxndxn · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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!
    3. Re:By clicking OK... by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

    4. Re:By clicking OK... by DarkBlackFox · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Herein lies the catch, and the bullshit. Typically with adware/spyware/crapware installed, popups are self-spawning. You close one, some little javascript tells another to open. Eventually more than one will open. The result is layer upon layer of popups in slightly different places, where by double clicking one X in frustration will pass the second click to the popup conveniently placed directly under the first ad's close button, thereby "accepting" their EULA and installing whatever crapware they're peddling.

      This ignores the issue of popups using javascript to disable the toolbars and window frame, simulating the titlebar as part of the ad itself, where by clicking the X, you click the ad, again accepting whatever sadistic eula is printed at the bottom, and allowing whatever crap to install itself.

      Yes, many times the installation does boil down to some user clicking the "yes" button when prompted with a Windows systemesque popup claiming "you are infected with spyware, click yes to clean your computer." But others it's the clever placement and deceptive contents of an ad which throws even experienced and savvy users off their block, and once one crapware is in place, it's not long before it invites it's friends over for a party and your computer chokes itself beyond reasonable use.

    5. Re:By clicking OK... by syukton · · Score: 2, Insightful

      About 90% of your clientele's computers are, by your own admission, afflicted by spyware. Supporting the making-illegal of spyware seems somewhat foolish: you're saying you can get by on only about 10% of your current business.

      Yes it's bullshit. But you know what? Bulls SHIT! It's a natural fact of life! We need this particular bullshit in order to make money. If cars didn't break, you'd put ASE and everyone who gets certified by them out of business. We need computers to break, and we need it to be esoteric yet simple to fix, so that we can continue to make money in our industry capably and confidently.

      I fix computers for a living too, and I like the challenge of removing a virus or piece of spyware, it provides a certain sense of satisfaction.

      --
      Reinvent the wheel only at either a lower cost, greater effectiveness, or your own personal enrichment and satisfaction.
    6. Re:By clicking OK... by Tim+C · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No app is going to mess with OS X system config files, no matter how much market share it has, because the user doesn't run as root.

      So how does the user perform system administration tasks? Are they ever prompted to enter their root/admin password while installing something?

      What's to stop spyware installers from doing the same thing on Mac OS X or Linux? Sure, under Linux they can only put "auto start" stuff in /etc/rc.d/... or /etc/profile or /etc/[shell]rc or ~/.[shell]rc or overwrite a system binary or ... Not as bad as Windows perhaps, but not that far off it.

  4. Heh by mfh · · Score: 2, Interesting

    How would you like to be the one guy who voted no?

    --
    The dangers of knowledge trigger emotional distress in human beings.
    1. Re:Heh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Ron Paul is one of the finest senators we have. It's worth reading why he voted 'no'. He is a man of principle and isn't scared to stand against the vast majority when something violates his principles.

      So in answer to your question, I can't say that I would like to be him, because I like being myself, but if I had to choose among which elected officials to be, he would be in my top 5, easy.

      The only defeat is when you compromise your principles. Then you are utterly defeated.

    2. Re:Heh by RancidBeef · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Not to nit-pick, but he's a House member, not a Senator. I wish he *were* a Senator, then his voice would be a little louder...

      Go to the House web page sometime and look how he votes. For example, the spyware vote is here. Note that 32 members didn't vote. Who knows what their opinions of this were? Where they just too chicken to vote against it? Or were they too busy giving some cute intern a beef injection?

      He's one of the few (only) politicians who understands there are constitutional limits on what the federal government has jurisdiction over. Hell, even murder isn't a federal crime. (But killing someone might violate the victim's civil rights, which is a federal crime. How fubar is that???) I suppose you could claim the interstate commerce clause gives them this authority, but that part of the constitution has been abused so much in the last century...

      I just finished reading Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day by Joe Scarborough. He was one of the 73 rookies voted into the House during the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. It's a great inside view into why the revolution ultimately failed, why the "small government" Republicans are now putting us nearly half a trillion dollars further in debt every year, and why someone like Ron Paul who tries to buck the system and vote his convictions almost never succeeds and loses favor in his own party.

