Slashdot Mirror
House Passes Spyware Bills
stinerman writes "Today the house passed two bills aimed at stopping spyware / adware and unauthorized use of computers. H.R. 29 makes it 'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices'. H.R. 744 (I-SPY Act) prohibits accessing a protected system via code copied on to the system to, among other things, disseminate personal information. Both bills sailed through the house and are expected to be passed by the Senate."
There'll be no more spyware by Christmas, let me tell you.
What about spyware that asks permission before it installs, like Gator and all that. Is that sorta thing covered in this?
Anonymous Coward
This is a great step, if only in spirit.
When the spammers and spyware makers start getting fined and sent to jail I think we'll have something to crow about.
Until then, it's just a feelgood law.
now all spyware companies is gonna outsource to india instead?
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1759,1788844,00.as p
According to this article, leading anti-spyware vendors are working with the nonprofit Center for Democracy and Technology to develop guidelines for defining spyware.
When the very definition of spyware is hanging in balance, I dont see how they can strictly enforce the law.
My 2c.
I wouldn't be surprised that if you allowed one piece of spyware to be installed, it would be automatically assumed that you want more spyware installed. It's like getting married to one person and finding out that all the in-laws are moving into your new place with you.
Any chance this law bans TCPA too by accident?
FRA: STFU GTFO
It does not matter what they call it , the bill defines the actions of the software .
Well, I'm not the legal wizard, but the first thing I thought about was will these bills have unintended consequences like the DMCA?
I'm sure that Congress-critters didn't intend companies using the DMCA as an agressive legal weapon it has become.
What twists will these bill's be given to turn them into tools for the harassment of honest people?
----- Lotus Super 7 - A real car.
The problem with first steps (whether it be Congress's legislation or international treaties) is that because it's a first step and getting agreement it hard enough they can't accomplish very much and, yet, after the first step has been taken no one feels the need to take another step. My guess is that this legislation is too weak to accomplish anything and nothing will really be done until it becomes a big enough problem that the politicians can't say that they worked on it and are waiting for it to take effect or some BS like that.
Now if they had only made it part of the DMCA, then we would get some quality legal action going by the **AA and we might actually solve the problem.
" This is not a troll."
The moderators aparently disagree.
Does it prevent M$ from collecting info from your PC?
hilarious
I have a feeling that the thousands of ignorant users that don't run a firewall or even bother with security updates aren't going to be considered "protected computers". *Sigh*
Divide by zero hurts my brain.
US Code Title 18 Section 1030e: (2) the term "protected computer" means a computer-- (A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or (B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States; This doesn't protect anybody but the government... Back to the drawing board I guess.
What we really need is a law to prevent idiots from using a computer... (or driving a car, buying a gun, voting)
Is this really something that government should be legislating at all?
It let's both ignorant users (whom I can forgive) but also Microsoft (whom I can't) off the hook. Rather than having to secure their systems/fix fundamental security flaws in their OS and applications they can just hide behind this new law: "It's not our fault we didn't do anything wrong, they broke the law!"
Bad analogies are like waxing a monkey with a rainbow.
What about spyware coming from non-US systems? US law does not govern these systems. What happens then if I get hit with spyware from some other country?
Having a smoking section in a public restaurant is like having a peeing section in a public swimming pool.
Code copied on to the computer... Is binary counted as code or does this only outlaw Free-software & Open-Source spyware?
Note also that it's unenforceable because of its use of the phrases protected computer and protected system.
Since any system on which spyware has managed to get itself installed is clearly unprotected against it, the new legislation cannot be relevant. This makes the law only applicable to computers and systems on which spyware has failed to gain entry, but where the attempt was detected and then leads to prosecution. But since there was no harm suffered, there can be no compensation either, and therefore only lawyers can ever benefit from this through their fees.
In other words, it's a totally pointless law, unless you're a lawyer.
"unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices." So if I am at home, working on my own computer which is behind my firewall, I can send out all the spyware I want? Something wrong with the wording here...
See section 5, limitations.
and what i want to know is the meaning of HR744, section 2.c.
" This is not a troll."
The moderators aparently disagree.
