Slashdot Mirror
PCs Posted No Trespass
FreeLinux writes "USA Today has a story about a federal court ruling stating that Spyware can constitute illegal trespass. From the article: 'A federal trial court in Chicago has ruled recently that the ancient legal doctrine of trespass to chattels (meaning trespass to personal property) applies to the interference caused to home computers by spyware. Information technology has advanced at warp speed with the law struggling to keep up, and this is an example of a court needing to use historical legal theories to grapple with new and previously unforeseen contexts in Cyberspace.'"
About time!
Even though I doubt it will stop completly, hopefully it will be trimmed down a little bit.
Had thet dang sahn posted out yahnuh fer years now. I do b'lieve it states clearly ah am hav'n theh ra'ht t' shoot 'em.
There will still be spyware, even if it's ruled that you can't 'trespass' on peoples' PCs without their knowledge. All that will change is that they will bury some legalistic bullshit which translates roughly to 'by installing MySuperScreensaverz.com on your computer, you give us permission to pwn your box and fling shitloads of pop-ups at you' five pages deep into the EULAs for all spyware-containing software.
I strongly suspect that this has, in fact, already happened in many (most?) cases.
With spending like this, exactly what are "conservatives" conserving?
When prosecuting a case of trespass, the owner must often demarcate their property with signs indicating that it is private property and trespass is not allowed. This isn't true for all jurisdictions, but the feds generally treat their networks and individual machines in such a manner. All of the ones I've worked on are required to post a warning that they are government property and that unauthorized access is considered criminal trespass.
"Rocky Rococo, at your cervix!"
Seriously though, it's refreshing to learn the courts are looking at it, and at least TRYING to make spyware fit into the legal system somewhere.
If I've ever said "there oughta be a law", here is where it most certainly applies.
But how much spyware is installed by the user unknowingly, via misleading dialog boxes or other methods in which the user is fooled into installing it? I somehow doubt that would fall under the trespassing rule, due to being allowed in, no matter how sleazy the entry. I can understand those that are installed without the consent of the user through security holes, but those are a minority of the cases. The overwhelming majority gets in through the user inadvertantly allowing it in.
...rooters will be shot!
I say nominate that judge to the supreme court
LOL I'm so funny. Hehe, I should have use a $ sign for the ^%$^$$^$[NO CARRIER}
I guess this is one approach. Personally I think there needs to be a whole new slew of laws written specifically for cyber space. Ok great so we have determined the law was broken. It's usually the extradition part that's sorta hard concidering these firms need just move to bermuda. I think it would be interesting if a new section be formed under the judicial branch that dictates whether internet sites break US law and firewall there as slike china I'm serious there has to be a point where this is filtered.
So it's trespassing? Let the Windows and gates jokes begin...
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
but who is guilty, the people who create the malware or the people that finance them ?
im looking forward to seeing a few more executives in jail, they seem to think if you wear a suit and have a PLC/INC you can do what you want without recourse
I've always considered most forms of hacking, including spyware, to fall under trespassing or breaking and entering.
No, I will not work for your startup
SPAM is as much of a intrusion as spyware,
it regularly invades my inbox property.
Can I get a judgment/settlement from the company advertised?
I am the unwilling control for my Origin.
Do you think this may set a precedent for software tracking that can apply in cases like Tanya Anderson, who counter sued the RIAA for trespassing into her computer?
6 12238&tid=188&tid=17
http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/10/02/1
How did you manage to hit submit after you got disconnected? I don't get it. :-(
.... Is a law giving us the right to shoot spyware writers on sight.
This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
Obviously, if someone would install broken beads on my abacus without my permission, I would be rather miffed and would have no difficulty getting relief in court. The same thing applies to PCs. However, it simply isn't worth going to court for any damages under $20,000.
Oh well, what the hell...
Some of it isn't. You can avoid a lot of spyware if you simply read and don't agree to the terms on the EULA.
The details are just that, details. If I find a spyware on my box, I shoot it. IF the Maker of that program has the balls to complain they can bite me. Many of the programs on my windows box never get more then once call home, I merely DNS their target sites to 127.0.0.1. If they try by IP I have ways to block that too.
However a PC/Server whatever is still property and there is no law anywhere that says I have to let other people's software run on it for their benefit. A Trespass is a still Tresspassing even if you are not actually there in person.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
Isn't it still some sort of crime to impersonate the cable guy (or whoever) and gain entrance to a house? That would be analagous to the kind of trespass we're talking about. The 'consent' is obtained by deceit.
