Slashdot Mirror
Washington State Outlaws Spyware
An anonymous reader submits "Today, the Governor of Washington signs a a bill outlawing spyware (bill history) which imposes penalties of $100,000 per violation. Spyware is broadly defined. It includes everything from changing a browser's bookmarks or homepage settings, "Opening multiple, sequential, stand-alone advertisements in the owner or operator's internet browser", keystroke-logging, taking over control of the computer, modify its security settings, and even "Falsely representing that computer software has been disabled." But here is my favorite: "Prevent, through intentionally deceptive means, an owner or operator's reasonable efforts to block the installation or execution of, or to disable, computer software by causing the software that the owner or operator has properly removed or disabled automatically to reinstall or reactivate on the computer." Microsoft and Ebay both testified in support of the bill. On May 10th, a similar law banning Internet and email phishing was also passed."
Washington state also outlawed killing sasquatch.
I love the idea that we are making something so irritating illegal in the strick legal sense of the word. Make no mistake, I hate Spyware.
At least I think I hate Spyware. I am not really sure, given the broad definition. Some Spyware is good, based solely on MY definition of 'good' and the mood I am in. So what if I have to give up something 'good' because the purveyors of that 'good' thing felt it might fit into the broad definition of Spyware and thusly discontinued it. I lose.
On the other hand, the creepy porn junk and the crud that wants my bank account so they can sell me into slavery in Korea definitely (again, in MY definition of...) fit the model of BAD Spyware and need to have its purveyors captured, subjected to Janet Jackson Videos and sent to prison for a long time. And thus begs the question:
How does this law get that done? Certainly these guys aren't going to stop their nonsense, they are making money doing it, so we will HAVE to enforce this law to get them to stop, and if they don't stop because there is no good way to enforce this law, then the BAD stuff continues and the GOOD stuff is thwarted.
I am just not sure about this one.
I suppose it gives teeth to companies like Microsoft and EBay to go after these guys and have them bundled away. That is good. But Who decides which ones Microsoft and EBay go after? And do I really want to create a system whereby Microsoft and EBay are the US Marshals and are enforcing laws the way they see fit, and going after those criminals that they decide to go after?
I'm just not sure about this one.
A most overlooked advantage to owning a computer is if they foul up there's no law against wacking them around a bit.
All the malware sceeching to an ignoble stop in the Great Greeen Northwest.
Faith: n. -- That human impulse that drives them to steal appliances when the power goes out
land of the free, home of the not-spied-on.
Way way overdue outlawing spyware.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
IE = Spyware
Now they get to use their new search function to search for the contents of Bill's bank account.
'Cus that would be funny. Funny Ha-Ha!
We were also one of the first to make spam illegal. I don't really think it has helped all that much...
RP is a complete pig to remove.
Wonder if it's now illegal?
In fact, I'd like all third-party hidden-startup applications, which generally are unwanted and adopt this method since they know they'd be removed, to be illegal. I get VERY annoyed when other people feel fit to try to force their software into *MY* computer. How would they feel if I came into their front room and took over the remote control?
--
Toby
Hard law to enforce. If it was a national law, then it would have some effect. Hopefully it doesn't become "National weak law" takes over "Strong state law" like can spam
Outlook express will re-copy its files next time explorer is started if you delete them.
at $100,000 per violation that is $100,000 * the number of windows instalations out there, I think microsoft is going broke!
why should I care about this?
Shouldn't phishing just fall under fraud?
Remember that one time when Washington state outlawed SPAM? Yeah... Well, I live in Washington and the 100+ messages I see in my inbox every morning tell me how well that went over.
because billg lives there. What bill wants, bill gets.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
Give half of that to bounty hunters who bring the culprit to justice and we could have a new series of reality shows. Who woulda thunk spyware could be entertaining?
I Am My Own Worst Enemy
Consumers and the state attorney general would be able to seek damages up to $500 per violation, or actual damages if phishers try to get consumers' information. Victimized Internet service providers could get $5,000 or actual damages. Judges could award an ISP three times the amount of fines if they so choose. Alright who wants to sign up with me.. We get 1000 systems download bonzibuddy and weatherbug and make a fortune. or at least have fun trying.. :)
that if I move to Washington, I'll be able to uninstall Internet Explorer?
I'd more appropriately analogize it to offering to paint one of their rooms for free, then doing that but also smearing feces over their walls. Then when they tell you to remove the feces you complain about an "uninstaller malfunction" and in their confusion you bolt out the door.
News Flash, Washington State has just charged Windows for intentionally building a OS that allows Spyware to propagate, the FBI may need to step in as this allows the Spyware to spread across State Lines.
There are 10 kinds of people in the world - those who understand binary and those who don't
or dentures, at least, for this bill?
/annoyed
i want to see people paying up the wazoo for this: collection agencies pounding down doors, spyware companies going belly up, class action suits, the like. hell, if they put filesharing on the same penalty level as involuntary manslaughter (because you know those two are equally evil in the eyes of MPAA/RIAA/congress), why don't they send spyware companies to bankruptcy?
Will this make any real major difference to the internet? most spyware companies are smart enough to have moved out of the US by now, and will probably be in safe havens for their activities.
It would be better developing ways to stop the actual spyware, rather than try to track down the people doing it. If the people were actually making serious money, and knew the government would be after them, they would be out of the country like a flash, and continue their business.
Business Voyeur
.. is to make companies accountable for the actions of their 'affiliates'. Many a spyware company uses this defence, and end up gaining customers from dodgy affiliates who they don't need to pay as the affiliate has broken the terms and conditions. Genius. Their business model is just like bill posting on roads and streets.
Not altogether tangentially, Real is located is headquartered in Seattle, Washington state. I imagine this won't put to rest the rumors of spyware in their recent players, that are so prevelent on Slashdot.
let's let washington fix the bugs and then implement it else where. glad I don't live there.
-Tim Louden
Okay, it might just be me, and I might just be an idiot here, but isn't spyware illegal already, since it's modifying the contents of my computer without my knowledge or authorization? To me, it seems that spyware makers should be prosecuted just like anyone else who writes malicious code (viruses, trojans, worms, and so on).
Any technically-literate lawyers have a comment on this?
If you run the uninstall program, it gets rid of itself quite happily. It's concievable that if you delete the Outlook Express directory Windows might repair it (I've never tried). But I think Microsoft could easily argue that running "Add and Remove Programs" fell under 'reasonable efforts'.
modify its security settings
Uhm, doesn't XP SP2 do that?
