Slashdot Mirror
Australia Says No To Spyware
PrivateDonut writes "Australian parliament introduced a bill on Thursday that would 'make it illegal for anyone to install a program without informed approval and attract a fine of $10,000.' Is this doomed to fail as many other anti-spam/spyware bills have failed? Or has Australia finally hit the mark?"
I think, this proposal is a bit of a lame duck - much like other laws.
If I am under the danger having to face $10.000 for installing spyware on a PC in my own country - then I'll do it in another country. Do you really think there will be extradition for installing Spyware?
As long as I am willing NOT to visit the country where I hijacked some PCs, where's the problem? I can still do an awful lot of damage anyway...
I think, such laws will only become effective, once we will have international agreement on such laws to make them easily punishable across country borders. Internet criminals have the big advantage that they can BE in a non-extradition country even at the time they commit the crime in an entirely different country.
Is it correct that spyware works for its master? So at some stage it must try to communicate with its master to relay any information back right?
I believe if a lab (open, sponsored or even MS) can do the traceback and tie every spyware to its owner, then it'll be easier for those who want to take action to do whatever the law allows.
For example, if credit card numbers or PayPal logins are purposely fed to the spyware, and whoever uses that information will be linked directly to the spyware.
Rock that crushes, Paper & Scissors that don't matter.
Seems like most spyware has the same level of "informed approval" that store-bought commercial software does: An EULA that nobody reads.
It's a feel-good law.
The problem is that most spyware IS INSTALLED BY THE USER. Users are idiot!
Ammazing! Let's hope that this works.
If the companies who made the Spyware live there...
If this were in the US, 'informed' would mean "Well, he was getting great offers..so in effect..we're practically putting money in his pocket!"
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Not just 'consent', but 'informed' as well.
Does this include automatic update features? If an update breaks something, is it malware?
"I assumed blithely that there were no elves out there in the darkness"
A lot of spyware (via the licence agreement) *do inform the user that they are about to be installed. Even those that install themselves via an ActiveX control do so... So this new law will help very little in this war against spyware.
On that note, look how much good the anti-virus laws have done in cutting them down (nothing). We need to find technical solutions to technical problems, not social solutions to technical problems.
Although I applaude the efforts of the ozzie goverment, I can't help but wonder how many hours it will take a lawyer to find the first loophole. Thus placing the advantage back in the malware authors hands.
Some free applications include spyware in their main installs, to provide ad revenue or whatever.
Kazaa used to be one of those, is that right?
Can this make any impact on those programs who refuse to install unless you also allow numerous pieces of malware to go with it?
lets see them extradite all the spammers to Australia
Violator gets $10,000 fine.
Austrailia govt gets $5,000.
Bounty Hunter who finds the product gets $5,000.
All the spyware on the internet would be rooted out in less than a week if Australia could smack down fines to people across the world.
God spoke to me.
I think the idea of a worldwide anti-spyware alliance is more than a little silly. In fact, I shy away from any push for international policy beyond the protection of basic human rights.
The solution to spyware problems is either technological(although I have no idea how, using an non-Widnows OS isn't really "the answer") or social(teach people how to 1. Avoid spyware and 2. Avoid giving any kind of financial incentive to any company associated with spyware).
computer criminals have been extradited.. and it is sometimes possible to follow revenue streams and such depending on the exact wording on the bill.
...that to help them with the task of collecting evidence that you install this helpful program which automatically remembers login IDs/passwords and fills in online forms with just one click.
The death penalty.
Philosophy.
This one will work! That's for sure!
Thank God FOr Oz!
So if you plug an XBox into XBox Live, and it downloads a new version of dashboard without your consent, or even informing you it is doing it, can you get $10,000?
I gots ta ding a ding dang my dang a long ling long
If the summary is correct then it seems to me the law is focusing on the wrong problem. The problem with spyware is not so much the installing of software without permission, but rather with the sending of information without user intervention or at his implied permission according to the software's clear intended function.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Because that worked so well with pornography, yes?
I should have clicked on the preview button. Here's another attempt...
If the summary is correct then it seems to me the law is focusing on the wrong problem. The problem with spyware is not so much the installing of software without permission, but the sending of information without user intervention or at least his implied permission according to the software's intended purpose.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
Fines, BAH.
