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?
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!!!
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...
Let me guess, microsoft will be the first officially US government sanctioned spy agency?
Osho
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...
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.
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."
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
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.
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.
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..
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
Sometimes I wish I was a plumber, then I'd know how to deal with other people's shit.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
...use spy ware? Huh?
My blog can kick your blog's ass
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.
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
"It looks like you're trying to seduce a sexy Russian double-agent!"
"Not now, Clippy, you fool!"
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!
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.
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!
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.
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.
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
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?
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.