I am not a crackpot.
Using historical legal theories to set things in perspective is all fine and dandy, but this ruling will have little or no impact on the spread of spyware. Any local or national law will easily be circumvented by the companies in question (and there is no such thing as global law). Spyware will be fought by secure systems, not by legal rulings (although moral support from the legal system is certainly welcome).
SIG: TAKE OFF EVERY 'CAPTAIN'!!
...to welcome our legislating overlords.
Seriously it's about time we made spyware illegal domesticly, and worry about foriegn installs later. We could also make it illegal to benefit from spyware in any provable way so a domestic company can't simly hire a foriegn spyware company to do the dirty work here at home. It's a crime to look through someone's window with the intent to invade their privacy, and spyware is a heck of a lot more intimate in some cases, it only stands to reason that those people developing it should be held accountable. I mean why are we starting to accuse P2P designers of enabling piracy, yet it's just hunky dory to design a program to gather information as long as it doesn't spread from computer to computer without a hidden legal agreement?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
the court didn't rule the case in the plaintiff's favor. The court just denied a motion to dismiss the complaint. I'd say that there's still a way to go before any precedent is set.
In SOVIET Microsoft... the PC's OWN YOU!!!!
Defendant knowingly pays commissions on software installed by visiting misleading sites and sites that exploit security vulnerabilities. Thereby the defendants caused spyware to be downloaded...
"Bonzo Buddy Indicted on Trespassing Charges"
"Gator Bites the Dust"
"FCC Sues Comet Cursor"
etc.
RTFA! All it says is that the court denied a motion to dismiss the charge of trespass to chattel by the defendants. The whole thing still has to go to trial. While this is a hopeful sign, the judge may later decide against the idea.
My mind works like lightning. One brilliant flash and it is gone.
What about Sony's bullshit DRM that installs a driver without warning? I hope they get the crap smacked out of them.
I had spyware installed via a buffer overlfow from a codec that installed a rootkit. Not all use EULAs since spywware makers just buy a mailbox in Bulgaria and they are magically no longer an American company that can play by American rules. There are tons of loopholes to avoid EULAs alltogether.
http://saveie6.com/
This may not be all bad. Perhaps some zombie PCs could be condemned under such an interpretation. Or, for example, if people create municipal mesh networks, then anyone joining the network may be required to provide public access to their part of the network for routing purposes (no leaching).
My point is that real estate/private property is heavily regulated and that entrenching the PC = private property analogy in case law could have some interesting legal consequences.
Two wrongs don't make a right, but three lefts do.
and this is an example of a court needing to use historical legal theories to grapple with new and previously unforeseen contexts in Cyberspace
No, this is an example of a really dangerous precedent.
What if, for example, I was to send you an email contained a corrupted file that crashed your system?
Is that tresspass too?
How the fuck do we know?
Part of the reason for having laws, it to have it clearly spelled out, what we can and cannot do within the bounds of the law.
Rulings like this are really dangerous because they throw the established legal meaning and inperpretations to the wind.
Computer crime laws exist and they are there for a reason. If they are not strong enough, that is a job for the legislature, not the judiciary.
Sure it's important to catch these jackasses, but it's not so important that we should forget why we have written laws in the first place. A person should be able to know very clearly what they can and cannot do.
Rulings like this are very dangerous, as the judge if effectively just making shit up and ruling by analogy.
Can they start charging people who call on the phone too? We don't know.
With judgment like this, you could be declared a criminal at any moment.
No matter what you do, with enough bad analogies and hyperbole, it could be compared with something illegal. Is that really what you want?
Life is too short to proofread.
Isn't that a virus or a break-in that's already illegal?
P.S. Thank you for posting that site. Now I can make sure that my "Adblock" ad-in for Firefox will block those companies.
Evil people don't think they're evil. - George Lucas, Making of Ep III
99% of spyware is installed by the user on purpose. They try and download some free software and don't notice it in the agreement, or knowing install it.
That is not trespassing. Not to mention the constitution is suppose to interpret the INTENTION of the law. There was no intent against spyware.
A better method of eliminating spyware would be to boycott any company that uses the data or ads with the software.
...then I wouldn't be anonymous, would I?
"Nobody owns the fucking words man." - James Dean
I think that License Agreements should come in 2 parts regarding 3rd party software (aka spyware dll's).
Like:
"WARNING! By installing this software you'll also install our internet monitoring technology. This may slow down your machine and cause ads to pop up in the least expected moment. Do you want to continue?"