  5. spy agencies? by osho_gg · · Score: 5, Funny

    Let me guess, microsoft will be the first officially US government sanctioned spy agency?

    Osho

  6. The lone hold out... by nativespeaker · · Score: 4, Funny

    Maybe Ron Paul(R-Texas) would like a free web toolbar that will keep his computer clock accurate and inform him of deals on vacations, Viagara, and more...

    1. Re:The lone hold out... by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:The lone hold out... by Faustust · · Score: 2, Insightful

      HA! That's all that yours does? Mine not only gives me links to where I can buy Viagra to be sure to be ready, but it gives me links to where I can meet young, horny women in my area. The best part of it all is that if I can't find any YHW in my area, everytime I think about sex, it opens a new window with all the pr0n a man could need.

      -------

    3. Re:The lone hold out... by Brandybuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Maybe Ron Paul (L-Texas) actually read the full text of the bill and understood that beneath it's geek-friendly title was a freedom-unfriendly law.

      You may think its funny to criminalize spyware, but that's the first step down a very slippery slope. Spywares are not viruses or trojans. They only get installed via user consent. A government that has the power to criminalize spyware between a consenting user and publisher has the power to criminalize [insert any consensual activity here].

      You don't outlaw mere annoyances. That's taking the power of government way too far, no matter what political stripe you are. Do we ban nose picking next? Belching at the table? Spyware may be annoying, but if it's on your system, you have only yourself to blame. If you're an admin and it's running amock on your wee 'bairns then look to your users and not to the spyware publishers.

      --
      Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
    4. Re:The lone hold out... by shawn(at)fsu · · Score: 2, Informative

      Got to give him credit, he voted against his own pay raise...

      --
      500 dollar reward for tip(s) leading to the arrest of the person(s) who stole my sig.
    5. Re:The lone hold out... by Fnkmaster · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And I quote from his website:




      * Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

      * Property should be owned by people, not government.

      * All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

      * The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

      * Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

      * The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, not the government's.


      Gee, almost sounds like a libertarian, right? Then you read stuff like this rant. So in other words, he supports people's rights to all voluntary social and economic associations for certain values of voluntary, namely "socially conservative".


      He may be consistent over time, but his statements are mutually and internally inconsistent. If he really believed in social liberty and freedom, he would not describe himself as a cultural or social conservative, which is also translated as "authoritarian". If the lives and actions of people are their own business, why does he care who has sex with whom or how marriage is defined?


      Nothing pisses me off as much as Republicans who steal the verbiage of socially liberal positions, and then turn around and disparage the word liberal like it means something dirty by attacking the straw man position that all liberals favor massive redistribution of wealth. I'm also not a libertarian, but if I were I would probably be offended by this guy borrowing my platform and abusing it.

  7. Rep. Ron Paul and why he voted against it. by DAldredge · · Score: 4, Informative

    They reason why Rep. Ron Paul voted against it is that he really sticks to what he believes, and one of the things he believes is that the goverment should stay out of transactions between private citizens.

    I am not one way or another if I think he voted correctly on this or any issue in the past, but you have to admire one of the few people in DC that doesn't sell out what they believe.

    1. Re:Rep. Ron Paul and why he voted against it. by nativespeaker · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You don't have to admire someone for having an opinion you disagree with, just because they don't 'sell out what they believe'. Osama, Bush, and Kim-Jong Il all refuse to sell out. Do you admire them all?

    2. Re:Rep. Ron Paul and why he voted against it. by DAldredge · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Osama has sold out Islam as portions of the Quron teach against what he has done.

      Bush has sold out per his dealings and love of China even though they have a forced abortion policy.

      Kill-Jonh Il has sold out as he is a professed commie and he doesn't follow the teachings of that system (not that any commie leader in history has)

    3. Re:Rep. Ron Paul and why he voted against it. by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Informative

      The other function of the government is to regulate commercial transactions. This is kind of an internet "weights and measures" issue that is actually a good place for the government to poke its nose into.

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
    4. Re:Rep. Ron Paul and why he voted against it. by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      A transaction implies consent on the behalf of both parties. The kinds of spyware that are being banned are the kinds that do not seek the users permission to install or do what they do. That's not a transaction. It should be a crime, and this bill will make it one.