Just because they're on crack doesn't mean they can't be right every once in a while.
Stop the world; I need to get off.
This will end spyware forever. What would we do without congress?
The only rational response to legislation like this should be peals of derisive laughter.
" Just because they're on crack doesn't mean they can't be right every once in a while."
So of like John Dvorak then.
The less government tries to do for us, the more we do for ourselves, the more free (not as in beer) we are.
Great! This would effectively outlaw spam, since most spam is sent through compromised windows boxes acting as proxies.
Oh wait... it only applies to computers used by the United States Government according to tfa...
Underholdning.info
How does this affect government observation programs (you know, carnivore et al...)? Does this force them to get a warrant in all cases to certify that they really are 'authorized users'?
Jw
unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices
/. but the definition of an "authorized user" will be interesting.
I guess this means my deceptive aliases on slashdot and every other potential spammer Web site can now land me in jail, assuming slashdot is a "protected system". I guess I'm an "authorized user" of
Usually there is public interest in sunsetting bills that are polarizing so they must be re-authorized later, like the USA PATRIOT Act. But this bill sunsets December 31, 2010. You'd think by then that stronger regulations will be needed to fix all the loopholes this one creates, but look out for spyware set to report all you personal stuff back to home base on Jan 1 2011!
As soon as it's illegal, all the perps will stop. All of the drug laws prety well stopped local pushers and I feel SO much safer now that terrorism is against the law.
jose.prueba@red.es
Does anyone, even in Congress, seriously believe that this will change anything at all? I seem to remember that CAN-SPAM was just so effective in reducing the number of spam messages I get each and every day...
I really don't get it. These kinds of bills are only passed so that during Representative Knumbskull's re-election campaign, he can state that he 'helped protect Americans from evil computer programs that attack their privacy'. What a waste of our taxpayer dollars!!!
Let's hope it's as successful as the YOU-CAN-SPAM Act. That really showed those Nigerians and Chinese (not to mention the big American spammers) who was boss, didn't it?
now all spyware companies is gonna outsource to india instead?
Yes of course. Because the law says that if the spyware has been developed in India instead of the US, it's perfectly legal for it to install itself, right?
I know you're always looking for an opportunity to whine about outsourcing, but try to keep it on topic. Whether or not the spyware companies outsource to India does not affect these Spyware Bills in any way; so your post is just offtopic.
heopfully itll make palladium/trusted computing illegal too. unless they deem authorized from the trusted computing routine's opinion. making it illegal for you to use it the way trusted computing doenst want you to.
So does this mean I can't enter bogus information to access a site or download so I can avoid spam? If I don't own the site's servers, and I enter a bogus e-mail just to download a whitepaper, then that would be deceptive. I feel like such a criminal. I wish these people would get their tech gurus to help them write this stuff.
... is going to do away with spyware. I saw it on tv it must be true.
Some time ago I suggested in another forum that email addresses can contain small scripts as handling instructions for the receiving server (such as for authentication, for filing, for expiry dates etc.) Now this law makes it illegal to send spam to these kinds of addresses. Make your email address something that can be considered "code" and this bill covers them because sending email to tsuch an address is actually causing code to be executed on your computer!
Does product activation/registration count as spyware under the bill? They're sending my personal information somewhere else.
GETPKG - Package Management for Slackware
Don't you peepholes get it yet?
The feds only have jurisdiction within their area or over their "subjects" (Slaves).
So they can write all the stupid laws they want, but as long as you are not their property anymore they can't tell you what to do.
So get rid of your Federal Serial Number (SSN), it's socialism anyway and you are a real American, First Class right?
You don't want to be a Second Class Citizen / Subject owned by the government, right?
Too hard to do? Well then let those bastards keep running your life and sit there clueless as to what is going on.
...prohibits accessing a protected system via code copied on to the system to, among other things, disseminate personal information.
Could a shared cookie be considered spyware? (I visit foo.com, which has an image on evil.com that places an evil.com cookie on my machine. Then I visit bar.com, which also has an image on evil.com. Evil.com shares this information between foo and bar. $Profit$
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices'.
I don't own a computer, and now congress says I can't lie to my girlfriend?