Ha ha ha ha I like it
temojen
(Posted AC to avoid the Offtopic mod)
I think that its not that the courts so much need to use historic legal theories, but they have a tendency to look at past rulings to find a precendent that they can follow. Courts seem inclined to use past rulings, rather than make up new laws. It's seems like an effort for consistency in rulings. Just some rookie, 1L thoughts. Either way, this ruling is at least something in the right direction.
... at least, according to one judge.
There's nothing wrong with his friends showing up, especially since you can always show them the door.
If his friends start sleeping on your couch, or you invite him to stay the night and they kick back on the floor too, then you've got a good reason to call 911. Or get out your shotgun, if you're that kind.
--LWM
No SNMP Trapping.
Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
They should put in the law that it must clearly be printed in the EULA at the top of the EULA in bold font each letter half an inch large that it may install scipts the will send all your information to a cock sucking company that wants to send you 3 million pop ups and annoy the hell out of you.
Here's a nice review of the application of this legal doctrine to cyperspace disputes. It includes bulk email and so on.
http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_
Not a windows slam. Merely fact.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
I think all software which includes an EULA can share in the blame. The EULAs offer little to no benefit to the legitimate companies which use them. They offer no benefit to the users of the software. But they offer legal cover for the spyware / adware folks. By training all the users of commercial software that click through EULA's are just a normal and expected thing, it helps ensure that it's easy for the slime to slide through nasty stuff in them.
It's one of the things that makes me appreciate free software. So much commercial software is total crap, yet you have to jump through all these hoops to use it. Like it's such a fricken privledge. Buy the software. Click through some obnoxious 'license'. Fill out the 'registration' form. Wait for it to phone home. If you are really lucky, install a "license server" just to prove you aren't a crook. And in the end, struggle with some bloated and buggy piece of crap. With proprietary file formats to ensure that you don't really control your own data. Commercial software houses don't treat their customers like customers. They treat them like serfs.
...if it was it would be pretty ridiculous.
If I accidentally forget to lock the door of my residence when I have to leave to run a quick errand, and I return to unexpectedly find a stranger rummaging through my refrigerator it is criminal trespass. Said stranger need not enter by force or cause damage to be convicted of a crime, and I don't have to put a "no trespassing" sign on my front door to make it a crime. It is obviously a private domicile and "no trespassing" is implied.
Spyware is the electronic equivalent of the above. Providing explicit notification should only be required when a given property could easily be mistaken for public property--and the same applies to computers. Spyware vendors should expect that it is a certainty that their distribution methods will target computers that are "private property" and that they must clearly and explicitly ask permission to interfere with that property.
Made me chuckle. :)
Still have to get around to the slightly scary prospect of partitioning this baby up so I can put Linux on it. I've been long overdue to playing around with it.
That's true now. The threat of legal action is way more deterring than any threat of physical violence.
"...and this is an example of a court needing to use historical legal theories to grapple with new and previously unforeseen contexts in Cyberspace."
While you may agree with this judgement, using traditional ideas of property and applying them to cyberspace is not always a perfect match and can lead to some pretty awkward judgements. Obviously, the nature of digital property is very different from that of tangible property (tangible in this case literally meaning 'touchable'). As the summary author states, laws are still trying to catch up with this fact, but as we wait for that to happen we have to be careful not to apply the ideas of tangible property too liberally in the context of digital property.
It might make spyware warn you, and remove itself when asked. That's all I ask of spyware, the same thing I ask of guests in my house. You have to ask my permission if you want in, and you have to leave the minute I tell you to get out, and not come back unless reinvited.
The problem I have with spyware is that so much of it is so slimey. It'll install itself and then put all sorts of trickey checks in to ensure it's not unloaded. It'll have a reinstaller in the services, and in the startup group, and in the "run" section, and add itself to the "run once" section each time it runs, and latch on to explorer and so on. Thus when you try to remove it, even with the help of spyware tools, it's often very difficult to get rid of. Also, spyware often opens backdoors to allow other spyware in. In the beginning you have one peice, then through no further interaction you have 10.
This is what needs to be illegal. The software needs to make it clear what it does, and it needs to uninstall, and stay uninstalled, upon request. If we can start prosecuting the sleeze that make programs that don't obey those simple rules, I'll be real happy. If you want to load up spyware on your system voluntairly, that's your business. I just get pissed when I get a service call to remove it, and it fights tooth and nail, or when a person installed one thing they wanted, and it invited 10 of it's friends they didn't.