    5. Re:Rep. Ron Paul and why he voted against it. by Miriku+chan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      a mafia extortion is a transaction between two individuals, and one i certainly hope he would "flip flop" to make illegal

      stubborness is not a virtue, it's a sign of a rusty, dogmatic, and stupid individual.

      learn to adapt.

      --
      shaolin punk, activist post-industrial
  8. Nice by XsynackX · · Score: 2, Interesting
    The House proposal, known as the "Spy Act," adds civil penalties over what has emerged as an extraordinary frustration for Internet users, whose infected computers often turn sluggish and perform unexpectedly

    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!
  9. Great but... by Stevyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    These companies like Claria (Gator) will just hire lawyers to make sure the agreement you click yes to will protect them from any legal action. I would love to see these companies put out of business, but the bottom line is people agree to installing this software. It sucks for me to remove it from my friends' computers, but that's just the way it is. No matter how much I convince them not to install free windows software or use firefox, they won't change their habits any time soon.

    Still, it's a step in the "right direction."

    1. Re:Great but... by shubert1966 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Totally. This is user error.

      This bill, and others like it, are just kneejerk reactions to a perceived threat. The real problem is to O/S vendor and the user. Microsoft has tied so many spaghetti-code platforms together that most users have no idea of what they are getting into simply by using the internet. There's a substantial learning curve to overcome for most people, and frankly, most people just click "I agree".

      Many of us realize the importance of ghosting a new system once software is installed and preferences are set. Most of us realize the importance of virus software and backing up data. These are things we've learned over time, either the hard way, or from being prudent. Look at the average consumer and you'll see they don't have time to RTFM, so it's their own fault. It's their ignorance.

      I could explain this to them, but they "just want the problem to go away".

      If anything, these bills should force bundled-ware to have a separate license agreement for each product. If the user could see the product description of each 'module' in the offering, then they could better understand just how foolish their being by pursuing these 'free' software titles.

      --
      Stuff that matters.
    2. Re:Great but... by mikefe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then charge your friends to fix thier computers.

      It's surprising how much more respect you get from people if you charge them money for your services.

      Then you either make money or they do something (not clicking I agree, start using firefox or etc) that will help prevent them from having the problem in the future.

      --
      There: Something at a specific location.
      Their: Owned by someone.
      Please make sure your english compiles.
    3. Re:Great but... by Brightest+Light · · Score: 2, Funny

      I've found the best way to deal with friends who want free tech support is to explain to them that your time is valuable, and because they're your friends you'll take payment in the form of (drugs|alcohol|sexual favors) (YMMV on the last one, though). At best you'll get (a few rounds of drinks|good and stoned|laid) for your troubles, at worst they'll get pissed off and you'll stop having to provide support to people who think your time is worthless. Most people will jump at the chance to have a geek work on their PC for the cost of a few rounds.

  10. Fascism? by essence · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So the state reserves the right to spy, but nobody else can do it. How is this gonna fit in with anti-terrorism laws I wonder?

    Also, I wonder how close corps like the RIAA really are with the FBI, CIA etc. I wouldn't be surprised if favours are done...

  11. fine with me by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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
  12. Spy Agencies by ravenspear · · Score: 3, Funny

    This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.

    Because after all, the US Gov must reserve every right to monitor everything about it's citizens. With all those terrorists running around we can't afford to have ANY activity go unnoticed.

    1. Re:Spy Agencies by DAldredge · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Then explain why our borders are almost unprotected? We have much more advanced tech monitoring the afg/pak border than we do monitoring the US borders.

      It ain't about the terrorists, it is about controling US citizens.

    2. Re:Spy Agencies by TykeClone · · Score: 2, Informative
      Then explain why our borders are almost unprotected? We have much more advanced tech monitoring the afg/pak border than we do monitoring the US borders.

      Both the Democrat and Republican parties are going after the "illegal alien vote" and are not willing to close off the southern border. Our northern border is with Canada, and (as Southpark says) if we need a scapegoat we can always "Blame Canada"

      --
      A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
  13. Clippy... by EmbeddedJanitor · · Score: 2, Funny
    the first agent.

