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.
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.
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.
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.
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.