Slashdot Mirror
California Sets Fines for Spyware
aj50 writes "The BBC has the story that California is introducing new laws to help eradicate spyware. The bill bans the installation of software that can be used to take over another computer and allows customers to seek $1000 in damages if they've fallen victim to this kind of malicious software. Can this really help cut down spyware or will it just be another fatally flawed piece of legislation?"
Would they seek damages from the spyware manufacturers? Or from the OS designer who designed a less than secure OS?
Regardless of how you feel the question should be answered, will that be a choice?
libertarianswag.com
The RIAA should be fined millions for their infected WMA files.
Or "software provider" which would cover the spyware authors themselves. Surely Claria Corporation is a software provider.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
or detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of or fraudulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network, service, or computer software, including scanning for and removing software proscribed under this chapter
I think they just made it explicitly legal for the MPAA, RIAA, or BSA to install spyware on your computer to counter copyright infringment. What a shame, a rotten egg in a perfectly good law.
Without a proper flamewar, Anonymous was undecided on what shell to run.
You can drive a truck through that loophole.
"Nothing in this section shall apply to any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service ... by a ... computer hardware or software provider, ... or detection or prevention of the unauthorized use or fradulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network, service, or computer software."
The part in bold essentially makes any spyware that is bundled by a software provider (Kazaa, GAIN, etc.) or hardware provider legal. This is actually a win for the spyware industry, as it moves them out of a gray legal area and makes them officially legal. The second bolded portion makes any spying done by the *AAs (or any other copyright holder) legal.
Definately not a good thing for the consumer.
I don't really know much about spyware as I don't use windows but my understanding is that much of the legit programs collect personal information for marketing purposes. These programs must call home to upload what they collect. Why hasn't anyone written spyware spoofing software that uploads lots of invalid or better yet, simply incorrect data.
The difference between Canada and the USA is that in Canada healthcare is a right and gun ownership is a privilege.
Yes, but only if it is for "detection or prevention of the unauthorized use or fradulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network". Collecting statistics for advertising purposes doesn't count. They might try for dual use, but the law actually makes the second use illegal.
-WolfWithoutAClause
"Gravity is only a theory, not a fact!"For once this is a computer law that doesn't supplant technical solutions. Now, spyware that installs itself without you knowing it works only because a technical flaw in the computer and you can penalize it all you want but you won't be getting rid of the vulnerability.
For other things which piggy-back on other programs this seems to be the only feasible way. Since it technically gets installed by hand there's really no hole to plug.
As much as virii and spyware (malware in general) is a problem there should be a clear distinction between what can be penalized and what can't. Things that prey on the gullibility of users should definitely be outlawed like any other con artist's scam. Things that have technical solutions should really rely on technical solutions. Don't fall into the habit of thinking that a strong law will plug your security holes for you.
If squirrels are getting into your birdfeeders don't advocate municipal squirrel destruction, buy a birdfeeder with a squirrel guard. (If you want to shoot the squirrels anyway that's your own prerogative.)
Direct away from face when opening.
Unfortunately, I don't see how the ban on installation of software that can be used to take over another computer... can be enforced, without completely outlawing any software upgrade service. Maybe the law is better worded than the article, but from experience I have my doubts.
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
$1,000? That's small enough for a small claims court. Things are a bit easier in small claims court. Imagine the impact of a million small claims court cases vs one large class action lawsuit where the only one that wins are the attorneys.
Open Source Java DAO Generator
Nothing in this section shall apply to any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service, or a protected computer, by a telecommunications ...
... the software provider is allowed to monitor your private machine and you connection. This does absolutely nothing to stop spyware-riddled software from being sold to unwitting consumers.
carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service
So
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
If you want the government to babysit you while you use your computer it's the right direction, maybe. Personally I'd rather get the government out of regulating software.