The next steps will be legal definitions of what constitutes spyware, and refinements of those definitions based on cases brought to trial.
How will they know who's doing spyware? Offer rewards to reports resulting in convictions.
Of course, the thing might be struck down as unconstitutional depending on the breadth of definitions it starts with and the zeal of the ever-loathed ACLU in promoting the letter of the First Amendment to the detriment of the spirit of it.
sigh.
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
Why not just have a law that says "thou shalt not deliberately screw over other people"
.. well who's to say a majority of people can know the right punishment for a crime either?
And then just have judges who determine what the punishment will be etc. And before you run around saying the judges could be stupid and dole out inadequate punishments
I wouldn't have enough money to pay my college bills. We'll all be rich I tell you. FILTHY STINKING RICH!!! MUWAHAHAHA
Every spyware product is just going to put in the EULA, "You cannot install/use this product in the state of washington." Take that washington!
do operating systems that call home after being installed count as spyware?
Some of the better places to go to get spyware are places in russia or developing countries, etc.
The advantage and disadvantage of the internet is that you can go access web sites from anywhere.
By making it tough for any group/organization to spread their malware from washington state, means they'll go elsewhere to host their stuff.
Suppose all the spyware people jump ship and go elsewhere, somebody WILL find a site that has it and will get the spyware.
It's like passing a law that makes it illegal to skid out of control and hitting a particular tree in the hopes of eliminating accidents.
Have you ever tried installing AIM from AOL? It install links everywhere regardless of if you tell it 'no' in the setup process. Maybe they'll finally change this.
How would they feel if I came into their front room and took over the remote control?
The same way a Mafia racketeer would feel if you threatened to burn their house down if they didn't pay for your "fire insurance".
They aren't children; they know people hate what they do. As long as the annoying thing is happening to you for the profit of them, then they don't care, whether "they" are the Mafia or Gator or whoever.
The enemies of Democracy are
A US Federal bill is also in congress, the The Spyblock Act. Reading the reactions to it there seems to be a realization that these acts are somewhat toothless. I assume they are being passed to show that lawmakers "care" and "are listening" but is doesn't seem like anyone has enough imagination to really address the problem yet.
Is IE spyware? It is installed without permission and, even though it can be a vector for viruses, cannot be removed. It also tracks personal information (via cookies). How would this NOT be illegal under the new law?
It was Canute's courtiers who were the idiots, not Canute himself. He did the whole commanding-the-sea thing precisely to demonstrate to them that he was not divine.
a buddy of mine works for a spyware company.. I've had to removed his crap multiple times from infected computers at my work.. Sucks for him.. ha ha
""Opening multiple, sequential, stand-alone advertisements in the owner or operator's internet browser"
:)
:(
hehe no free porn for Washington
We know what at least one state congresscritter is up to...
Sounds all warm and fuzzy but actually doing anything is doubtful...at least til califonia catches up.
I believe you cant make automated telesales calls here but several computers havent read THAT law either
I thought Real had significantly lessened the evilness of Realplayer lately... more specifically with Realplayer 10. Then again, that's just what I heard, I have no desire to find out myself.
Game! - Where the stick is mightier than the sword!
Does this mean that all software that leaves information in the Windows Registry when it uninstalls (so it can check and see if it's been installed before the next time you install it) is now illegal? How about programs that update a DLL and then don't revert your system to the previous version when they uninstall? Is MS Office now illegal spyware (it also tracks you without telling you in hidden parts of its Word documents)?
This is one of the last final frontiers needing to be policed. Lets face it, the internet is like old Tombstone, lawless and full of crooks. I for one like to do business online, and have fun on it and I hate worrying if my credit card # or other important # will be stolen due to some spyware.
:-P
I support these new laws and apple itunes!
RealPlayer doesn't install spyware. Why don't stupid people like you at least get your facts straight.
So, will MS finally stop shipping Alexa with IE?
Oh well, what the hell...
These prohibitions do not apply to any monitoring of a subscriber's internet service by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider, or provider of information service for network or computer security purposes.
So, when M$ looks at and deletes your files for supposed copyright violations, that's a "security" issue and they are OK. It does not matter that they have all of the other definitions of spyware and are much more invasive, they are a "software provider" doing it for "security".
The definition is so broad that it's hard to imagine who is not a "software provider" doing something for "security". Oh wait, now I know, anyone Microsoft does not like is not a "software provider".
A real spyware law would spank M$, HP and many other "software providers" for all the things this bill legitimately complains about and then allows.
DMCA, Hollings, Palladium. What might have sounded like paranoia is now common sense.
Considering their actions (through contraction of Overpeer) to smuggle spyware in through windows media files..
"Better to be vulgar than non-existent" -Bev Henson
As far as I'm concerned, start arresting them all. I don't want their sh!tware on my box. I want their stuff to sit there nice and quiet up until the moment I want it to do something, and then I want it to do nothing extra. I don't want a pop-up "toolbox" to fix my printer; I don't want a noisy "Lookie what I printed for you, John, aren't you proud of my wonderous inkjets?!" dialog box. And when it's done I want it to get the hell out of my way. Completely. Don't ask me to update, don't leave a tool tray icon behind, don't leave a task running in task manager.
If all this requires sending a few developers to Federal Pound Me In The Ass Prison, all I can say is "don't drop the soap, guys."
John
So now they'll have to outsource spyware writers to third world countries? AND move the company's there?
Like many others, I consider Real Player to essentially be spyware.
I think (correct me if I'm wrong) that Real are based in Washington State. So what's the impact here, for both current and future versions of Real Player? Would make an interesting test case.
Read reviews of shopping cart software
"That government is best which governs least"
Come on! Must we have laws for such stupid things? Let Microsoft fix it's defective software instead of outlawing exploiting it.... Doesn't the government have more important things to worry about, like foreign policy, the energy crisis, and weapons of mass destruction?
The bill is very explicit about the name of the Chief Clerk of the House of Reptilians who's in charge of the bill, but for the Governor's signature line, it only has the Gov's title and not his/her name :-)
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
he should have a one year reprieve at a minimum.
It seems that this law will be pretty tough to keep on top of. Although they have spelled out their definition of spyware there are surely loopholes. It's like hitting a moving target.
Is there going to be any way of truly tracking down the "criminals" or will this be dependant on individual users reporting offenders? I don't know many people who know enough about their computers to diagnose a problem like spyware let alone turn that information into law enforcement.
Does this mean that I can move to Washington, and next time quicktime adds itself to my startup again I can pocket $100k?