    --
    Engineering is the art of compromise.
    1. Re:Clippy... by geminidomino · · Score: 4, Funny

      "It looks like you're trying to seduce a sexy Russian double-agent!"

      "Not now, Clippy, you fool!"

  14. Tinfoil time!! by justkarl · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

  15. Re:who was the holdout by paradizelost · · Score: 2, Informative

    RTFA.

    "The House voted 399-1 to approve the bill. Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, who often votes against spending measures, cast the lone dissenting vote Tuesday. "

    --
    "In a world without walls and fences, who needs Windows and Gates?"
  16. Let em rot by afidel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm more interested in the criminal provisions which are hopefully coming later this week. Taking away all the ill gotten money is just a nice bonus in my book, hopefully keeps anyone from thinking its a legitimate revenue stream. That and it should be easier to use against corporations which are generally very difficult to press criminal charges against.

    --
    There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
  17. 399 - 1? by Twintop · · Score: 4, Funny

    Well, I take it that one really enjoys his Gator to handle personal information and CoolWebSearch to find his pr0n. Maybe he thinks Intelimail does a better job of sorting his e-mail and Comet Cursor just looks pretty.

    1. Re:399 - 1? by Bull999999 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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
  18. Definition of spyware ? by SuneSpeg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I wonder what the exact definition of spyware is according to that bill ?

    Theoretically the cookie set by /. 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 ?

    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..

  19. Text of the Bill by discordja · · Score: 3, Informative

    Lifted out the definitions within the bill for those questioning. For the full bill follow this link. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./tem p/~c108Rz52yN:: (3) SPYWARE PROGRAM- The term `spyware program' means any computer program or software that can be used to transmit from a computer, or that has the capability of so transmitting, by means of the Internet and without any action on the part of the user of the computer to initiate such transmission, information regarding the user of the computer, regarding the use of the computer, or that is stored on the computer. In issuing regulations to carry out this paragraph, the Commission shall distinguish spyware programs from other commonly used computer programs used to share information among computers in an organized network of computers. (4) PAGE- The term `page' means, with respect to the World Wide Web, a location that has a single Uniform Resource Locator or other single location with respect to the Internet, as the Commission may prescribe. (5) PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION- The term `personally identifiable information' does not include any record of aggregate data that does not identify particular persons, particular computers, particular users of computers, or particular email addresses or other locations of computers with respect to the Internet.

    --
    I stole this .sig
  20. Just goes to show... by Viceice · · Score: 3, Interesting
    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.

    The committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, called the proposal approved Tuesday "a bill whose time has come."

    "People are increasingly finding their home pages have been changed or their computers are sluggish," she said. "Their computers are no longer their own, and they can't figure out why."


    Just goes to show that if the low life spammers annoy the correct people enough (i.e congress), they will sunndely find themselves being 'The winner of this hours lucky draw of a free trip to' prison.

    --
    Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
  21. Get The Facts Straight by Pave+Low · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.
  22. Re:who was the holdout by fdiskne1 · · Score: 5, Informative

    According to this article at News.com, it was "Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, a vocal libertarian who frequently says the federal government should not be policing the Internet, was the lone dissenter."

    --
    But why is the rum gone?
  23. Payable to: by Romancer · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
  24. Oh, Great! by crucini · · Score: 3, Funny
    This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.

    Now I can expect popups saying, "Have you considered a carreer in Homeland Security?" And that familiar "Winners don't use drugs" screen from 80's arcade games.
  25. Re:who was the holdout by Brandybuck · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Actually it was none of the above. It was an adherence to principles. Something rare these days.

    --
    Don't blame me, I didn't vote for either of them!
  26. So maybe we should have a special name for the by multiplexo · · Score: 2, Funny
    federally installed spyware that our homeland security overlords will be installing. We can call it "fedware".

    --
    cheap labor conservatives - they want to keep you hungry enough to be thankful for minimum wage.
  27. Interesting questions by dmoore · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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"?

  28. Loophole? by Hao+Wu · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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
  29. Spy Agencies... by Uncle+Gropey · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...use spy ware? Huh?