An blacklist of people that develop or use mal/spyware. Something that ISP's can check before they give internet access or hosting services.
I can hear it now, "Oh sir. I'm sorry, but you have a high Internet abuse score. We are unable to aprove your e-mail account at this time."
Ignorance is amusing, stupidity is annoying.
Having the law on the books is one thing, applying it is another. Allowing that SpamHaus Ltd is convicted (in abstentia or other), and is outside the nation (that pesky extradition thing), one possible next step would be a national (international?) blacklist of SpamHaus's ISP. If local ISPs continue to allow access to SpamHaus, the law would then treat the next case as treating the Local ISP of aiding and abetting SpamHaus.
Yes, this would be shooting the messenger, but it would also put the screws to the ISP serving SpamHaus as other ISPs cut them off on a national level. The Common Carrier status of ISPs may not provide full protection when they've been told about known criminal acts using their service. This could be an end run to force ISPs to keep their house clean (enforcing all those user agreements) or be isolated. And if the ISP host nation doesn't care about SpamHaus operating there, then it could find itself in the dark as a consequence.
Yes, the Great Firewall of China is a good example of bad intent, but the theme is appropriate to fight back at spammers on their own ground. The application of an anti-spam/spyware law has to apply pressure on the source, either from inside (with national support), or from the outside (isolation due to host nation indifference).
Pacifist paratroopers yell, "Ghandi!" when they jump.
If writing spyware is illegal in the country you live in, then it doesn't matter where your victims live. Prosecutors just have to show that your software is designed to invade people's computers.
I think some kind of system, like a "web of trust", would be useful in distinguishing between good and bad software. You could use a hash of the installer EXE or source tarball as a unique identifier for each piece of software.
Any serious flaws to this idea, besides the fact that it requires widespread adoption before it's really useful?
LOAD "SIG",8,1
using an non-Widnows OS isn't really "the answer"
Why not? It's worked perfectly for me for years.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Not all spyware is installed directly by the users, but I've seen it happen in many cases, and sometimes even PAY for it (eAnthology stuff and the like).
I've seen people who had a completely crashed PC every week, were told that spyware (lots of-) was the cause, were explained everything, but didn't mind if their daughter was going to reinstall spyware-infested kazaa on it again, and kept using IE anyways.
A lot of people don't care, and some even pay for the previlege of having more spyware on their PCs. Users ARE idiots! It's insightful - not funny!
"Any serious flaws to this idea, besides the fact that it requires widespread adoption before it's really useful?"
:-)
P2P apps require "widespread adoption" before becoming useful, so I'm inclined to think that it's at least *theoretically* possible to overcome the initial barriers. I'm also inclined to think that spyware hatred is enough of a force to do it.
"Feel a glory in so rolling / on the human heart a stone" --E. A. Poe, "The Bells"
At the end of the day we all know that local laws like this have no effect in a global place unless every country connected to the Internet agrees on such laws. Spyware software is a matter of education and choice. The best way to fight it is to educate people on software and the importance of knowing how it works so consumers can make choices based upon facts and information. Some operating systems allow spyware to be installed, others do not. People need to learn that they can choose operating systems that do not allow Spyware. And they also need to learn how to avoid the pitfalls in the operating systems that allow spyware to be installed easily by clicking on the wrong advertisement banner in the wrong browser if the wrong configuration is in use. Knowledge = power....
9/11: Never forget it was a false-flag operation
You, just leave porn alone.
The last thing we need is Yet Another Hypocritical Piece Of Shit(YAHPOS) trying to "stamp out porn".
As long as people won't read disclaimers, they'll end up installing lots of spyware "legally". w00t for 250 pages disclaimers!
