New York Attorney General Sues Spyware Company

DevanJedi writes "Reuters is reporting that New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer has sued alleged spyware company Direct Revenue, charging the Internet marketer with secretly installing millions of spyware programs that sent unsolicited advertisements to users' computers. Direct Revenue settled a class action law suit last month in Illinois."

Comments

No, you can't have a constitution

[voice_of_all_reason]

Spitzer also asked the court to compel the company to account for its revenue

5th amendment surrenders?

As much as they're probably guilty, the court should not be able to say "prove you didn't do X or we'll hold it against you"

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[voice_of_all_reason]

Yes, this isn't a criminal case. I'll take a 5 yard penalty and sit out the remainder of this discussion.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[voice_of_all_reason]

Hmm, actually Wikipedia agrees with my original assessment:

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the privilege against self-incrimination applies whether the witness is in Federal or state court (see Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964)), and whether the proceeding itself is criminal or civil (see McCarthy v. Arndstein, 266 U.S. 34 (1924)).

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[mctk]

Wha? Isn't a company already compelled to account for its revenue?

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[ThatsNotFunny]

I know some people in the Waste Management industry who agree with your legal perspective.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[SinGunner]

Isn't it already a crime to hide the source of your revenue though? Isn't this how they bring down the mob? Basically, in America, if you can't account for where your money came from, you're in pretty hot water. The IRS needs its money... neeeedddsssss.......

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[TheSkyIsPurple]

Two questions for the non-lawyers: 1) Does the fact that it's a company make a difference? Does a company have 5th ammendment rights? 2) You can be subpoena'd to produce documents. You can refuse to produce those documents based on your 5th ammendment rights, and that can't be held as evidence against you. But... since this is Civil, the burden of the State's proof is much lower. Can't they just assert that the illegal things you did made you some astronomical amount of money based on some theory, and hope the judge/jury just takes it? Basically play on the jury's sentiments

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[kiddailey]

Since when do the amendments apply to corporations?

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

IANAL, but as far as I knew, the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to corporations or other collective entities. And, after some brief research, appears to have been upheld in Braswell v. United States.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[cultrhetor]

Before flaming Spitzer with our vast knowledge of the Constitution, we should be sure that we understand the document. It's Amendment 4 that states

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Next: what about the rights of computer owners? Spyware is installed, without consent, on personal computers (mostly Windoze boxes), which are recognized spaces of personal property. In one sense, it is quite similar to breaking and entering - our legal system is still rooted in the 17th century, and hasn't yet caught up to the idea that a computer is a space: it contains personal artifacts (messages, documents, calendars, etc.) - much as a room or a drawer in a home. Shouldn't that be just as protected as a home?

I will agree, people who don't/can't protect their computers are just as foolish as people who leave their doors unlocked while on vacation; however, if someone enters without permission, even if the door is unlocked, the intruder is still criminally liable.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[cultrhetor]

Corporate entities were created and identified to simplify the legal system, as stupid as it sounds. In a legal sense, the corporation is a person.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Lehk228]

corporations do not have 5th amendment rights.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[rahrens]

Legalities don't recognize sex as a trait - a corporation is legally just as much a person as you or I, and accordingly enjoy the same constitutional protections as a real person...and that, my friend is a fact of life, albeit a bit more advanced than birds and bees...

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[ChrisGilliard]

the privilege against self-incrimination does not apply to corporations or other collective entities.

Yes, corporations can't self-incriminate themselves and they can't even be incriminated at all. That is they can only be sued civily. There are obvious reasons for this. First and foremost, you cannot send a corporation to jail. You can however try the directors or officers of the corporations for criminal charges if they committed crimes in which the corporation is civily liable. But the only recourse against a corporation is a financial recourse.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course the law recognizes sex as a trait. Sexual battery, sexual harassment, prison sentences based on sex the list only goes on. You fake lawyers take yourselves so seriously, it would be funny if it were no so dangerous.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[aussie_a]

a corporation is legally just as much a person as you or I, and accordingly enjoy the same constitutional protections as a real person

Only if the judge chooses to recognize corporations as people who have constitutional rights.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[cbiltcliffe]

Ahh, see...there's your problem. You're thinking of 'sex' as two people, some candles, maybe a bottle of wine and a nice comfortable bed.

Corporations have sex in the form of massive anal rape gangbangs, a la Sony/First4Internet.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Procyon101]

Which is exactly why homosexuals can legally marry corporations in all states.

wait...

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Apraxhren]

IANAL but the Required Records Doctrine of the 5th amendment states

While the privilege is applicable to one's papers and effects,\226\ it does not extend to corporate persons, hence corporate records, as has been noted, are subject to compelled production.\227\

See: http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/amdt5afrag7 _user.html#amdt5a_hd28

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Chr0nik]

LOL, nnnneeeeeedddddssssss... hehe. ahhh, good times.