  30. Re:Four Letters by Bastian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    EULA

  31. The holdout was a Republican? by r_j_prahad · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "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.

    1. Re:The holdout was a Republican? by TheBurningDog · · Score: 2, Informative

      He's a libertarian, who runs with an R next to his name to get elected in texas.

    2. Re:The holdout was a Republican? by Kymermosst · · Score: 3, Informative

      Indeed! How does "R-Texas ... a libertarian" work? Should that nor be "L-Texas", or does the index of senators only support 2 parties?

      Clearly you know nothing about Republican internal politics. Many Republicans have a strong libertarian leaning. Evidence here.

      --
      "Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
    3. Re:The holdout was a Republican? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Read the Wikipedia article on Ron Paul for more information.

    4. Re:The holdout was a Republican? by TheoMurpse · · Score: 2, Informative

      wow who woulda guessed that my small hometown of Victoria, TX would make it in slashdot!

      indeed, Ron Paul (who represents Victoria city and county, among other places) is EXTREMELY popular there...victoria is a VERY conservative town...apparently conservative enough to make people from california "hate" the town, as i've been told...but i've never noticed anything like that...

      anyways, through EFFs frequent letters you can send to your representatives, i have contacted ron paul on numerous occasions...most slashdotters would LOVE mr paul (except for maybe this spyware issue)...anyways, here's some of his track record in voting and other stuff...

      he's on record as saying that the war on drugs has harmed civil rights

      *goes off to find more information*

      well i can't seem to find much of a voting record on what i'm looking for aside from http://www.issues2000.org/TX/Ron_Paul.htm but i can say that in the emails i've sent, i always receive responses back saying stuff like 'i oppose making p2p illegal' etc

      as obviated by the fact that he is a libertarian, he STRONGLY defends civil rights...

      i get the feeling that he is a VERY well informed representative, and now that i've made a new 'slashdot campaign' for him... ^_^

      he is one who is genuinely on 'our side' in the technology front, i believe

  32. Dont you dare call Gator 'spyware'.... by RagingChipmunk · · Score: 2, Informative

    Make sure we dont forget that our favorite internet bottom-feeder, "GAIN/Gator", is not spyware. So, its immune from this legislation. It is more properly labled LetigiousWare: A reminder: A Gator executive said the suit, filed in U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, was part of a larger strategy to educate spyware-removers about the company's software--and to put an end to the practice of calling it "spyware." "If we find anyone publicly calling us spyware, we correct it and take action if necessary," said Scott Eagle, Gator's senior vice president of marketing. In addition to going on the offensive against detractors, Gator has spent significant time in court defending its practices against the charges of companies that run Web sites that Gator has targeted with its ads.

    --
    The only PT Boat Journal on the web: http://www.PT171.org
  33. Accountability by manitoulinnerd · · Score: 3, Funny

    That is what it all boils down to. I have accepted that as a computer user, hell even a citizen of todays culture, there are people out there that are eager to abuse and take advantage of me.

    My computer is just one of the many ways they can do so. Many users have not come to terms with this. Vigilance is now part of computing and the internet.

    The one guy that voted against the others has the right idea. The internet is bigger then America. 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.

    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. Users need to be aware and accountable of their actions.

    Computers as well as many things have been over-simplified and as a result we are now seeing these problems.

    --
    Burn Bright or Fade Away
    1. Re:Accountability by jmulvey · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

  34. Now spam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    opt in, not opt out

    get Fed to pressure state banking departments to pull licenses of mortgage brokers for spam on first offense, making the mortgage broker as beneficiary, not email sender the violator, thereby negating all the brokers evading can-spam through affiliate programs

    Stop fax.com from daily spamming my home fax machine by holding them responsible by following the money instead of trying to figure out forged headers

    Nail real estate brokers, and pull their licenses by following the money in the spam, not trying to follow forged headers

    get SEC to delist penny and dollar public companies that hire pr companies and pay them in stock and cash to spam my fax machine via fax.com

    Over a ten year period, remove ability of banks to write off losses on credit card fraud, thereby lighting a fire under their asses to cooperate with individual victims instead of ignoring them. Instead of sticking the taxpayers with 100% of the losses, they should be limited to 90% next year, and 10% less every year after that, until they get ZERO writeoff, while preserving mandatory consumer protection. This will seriously rearrange their attitude on fraud, instead of passing the buck to the taxpayer, and doing nothing to help consumers.