Can't you shoot people for trespassing after dark in some southern states?
The last thing we need are millions of little laws governing every damn thing! We've already gone way too far in that direction. The law is supposed to be something everyone obeys. Well a prerequisite of that would be it has to be something everyone understands. You can't obey that which you don't understand. Also our laws are supposed to be somewhat rooted in common sense. When you get down to it, most of our most important laws are just formal codifications of basic kindergarden manners: Don't take stuff that isn't yours, don't hurt other people, don't lie, etc.
Real and virtual property are basically the same when it comes to access rights, and what most people would find acceptable. If something is open to the public and inviting, like a store front or a public website on port 80, clearly it's an invitation to all to come on in. You only have to stay out if the owner explicitly forbids you access. If something is locked up, like a private residence or a passworded SSH server, it's clearly a message that you need to obtain permission first to come in, otherwise stay out. Likewise, regardless of permission, you aren't allowed to destroy anything.
Basic property law really can be very well applied to virtual property, in such a way that I think everyone would understand it and most resonable people would agree it's a good set of rules. We don't need a whole new set of complecated laws for it.
Once you invite it in you're, fscked. (or soon will be)
i really hope the judge finds in favor of the plaintiff.
can you imagine the class action law suit that this could lead to? and not just for spyware, but spam and abusive cookies too... oh what a beautiful thing it will be should it ever happen.
(and there is no such thing as global law)
There are WTO treaties, which bind nearly the entire developed world.
Obviously, the nature of digital property is very different from that of tangible property (tangible in this case literally meaning 'touchable').
My hard drive is a tangible possession.
for your WINTEL PC is by reformatting your hard drive and then installing Linux on it, so Windows based Malware won't infect it. Peroid!
Either that or you can go the expensive route and buy a Mac or Amiga, or some other Non-Windows based computer.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
I'm on OpenBSD and OS X and never had a problem with Spyware....
git off mah lan.
Now, if the court eventually rules that spyware constitutes illegal trespassing, then does that also apply to the installation of other software which might manipulate your insecure Microsoft PC, like device drivers which limit the access to media (CD, DVD)? How about management software to limit your Digital Rights (DRM)? Or software which scans your computer and sends information to a third party? The installation of such software usually happens without the full consent of the PC owner. Spyware is just the tip of the iceberg.
I don't know why there's been so much debate about whether or not popups and/or spyware is illegal. Here is a simple analogy:
Putting a pop-up on my screen to sell me a product to get rid of popups is like putting a rock through the window of my house with a note advertising your window company.
Would anyone argue that the second situation is legal or that these two situations are dramatically different?
The only argument that they are different is whether or not they are destroying your property with pop-ups. Adding this sort of program damages my computer by decreasing it's availability, wasting my time and money trying to get rid of the offensive program and/or preventing some needed operation on the machine.
The analogy is very clear to me. Now, we just have to identify the companies that are responsible and slap a big financial judgement on them. Making them pay is the only way to stop it. It may also be necessary to throw the worst offenders in jail as an example.
I suppose the only reason we're tolerating this sort of thing is the big business backing the anti-spyware/popup/spam market. If we aggressively attacked the spammers, then there would be less of a demand for their services... fine, give them a portion of the judgement against the spammers.
Just my HO.
I use hollow points, you insensitive clod!
If you don't know where you are going, you will wind up somewhere else.
Almost every goverment is throwing new laws at the internet, when there's quite a few good existing laws which relate to the same things but in the real world. Though hopfully they won't make laws regarding the mistreatment of pets relate to tamagotchi's :)
The article seems to try to imply that there's something wrong with having to apply "historical legal theories" to "Cyberspace", as if they're so antiquated as to be mere curiosities or something. But this looks to me like a cut-and-dried case where applying the standard legal doctrine achieves an entirely reasonable outcome, and shows that at least some of the "historical legal theories" are in fact protecting people in exactly the same way today as they did in the past, despite the advance of technology.
Same concept was used against the ex-Intel employee who flooded their email servers with his messages every day.
. SLASHDOT: Home of the vicious nerd.
I'm waiting for the day the makers of spyware land in jail !
If the defendants get away only with fines, this case will do nothing and will not stop them. The fines will just be part of the cost for doing business.
I have 4 spyware detectors/eliminators and 1 anti-virus program. I update them all frequently and run them all at least every other day.
I would love to not have to do all this, but it is necessary. Unfortunately, even if sypware is eliminated from the US, it will continue and probarly increase from elsewhere.