In Canada, Private Member Bills are a joke. Is Australia different?
trying to keep the tide from the beach.... Every attempt at regulating the Internet or its use will fail. The only successful prosecutions are when it is proven that the user's use of the Internet violated another law that has nothing to do with the Internet. Of course this will fail, they have little if any power to enforce this law, and this is probably something related to other, unrelated, political interests anyway. I wish the world would wake up and start openly and vociferously laughing at public figures that believe they can enact laws to stop people from expressing themselves or trying every means possible to take advantage of other simply by making a law that says its illegal to do so. If there is no teeth in the law, then it is just a waste of taxpayer's money, and the governments time and resources. Geez Beaver, do you really think you're mom will find out? Lunacy, that's what it is. I cannot believe that anyone would think it is possible to regulate the Internet. Some countries may be able to stop access to sites deemed 'not good' but in the end, all they are doing is denying access to information... hmmm lets see, what happened the last time that people thought burning books was a good idea? As for making it illegal, every country (almost) already has laws against fraud and theft, or anything else that spam and spyware can do. Why not just enforce those laws? The reason? I will suggest it is because government find themselves impotent to do anything about something they have no clue how it works, and they want to find a way to garner votes in the next election... so it looks good if they seem to be doing something about the latest Internet threat.... Like has already been said, the real threat to user's information is themselves. Most user's gladly give away their information without a second thought because they trust anyone that has a website, OMG, they have a website on the Internet, they must be legitimate..... There is no law, or even book of laws that will protect a fool or foolish people. A fool and his (or her) personal information, like their money, are soon parted. Lets all just enforce the laws that are already in effect. Spyware, that gives the author or originator information required to steal from a user without their consent is illegal already, it is called theft, scam artistry, and other names. Whether the scam artist used the Internet or e-mail matters not, they are guilty of crimes. These 'new internet laws' are only evidence that our governments are both impotent to do anything and clueless as to how to do so. Its time we all started voting smarter? Hey, no comments on how I voted... my preferences have changed 6 times since 911.
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
Having a decent application firewall is a solid preventative for spyware. Spyware can only be of value if it can report back the data it collects.
XP has an "incoming" application firewall - it would be of greater value if it had outgoing controls too.
This signature intentionally left blank
I can see it now..
"Microsoft has been charged for uninformed installation of software by numerous individuals in Australia."
"I saw this icon in my taskbar, but didn't know what it was, before I could take a decent look at it this was gone! I called my more technical savvy friend in fear for a virus, so he explained me it was Microsoft installing software onto my computer." a victim said. Microsoft claimed it to be a "feature" and declined any further comment.
I think we can keep recursing like this until someone returns 1
I think Australia has a good idea, but this may never work as if you look at the amount of viruses out there (they are illegal as well) and the amount of damage caused, just making something illegal does not cause it to stop, just slow down. Crime and organized crime have very high rates, even though they are illegal.
If history repeats itself, why can't we study the future?
"Do you really think there will be extradition for installing Spyware?"
IIRC Australia has extradited an Australian citizin from a large warez group to the US for copyright after relasing Windows 95 or something.
using an non-Widnows OS isn't really "the answer"
Sure it is.
The problem lies in convincing the People Who Decide(tm) that there are real alternatives.
p
In Korea, long hair is for old people!
In related news, the crime rate in Australia went up 23,453,464,356% today...
I'm one of those people who must find the right way to do everything and do it in a clean, efficient way. This bill seems like added bulk to me. I'm certain there must be another way around these problems, rather then just rehacking legislation.
With all the new bills and laws being added, does this have some effect on the effectiveness of the justice system? It seems governments these days are in competition with Microsoft to see how many patches/hacks they can add to an already bloated system.
Giving IE users a taste of their own medicine since 2005 - http://pods.-is-a-geek.net/
"...(teach people how to 1. Avoid spyware and 2. Avoid giving any kind of financial incentive to any company associated with spyware)"
...and so on. A strategy that involves educating everyone is doomed because not everyone is willing to be educated (sad but true).
That's on the list, right after we teach people the following:
1) MS Word is a word processor, not an operating system;
2) Nobody in Nigeria really wants to give them $millions;
3) Their bank hasn't really lost their details, and they don't need to go to a website to re-enter them;
4) Passwords shouldn't be something as blindingly obvious as the name of their cat/favourite band/significant other;
Blank until
"Do you really think there will be extradition for installing Spyware?"
If the number if installations pushes the fines into the multi-million dollar range, then quite probably.