They're not going to let us download Firefox!?!
When I try to uninstall IE, it doesn't actually uninstall. The uninstaller explicitly says that all it's doing is removing shortcuts.
I don't think that line bans software which simply doesn't install itself.
Anyway, what I don't like is that this is so broadly defined. Plus, Washington is MS's home state. Considering MS could probably buy Washington, I'm concerned that some MS-sponsored judge will decide that Firefox is spyware because it looks like Internet Explorer, which decieves people into thinking they've uninstalled it when they never even made an attempt.
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
well you could not install those "features". Most driver cd/downloads have their drivers tucked in a directory some where. Especially true with driver updates you download from the manufacture's website. So yeah, you installed all that crap, you live with it. When i install an epson or an HP i just point add printer wizard at the driver dir. I have found very few peripherals to not have some kind of "manual install".
I would also add that the more expensive the hardware, the more likely it wont have badly coded drivers/software. This is why its better to buy quality peripherals rather than cheap "no name chinese company" stuff.
I'll just use my special getting high powers one more time...
This is exactly why I don't let my PC watch TV.
The graveyard precinct vote has been a factor in US politics since before Washington was a state. The real news is that the state government is no longer considered a Boeing subsidiary.
Some mornings it's hardly worth chewing through the restraints to get out of bed.
In the hypothetical case of spyware which does only minimal damage, does not spread, and is not part of any fraud or other already-illegal activity, $100,000 is very excessive.
To the extent that this constitutes a "fine," criminal or civil, it is subject to the US Constitution's prohibitions against unreasonable fines.
To the extent that it is a remedy payable to the harmed person, I'm not sure what kind of judicial oversight there is. Maybe I should ask my legislature to allow me to sue for "One Million, I mean One Billion Dollars" the next time someone double-parks me.
Now, there ARE cases where a single instance of spyware, with a single victimized computer, does warrant $100,000 in fines and even prison time - but not because it's spyware, but because it's an attempt to engage in fraud, e.g. steal bank passwords.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Would this violate this law? I think it should. I wish I'd known about the StarForce installation--I wouldn't have bought the game.
All one really has to do is purchase a server in another state (or if it becomes national another country) and they are free to do as they wish. Pesonally, I am very much in support of this law and spam laws, but whenever I read about them I just roll my eyes b.c there is no possible way that the internet can be fully policed.
I'm concerned that some MS-sponsored judge will decide that Firefox is spyware because it looks like Internet Explorer, which deceives people into thinking they've uninstalled it when they never even made an attempt.
Laughed out of court. As part of an antitrust settlement, Microsoft introduced and promoted Start > Set Program Access and Defaults, and if the user tries that, IE still shows up. Remember that an appeals court isn't nearly as easy to "sponsor" as a trial court.
RP is nothing compared to IST Service. Ive tried every method to get rid of that bugger from runni[just popped up some exitexchange crap]ng symantec's ist service's removal tool, which doesnt work, to just booting to the command prompt and deleting files manually, which again doesnt work.
'Or else pizza is going to order out for you'
Don't let your Electric Monk watch TV either. I learned that one the hard way.
This law seems to cover a lot of ground. However, does it affect programs that are installed, technically, by your consent. Most of the time I don't read through the Terms of Service of a program, but if said program says within their TOS that they can, without your prior consent, install crap on the computer, can anything be done about that?
INACTIVE ACCOUNT
I am glad to see that I am not the only resource nazi in the world.
I hate having anything more than 4-6 things in my systray, and start geting annoyed when I see >40 processes running.
moo.
And the driver that copy protected CD's install without your permission to prevent the tracks from being ripped? I had to clean up one of these last week while I was ripping music for my father in law's new iPOD....
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Won't this ban some of those 'copy-protected' CDs that automaticaly install some kind of driver through auto-run?
Like this one.
Sometimes politics and technology don't mix well, mostly because a majority of politicians are not tech-savy. That is why these laws are vauge and sometimes useless attempts.
This signature is part of a balanced post.
I like it, but I don't like legislators getting used to writing bills dealing with the Internet...
They get their foot in the door and we might be in trouble...
"I told you a million times not to exaggerate!"
But in the end, the reason they can do this is US!
We bend over way too easy for business. We are so damned obedient - they say "Internet Explorer Required" and we do as they say. Or, "You must have JavaScript enabled". or flash or adobe or whatever. And we comply.
Not near enough of us simply took our business elsewhere.
Business gets their way because they have the guts to go somewhere else at the slightest whim - ever tried to get a job? You get passed by for the slightest thing out of place... yet business expects us to configure our machines with known avenues for malware propagation just to see their site. Geez, do you think they would wanna do business with me if I insisted they open the till to their cash register open while doing business, and let me do whatever I will under the darkness cover of the DMCA??? Or would they consider me a tremendous security risk to allow in their store?
Even my damm bank requires Java Script to use their site - so I have to do my business personally at the teller. I can't seem to get across to them that I consider them asking me to enable scripting programs on my machine is equivalent of me asking them to let me in their safe, and not even be allowed to see what I do in there.
I have tried till I am blue in the face to fight business on this issue, but there is not enough of me to make a difference... for now I am just a whiner.
When one is seeking a job with business, one usually has sense to take a bath and dress up for the interview, don't come in complaining the office is the wrong color, and you won't work until they install whatever brand air conditioner you specify. The buyer needs to insist on the same respect. If one business is not flexible enough to use web standards. find another that does. If business insists from the get-go that you bend over, what kind of tone have they just set for any future dealings with them?
When we as a whole insist with our purchasing power that business conform to standard communication protocols, protocols we both understand, we will see an end to this sneakyware that is foisted upon us by businesses that insist we load other crap in just to see their site.
Its a big job to turn business around. They are big and used to getting their way. Even government gets in on the act as people are required by law to interact with them. One case in point is some forms the California DMV put in Adobe .pdf format. They used some peculiar new encoding scheme so I can't print the forms. Why in all blue blazes could they have not used the simple way already provided in all browsers to print things?
I can't tell you how many times I have walked away from a business deal when the salesman tries to close the deal and hands me a stack of fine print and smiles, saying "just sign here". If he needs that much fine print, there's something wrong somewhere. I would not ask him to agree to such a thing. Why is he asking me to?
"Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]
can any topic turn into a debate about rigging elections.
Let's offically outlaw viruses! As if that's really gonna do anything.
Well it probably seemed like a good idea at the time. But I have the feeling this will be difficult to enforce, with the exception of cases involving untrusting spouses. It's like outlawing rain. Or declaring war on Algebra. It looks good on paper, but seems entirely unfeasible.