    Follow the money on investigations of spamming. Create Social Security numbers for investigators to use with other created identity info, and get the new cooperation of the banks through their lost deduction above, and get them to participate in follow-the-money spam investigations, sharing seized money and assets to cover bank and investigative agency expenses.

    Stop the stupid do not spam list dead in its tracks, an idea a spammer testified in front of Congress as a "target-rich" list he'd like to get his hands on. And don't let Schumer knock you over when he sees the news cameras while killing this stupid, stupid idea. The tip for watching out for Schumer running to get in front of news cameras comes from reporters commenting on his tactics probably more than ten years ago, and watching his hunger for the camera since then. Be careful. And call him on this stupid, stupid idea.

    make a web site devoted to outing Congress members who support the direct marketing association and other spammers instead of consumer in boxes. And keep track of who the good guys are, so that voters clearly know where their Congress person has voted on over the years.

    Feel free to add, modify, or tear down my ideas. But don't let them die, as following the money and pulling licenses of licensed industry spammers is very effective. It will stop mortgage brokers from buying spamming services and using affiliate programs to skirt the law almost overnight as soon as a few dozen mortgage brokers lose their licenses. This can be done in one investigation in the first year.

    And, above is just opinion, hoping to get ideas into someone in a position to make a difference, since I missed the deadline in submitting the comments to the FTC, so hopefully some Congress person's assistant reads this. So add, tear down, keep re-posting similar comments on future stories, just don't mod me down too much as I've been banned after getting modded up to 5, then down to 0 then up a few, then down 1, and then changing my subnet to try and defend a post after getting banned, and getting banned for months for changing my ip to a different one in the same subnet and posting after getting banned. So go easy. I learned my lesson and trying to make my karma (from my ip even though I'm posting anon) a bit better. Thanks for allowing me to vent.

  35. Get your worms the MSN way! by heybo · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Funny how this story came up on a day like today.

    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!

    1. Re:Get your worms the MSN way! by Ronald+Dumsfeld · · Score: 2, Informative
      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!!!
      I guess you don't use Spybot S&D on /. then. Adverts such as the Vonage one include AvenueA cookies too.
      --
      Where's the Kaboom?
      There's supposed to be an Earth-shattering Kaboom.
  36. Cool! Spyware Fines. by Orion+Blastar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If I work for an employer and they monitor me via Spyware, they can be fined!

    If I browse an Internet ad that installs Spyware, the host of that ad can be fined for infecting my system.

    --
    Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
  37. A bill is not a law. by Leebert · · Score: 2, Informative

    So will it make it past the Senate and the White House?

  38. "spy agencies", defines by jmulvey · · Score: 4, Informative

    The poster takes a lot of liberties with the defintion of "spy agencies". Here's the limitations, according to the current version of the Bill:

    SEC. 5. LIMITATIONS.

    (a) Law Enforcement Authority- Sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall not apply to--

    (1) any act taken by a law enforcement agent in the performance of official duties; or

    (2) the transmission or execution of an information collection program in compliance with a law enforcement, investigatory, national security, or regulatory agency or department of the United States in response to a request or demand made under authority granted to that agency or department, including a warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an equivalent State warrant, a court order, or other lawful process.

    (b) Exception Relating to Network Security- Nothing in this Act shall apply to any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, or provider of information service or interactive computer service for network security purposes, diagnostics or repair in connection with a network or service, or detection or prevention of fraudulent activities in connection with a service or user agreement.

    (c) Good Samaritan Protection- No provider of computer software or of interactive computer service may be held liable under this Act on account of any action voluntarily taken, or service provided, in good faith to remove or disable a program used to violate section 2 or 3 that is installed on a computer of a customer of such provider, if such provider notifies the customer and obtains the consent of the customer before undertaking such action or providing such service.