Blank until
Politically, Australia is pretty left of center compared to the American middle of the road. I note that a similarly aligned Clinton administration put the DMCA into place. I'm not sure whether I want to be buggered subversively by the left or openly in my face by the right, but either way we seem to be losing with government around the world where digital anything is concerned. They:
I expect that we'll take a reaming here in the US from the present administration, albeit an open one, and then the next admin will likely be Dems and they'll glad-hand us to the face while shafting us from behind with DMCA2 ("it's fun to circumvent the D-M-C-A... it's fun to fight against D-M-C-A-A...") or something like that. AVP has new meaning, All Versus Politicians, but the tagline hasn't, Whoever Wins, We Lose.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Spyware, like viruses, are not solved by simply moving to a different platform. Once enough people migrate then malware writers will start to include that platform.
Will other platforms have a better security model then Windows? Sure.
Will other platforms still have security vulnerabilities? Yes.
Will malware writers do everything they can think of to get a user to install their software (so-called "social engineering")? You bet.
The user is the weak link in the chain, and I think user education is the only real way to solve that problem in the long run. IE/ActiveX have really brought the problem to the public consciousness and made it easier for malware to get installed & propagate much faster than ever before. But fixing Windows (or moving away from it) won't eliminate malware.
They also said that it's illegal for people to distribute copyrighted music, and it's still being done...
The friendliest digital photography forums on the net!
According to your sig, that's all that's worked in that time.
well a few actually...
this will do as much good as pissing on a bushfire, it's as useful as tits on a bull, and as useless as a one-armed shearer... etc.
Uh oh!
According to your sig, that's all that's worked in that time.
Yes, thank you. In fact, my wife is due to deliver our daughter in August. Yes, the child is mine. Yes, I'm sure. Thanks, though.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!
Your underestimating the power of the annoyance spyware as on anyone eand evryone who use computers.
...
This would be a case where everyone from everywhere would be on board an on agreement
Governments should be careful to make laws that can be enforced, otherwise the law looses respect, it becomes a joke.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
For example, if , under the proposed law,, action can be taken against the (American owned) banks which process the money for all spamware sales, then it would stop.
If the Australian government says to American Express: "If, after being informed that one of your clients is using your service to process payments for items promoted by spyware, you continue to make payments to that client, then the Austrailian branch of your company will be fined $10,ooo for each transaction" it would stop.
If the American government threatened to withdraw banking licences from banks that provided services to those who use spyware/spam to promote their goods and services, there would be no spam. They could do this using existing anti-corruption/money laundering legislation. But they don't.
Unfortunately, the US government has sold its soul to the devil.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
I do not approve this bill so I cannot allow it to pass. There are no provisions for ass beating with a cain pole in here. So until I see these changes I cannot approve it.
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
We've had spam legislation longer than the United States has, and our legislation covers all Australians. The U.S. cannot say as much.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
You mean some countries say yes to spyware?
Ummm... you're right. But you're not reading between the lines.
The main "purpose" of these laws in Australia is to allow the executive arm of government to make treaties with other countries to deal with these problems.
In Australia, the government cannot domestically ratify a treaty unless
1. it passes a law through Parliament (which is uncertain because Bills can be rejected); or
2. the executive makes regulations to give effect to the treaty (which is immediate)
SO...
IF
there was no Spam Act 2003 or no Spyware Bill
THEN
Australia could not easily ratify international agreements
Furthermore, a lot of Asian countries copy Australian law. Therefore, it provides an example for them and they usually do the same.
You're saying "Bounty Hunters? We don't need that scum."
The point of laws like this, and others (viruses, spam, etc) isn't to solve the problems legally. Obviously nobody except perhaps the very naive expects stealing to stop just because there are laws against thievery. Rather they provide some means of justice (or retribution, or whatever you want to call it) when people are caught. Will some people be deterred? Maybe. But I don't think anyone breaks the law expecting to get caught.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
the spyware installs YOU!
That said, however, it could be argued that someone who knowingly commits an intrusion or act of vandalism against an individual's property (which is what spyware essentially does) should be subject to legal redress. The fact that Australia is just one country among many, and the fact that statistically the majority of these exploits seem to originate in the US makes no difference. There is no real reason why similar laws should not be applied under other jurisdictions.
OK, I relaise that very few people understand Australian Parliamentary procedure (including whoever posted this)
This is a Private Senator's Bill which means it is going no-where in our system.