Laziness is a virtue, anyone who bothers to tell you otherwise, is clearly lacking it.
Microsoft should be the first to be prosecuted because attempts to disable Messenger at startup are futile; XP ignores the user request and Messenger gets re-enabled.
Off topic, but tangentially related: Austin, TX recently passed a city-wide smoking ban. On the news a couple nights later, the anchorwoman said: "With Austin's voter-approved smoking ban coming into effect soon, people are asking how it will be enforced."
Oh, I'm so glad they thought to ask about that tiny, niggling issue of enforcement after voting for it.
And you're right, enforcement is going to be a big issue here. How many spywhores are operating in Washington? How many are operating in the U.S.? When enforcement gets difficult, then enforcement gets selective. The question always is: who is going to do the selecting? That becomes the deciding factor in what the impact of the law will actually be. If it is Microsoft, woe be unto us.
The enemies of Democracy are
Echelon!!!!
The parent makes a very good point. A lot of sleazy Digital Restrictions Management software uses spyware and malware tactics to control your computer. After all, it can't work without restricting your use of your own system to some degree.
Can Washingtonians now sue record labels that use malware to prevent CD copying? That would be a terrific step towards ending such nonsense.
He who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me.
I tuck all mine onto a nice comfy couch and let them watch "Brave Little Toaster" every 6 months or so.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0092695/
Who is John Cabal?
Yes... because there certainly aren't any computing laws that already cover un-authorised access of someone's machine. Seriously, the people responsible for any intrusive advertising or related annoyances are the people who actually buy the products. These people need to be executed by special executive order from the president himself - no messing about with terrorists, just shoot the people who buy penis pumps and subscriptions to xxx-teens-for-you.com and the world will be a better place.
This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
- 1 - Definitions
- 2 - Intentionally deceptive evil things banned,
- 3 - Illegal to transmit software that takes control of computer or changes security-critical settings,
- 4 - Illegal to deceptively induce owner/operator to install software for security/privacy/viewing, or to execute software that installs software.
- 5 - Covers the ass of ISPs, carriers, hardware and software vendors, service providers, etc. installing, monitoring, managing, or upgrading things or detecting illegal use of networks, services, or software.
- 6 - Penalties
- 7,8,9,10 - Legal technicalities and boilerplate.
Section 5 is directly intended to protect people like anti-virus companies updating their products, Microsoft doing operating system updates, Digital-Rights-Management software companies running licensing spyware, ISPs doing security stuff, etc. Real Networks appears to be pretty thoroughly protected here. But just about anybody selling software is protected, even if it's ueber-blatant spyware, as long as they don't falsely claim that they're the *only* way to view some kind of material when they're not. And the bill makes the classic passive-voice mistake of referring to "authorized" updates and "authorized" remote system management without saying *who's* authorizing it to do *what* to whom. So my software company, Evil-Ware Incorporated, authorizes anybody to install our product on their computers and use it to update their browsers, and we'll be monitoring your machine to make sure you're not using it in ways that violate the 347 pages of fine-print licensing terms that you agreed to when you clicked the "Yes!" button, including Page 157 where you agree that you've read the whole thing and understand it.It's probably impossible to write a good anti-spyware bill. Not only are legislators and their staffs not skilled enough to recognize the subtleties, but they're under pressure from major manufacturers not to interfere with various software or content licensing products, which are essentially legitimate spyware. Furthermore, it's extremely difficult to draw subtle legal distinctions between edge cases (with a $100K penalty for the loser) when the legislators aren't smart enough to apply the equivalent of the "I know it when I see it" obscenity test. Think about the differences between an email message or web page containing
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
4-6 things in your systray? 40 processes? That would be a very bad day indeed for me. My main box typically has 3 icons -- gaim, Google Desktop Search, and my nVidia driver icon -- along with a hidden volume icon. As for processes, right now I have firefox, gaim, and Azeurus open, plus Steam and my nForce2 audio control panel, and I have 30 processes running.
Disable your unneccessary services in XP. It'll make your life much better, I promise.
> Sure, some people will argue 'it was just a hairy guy backpacking in the redwood forests!', but I had my hunting license.
You bastard, you killed RMS!
Like many here, I think this law will do a whole lot of nothing.
But as for the comments about Windows and its security holes, and how we should blame Microsoft, I don't agree with this either.
I don't think criminals who break into your house shouldn't be blamed because lockmakers, doormakers, or windowmakers (no relation) should have made their wares of sturdier materials.
People use Windows out of momentum and because they feel they have no choice. Microsoft would clean up its act if consumers forced them to by using other products. A variety of circumstances have largely prevented this from happening.
Mac users have felt that their experience has been better for many years, and have often wondered why anyone would choose a PC over a Mac - especially now with OS X which, they say, rocks harder than a llama with a chaingun and free calzones.
I have seen people complain about the smallest changes on their systems, including point upgrades to browsers or MSOE upgrades.
People aren't down with change, especially on things they think of as complicated devices. Those of us who read Slashdot are, I am sure, far more flexible and adventurous in this regard, but I don't think we in anyway represent consumers as a whole.
Microsoft could probably commit genocide, and people would still use Windows. They could declare themselves as a nuclear power in Redmond, and people still would use their products. Not because they are the best (a minority use them for this reason, but not, I think, most people), but because it is what they are used to, and have become used to and really don't want to learn something new, along with its attendant frustrations, hassles, and time commitment.
People use Windows because they would rather eat glass than have to re-learn a new interface or OS, because, for many, computers are a sad fact of life, as opposed to a fulfilling hobby or something they would choose to spend time using.
That being said, spyware authors are degenerates, and deserve, basically, what they get.
But here's an idea.
Corporations do not ordinarily prosecute virus writers, phishers, spyware authors, and people who crack their systems for a variety of reasons. One is the cost, and two is the embarassment of being compromised.
What if all of the major corporations and banks secretly decided to do a collectively lodge a wave of lawsuits all over the world. Coordinate with governments abroad and just do a year of scorched earth prosecutions of these folks, and promise to follow up with regular "waves" of prosecution, but not say when. In the intervening time, companies would be free to prosecute or not prosecute (or sue) who they like, but they would agree at regular intervals to time their lawsuits to make a massive public statement that they and their customers are sick of putting up with this crap.
This would probably go further as a deterrent since clearly laws and civil suits as they are undertaken now, have not had much effect.