Yes, if you tell this anonymous stranger to bring on the unwashed masses, you get what's coming to you. If you invite an acquaintace who's tattooed some sort of dense legalese-filled EULA on his left buttock allowing the same... well that's different, innit? Let's not stretch things too far, though...
Tresspassers will be fragged. Respawners will be fragged again.
... sales of shotguns and rock salt are up sharply this week.
The case survived a motion to dismiss, that's all. But the judge indicated that he thought the plaintiff had a legitimate case.
The defendant, DirectRevenue, is going to have a tough time at trial. go here for videos of their drive-by installations and other data about their products. "All told, in my testing the single press of the "Yes" button caused the creation of 1,274 registry keys, 2,175 registry entries, 56 folders, and 711 files. PacerD also added two new web browser toolbars, and six advertisement icons on my Windows desktop." That's going to look like "trespass" and "exceeds authorized access" to a judge.
If you're going to metagame, you'd better make sure that your DM isn't a rules lawyer!
I can't imagine why nobody has realized that unwanted and unauthorized use of someone else's private property is illegal! If I ate out of your fridge every day just because I knew how to unlock your door, you'd call the police.
By the way, your milk's expired.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Stephan "Against IP" Kinsella posted on this subject on the Mises Economics Blog. Libertarian discussion ensues.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Does this improve your case if someone at the RIAA collection agency claims one of their "agents" secretly entered your computer to make a list of every mp3 file you have? (yes, even your legal CD rips)
F7 doesn't work, ignore spelling and grammar
This will probably get modded down, but I need to know how this sits with all you communistic style /.ers? After all, if there's no property, there's no trespassing, which means you are wide open to spyware? Is this one of those "have it and eat it" topics for you guys, like stealing music?
Fuck it, AC it is. I don't want the hit.
What you think are reasonable minimum standards are so easily worked around in licensing. By the time you discover what these proprietary programs have been doing, you have no means to fix the program so it doesn't do the bad thing again. What you're asking for is effectively going to allow others to control your computer and make it do what they want, not what you want. I don't want computer software I am forbidden from inspecting, sharing, or modifying. I want the limitations of control of my computer to be in my hands and I don't want to even inadvertantly pass on problems to my friends with whom I share software. Therefore, I ask for free software by name.
Just to answer a few of the rebuttals I know are coming: It's not a question of whether I have time to inspect every program on my computer. I don't have the time or inclination to do that. It's unrealistic to think that every user is an island and it's unhealthy to divide users and hold them helpless by expecting all users to provide 100% of their own support. But collectively multiple users have time to do this work. I'm comfortable in a community where I can trust the work of others by preserving my software freedom (running, sharing, modifying programs any time I want with anyone for any reason). Hence, I run only free software on my computer and I encourage others to do the same.
Digital Citizen
This is absolutely painless. OpenSuse http://opensuse.org/ and probably most other distros, will automatically detect how much free space is in the current NTFS/FAT partition and allow you to resize it, I'd recommend creating around a 10G partition for a full install (90 min). Opensuse has a DVD ISO for a swapfree install,and a easy install time KDE/GNOME GUI selection. Opensuse is anexcellant distro for 1st-time dabblers.
HTH
There is no right to feel safe thru security vaudeville at the expense of everyone's freedom, privacy and tax money.
While I certainly hope they find *some* theory upon which to bust the spyware folks, I'm not sure that tresspass to chattles is a good one.
See what the EFF has to say about that particular legal theory, albeit in the context of spam, here.
No, it's more like this: he was walking down the street and saw a sign in a store "Come right in!!!" He went in and somebody stole his driver's license and keys, made copies, and put them back in his pocket without his knowledge. Should everyone know the latest pickpockets' tricks?
I websurf with Linux and konqueror, which may be the equivalent of zippered pockets, but tastes differ, people may like other setups. Even if the criminals are smarter than you, it's they who are committing the crimes, make no mistake about that.
My guess is zilch. By not dismissing the motion, the judge has pretty much said that this is going to trial.
And since it's a criminal complaint, the plaintiff really can't be bought off that easily.
get muddled. sheesh. some people, not you evidently, can understand that there re different areas of where this applies and can see beyond some sharp line in the sand.
to address you point:
when you ahve email, tyou are crating a way for people to get to you.
thats the point of email, so someone can get information to you.
So the person would not be liable for trespass because they took a way YOU created and sent you information in a way you authorized.
"And when you vist that webpage you got the spyware from you deliberately chose to go there and download that information too."