Even more irrelevant is it's introduction by the Australian Democrats, a fringe party in the process of disapearing completely.
(proving that having progressive ideas about computers is no guarantor of electoral success)
Very, very rarely a Government will look at a Private Bill, say "hey that's a good idea" and then re-introduce it as a Government Bill (yes, about three years ago a PMB was passed into law but it was notable for being an exception).
That's the day for headline stories on Slashdot.
Even if the proposals in the Bill are workable (enough spyware is made by companies operating in Australia to have some enforceable merit) the Bill itself is not likely to become Law.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Why so many people here seem to think that if you can't find a perfect, 100%, uncircumventable solution, well just thorw it all out and pretend like there's not a problem.
Most things in life don't have nice, neat little solutions that are all encompasing. Generally there are flaws, espically when you deal with laws which are a field of human interactions.
That does not, however mean you should just throw in the towel and let asshole run rampant. While a law like this won't stop spyware cold it can and will make an impact, if properly written. I mean if they made it illegal to make spyware that sneaks in without asking to install, and spyware that will not uninstall and/or reinstalls itself, I'd call that progress. Those are teh ones I ahve a real problem with.
Rather than taking a defeatist attitude about problems like spam and spyware, we should be looking for solutions. Even if the solution isn't a perfect one, it's better than no solution. The real way we'll cut back on this stuff isn't with a magic bullet peice of technology or legslation, it'll be through a combination of laws, technological improvements, and user education. IT won't solve the problem, but it can help a whole lot.
umm yes i do think this *could* make a difference. remember the N.C. spammer who was charged with breaking the virginia anti-spam law-- and convicted.
most spam and spyware originates from the USA right now -- so yes, i dont see why the USA would not send those guilty of breaking a spyware law in Austrailia to Austrailia, what with extradition treaties. I mean who would defend them, everyone hates spyware -- no one will try to keep them from being convicted i assure you.
Also you have to assume english spyware is more commonly created in English speaking countries, like Austrailia the USA etc -- so this law can make a difference, assuming they put the funds needed to actually track spyware makers down. The virginia spam law's only problem was that they only went after big fish due to resource limitations.
Mike
I heart the RIAA & MPAA, im sure its mutual...
In addition to not using obvious passwords, there is a rampant problem on the side of websites: requiring the user to choose a question and answer in case of a lost password. Stuff like, "What city were you born in?" Such a question may foil a criminal on the other side of the world from his victim, but if a criminal is targeting locals, perhaps even acquaintances, friends, and family, then it's trivial. Personally, I just respond to the questions with a random string of characters that only leet hackers could guess.
Congratulations!
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
People seem to assume that laws should only be enacted if they can "perfectly" prevent what is made illegal. People then seem to say a law that doesn't perfectly prevent the act that is made illegal is a waste of time.
Laws don't work that way.
Prevention of "illegal acts" is actually an intended side effect of the law. Murder, for example, is commonly prevented because of the consequences of the laws against murder, not purely because of the existance of the law itself. The significant punishment for murder hopefully makes people think twice about committing it. Of course, people sometimes still commit murder, irrespective of the law against it. Murder could be declared illegal, with no punishment attached. Law abiding people should therefore not commit it, however the significant punishment attached is what gives the law it's "teeth".
Laws primary goal is to create a significant level of discouragment to commit the illegal act. In most cases, that discouragement then has a resultant effect of preventing most cases occuring. Laws are actually a form of behaviour control.
Laws such as this one are an attempt to make spyware authors think twice about creating it. It certainly won't perfectly eliminate it. However, if there is a significant reduction in spyware, then the law can be considered to be effective.
The Internet's nature is peer to peer - 20050301_cs_profs.pdf
doomed to fail because all they have to do is either a)in the case of active-x ones - claim that use of their web site constitutes consent to install and/or b)bury it in tiny print of EULA legalize that few if any read anyway.
It does however, show government finally listening to the people as I've said for some time that if we did the same thing to them we'd be branded a hacker, fined or imprisoned but they do it to us everyday (or try).
It puts yet another country off-limits for ad-scum, not only to operate from, but even to live there while operating an ad company in zimbabwe.