Countries can bring economic pressure to bear on other countries which, mainly through lack of resources I imagine, do not prioritize investigating and prosecuting computer crimes.
Imagine if you rattled the cages of these degenerates in a way that produced not only actual prosecutions, but revenue to follow up with more waves at unannounced rituals? That might have a deterrent effect.
Of course, the question of whether you like the idea of governments exercising their power this way, is certainly valid.
I do not like government. I wish we did not need it at all. I am not so convinced however that since we have it, that the government should do nothing whatsoever when it comes to these kinds of crimes. These crimes have considerable consequences for many, not the least of which is the erosion of confidence in the internet in general as a valid medium of economic, intellectual, and cultural exchange.
Try as I might, I cannot think of a reason why vandals
Since the software has no way of knowing what state it's being installed in, this is like if your town council tried to regulate, or ban, the internet.
Earlier this week the Supreme Court held that regulations interfering with out of state wine sales violated the constitution's dormant commerce clause. There have been half a dozen cases, e.g. ALA v Pataki, that say states can't regulate online smut, on commerce grounds.
A person charged under this bill could sue the county/city where he was charged, for violating his civil rights to commerce.
So the bill may just be a bluff.
Has anybody who is literate as to both spyware and legislation evaluated this to see if it hits the target? Does it ban spyware, and just spyware, or are there legitimate apps that would into trouble with this?
If Alice was an interior decorator who, on gaining access to a client's home, did stuff like:
- Changed all the speed-dial numbers on the telephone
- Installed listening/recording devices in all the rooms
- Modified the TV/video so it overlays ads of her choice over the top of programs (in addition to the regular ads screened by the station)
- Duplicated door keys and alarm codes and sold these to others
- etc
then Alice would be doing hard time at Club Fed or Her Majesty's.So why should it be any different with software?
When someone runs your software on their computer, they have admitted you into their sovereign private space, and you have a responsibility to behave in a manner respecting this. Well done, Washington. I note also that the Australian Democrats party has introduced similar legislation, which God-willing will also pass.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
YOU BASTARDS!
I have a Win2K system that I've installed a SW firewall on. Since I don't do any off-line browsing, I took disabled running mobsync.exe at startup. I would like to disable it all the time. Every time the computer restarts, my firewall pops up and tells me that Windoze is trying to stick mobsync.exe back in the autorun list.
Think I can get 100K from M$ for that? They're re-enabling SW that I intentionally disabled.
The problem is you don't know what's really needed. I needed to scan some photos using my gf's scanner temporarily with my laptop and spent an hour trying to get the minimal install. Finally I gave up and installed the whole bloated CD full of garbage because only its crappy "Photostudio" would recognize its TWAIN. What's worse is that there were a bunch new programs added. Heck, I don't even recognize half the stuff in my Add or Remove Programs any more.
Obvious vote rigging fraud by both the Ds and Rs there. Just like in so many other instances. So the courts should order the only ethically valid option, throw out both the d and r candidates and hand the election to whomever came in *third*.
Does this mean that all software that leaves information in the Windows Registry when it uninstalls (so it can check and see if it's been installed before the next time you install it) is now illegal? How about programs that update a DLL and then don't revert your system to the previous version when they uninstall? Is MS Office now illegal spyware (it also tracks you without telling you in hidden parts of its Word documents)?
So ordered. So ordered. So ordered. Take 'em outside and hang 'em. Hang 'em high.
The Hon. Judge Roy Bean
"This is EBay/PayPal/SomeRealBank/eGold/etc. - Give me all your info", that's lightweight no-money-stolen fraud, unless you give them your info and they use it, in which case it's bigger fraud. The smaller fraud isn't typically worth the effort of the police to track down. EBay/SomeRealBank/EGold could go after them for trademark infringement or something, but you've probably noticed that eBay/PayPal and most banks haven't even bothered to use SPF on their domain names to make it easy for your mail server to discard mail, so that tells you how much *they* care. (SPF's not perfect, but it's a start.) If they steal small amounts of money from you, depending on your state's thresholds, it's still petty enough that the police are not likely to bother with it, and they'll probably find that it's interstate commerce, so it's the Feds' problem to deal with it, and it's almost certainly too small for them to bother with either.
Adding Phishing as a separate crime raises the potential penalties enough that the state police might find it worthwhile to go after a phisher just for sending out the email, if there's a $100K fine or a $100/message fine times a million messages or whatever. In reality, of course, it's almost certainly an interstate crime or an international crime, but at least Washington State gets to spank Washington-based phishers even if they can't extradict someone from Florida or Russia, and they're more likely to be able to extradict them if there's a felony with a $100m potential fine than if there's a misdemeanor with 30 days in jail.
And like it or not, police do prioritize crime-fighting effort based on dead bodies and violence, big amounts of money, political-correctness crimes like drugs, or things that bring revenue to their departments (like traffic tickets). That's not all bad - unless the legislature tells them something is a real priority by attaching lots of money to it, they're going to ignore that spam you're receiving and spend their time worrying about any recent murders and rapes, responding to complaints about street-fights and maybe domestic violence, give out $200 tickets to people with burned-out taillights, and *maybe* deal with stolen cars and laptops, though the probability of success of those two is low enough it doesn't get much effort unless they're busting a suspected fence anyway. If you lost $1000 to a phisher, and you're a grandmother, they'll feel sorry for you, and if you're a yuppie they'll laugh at you after you leave the room. If you're a *bank*, and 500 of your customers have lost $1000, then that's enough that they'll be interested, and anti-phishing laws make it easier to get evidence to catch the successful phishers and stomp on some of the riff-raff along the way.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Nothing but whiners.
Don't like it?
Don't think its tough enough?
Think it's too tough?
Not enforcable?
Get involved in politics and change something. Jeezuz, we get like 40%-50% of the US voting. Everyone has a gripe, but nobody wants to do anything about it. The US should have mandatory voting, like the Australians. Then at least we would know what the country actually wants.
I'm so upset...
Better go play half-life...
Sorry for the rant...
I'm not sure that you can really compare smoking bans to spyware bans, because smoking takes place in public, and social sanction is much easier to apply. Here in Northern California, if you were to attempt to light up a cigarette in a restaurant, you'd get enough nasty stares and comments that you'd likely get the hint and snub out the cigarette. Failing that, the proprietor would get involved.
Spyware is created by the same people who create spam and engage in phishing ploys. They hide out of public view, because they know that if their identities were known, it would be very difficult for them to have any sort of regular social life. That's why spammers protest so strenuously when their personal information is widely distributed by vigilantes.