We needses our moneyses. We Looooovees our moneys. Yesssss...*GOLEM* Nasty little citizenses. Nasty little businesses.. Give us our precioussss... *GOLEM*

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[rahrens]

Our legal system doesn't work that way. It may vary from state to state, but corporations' rights are set in law, and are not subject to a judge's whim. It may be up to the whim of the legislature, but not individual judges.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Chr0nik]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure you can't withhold evidence, you can refuse to testify against yourself and that's it. I could be wrong on this, but if the 5th included physical evidence, people would be posthumously excluding their DNA based on the 5th amendment as well...

Then we'd have no CSI. And we'd still have Enron..

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[takeya]

No, not unless the court subpoenas it as relevant evidence.

In this case it clearly is not.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[takeya]

Whether or not you like it, what the OP meant by sex is not a trait of a person in the eyes of the law is that in order to recieve constitutional benefits (or any legal benefit) guaranteed to a "person," you must be either an individual or a corporation. An unincorporated company or firm does not fall under this definition, though almost every company is incorporated, even mom&pop are an LLC now, since it's so easy to do, and individual errors appear legally as errors of the corporate "person" and only the corporations assets are liable in a lawsuit, rather than the employee's.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Xaositecte]

Why is everyone quoting the constitution here, you've got the right article, but it's barely applicable, and doesn't prevent a search at all.

Asking a judge to issue a Subphoena is the process of trying to establish "Probable cause" - if it's likely that an individual or corporation committed a crime, and a search of something they own (Residence, place of business, financial records, etc.) would likely prove that crime was committed, a judge can authorize a search.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[RobertLTux]

Basically, in America, if you can't account for where your money came from, you're in pretty hot water
actually for a company above a certain size from to and where it is stored is all under regs. SOX is the one where the C{E|F}O has to sign off on the ftc reports (includes other things also).

"hot water" hasn't been this bad since the cannibals stopped using big pots

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Anonymous Coward]

Spitzer is a profit hound. He is chewing up the courts with lawsuit after lawsuit and threat after threat in an attempt to back-fill New York coffers. Check and see how many of the suits he has filed, or has threatened to file came to quick multi-million dollar settlements. Is a settlement really justice?

How about, I'll steal your grandmothers wooden leg, beat her with it, take pictures of the crime and sell them on the internet. You can then sue me and I'll give you 25% of my ill-gotten gains, the shoe off your grandmothers wooden leg, and a solemn promise that I'll never do THAT ever, ever, ever again - scouts honor.

Do you know how many pharmaceutical companies, insurance carriers, gambling businesses, software vendors, and other businesses that Spitzer has strong armed over his last few years in office? Do you know the percentage that actually went all the way to court. It's more expedient to pay the bribe/extortion/bill/fine/agreement than to waste time battling out whether or not you actually did anything at all illegal. Spitzer's favorite argument is that companies are profiting too much and can't justify those profits and therefore must be stealing from someone. But some people like that. They feel that he's out there "getting the bad guys", but really he's just a small time thug.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Doc Ruby]

You think that corporations are persons, and entitled to the same Constitutional protection as humans?

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Doc Ruby]

Corporations can also be destroyed by the state which charters them when they operate outside the scope of their charter, or violate it, through charter revocation.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[aussie_a]

Laws are a matter of interpretation (unless you can find me a lesgislation that says "corporations are legal humans and are given all constitutional rights").

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Captain DaFt]

"people would be posthumously excluding their DNA "

Geez, I am so hoping you meant "retro-actively"!

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[electr01nik]

Spitzer is running for Governor... but I'm sure that has nothing to do with it.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[mOdQuArK!]

Spitzer has been pissing off rich and powerful people for a long time, with about the same fervor whether or not he's seen as running for Governor. I think he gets off on bringing the big guys down, and IMO, the more power to him.

If he _does_ get elected Governor, I hope every crooked politician & business executive in his state go bankrupt from the dry-cleaning bills that they have to pay to clean their underwear every time he makes a move.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[FireFury03]

Next: what about the rights of computer owners? Spyware is installed, without consent, on personal computers (mostly Windoze boxes), which are recognized spaces of personal property. In one sense, it is quite similar to breaking and entering

I'm more inclined to think of it as rape, but maybe that's taking it too far. Maybe we should be thinking of cracking + rootkit installation as someone breaking into your home and crapping on your sofa.

I will agree, people who don't/can't protect their computers are just as foolish as people who leave their doors unlocked while on vacation; however, if someone enters without permission, even if the door is unlocked, the intruder is still criminally liable.

The laws definately need to be clarified I think though - certainly the UK Computer Misuse Act is very open to interpretation. What constitutes "unauthorised access"?