Right, thats not tresspass. now if it added software that you where unaware of,and had no reasonable reason to believe it would, you got trespass.
as much as a hate the home analogy, I am going to use it in this case:
if I walk up to your front door, I have not trespassed.
If I walk up to your front door, asked if I could come in, and you said yes. meanwhile, my kid brother is sneaking in through your kitchen window, then he has trespassed.
If I hold up a big sign in front of your house that said "Enlarge your penis size" and when you went to your windows to look, and my kid brother sneaks around through the bathroom window, again he has tresspassed.(and I have conspired, but lets not let this run away)
Now if you come out of you house to ask me how to "enlarge your penis", and my kid brother(what a pest, eh?) goes into your house through front door, he has, once again, trespassed because you has no reasonable expectation to believe that would happen.
pretty simple, really.
of course, EULA's are a scourge on the consumer, and on the computer industry, but thats another issue.
pretty simple, really.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Of course, that doesn't work unless it's actually backed up with force.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
It's so cliche that every time I read some uninformed pleb use the term I want to shear their skull and scoop out their brains! It's worse than the "information superhighway" *shudder*. Thank god that died a quick death around here.
that you can now sue Blizzard for the WoW spyware they use? I ask this because you can't write illegal clauses in contracts, it voids them.. such would be the case with their "spyware" and their EULA...
Stop hurrahing every time some Internet law gets codified!
US history in this regard demonstrates clearly that these laws never
benefit the small guy or individual. What you need to look at is
the core concept of the revision being promoted as opposed to the
promotional word used to market the change to existing users.
"Anti-Spam" rulings or legislation gain thoughtless automatic
support because, hey, who doesn't hate spam? Then you learn
that the proposed second stage solutions, once the problem has
been made a political fixture, are to eliminate anonymity,
centralize control and tax users. Now we have "anti-spyware".
Hey, who doesn't hate spyware? But of course this will lead
to the profferance of "trusted computing" (it's already upcoming,
but still needs a marketing pitch, right?) as a solution.
There are enough laws already. What we need is to eliminate more
laws from the books, not cheerleader when more are added simply
because they relate to new technology in some superficial way.
"Information technology has advanced at warp speed with the law travelling through hyperspace to keep up."
then why are you posting as an AC
"Hello 911? I just tried to toast some bread, and the toaster grew an arm and stabbed me in the face!"
Now that your PC falls under the chattel definition, does the State have eminent domain power to take my bandwidth and storage to give to Wal*Mart?
I don't know what takes people so long to come round. From my old Windows days, I literally scoured every directory, not just for spyware, but ANYthing I didn't want. It was a big motivation for my move to Linux. We ALL have the right to say how every single byte of memory is used. Executable too big? Bundled with crap I don't use? Too skeaky with your files nested inside directories with unpronouncable names? Hiding your source code from me? Out you go! Restrictive rights? Copy-protection? EULA? Bullshit! As long as I don't *share* the file with anybody else, I hold that it's within my perfect right to HEX edit, reverse engineer, and (MOST importantly) FIX it!
I figure, as long as I already spent the money and no-one else sees it, it's my disk, regardless of whether I port it to a different file system, use it for a coaster, or cat the binary into a bitmap to make abstract art. It is the classic victimless crime. Meanwhile, anybody who tries to exert control over My computer, with or without my "consent" is wrong! (By "consent" I mean: I had no choice but to use your crap or get fired, to use your crap I had to check the box swearing that you own my children: NOT consent, at all. I check the boxes...and lie like hell!)
It is JUST as bad to put a pop-up dialog in my face without my asking for it as it is to break into my house and spray-paint graffitti on the walls. The same way wrong to clog my inbox with spam as it is to scatter trash on my lawn. Should be illegal to sell me software without offering me the RIGHT to see the source code for free as it is to sell me a prepared food without showing me the ingredients and nutritional information. It is JUST as wrong to take over my machine as it is to steal my car. It is IDENTICALLY as stupid to build a computer that's locked shut so I can't upgrade it myself as it is to sell me a car with the hood padlocked shut so I can't even check the oil. What took us so long to apply the same logic to our computer that we have to our other possessions?
All computer users...if you'll pardon the soap-boxing from the deliriously ranting man...you have been screwed long enough, and it's time you demanded that it stop!
This law should also be considered when reviewing RIAA and MPAA claims of tracing and attempting to indict anonymous "Does" on possible P2P activity. The RIAA and MPAA claim to be able to tell what someone is downloading by attempting to connect on that download stream, but are they not doing the exact same thing that the other downloaders are doing? Isn't that a form of ENTRAPMENT? And by doing so they need to connect "un-invited" to one's computer and thus verify if they are a substantially-gradual peer on a known copyrighted work.