I'd like to see more solutions that take advantage of social sanctioning, by shining really bright lights on the people who are behind this sort of repugnant behavior. I agree with your assessment that if Microsoft (or some other powerful entity) gets to decide who gets punished, we could be in for problems of another sort.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I did not realize the CIA was making software. Did they advertise it? I would like to buy some before my state outlaws it too.
--- -- - -
Give me LIBERTY, or give me a check.
it is likely that this law will do absolutely nothing to stop spyware problems in washington state.
why not create a law that, instead of penalizing the spyware companies, penalizes the companies that advertize through spyware or buy information that was collected by spyware or host/bundle spyware with their own products? it is easier for a computer user to know which product is showing in a popup window than it is for them to know where that popup comes from, and it can be implemented in a smaller area with greater effect that the current law.
I'm glad they've outlawed spam. Maybe some other governers will follow. My spam fighting governer is bigger than your spam fighting governer!
[%] Cingular Ringtones
Simple. Because it's not installed without your consent -- it was either pre-installed on your computer, or you explicitly installed it when you installed windows.
Most driver cd/downloads have their drivers tucked in a directory some where. Especially true with driver updates you download from the manufacture's website. So yeah, you installed all that crap, you live with it. When i install an epson or an HP i just point add printer wizard at the driver dir. I have found very few peripherals to not have some kind of "manual install".
And just why should "drivers" install the annoyware in the first place? You attach a new peripheral in Windows, and it asks you for a driver, which the manufacturer has conveniently supplied. You insert the disc, click yes, and it's all over. Nobody asks you for permission to install all the crapware. On one hand, we have the Windows users saying Linux is too hard to install/update and Windows just works, while on the other hand saying Windows users have to be more savvy than Linux users to avoid the hidden junk. Geez, pick a story and stick with it.
I'm just not worth your time to try marketing to me. Even on legit registration they get my area code followed by 555-1212. I'm listed. Look me up.
Hey!!! the parentheses are good for something
The summary of this bill here at Slashdot seems to suggest it outlaws keystroke logging, but in fact it's a bit more specific and talks about transmitting, etc. Still, one thing that disturbs me is fragile wording like:
It looks to me like if you just skip recording characters every now and then, you're safe on that point. Or if you transferred the data first to another computer and then maybe a person or program or corporation or someone's dog picked up the data instead of having it transferred to them.
It probably needs at least some wording like "substantially all" instead of "all", and "entity" instead of "person".
I doubt this is the only problem with the legislation, it was just the first thing I saw when I spot-checked that one sentence.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
HP has been the poster child for how to install crap the wrong way in Windows.
Set the wayback machine for the late 1990s. I bought a fast, expensive HP inkjet. When I got my brand new printer home and tried to "install" it, the "installer" wanted me to run their stuff. Having had prior experience with HP crapware, I said "no thanks, I'll install it myself." So I clicked up the add hardware lizard, and said "I'll for search myself, and I have a disk, thank you." When I selected the correct HP driver, only a dialog box appeared, informing me "ERROR: You must run SETUP.EXE from this disk in order to install the printer driver."
Yes, I'm sure I could have un-cabbed whatever real driver files there were, made dozens of appropriately arcane registry entries by hand, and had a mostly unstable printer driver at the end of a very long day. Instead, I opted to run their SETUP.EXE.
I failed to recognize my real mistake was in not bringing the piece of sh!t printer back to the store on the spot.
So, I lived with the pop-up printer boxes that interfered with Print Managers inherent ability to deal with an out-of-paper situation all by itself. I learned to cancel the toolbox, load the paper, don't cancel the print job, and basically twirl myself around. (That's what it's all about.)
Well, fast forward to two years ago. Stupid me, I plunked down more money for a portable HP photo printer. Ye gods, I'm still plucking crap out of the registry today for that stupid decision. So, I vowed to never purchase HP again.
Having had generally good experiences with IBM printers at work, about a year ago I switched to a Lexmark all-in-one.
Yes, the quicker of you have already begun typing "you dumb *&^%$" into the reply box.
This pop-up nuisance makes my HP experience seem almost divine. By default it's got to use a digitized voice to talk to me about every print job (better have the speakers turned down for those 2:00 AM print tasks.) It clutters up the toolbars, and the task manager. Right now, I can count at least four running tasks that exist so I can do what, ask it for a piece of black and white paper? What heinous fiend sold Lexmark (and by extension me) this crapware? And what prison can I not visit him in?
John
WTF!
I'm still trying to figure out how to completely remove IE, other than re-formating the disk and installing an alternative OS.
Does this mean that Microsoft will get some sort of bounty when they seek out new pieces of Spyware to install on their own machines when developing their Anti-Spyware software? They are based in Washington...makes you wonder. ( Shows why they testfied for the bill. huh? )
This law seems fair in that it protects consumers from applications that seek to steal their personal information, alter their system settings, change their home pages, etc..etc...
What do you want? A law that says advertising and commerce is illegal unless you are google?
If you don't want advertisements then pay for your software or use open source and compile it yourself.
Goat
Costco originated on 4th Ave S. in Seattle, site of the first Costco store. But you're right about them being out in Issaquah now.
That first Costco was recently demolished with the opening of the new replacement store last month.
I like this bill. This means if I bring my computer to Washington, I can sue Microsoft, SBC/Yahoo, AOL and adclick!
The Xbox 360 + media center = "All your mp3's are belong to us."
P.S. I really like this bill... and Brutus is an honorable man.
I wonder if an OS containing an NSA backdoor would count?
Liberals call everyone Nazis yet they are the closest thing to it.
Microsoft themselves are in violation of this bill, at least as I understand its language. Have you ever tried removing MSN Messenger from an XP box?
If Kirkland is a grade A dump, what does that make Kent? A shit factory?
...and if that wasn't enough, the fourth item on Kirkland's page is about Waste Management Changes
Sort of... The Kent Valley is the most diverse manufacturing center in Washington State.
If a program just scans for itself, and for computer security purposes securely ensures that it has not been tampered with, then according to this section the law does not apply to it....
Sec. 5 Section 3 or 4 of this act does not apply to any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's internet or other network connection or service, or a 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, maintenance, 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 under this chapter.
note the words about "computer security purposes", and "software provider"
RE: Washington States New Malware Law :) !!!
:) ...
YAAYY!!!!! I HAD to post this note on QFC's web site as this has been an EXTREME issue for me!!