It's not a silver bullet and shouldn't be treated as such. It won't make adware vanish. But if more and more counties say "NOT ON OUR SOIL" to this (and same goes for anything from child porn, to snuff films, to terrorist camps), it make it harder for said scum to operate (especially when they live in those counties and are subject to being sued). Consider this - some of the people who live in those countries, do this and do not look to relocating will look away from such practice (same as they do from, say, theft), thus such legislation *will* decrease the scale of the problem.
They're correct by looking at it as any other form of crime, assuming that completely killing it is not within our means, but instead looking at mitigating it through legislation.
-
Personally, I regard protecting individuals from unfair/unethical/violent treatment being one of the principal roles of government, which is why I support some laws that have been decried in the past as being a push to a "nanny state" (like occupational health and safety, minimum wage requirements, or reduced speed limits in school zones). Mostly its a matter of perspective, I find; but I'm hard pressed to think of a piece of legislation passed in the last ten years that fits the bill apart from the internet porn ban (a spectacularly successful law, just ask Abbey Winters...). Some might cite the more stringent gun laws, but since lethal shootings have gone down since the law was passed it could be argued that it had the desired (or at least the stated) effect.
.au, but if it can be used to show best practice and inspire similar legislation in other countries then it will do some good. And like any law, this won't stop someone determined to behave in an antisocial manner, but it will stop the 99% of people who only behave antisocially because its convenient. Not perfect (what is?), but definitely an improvement.
I'm in favour of this law, like any law that prohibits destructive antisocial behaviour. By itself I don't think it will make a scrap of difference, since (almost?) no spyware originates in
Blank until
you use this updated link instead to help hammer home their important message.
Quite aside from the virtues or flaws of the bill itself how much support for it is there in the Australian parliament?
IIRC the Australian Democrats have only a handful of senators in the upper house and zero or one MP in the lower house so unless I'm misunderstanding how Australian bills become law they'll need substantial support from the mainstream parties to get this through.
a world in progress...
Unfortunately, the US government has sold its soul to the devil.
That's interesting, because the Australian government has sold its soul to the US.
Without the sponsoship of a major party, this bill will go exactly nowhere.
It would fix the spam problem MAYBE, but it would also cause many problems.
I doubt the US has exclusive license to corrupt government officials. All it takes is for some Aussie gov't official to claim he doesn't like person/company/product XYZ. He tells AmEx to cut them off, or else.
Either they comply and harm some (probably innocent) person, or they ignore the law, get it repealed, whatever.
And that's not even considering the fact that most any malware-producer is going to claim that they are innocent (framed!), or that their product does ABC which makes it legal.
HOW do you tell a truly innocent person from someone producing malware???
This won't work! THINK! Please!!!
Become A Real Millionaire, in 10 seconds, on your computer! (rf=really fast) Read manual, YMMV.
rm -rf *
IIRC Oz has laws that prevent people for changing data on your PC without concent, like changing the default homepage on your browser, this moves to stop non-intrusive virii, which is really what spyware is. It is a start and better than nothing, now if they could stop spam from Goverment bodies and political orgs!!
There was an unknown error in the submission.
doesn't a lame duck refer to a president or other elected official who sits in office after losing re-election, but still has power to do what he wants between the election and the end of his term?
Australia is not America - the Democrats are a minor party and fading fast, and all members of both houses of parliament are required to vote on party lines. They don't get a choice. In other words this Bill is probably going nowhere. The Democrats may continue to hold onto the title of "most important minor party" but they're rapidly losing even that honour to the Greens. Introducing bills like this is political posturing pure and simple - they're rarely taken up and can sit in the lists for years. The minor parties and independants, particularly the Dems, were once important as the two major parties rarely had a simple senate majority - the minors could use their votes as bargaining chips to get their own agendas some real attention. That's no longer an option - Little Johnny will have his senate majority from July 1 and can do whatever the hell he wants. Now would be a good time to move to New Zealand. That doesn't mean the Democrats, Greens and sundry others don't still have an important role to play in the senate. It just means that they're losing whatever power they once had.
Hope it gets in but unfortunately there are only seven out of 76 Australian senators that are Democrats (and from the 1st of July 2005 they lose three of them). They have no members in the lower house and are a minor party unlike their US namesakes - flamebait???
