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?
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.
$ telnet 127.0.0.1 25
Trying 127.0.0.1...
Connected to 127.0.0.1.
Escape character is '^]'
220 127.0.0.1 ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.37/8.00.8.135
214 Don't even think about attempting to relay spam through here, n00b. Tresspassers will be pwn3d.
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.
...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.