Copy of my request
A Formal Letter is being sent w/ Signature receipt request. Also follow up via phone and other means to now hold your company Accountable. Several months ago I informed your corporate office, local QFC and Howard the manager about (QFC/On Broadway/Everett WA) about an issue of a newstand magazine ("PC Utilities" from the UK) containing Malware/spyware AND Trojan Virus (keylogger). It SHOULD have been removed from the newstands and was not. As a matter of fact issues/number INCREASED. As of this date 5/17/2005, I hold your store accountable for this
magazine as I have informed you in the past of the issues. Now that Washington State has passed the malware/spyware act and your company KNOWS of this issue, I request you remove the mentioned magazine from your store shelves until they can effectively
prove no further malware/spyware or trojans be imbeded in their future issues. I plan to test and report to State of wa my findings.
AT LAST WE HAVE THE MEANS TO FIGHT BACK!!!!!
First of all, my apologies to actual 'morons', who through no fault of their own were born intellectually challenged. I'm sorry for whatever offense I may cause by comparing you to the Slashdot readership, who where were born intellectually 'above average' (I'm being generous here) and reasonably fortunate but yet choose to behave like a mindless mob calling for lynchings and/or property 'redistribution'.
As for the Slashdot readership, so: you like something, therefore make it legal; you don't like something, therefore make it illegal. Is this the extent of your thought process? You want to see people locked up somewhere they'll be ass raped for the 'crime' of annoying you. Spam, adware, ... anything you 'don't like' somehow deserves jail time or exorbitant fines just because you don't like it and (purely out of your own malice) wish to see harm come to those responsible. No thought given to proportionality, appropriateness, if a matter is better handed through other means, and how this affects you in the long term.
Willful neglect on the part of Microsoft allowed the spyware industry to take root (IE and Windows are *rife* with cosy niches for spyware to live, and the philosophy has always been 'program knows best'). Microsoft has been aware of this for a long time but chose to do nothing because it wasn't clear how this would all play out and eventually effect them. Exactly the same way they handled the (regular) popup 'problem'. They were willing to sacrifice their customers short term benefit (no popup blocker in IE, no decent protection from and control of programs running under Windows) for their potential long term benefit (they have significant investments in online properties with massive potential advertising revenue, and they have a vested interest in limiting your control of your own computer). Both turned out badly for them (customer outrage + Firefox/Linux vs. no apparent gains leaving things the way they are), so they finally introduced a popup blocker in IE (a reasonable move), but instead of improving security and program control under Windows (a daunting task), they're playing on the public's shortsightedness and misplaced outrage to legislate away a problem that they created, they've manipulated us (through our government) into fixing their problem.
Have you ever heard the expression 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'? Malware was driving people to Firefox in droves. Aggressive malware had the potential to *trash* the entire Windows world, but could *never* touch Linux (the weak Unix security model being enough to kept it at bay). I'm not defending the malware authors, yes, they're greedy bastards intent on making a money any way they can... but they were doing it at the expense of your *enemy*! A powerful anti-competitive monopolistic enemy that has more resources that most governments and has to potential to live for hundreds of years! It's no coincidence that Microsoft is the major force driving this legislation (and of course Ebay because of affiliate referral fraud - but that too could and should be handled elsewhere). The broad sweeping nature of this legislation should have been the first clue that something was amis (and I won't even touch the eroding of civil liberties aspect to such broad and vague wording which leaves everything open to interpretation). Without it (a law in one state is enough to severely hamper the adware industry), Microsoft would have been forced to either innovate (imagine having per program control/permissions so fine grained and reliable that you could run random trash programs off the internet with no fear or risk of what they may do to your system - think ZoneAlarm but for everything), or lose significant market share to Firefox and/or Linux, etc.. (of course OS X, Opera, and whatever else is on the way).
But no... malware annoys you now, so you want to see the malware authors ass raped today!
You're so hard on the people that annoy you (thinking that it's right for the last spam guy to get 3
This is moronic !
So we have a flawed operating system that doesn't give the user (when in Administrator mode) the required tools to remove software from their o/s. It also makes it trivially easy for malicious third parties to install software on the o/s.
And the answer is to pass legislation to try to prevent said operating system being exploited ?
This is completely Mindless. It's like letting a colony of wasps build a nest in your bedroom then treating each individual sting without ever looking at the nest.
Mindless I say... What they should have done is pass a law telling MS to fix their fucking rotten o/s. That MIGHT have done some good.
Sky subscribers are morons. They pay to be advertised at !
"a a bill" -- double word score?
--
Scrabble is a registered trademark of Hasbro, Inc [I think]. This post is for comedic value [parody]. Get over it.
Tell them to drop the soap.
Otherwise you may as well send them to another prison.
Refuse to buy any software that uses this malware-like protection. Unfortunately, that means the onus is on you to research each game you buy to find out what uses what.
I've never understood why apps are relied on to uninstall themselves. Seems like a silly move considering that even legitimate apps crap out - can't rely on a broken product to remove itself cleanly. The OS needs to handle this. Make a system snapshot before and after, diff the two. Reverse that to uninstall.
Personally, I think we should use something like tarfs (Mount a tarball as a filesystem overlay) and every application should think it's installed on a completely fresh computer, by itself. When you want to remove the app you simply remove the overlay - it and all of its changes just vanish.
Gets harder when you implement a binary registry and make it so easy for apps to go crazy writing anything to anywhere.
i wonder how this will affect wild tangent.. which iirc is based in redmond. one of my friends who used to work at msft works there now (And suddenly asserts how they aren't spyware haha.. sellout ;).
;)
also, like another AC said, punitive damages are hard to get in Wa.. but you can always tack on pain and suffering as an alternative heh. mental anguish due to spyware illegally reinstalling itself on your box0r
Where can I find a comprehensive dictionary for the services in 2k/XP? Some of the names (and decriptions) are so generic, they could just as well be interfacing code for nuclear silos.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Try nLite.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
"Computer software" means a sequence of instructions written in any programming language that is executed on a computer. "Computer software" does not include computer software that is a web page, or are data components of web pages that are not executable independently of the web page.
----
Seems to me they are classing the "spyware" or "Computer Software" independantly of anything you can catch online - with outlook, ie or media player. wtf?
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Hm... Did they ever considered outlawing badly designed operational systems that allow spywares to operate?
That's why I switched to Ubuntu Linux. I was fucking sick of the shitware that infests Windows machines and decided not to take it any more.
It's MY computer.
I'd heard years ago that the Federal Government (US) had it's own spy program. The big todo back then is that Norton Antivirus agreed to not detect it as a virus.