And I think, irregardless of whatever I am (or am not) downloading or uploading, that unless I INVITE them in, explicitly, that I likewise should not have to use contraceptive inventions for purpose of increased privacy on my computer like the TOR and I2P Networks, PeerGuardian, or ProtoWall; but because THEY (the RIAA/MPAA) are such hypocritical bastards, they necessitate that I do take such privacy-protecting actions. But it remains true that they (the RIAA and MPAA and their BayTSP henchmen) are thus INVADING my CHATTEL, my PC, my PERSONAL PRIVATE PROPERTY, and that this law we are talking about here (invasion of chattel) should also apply to them, as is the case with that woman in Oregon who is filing suit against the RIAA (see the following link: Oregon RIAA Victim Fights Back; Sues RIAA for Electronic Trespass, Violations of Computer Fraud & Abuse, Invasion of Privacy, RICO, Fraud ).
Hmmm, perhaps I should echo these comments on the EFF and EPIC websites, eh?
9/11 Was An Inside Job! http://www.InfoWars.com/
Degrenigrating ah no Hobbits, ya heear. Least iffin yea knees be not well protected. That an yhees wantsa to be haven kids.
[go ahead and laugh, but you try to type a scottish-irish-aussie brogues into a slashdot post. ]
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
The only reason people think that the law is falling behind is that they think technology actually changes things. Mostly it doesn't.
If you destory my data, then you are a vandal.
If you steal my data, then you are a theif.
If you use my computing resources without my permission then again it is theft.
(basically the same as stealling someones car and driving it around and then returning it)
These laws have been around for centuries and they still apply.
Now, me, I like the wild west feel of the internet. Everyone has the ability to properly protect their computer systems. Most break ins occur because people get lazy and don't.
- Jesse McNelis
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au
The latest CD DRM forcibly installs drivers which detract from your computer's normal ability to mount redbook audio. I believe the RIAA has a class action suit on the way.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
You have a computer which is private property that is connected to a public network. It would be like having your car parked on a public street and someone putting a tracking device on it without your knowledge or permission. When the car is in your driveway, it's on private property. But when its on the highway, it's on public property.
In my state there are some legal exceptions. (and other state courts are likely to hold these exceptions even if they are not in law)
Even if your property is posted, If my dog gets loose I am allowed to tresspass to get my dog back. If I'm hunting nearby, and shoot something that runs to your property I'm allowed to retrieve my kill. In both cases I am only allowed the most direct route to retrieve my possessions.
Road ditches are public property. You can post no tresspassing, and no snowmobiles/4x4s all you want, but so long as I remain in the ditch you can do nothing about it. (the law specifies which part of the ditch I'm allowed in actually)
Real life lo3ers:
1) virus writers
2) porn masters
3) spam mailers
4) spyware makers.
5) Microsoft
Spyware is funded by deep pocketed venture capitalists and they will make their case anyday as to why they have a right to their activities.
''Oooh, blame the USER for clicking NEXT. Oooh, the users are so stupid for not reading the fine print''
FYI lo3ers, there ought to be a law that each application in a software bundle have a UI and alerts the user each time it is in use.
Uh, last time I checked... Cray rented clock-time on their machines for quite a penny, per second. To this day, vendors rent storage space for quite a penny, per byte. To this day, vendors meter bandwidth, per byte.
There's nothing new about this; if you or I do these things, we go to jail. These a$$holes are hiding behind a corporate.com, so they have impunity. The only thing new is the courts being forced to reconcile this discrepancy.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
All very good points. In addition, there are also exceptions to both trespassing and breaking and entering in cases of emergency or extenuating circumstances (the example I've always heard is if there's a car wreck and you break into an empty house to use the telephone because somebody's bleeding to death -- obviously this example existed before cell phones were common).
I just wanted to add to your comment regarding the road. You're quite true, as long as the road is a public one. In the areas I was thinking of near where I used to live, a lot of the roads running into the backcountry aren't. They're paper company or logging roads and thus there's no public right-of-way on the sides. Sometimes they're marked as being private roads on maps, more often they're not (since the only decent map of Maine, by Delorme, is compiled from a hodgepodge of satellite and aerial photo data, and the written-in suggestions of readers).