Anyone else notice that politicians these days always make their acts spell out cute little words or phrases with their acronyms (PATRIOT, I-SPY, etc.)?
Well I'm going to become a politician and write up the OMGWTFBBQ act.
Esoteric reference.
How does it define "protected computer" and "protected system"?
It could be completely toothless. Do you have to spend $10,000 per year on IT security services before your computer is considered secure. And is an unpatched system considered "not protected"?
"H.R. 744 (I-SPY Act) prohibits accessing a protected system via code copied on to the system to, among other things, disseminate personal information"
Will this cover code you have paid for? Like IIS, for example?
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
H.R. 29 makes it 'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices'.
So to paraphrase that: Only the owner or authorized user of the computer is allowed to engage in deceptive acts or practices.
Nice of them to spell that out for us.
There's already laws against unauthorized computer access, just enforce them.
Yet another unenforced law doesn't do any good.
Ok this is yet another example of wasted tax dollars deliberating something that is obviously never going to be enforced.
"Wahoo, the Senate made it illegal for Spyware companies to install it on my system, wait a tick. If I install a trojan on someones system why is that a stiffer penalty than spyware? Both are installed without the users consent to track movements, wreak havok, both could be used for malicious purposes."
I can see this already, spyware will still be produced en masse, the people who deploy it will simply move somewhere not governed by US law. New law circumvented, tax money wasted, spyware still rampant.
I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
Why was this bill even necessary? It will only stop those who are trying to use spyware as a supposed business model(HEllloooo Claria...). Did this really need another law? This is yet another case of our representatives not understanding technology and not understanding that with a world wide system, it's impossible to enforce.
Gorkman
>>any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer
So, Joe Sixpack is not yet covered by this just because he does not know how to run a firewall - i.e. his is not a protected computer.
Typical BS.
How dare you imply that our congress would use meanlingless legislation as nothing more than a tool to leverage votes during their next re-election campaign! This congress has a proud tradition of meaningful laws that benefit everyone, like the Schiavo Measure or important legislation that protects us from the dangers of stem cell research.
Actually, I wrote my thesis on life experience.
That's great. Now, what about the malicious material that comes from foreign sources?
This will do little to curb the problem, and I do not believe that legislation is the proper course to take.
That's great. Now, what about the malicious material that comes from foreign sources?
This will do little to curb the problem, and I do not believe that legislation is the proper course to take.
DISCLAIMER:
I don't believe what I write, and neither should you.
First let me say IANAL. I've been around them my whole life but that doesn't mean I am one. I have been told by some that I think like them though.
I don't think this quite protects like people seem to think it does.
I interpret Section 2a2D of the SPY Act to say it's okay to change security settings without the knowledge of the protected parties as long as you don't seek to do damage. Imagine a defensive claim that a change to weaken security settings is to make the computer easier to use and less confusing. Prove they had a different motive. That could be tough. No question that changing a settings of allowing ActiveX controls to always run makes it easier for a website targeting ActiveX capable browsers to run whatever they want "for the purpose" of serving their users and it's "easier" for their "customers" to use the site because then they don't have to bother with or know about changing browser security settings.
Additionally, has any one read Title 18,1030? This bill references another which goes to Title 18. Title 18,1030 reads:
(e) As used in this section--
(1) the term "computer" means an electronic, magnetic, optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and includes any data storage facility or communications facility directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device, but such term does not include an automated typewriter or typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar device;
(2) the term "protected computer" means a computer--
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial institution or the United States Government and the conduct constituting the offense affects that use by or for the financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication, including a computer located outside the United States that is used in a manner that affects interstate or foreign commerce or communication of the United States;
That *might* protect you buying something on eBay but I read that to mean it doesn't protect you regarding, for example, online banking necessarily. Phishing seems to prohibited in the SPY Act but I think this needs more analysis. I think the Act protects companies like Microsoft and others (Symantec?) that are using DRM and the like. A number of companies (*cough* Real Networks *cough*) get caught not infrequently sending off more information than they claim that they do; they apologize and do it again. So say they "encrypt" it in pig Latin because they aren't supposed to any longer. Now because you've decrypted it (as any American Kindergardener can do), you've now violated God knows how many other acts.
