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?"
"The bill bans the installation of software that can be used to take over another computer..."
Goodbye, SSH. I'll miss you.
Goodbye, Windows.
Among other things, this bans unauthorized installation of keyloggers, spam sending/relaying software, zombies, and disabling your anti-virus or anti-spyware software.
However, and this is a big however, they grant a blanket exception to your ISP or network admins. "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 carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service or interactive computer service for network or computer security purposes, diagnostics, technical support, repair, authorized updates of software or system firmware, authorized remote system management, 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."
You could probably drive a truck through a loophole like that.
How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
The fine is too weenie. They need to do for consumers what they do for the likes of the RIAA and MPAA - give consumers something with which they can beat spyware vendors into submission.
But that won't happen because they don't really give a shit about "consumers" as long as they continue to consume. When we consume we fulfill our political function.
If you define spyware as they say in the article as "the installation of software that takes control of another computer." then it sounds broken already to me
Spyware does not have to take control of a computer.
It can be as simple as sending back browsing habits so cookies can, even, be not so far away from some spyware then,
Or it can just send credit card details or other browsing habits or snoop in places it shouldnt. All without "taking control" of another computer.
The devil is in the details. I would like to see what kind of software it really is defining as spyware.
Great Macintosh Support
The RIAA should be fined millions for their infected WMA files.
What's stopping me of 'getting infected' with some adware / spyware / malware and claim the money? Is there some legal procedures to go throught? How are they gonna prove that I didn't install them?
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
The state's Consumer Protection Against Spyware Act bans the installation of software that takes control of another computer.
I'm really concerned about this type of language. The effectiveness of this really comes down to "How do you define 'takes control'?" Snooping where you go in the Internet is not "taking control". I don't even know that pop-up advertisements can really be called "taking control" since I have ultimate control over the power button as well as the network plug in the back of the computer. Even if there is spyware installed, I have control over installing another browser or installing spyware removal software. VNC, PC Anywhere, and other such tools are meant to truly "take control" of a system, but they're obviously not spyware. I'm also concerned about spyware being used at the threat. I would think that viruses and spambots would me the obvious targets, but do they "take control" or do they just "steal CPU cycles"?
The article didn't go into great detail on this particular matter. How can one really define "taking control" if something ever goes to court on this? Or is it possible that this was just a bad choice of words on BBC's part?
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
(d) 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
carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service or interactive computer service for
network or computer security purposes, diagnostics, technical support, repair, authorized updates of software or system firmware,
authorized remote system management, 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 skimmed through the bill text found here, and it seems fairly well worded. However, it doesn't solve the actual problem. An "authorized user" can still be suckered pretty much as before.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
1. Setup insecure windows box.
2. Intentionally get infected with spyware.
3. Profit!
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