They'll love slashdot, this is probably the most attention that they've had for a while.
The man in black fled across the desert, and the gunslinger followed (SK)
Well you'd want that kind of punishment to be reserved for sentencing, after the due process of a trial and a finding beyond reasonable doubt.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
Foreign Affairs explain Treaty-Making here.
Basically the Government can sign any treaty they like, but to have any effect in Australia it has to legislate those effects. (I think you might have been implying that)
Regulation (subordinate legislation) is useless because:
a) it can only be made under an existing Act giving power to a Minister to make Regulations in that matter
b) it can be disallowed in the Senate within 14 sitting days of the making of the Regulation
Basically if it's controversial then it's easier to legislate than it is to regulate.
'There is a Light that never goes out.'
How about a few classifications for software licenses, determined by law, and the requirement that each license identify where it fits in that scheme of things right up front. The highest classifications would specify no spyware (and admit penalties for violation). Then I could tell at a glance what I was agreeing to, on all sorts of fronts, including privacy.
Sort of the equivalent of film classification, or games classification. Licenses are now simply too long to read as a practical matter. Classification would largely solve that and is a proven solution.
This bill is not a serious piece of legislation. Its just a chance for a minority party to grab some media attention.
Don't be misled by their name. The Democrats are a minority party. No seats in the House, and only three senators. There is not a snowball's chance in hell that this bill will pass; it may not even be read.
The Democrats are esentially an opportunistic party. If the Liberal/National coalition is in power (as is the case now) then they are centre-left. If the Labor Party is in power, they are centre-right. They never achieved more than 10% of the vote and get much less than that these days.
in that our current government thinks they can solve technical issue using legislation. these spyware people are criminals, they dont' CARE about the law
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
"The Australian Democrats today called for software companies to face $10,000 fines for spreading malicious computer programs known as spyware."
I think that last line is written wrong. It has nothing to do with the USER being fined. They are goona charge the companies that secretly insert stuff into software.
If the company doesn't have a national presence then of course they can't sue them, but if they have offices in Australia they can. What's the problem with that?
I can agree that installing spyware without someone's consent onto their computer is wrong, especially when that spyware, which I can bet those companies never internally tested to make sure nothing else that was harmful (like Dyfuca/related crap) would end up on the computer in the same fashion due to their own software.
On the other hand, I can still see and understand the need for advertisement.
Yet I still do not see how companies (like AOL, which installs crap that I don't need like the viewpoint media player, etc) can get away with forcing software onto your computer without your permission, especially when the software you're downloading is FREE TO ACCESS/DOWNLOAD/INSTALL. What I think should be done is that for every piece of unwanted software that gets installed on your computer, without your permission (like bargain buddy, 180 solutions, etc.,) you should have the legal right to charge this company for the usage of your hard drive space, system resources, etc, and have the legal right to sue them for damages that their spyware/adware/malware/etc., causes due to the companies not checking the reliability of their partner's sites/software. Say.. fifty dollars for every kilobyte of space you consume, and for evry copy that is found of said software on your computer, another 500 bucks for trying to violate the privacy and security of your computer.
On a side note, anti-spyware companies that fail to recognize these threats should also be able to be held accountable, on an individual case-by-case basis, to pay reparations/punitive damages done to the computer in question, whether by performance degradation, or even (in some rare cases) the loss of connectivity due to you removing that software (I've had this happen twice using Lavasoft's Ad-Aware SE which requires a full format and re-install of an OS.
Just my thoughts, it'd make companies more liable across the world in any international court if something like this were to take effect. This would make them more responsible for their unwanted advertising, and would make them liable for ANY problems it causes due to negligence.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
They aren't talking about users but companies. They can't extradite a company and extradition is for criminal offenses. This is not the same as breaking copy right law. It is a civil offense.
Hey maybe they should introduce a system where anyone who is "naughty" or "bad" get's a fine too! -instantly!
Honestly this country has the most ass-backwards politicians, they have _NO_ idea how the hell a computer or the internet works!
Argh.
MOD UP. MOD UP! funny as
However, I maintain my assertion that the US government is one of very few that believe that the rights of corporations who make huge campaign corporations LEGITIMATELY exceed the rights of voters.