I'm not trying to say the sky is falling. These Acts could be a good start. But anyone who thinks this is the cure is a fool. Don't forget CAN-SPAM legitimized spam while being (mis-?)represented as outlawing it.
They've built your house with a fancy, and entirely unnecessary, house automation and remote control system. The locks are wired into this, and you discover that replacing the locks with secure ones disables the lights and interior doors.
Ever tried running Windows under "Restricted User"? I did. Even with mostly reputable, well behaved apps it's a PITA. Introduce a user who needs the odd browser plug-in and small custom software vendor tool, and you're screwed. Almostnt nothings sets correct registry permissions, and few things even bother setting up file permissions properly. It's a nightmare.
Is my desktop computer "protected"? or do I have to run something like Palledium before it's "protected"?
all we need are some volunteers to set up a few unpatched machines, surf to a few sites and pick up all the crap of the day (without agreeing to anything that actually asks of course) and then file suit.
Who's game for some of that? Could be good fun - if the law actually has any teeth that is...
Ignoring the fact that the spyware makers could just go offshore and avoid this, what is really needed is a new bill giving americans more privacy for personal details across the board. (not just for spyware)
For example, if collects personal details they should be required to tell you that they have those details.
And allow you to change those details if they are wrong.
And if they give those details to another company (e.g. credit agency, firm that is going to use the details to send you marketing crap etc etc) they should be required to tell you about that too.
Spyware companies would be required to notify you in advance what personal details their software collects (if any) and what is done with those details.
The problem with this proposal is that it would cost the big corporations money to implement. But more to the point it would prevent the corps from hiding what is going on (for example, I occasionally get letters from American Express asking if I want an American Express card even though I have never had any dealings with American Express in my life which means that some other company I deal with such as my bank must have given American Express my postal address and stuff)
Really, the 5 biggest problems with spyware are:
1.Spyware takes various levels of personal details and sends it to some company (with you not knowing what those details are or what is being done with them)
2.Spyware installs without it being clear that it is installing
3.Spyware messes with system files and settings
4.Spyware takes up memory/system resources (and often internet bandwidth to download ads etc)
and 5.Spyware is almost always impossible to remove without tools like ad-aware, MS anti-spyware or Spybot.
No no no!
Come on, read TFA, and then read the law. A "protected computer" is any computer used for interstate commerce or communication as defined in Title 18 USC, Ch. 47, section 1030.
It's not "vague" at all. The law amends Title 18 USC, Chapter 47, Section 1030. A "protected computer" refers to the effectivity of the law (your computer is "protected" by law) not by any particular user action.
A computer is "protected" if it is used for interstate or international commerce or communication. If you don't live in Michigan and you post on Slashdot, that's you.
Does this prohibit gov assholes from installing or using the keystrokers or sniffers on our PCs? Oops... I hear Tom DeLay calling me a communist from his bedroom...
Bye
If it could cost you your life, you'd be alot more careful shen you open your mouth. :)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
Now that Congress has tackled the most serious problem facing our nation today, namely spyware (because without legislation it's simply impossible to keep it off our PCs), perhaps it can pay attention to less dire issues, such as skyrocketing health-care costs.
Or wait, before they get to health-care, they should probably take a few more stabs at eliminating spam, because it's just so annoying to delete those extra few emails everyday.
Hopefully this contains a rider revoking the REAL ID law. I love this country!
Okay, it's saying anyone who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer can not do those things. So in other words, unless you own a protected comptuer, you can not create or send out spyware. Some of the replys seem to think that it is only protecting the "protected computers". What it is saying is that people who work for the government, banks, or foreign or interstate commerce and communication, are not held to thise act. So bankers, and the government can create spyware. But there is another loophole.
"a computer exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the U.S. Government," (notice this comma right there)" or a computer used in INTERSTATE or foreign commerce OR COMMUNICATION"
So many "or"'s. A computer used in interstate or foreign commerce OR communications. How many people here do not live in Texas, where I am from? Most of you? Well, that makes MY computer an interstate communcations device... Guess that means I can create spyware...