How much of that spam actually conforms to the rules of CAN-SPAM though?
Try http://annoyances.org/ or http://www.pacs-portal.co.uk/startup_index.htm. I was going to send you to Blackviper.com, but his site appears to be down.
If like me you find from time to time you still need to view .rm files but don't want RP secretly reinstalling its memory hoard of crap I suggest using WinPatrol. It runs in the background and monitors changes to your startup scripts and registry, plus it lets you view and edit all those entries in a nice GUI. Any time something attempts to make a change WinPatrol stops the offending program and pops up a window with an explanation, files involved, and options to allow or deny the activity. Damn useful for keeping all sorts of malware at bay in case any slips through. What's really disturbing is seeing how sneaky and how often RP attempts to get itself installed - it will retry setting the install script up to 5 times in 3 minute intervals after the player is closed. Anyway, it's been a great tool for protecting my PC, just thought I'd share.
-- I'm not a pessimist, I'm a realist. It's not my fault that life sucks so much. --
Fantastic, just what I need. Blackviper.com is well and alive in the Webarchive.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Well, I suppose we can't blame them for trying. But there are already too many laws, including ones that would take care of spyware handily if only they were enforced.
Nathan's blog
Why is the rest of Washington being forced to pay for Seattle area projects?
The statistics don't lie. Projections for federal and state transportation funding between 2004 and 2013 show that King County will get back 84 cents on every dollar it provides for transportation funding, Pierce County will get only 80 cents, Snohomish County 88 cents, and Thurston County a mere 59 cents on the dollar. Meanwhile, large rural Eastern counties will get significantly more than they pay in: Stevens County will get $1.56 for every dollar they provide, Pend Oreille County, on the northern Idaho border, will get $2.60, and Ferry County will get a whopping $3.52. A 2001 report for the Senate Judiciary Committee showed that overall, Western Washington provided 82 percent of the state's transportation revenues but received only 78 percent of transportation expenditures; Eastern Washington, providing 18 percent of revenues, received 22 percent of expenditures. Eastern Washington also received more than its share of state K-12 education funding: 12 of the 13 counties that received the least state revenue per student were in the West (the exception was Spokane County).
THE TWO-STATE SOLUTION by Sandeep Kaushik
Really? Your projected statistics from what undocumented source? I'm sure it isn't a liberal source, that would just make too much sense.
You're saying that the Seattle metro area doesn't get the most money for construction?
Out of 211 projects, 55 are King County, 20 are Pierce, 32 are Snohomish.
107 projects are for the Seattle metro area, which less than half of the population for Washington will benefit from. Now, we can talk about the actual dollar amounts of these projects (Viaduct, 520 bridge, etc.) and I think that the "facts" (because statistics do lie) are pretty clear.
I linked to my source for those projections. I believe those numbers come from government publications, but you're right no specific attribution was given.
That said, as I stated in the subject, "Western Washinton gets back less than it gives" meaning the amount of money collected vs. the ammount of money spent.
So, let's talk about money collected. This is Table 9: Public Transportation Systems Local Sales and Use Tax Distributions; CY 2003-2004 off of 2004 tax statistics page for the Washington State Department of Revenue. Feel free to note that King, Pierce and Snohomish counties chiped in ~74% in 2003 and ~73% in 2004.
Now, I don't know where you went to gradeschool, but where I'm from, if you pay for 3/4 of the pizza, no one should complain if that's how much you eat.
I believe those numbers come from government publications, but you're right no specific attribution was given.
That said, had I simply tossed some key words from the quote into Google, I would have found the report
I'm sure it isn't a liberal source, that would just make too much sense.
It was prepared for the Washington State Senate Judiciary Committee, by David Schumacher from Senate Ways and Means Committee (staff), so it is potentially overly tainted with liberalism.
Out of 211 projects, 55 are King County, 20 are Pierce, 32 are Snohomish. [...] which less than half of the population for Washington will benefit from.
Really? According to U.S. Census Bureau - Washington QuickFacts, 29% of WA lived in King County, 12% of WA lived in Pierce County, 10% of WA lived in Snohomish County in 2000. There's been some fluctuations, but approximately half the state's residents benefit directly from these projects and as we've previously covered, these counties are projected to pay for all of their transportation projects and provide additional funds for projects in other parts of the state.
The most obvious indirect benefit of improved transportation in the greater Seattle area, to those elsewhere in Washington, is in bringing goods to market, both as a heavily populated destination and as the second largest port complex in the United States. In 2002, Washington State was the fifth largest exporter in the United States, at $35 billion with agricultural crops and wood products coming in at #3 and #5, respectively. For those curious, here is the Port of Seattle 10 year history of cargo volumes handled: 1995 - 2004 Not surprizingly, the Port of Seattle put regional transportation as one of its most important strategic priorities. "The Freight Action Strategy for Seattle-Tacoma (FAST) Corridor Partnership was first established in 1998 to pursue funding for 15 high-priority projects for grade separation and port access. Seven projects will be completed by the end of 2003. In 2002, the FAST Corridor partnership identified FAST 2, 10 additional projects to bring benefit to the same corridor from Everett, through Seattle to Tacoma."
The Seattle-area construction projects should be paid for by Seattle residents.
About 1% of Washington State's population lives in the City of Seattle and is a small percentage of those who work and drive in or through the city. Furthermore, as Seattleites are basically already there, you'd be putting the biggest burden on the ones who need it least. I live elsewhere in King County, but work in the City of Seattle, and wouldn't be paying for the large projects required to maintain the route I take when I drive in. Of course, if you mean the greater Seattle area, then residents are paying and then some, as we've covered.
who drives more, usually with less fuel efficient vehicles? Rural folks or King county folks?
I think you're failing to take into account that King County residents out number Eastern Washington rural residents, about 2 to 1, and the overall fuel efficiency of SUVs.
But how are the farmers going to make a profit if they pay $0.09 more a gallon of gas?
Here in the big city, we'd either jack up the price or get out of the market. YMMV.
I'm also irritated about the move in Seattle to reduce the required number of parking spaces per residency.
Really? Are you driving around Seattle often? Basically, the parking per residence requirement simply forces developers to put parking garages in as features to new buildings, primarilily high-rise condos. Naturally, this increases costs for the developers, who pass them on to the tenents. The concern is this increases housing costs both in and of itself and by slowing development. The thought is that removinging or reducing the requirement will allow the market to sort out how much parking is required.
I wouldn't be so bitter if they didn't already waste so much money with the monorail and the