House To Enact Anti-Spyware Law

Stephen Samuel wrote to mention that the U.S. House of Representatives has readied the aptly acronymed Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act (SPY ACT) for law. MS-BS has an article claiming that the bill allows a loophole for the makers of proprietary software. The issue at hand concerns Section 5, paragraph b, subsection 2, under the heading of limitations. The law does not apply to: "(2) a discrete interaction with a protected computer by a provider of computer software solely to determine whether the user of the computer is authorized to use such software, that occurs upon (A) initialization of the software; or (B) an affirmative request by the owner or authorized user for an update of, addition to, or technical service for, the software." The law, then, would disallow Gator and their ilk but would not hamper Microsoft's Genuine Advantage Program. More complete commentary is available at TechReview and About.com.

Comments

hmmmm

[commo1]

What about all those who signed the Gator/Gain network EULA which prohibits the removal of said spyware/adware from PCs?

Re:hmmmm

[hey!]

That's an interesting question.

Technically (and I stress "technically"), what they are doing here amoutns to taking a right away from the consumer: the right to enter into a contract with a vendor to receive software in return for providing information about their browser habits. The problem is that the vendors are dishonest, and take advantage of the fact that most people can't make it through the legalese in their licenses or don't really understand the implications of what they are doing.

In any case, IANAL, but isn't this the sort of thing that usually ends up in the UCC for constitutional reasons?

Re:hmmmm

[Anonymous Custard]

So if a girl signs a contract that says she has to be somebody's slave or engage in prostitution, is that contract legally valid?

Prostitution is a strange legal area to me (IANAL).

There are all sorts of things that are illegal to do without consent, but are perfectly legal to do with consent.

Fighting (Martial Arts vs. Assault), sex (consentual vs. rape), taking things (Free Halloween Candy vs. Burglary) - all these things are drastically different when you add the consent of both parties.

Prostitution is consentual sex + money. In theory it isn't any more dangerous than consentual sex without money. And when properly regulated, then even in practice it's still not any more dangerous.

Many women legally have sex for money reasons, even if it's not a direct obvious exchange as with prostitution.

So why is it illegal?

As if It's Going to Do A Thing...

[iammrjvo]

Sure, some of the "legitimate" US companies pushing this stuff will obey the new law, but it's not going to do a thing to stop people in other jurisdictions or criminals who just don't care what the law says.

Kind of like "Gun Control" I might add.

Re:As if It's Going to Do A Thing...

[geoffrobinson]

Accurate analogy people on slashdot won't like and may mod you down for aside, you are correct. Human nature and history being what it is, you are probably correct. The people who would obey this law, probably aren't the people performing this activity to begin with.

Law may have positive effect

[CA_Jim]

Two positive thoughs on this.

One - if written and applied correctly in the US, at least it is a legal tool against some of the spyware, making it more costly for them.

Two - if it's somewhat successful, it may make Congress look back at CAN-SPAM and fix it.

Okay I'm optimistic here.

Not a legal problem.

[chill]

Spyware is a technical problem. Congress and the public should have learned from the CAN SPAM act, more accurately called "You Can Spam" Act. Spam is at an all-time high.

People don't read click-thru licenses now, what makes anyone think they're going to read them in the future?

The antivirus companies, who already have the technology and infrastructure, need to extend their scanning of executables to include ANY software that collects data and phones home. Make a big list and update it with the AV updates. When anything is installed that hit the list, pop up a big "POTENTIAL SPYWARE - ARE YOU SURE?" box.

Yet another "vote for me, I feel your pain" law isn't going to do anyone any good.

-Charles

Re:Not a legal problem.

[Rasta Prefect]

The antivirus companies, who already have the technology and infrastructure, need to extend their scanning of executables to include ANY software that collects data and phones home. Make a big list and update it with the AV updates. When anything is installed that hit the list, pop up a big "POTENTIAL SPYWARE - ARE YOU SURE?" box.

What this will do is provide the AV companies with a legal defense when purveyors of bundled spyware which the user authorized in paragraph 27 subparagraph z3 come knocking and complaining about interfering with contracts and restraint of trade.

From Strength to Strength

[Doc Ruby]

I can't wait for the Congress to protect us from spyware as effectively as they've protected us from spam.

Story is slightly over-rated.

[essreenim]

Right som MS are allowed to inspect my machine to see if I'm authorised to run their software.

Actually, there is no problem with this, and it is not genuine spyware tactics. Sorry if I start a flamewar here, but if you insist on using Windows, then you should be paying for it and they have every right to inspect your machine to see if you are. This is the aggreement you sign up to.

Also, I don't see how this affects programs loke Gator as g. parent suggests. They are playing by the same rules. If their software doesn't comply, they should be able to make changes without significantly altering it.

Anyway, it's not my problem I don'r use Windows. Good luck!!.

Anyway, spyware will probably find a way to evolve with this..

Meaningless

[Kozar_The_Malignant]

This, like Can Spam and others, will have no effect until it starts putting people in prison for some Mitnick-style hard time. It will be especially effective if it puts people who wear suits to work into prison. Until that happens, it is to laugh.

Re:Who named this?

[Doesn't_Comment_Code]

So wouldn't this be the SPY ACT Act?

Yes, it should. But it took a pool of congressional interns 1000 man-hours to come up with that name. If you want better names, income taxes will have to be raised by 0.1% to account for more time.

Likewise, if we didn't come up with a cutesy acronym or nickname for every bill through congress, taxes might be lowered by the same amount.