Section 1030(e) of title 18, United States Code defines a "Protected Computer"
(e) As used in this section -
(1) the term ''computer'' means an electronic, magnetic,
optical, electrochemical, or other high speed data processing
device performing logical, arithmetic, or storage functions, and
includes any data storage facility or communications facility
directly related to or operating in conjunction with such device,
but such term does not include an automated typewriter or
typesetter, a portable hand held calculator, or other similar
device;
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
(A) exclusively for the use of a financial institution or the
United States Government, or, in the case of a computer not
exclusively for such use, used by or for a financial
institution or the United States Government and the conduct
constituting the offense affects that use by or for the
financial institution or the Government; or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or
communication;
When I read House Passes Spyware Bills the first question that popped into mind was "OK, how many will we be required to install"?
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause
And how long will it take for them to use these new laws to classify P2P networks as unauthorized access to a Personal Computer and make it illegal too.
This is perfect! It'll be just as effective as the Interstate Commerce Act was to prevent short-haul railroads from charging unreasonable prices! I wonder if there's any phrase more general and less effective than "deceptive arts and practices."
Partial Credit: The Engineer's Best friend
"Well, the bridge didn't fall all the way down!"
There are some interesting tidbits in H.R. 29 (I haven't read the other yet). For instance, the law is designed to exempt things like web server logs with the following:
...
... from any other information visually presented contemporaneously on the computer," and that consent to the notice must be obtained. Strict compliance with this provision seems to require that I add something like a pop-up dialog box to every web form reminding people that their information is being collected and requesting their consent before proceeding.
"(2) EXCEPTION FOR SOFTWARE COLLECTING INFORMATION REGARDING WEB PAGES VISITED WITHIN A PARTICULAR WEB SITE- Computer software that otherwise would be considered an information collection program by reason of paragraph (1)(B) shall not be considered such a program if--
(A) the only information collected by the software regarding Web pages that are accessed using the computer is information regarding Web pages within a particular Web site;"
Does this mean that web server software can no longer collect a referer log, since that information doesn't pertain to "Web pages within a particular Web site" but to some third-party site? What about things like the browser's identification string? The remote user's IP address? How about GET URLs that include a session identifier? Can they be logged? How about a GET URL that includes an email address is the parameter string?
Now lets consider the consent provisions in 3(c) for a moment. Although the legislation is obviously targeted at what we'd all call spyware, the definition of an "information collection program" in 3(b)(1) clearly includes web forms:
"...the term `information collection program' means computer software that
(i) collects personally identifiable information; and
(ii)(I) sends such information to a person other than the owner or authorized user of the computer, or
(II) uses such information to deliver advertising to, or display advertising on, the computer."
Now, of course, reason would suggest that if someone fills out a form online they have consented to the collection of the information. However the provisions in 3(c) indicate that the person must be informed by a notice that such information is being collected, that this notice is "clearly distinguishe[d]
I may sound nit-picky here, but these are exactly the types of problems that arise when well-intentioned but not technically-savvy legislators try to write laws to about technologically-complex issues. I actually think that, in general, this law is fairly well drafted, but reading the legislation as a site designer immediately raised these questions.
I love it, it's like the Department of Homeland "Security" getting bills to protect its own privacy (keeping records out of the public, etc) while at the same time trying to get access to all of ours.
I'm ready for the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Truth!
Such behavior is illegal under at least trespassing and theft of services laws. Had the courts merely shown common sense and run over the first miscreants with a large truck, a lot less of it would be going on.
H.R. 29 makes it 'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices'.
I own my own computer, so I am allowed to engage in deceptive acts or practices?
I have nothing to hide. So, why are you spying on me?
And as it happens, that term already has a legal definition in the US Code.
Thus, this only impacts computers used for interstate or foreign commerce, or by the US government.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The only problem I have with this anti-spyware legislation is that it does nothing to prevent either offshore based spyware OR USA government sanctioned spyware.