Actually the good place to go 4-wheeling or to take a Jeep in my experience is power company high-tension wire right-of-ways. Normally they have a pretty rugged access road running along them from one tower to the next and they'll take you to some pretty neat places. I've driven onto them in full view of the police several times (where it's not posted and obviously often done) and never had a problem. YMMV by state though. And obviously if it's either posted against trespassing or muddy enough that you're going to damage the trail, stay off.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
current NTFS/FAT partition and allow you to resize it
What's it resizing it with? ntfsresize? That program decided that I have one bad sector somewhere I've never noticed, and therefore it can't do anything with any of the disk. Not even with -f.
(As far as I know I don't have a bad sector, but ntfsresize may be right. Even so, it should be able to ignore it....)
This hasn't been decided yet so you can't really jump to drastic conclusions. A judge may throw it out down the line.
The locked doors thing is amusing. Everyone is going to get a solid lesson in legalese when this round of internet bullshit is through. Re: internet isn't "rural" anymore Interesting analogy. So ethernets parallel apartment complexes. Does anyone know where the bathroom is? How about the landfill? I don't know if we've achieved internet based sewage processing yet. A lot of blogs could use it.
I wouldn't consider the mad hatter mad. Just reality impaired. He sure can make a mean cup of tea.
I can't understand why this kind of common sense approach has not been taken in the past. Why is it that a book stored electronically and read on a digital device should be treated differently than a book printed on paper? Why is it that eavesdropping is illegal for audio communications but not for video? Why is it not illegal to hide spycameras in your tenants bedrooms and bathrooms? Why is the postal mail sacred but email is not? Good analogies can be drawn from this decision by comparing the internet connected PC to real property and the laws governing tresspass, breaking and entering, unauthorized taking, public nuisance, etc. Just because things are taking place in cyberspace instead of physical space doesn't mean we should ignore the commonlaw which was shaped over thousands of years. I applaud this judge. I just hope there are no A-holes in Washington taking bri... er, I mean campaign contributions from Claria and their ilk.
The maintenance staff (e.g. sysadmins) write it off saying that's a problem for the legal dept and the legal dept dismisses it as "an IT issue". And all the while neither group is addressing the problem, people outside your business have access to your businesses data. It's not just businesses which would have legal issues with a system designed to give third party access to company data, university researchers often collaborate closely with industry and sign very serious non-disclosure agreements assuring explicitly that the contents (and sometimes even the nature) of the research will not be disclosed by outsiders.
Isn't third party access, whether spyware or not, implicitly condoned already? If it weren't then legal departments all over would be making a big deal about remote access. I suppose it's more likely, however, that no one in a position of authority actually reads either the licensing agreement or the functional specifications, assuming either are actually available.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
and this is an example of a court needing to use historical legal theories to grapple with new and previously unforeseen contexts in Cyberspace.
You say that like it's some sort of problem, but extension by analogy is the way language, and thus civilization, grows. Heck, tresspass is probably what people think of when they notice the spyware on their PC and think "this shouldn't be legal".
At least there you don't need any antivirus or antispyware programs.
But the apps sure do take up the space left and then some!
Posted with FC4.
There: Something at a specific location.
Their: Owned by someone.
Please make sure your english compiles.
> What's it resizing it with?
You have now reached my level of ignorance. I just know I have succesfully upgraded a Windows install in this fashion. Here's an alternative plan of attack.
Given the cost of disk drives today (newegg has 250GB Connect the original disk as the IDE secondary Master (so you do not have to fiddle with jumpers). It is also great insurance that you can get back to where you were by connecting the original drive as the IDE primasry master.
Then connect the new drive as the IDE primary master.
Now use the "Ultimate Boot CD" http://ubcd.sourceforge.net/ "Partition Saving" http://www.partition-saving.com/ to copy the original Windows partition to the new drive. Since you seem to be having issues with the partition you can use the sector copy to get an exact image. If you are really paranoid, you can back it up to CD's and restore from them onto the new drive. Then just run the normal Suse (or whatever distro you choose) install. It should see the existing partition and will add it to the boot menu. Make sure the install is configured to install a new MBR (master booot record), since it will be missing on the new disk, and that it sets the new linux partition "active" as neither of these actions are performed by default on Suse.
If you get confused and muck it up, just start again, by copying the original partition.
HTH
You still don't get it. It wasn't the equivalent of buying a Rolex from a guy on the street corner. And if there are no laws against it, you'll get fake Rolex's in Sak's Fifth Avenue.
Don't moderate flamebait as Troll. Know the difference or you will be Meta-moderated.