  39. All Windows needs to put an end to spyware. by Another+AC · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I just spent a while this weekend trying to remove dozens of these things from my parents' laptop and I decided the main problem are three things in windows:

    1. IE shouldn't be "customizable" by other apps at all, period. Any extra browser bars added on should be able to be seen and removed (permanently) just by going to the "View > Toolbar" menu.

    2. There should be one easy way to see for sure what programs are running at startup and decide if you want them to or not. It'd be nice if you didn't have anything in your "startup" folder if nothing started up when windows booted! Somehow, that's not the case. Being able just to stop these things from auto-starting when you do get one would be 99% of cure.

    3. Every application should be able to be fully uninstalled from the "add/remove programs" area.

    If these three things just worked, spyware would soon be a dim memory of the early 2000s!

  40. Section 1B and Verisign? by babybird · · Score: 4, Interesting

    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.
    1. Re:Section 1B and Verisign? by Politburo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It says "such that the user is prevented from viewing the content at the intended Web page;"

      If you're going to a non-existent domain, there's no content to view. Doesn't apply.

  41. Re:Names of Spyware by FBI / CIA / NSA ? by cynic10508 · · Score: 2, Funny

    I want to know the names of the spyware produced by FBI, CIA, or NSA. Any help would be much appreciated !!

    Oh, don't worry. I'm sure that your interest has been noted.

  42. Not immune. Act has nexus in US. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 4, Informative

    This is an American law affecting American companies, american citizens, and american institutions. Set up shop outside the border and you're immune, sadly.

    'Fraid not.

    Installing spyware on a computer in the US (even if you do it from outside the US) is an act that has a nexus in the US (the instalation of the spyware). It's the same case as a civillian in Mexico or Canada firing across the border and killing someone in the US. So the US has NO problem in declaring that a crime has been committed in the US and going after someone outside.

    If the jurisdiction the bad guy is in also has such a law and an extradition treaty with the US he may just be shipped over here.

    Alternatively, he can be captured and brought back extrajudicially (i.e. by a bounty hunter) or grabbed while in US territorial waters, international waters, on a US-flagged ship, on a plane that touches down in a US airport, or a number of other ways. While the snatch might not be legal where he was, that will cut no ice with the courts once he's here.

    Or he can be tried in absentia and any assets the US can reached siezed.

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  43. Users' Responsibility by Simon+G+Best · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.
  44. in the libertarian fairy forest lives a... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 4, Interesting

    >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

  45. Microsoft & Google are finable by Agret · · Score: 3, Interesting

    (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?
  46. IE patches can't add to your bookmarks any more! by dazed-n-confused · · Score: 2, Insightful
    (2) Modifying settings related to use of the computer or to the computer's access to or use of the Internet by altering (C) a list of bookmarks used by the computer to access Web pages
    Looks to me like 2(C) at last outlaws that incredibly irritating thing Microsoft do when they patch Internet Explorer (and decide, in passing, that you must have really wanted them to add a bunch of bookmarks linking to their useless web services as well).

    Not before time.
  47. Mod Parent Down by MrNonchalant · · Score: 5, Informative

    Dude, it was a cookie. I've gotten plenty of Spybot warnings about Avenue A as well and every last one of them have been about cookies. What you're seeing is a third party advertiser attempt to set a cookie from their ad in order to track you. I think I'm not alone in saying that I'd prefer not to be tracked, but wouldn't call it Spyware and wouldn't blame Microsoft one bit for allowing a cookie to be set.

  48. Re:399 to 1? by malchus842 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Hatch is a Senator. This is a House Bill

    The lone holdout was Rep. Ron Paul, a libertarian-leaning Republican Congressman from Texas.

  49. Didn't look that way in the source code. by heybo · · Score: 2, Insightful
    Funny it doesn't look anything like a cookie from the captured source code.

    Also have you bother to check on what Avenue A does for a living? They sell data on companies. What to but information from your competitor? Want to find out how he's bidding work. Well they will sell you this info! Now how exactly do they harvest this information. Know how to say "Data Mining".

    Spybot didn't give an error when I went to this companies internal site which uses session cookies. Whatever you say thier is more going on here than just cookie's and milk.

  50. School Content Filters? by tonyray · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.