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.'"
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.
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
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...
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.
I'm serious there has to be a point where this is filtered.
I wish you weren't. If you want to live in a communist dictatorship please move to China - don't make the U.S. one. Living in the 'land of the free' comes with some responsibilities. If you want the content filtered, filter it where the Internet comes in to your house, don't infringe on other's rights to download and view whatever they want to. Problem with a 'whole new slew of laws' is that the only way to enforce them results on infringments on individuals rights.
We would all be better off if people would start taking responsibility for their actions. I absolutely detest spyware and what it does to people's computers, but it is the individual's responsibility to take steps to ensure they don't infect their machines.
Find coupons in Greeley
What is spyware? Is it this kind of software that I need Wine to run?
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.
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.
No SNMP Trapping.
Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
...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.
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.
I certainly don't see WHY I can't apply this to my INBOX.
Ironically I have _always_ felt spam to be trespass.
It is MY inbox. On my domain. On my server. In my house.
Through a connection that I pay for. On equipment
I've paid for. To a domain I've paid for.
God help the first spammer I MEET. Anywhere. Anytime.
Of course the same applies to telemarketing, which the
law certainly disagrees with me on that matter. Very sad
state of affairs all this technology has brought to us...
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.
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.
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
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
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!
Nah, spyware can be written for any platform.
All it takes is an idiot users to install it.
...and that is all I have to say about that.
http://jessta.id.au