The current regime in power has gone out of its way to characterize "terrorism" in the broadest possible definition, to include such things as copyright violations and DMCA violations. Trading partners of the USA have been coerced into passing legislation that brings them into compliance with American law. But protecting the sanctity of citizens' privacy rights is not that this regime is about. Not only is this regime looking for re-establishing sunset clauses in the USA Patriot Act (I), but are also looking to expand the government's right to violate citizen privacy with a new and improved USA Patriot Act (II). This regime has given itself the legal power to violate any number of international treaties, including the ABM Treaty, Geneva Conventions, and Militarization of Space. Between government authored spyware (Carnivore plus whatever is now current), and the forced collaboration of commercial software vendors (Microsoft?) to add/maintain hidden backdoors, the average "internet joe" has no chance to preserve individual privacy. Between TIA, TIPPS, MATRIX, whatever comes next (with USA Patriot Act (II), and the wide swath of private/commercial databases holding private information, individual privacy is dead in the USA. Recent demands made by the current regime in power, through the DHS, has required that all foreign governments with commercial aircraft that pass through USA airspace also furnish extensive passenger information. Do not expect spyware to go away with this legislation -- it will only eliminate private competition to this regime's ambitions.
if you're not the legal one, you must be the IL-LEGAL one!!
Burn 'um!!!!
Second, the first bill, H.R. 29, doesn't provide for a private cause of action. It says it's enforced by the FTC. Which means you can't sue under this bill (if it becomes law).
Third, the second bill allows for an (implied) private cause of action: No person may bring a civil action under the law of any State if such action is premised in whole or in part upon the defendant's violating this section. It doesn't say you can't bring a criminal action under state law, so you may not be required to file in federal court.
My sense of the bills is that the first goes after companies who make and bundle spyware, while the second goes after extortionists, phishers, virus writers and the like.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
H.R. 29 makes it 'unlawful for any person who is not the owner or authorized user of a protected computer to engage in deceptive acts or practices'.
Richard Steven Hack - This sig is TOO GODDAMN SHORT TO DO ANYTHING USEFUL WITH! MORONS!
That would be YOU, buddy. "It let's both ignorant users"
Why not go whole hog with your abuse of the apostrophe and say "It let's both ignorant user's?"
Also, I don't see where MS is on the hook to begin with. Their sales don't seem to be taking much of a hit from disgusted users switching to another OS.
EULA: By clicking this, you hereby grant said software vendor fully authorized user status.
Nuff said...
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
now that all my customers pc's will be squeaky clean...
I only skimmed the legislation, but other than mentioning "spyware" a lot, I don't see the point of it. It has been illegal to break into computer systems since at least the 80s, regardless of whether you use a technical or social engineering attack.
Similarly, stealing personal information is illegal (or should be, regardless of whether spyware is involved!). The class of social engineering attacks, such as phishing that these bills outlaw, seem to me (IANAL) to be the same thing as the old con artist schemes that were illegal long before the internet.
Has anyone found the section of the legislation that actually makes it illegal to do something that used to be legal? What am I missing?
(2) the term ''protected computer'' means a computer -
(A) [...] or
(B) which is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication;
Any computer supporting common Internet protocols, such as TCP/IP, HTTP, and HTML, is capable of interstate communication. Add HTTPS, and you get capability for online shopping, a form of interstate commerce. So from the moment that the owner of a typical home computer visits ebay.com using that computer, it "is used in interstate or foreign commerce or communication."
It is basically impossible to enforce any kind of embargo on spam.
Follow the money. A company sending bulk e-mail has to advertise a product or service for sale. A company that advertises a product through spam could lose its license to do business.
Despite the many loopholes, like out of country spyware etc. the law would give antispyware makers a clear definition on what is spyware and what is not. While I don't expect to see many, if any spyware makers put in jail, I do see this as a defense for the antispyware industry when they wipe out Gator-like programs.
It let's both ignorant users
"lets".
One mostly unproductive government in place is worth several hundred do-gooders trying to break the door down.
...
If that doesn't parse, the product of a too-productive government is digit rights management legislation, mandatory wireless ID cards and passports, laws against encryption the government can't break, anti-monopoly trials that let the monopoly move ahead,
The product of a government that knows when not to produce is to get in the way of the people that want productive government and to stand out of the way of people who want to work in the open.