How is taking action against large corporations who conspire to commit fraud and deception, or profit from fraud and deception, going to affect the innocent?
My proposal is toseverely punish BANKS for their involvement in illegal activity. There is no way that the BANKS are (a) innocent or (b) citizens.
I concede that you might not agree with my view that most of the major BANKS (everywhere) are unpardonable scum, and involved in conspiracy to defraud, but I can only assume that is due to lack of experience in dealing with banks.
There is NO POSSIBLE DOUBT that all the money recieved for sales of pruducts promoted by spam/spyware go through american owned banks If you doubt me, just try to find any other way to get payment and then market fake "vihagra". It can't be done!
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
I don't know if you have ever seen a machine which has had Kazaa installed on it, but it is renedered almost unusable by the spyware/sellware/notusefultoolbarware etc etc etc.
Surely Kazaa is responsible somehow being at the end of the chain. The friend whose PC I just spent cleaning up had no idea what all the programs were, or how they got there, and certainly had no idea they were hiding in the boot (car analogy not partition) when he installed Kazaa.
I like Kazaa only because the RIAA hate them.
Apart from that, I would love to see them tarred and feathered for all that garbage software.
Move along... there is no sig here.
you live in C1ca60, also? nice
Would this be the same parliament that passed anti-spam legislation? And yet, behold, SPAM!
I have noticed that even IT personel can be unbelievably naive, at least that is what I have noticed. Opening very obvious Email harvesting games etc. Also "internet is not a dangerous place, you are over reacting". Now I may be a little paranoid sometimes (I am not alone in my head you know ;-) But to say such a thing as IT-er is plain stupid.
So when it comes donw to the facts, only the IT-ers considered as Nerds seem to worry about things like spyware, email harvesting etc. Has anybody noticed it too??
Message from god, Please logoff, rebooting the Universe
It doesn't matter.
This is the right law to have. We all need this law. Someone has to pass it first amidst cries of "it won't work until we reach critical mass".
As far as money-laundering is concerned: For a very long time, most anti-money laundering laws worldwide were worded in such a way that they only applied to hiding the origin of money coming from drug-related crimes. "Laundering" money coming from other crimes, such as extortion, theft, fraud,... was not considered to fall under these laws! The reason for this was that most of these laws were enacted in the framework of the US "war against drugs".
It's only rather recently that European anti-money laundering laws have been expanded to apply to the proceeds of all crimes. However, AFAIK the US aml laws still only apply to drug money...
Say no to software patents.
Of course, after all, if they wanted a real operating system they'd run Emacs
May contain traces of nut.
Made from the freshest electrons.
And, of course, these are also the people who are most curious about pop-up ads.
Famous last words: "I just clicked on one..."
This is only a private members bill it is going nowhere it was introduced by a minority party it wont ever be passed as law, once again journalistic sensationalism at its best.
Average Joe Schmoe who wants to make a quick buck by helping out with some advert company and decides to go the spamalot route. He gets fined $10,000 for the software he installs to make it easier to do thus... but only makes $1000 for all his trouble over the next 3 months.
... Now if the language stated something to the effect of "the creators are liable to pay a $10,000 fine for every machine infected", that just might halt operations... assuming they get caught... and they're doing it in the country.
The 'pro' who makes well above the initial cost of $10,000 really won't be affected by it... that $10,000 only constitutes a baseline starting cost of doing business... kinda like getting a license for spamming. It then becomes a win-win situation... the big-time spammers now get to work as usual and the government gets a small boost in revenue.
The question I have is that IF this was the case, and creators were liable, how would this affect Open Source software... particularly licensing models. Most licenses essentially say "Be nice, and give credit where its due." What happens when spam companies take open source software as a platform... make minor modifications to serve their spamming activities... would the original creators be liable in part? They would technically be co-creators of X company's spam software... albeit unintentionally.
"You call that a law mate? THIS IS A LAW!"
Would that make it illegal to pre-install Microsoft Windows?
Thanks!
I'm really excited. Not looking forward to getting rid of my car, but you gotta do what you gotta do.
Ce n'est pas un vrai mouvement de robot!