If someone connects to your web server, who authorised the access? In this case it's reasonable to assume that a web server that's open to the public network provides implicitly authorised access... or is it?

What if your web server is actually just the web interface on your DSL router that you didn't bother securing? The web server is open to the public network so surely it has implicitly authorised the access, right?

If we extend the idea, surely accessing *any* port on your machine that you left open to the world without needing authentication should be considered authorised - in that case, if you leave your windows server with your hard drive shared to the world should it be considered illegal for someone to connect to it and delete all your data?

And in these cases the client is actually going and connecting to these ports to find out if they are open - when you connect to a web server you didn't _know_ the port was open to the world until you tried connecting to it. This isn't the case for open 802.11 networks though - in this case the network is actively inviting you to connect to it so shouldn't accessing that be considered _more_ "authorised" than a web server which didn't invite you? The authorities seem to think not since several people have been arrested for using open access points.

I'm not sure these problems are solvable by changing the computer misuse laws though - maybe passing some laws that _require_ manufacturers to ship devices in a secure configuration is the way to go.

But anyway, my rant is going way off topic :)

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[cswiger2005]

Perhaps, but it was a fairly good rant. :)

"If someone connects to your web server, who authorised the access? In this case it's reasonable to assume that a web server that's open to the public network provides implicitly authorised access... or is it?"

Leaving a port open does not by itself constititute authorization.

If you publish a www.example.com record in the DNS, it would be entirely reasonable to assume that you've authorized people to stop by your website, yes. There are other conventions which apply, such as having a /robots.txt file, or a W3C privacy policy, or "Terms of use", etc.

Note that this does not mean that launching a set of requests to exploit, say, a PHP vulnerability, would be OK just because the machine is listed in the DNS. Legitimate users would have a very different click-trail than someone trying to break in.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[FireFury03]

If you publish a www.example.com record in the DNS, it would be entirely reasonable to assume that you've authorized people to stop by your website, yes.

So does that mean I'm breaking the law if I visit http://example.com/ rather than http://www.example.com/ since it didn't explicitly tell me through a published DNS record that it was a public web server?

or "Terms of use"

How would I find out about the terms of using your web site without visiting the website in the first place?

Note that this does not mean that launching a set of requests to exploit, say, a PHP vulnerability

Absolutely - if you are obviously having to circumvent some security (nomatter how crap) then you probably shouldn't be doing it. But what I'm saying is that when people leave systems completely open why should the "client" be held responsible for this rather than the "server" - in many cases it's impossible to tell (at least before connecting to a service) whether it was intended to be a legitimately public service or not. Using 802.11 as an example - when I see an open 802.11 network broadcasting invitations for me to use it how would I be expected to know if it's accidentally open or intentionally open?

You fire up Windows, it tells you "oh look there's an access point", you click ok and the access point hands you an IP address via DHCP - how were you to know that was a private access point that some idiot left open?

Worse than this, say I had an open Linksys access point at home which was left in it's default configuration, so my laptop knows to associate with an AP called "Linksys", I then move in range of another open Linksys access point which is broadcasting it's SSID of "Linksys" my laptop would happilly associate with it without asking me. Should I be arrested because my laptop associated with someone else's network automatically?

I certainly agree that people who are circumventing some security are in the wrong and need to be dealt with, but I'm very worried about the trend to treat people who don't bother to secure their systems as "innocent" and people who make use of these public systems as "guilty".

If I walk into a public house and ask for a beer, I don't expect to get arrested because "oops we didn't mean for it to look like a public house" :)

People need to take responsibility for their own actions - if you didn't bother to turn on the basic security options on your systems then that's _your_ fault - the other party that takes advantage of that lack of security may not be malicious.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Dining Philanderer]

You mean like Enron? I actually considered investing in that POS...

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[I_M_Noman]

We needses our moneyses. We Looooovees our moneys. Yesssss...*GOLEM* Nasty little citizenses. Nasty little businesses.. Give us our precioussss... *GOLEM*

Golem? You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[tundog]

From the breif, specifically:


"representatives of a collective entity act as agents, and the official records of the organization that are held by them in a representative rather than a personal capacity cannot be the subject of their personal privilege against self-incrimination, even though production of the papers might tend to incriminate them personally."

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[rahrens]

If you don't believe me, then go see what wikipedia has to say:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_entity

Personally, I don't care if you do or not - by now, I think I'm trying to teach a pig to sing.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[aussie_a]

The corporation is a legal entity that often has similar rights in law to those of a natural person.

Similar rights. Not same rights. But similar ones. Therefore corporations don't necessarily have the constitutional rights in America. However later on it does say that yes, American corporations do have the constitutional rights. Simply quoting that portion of the article would have been all that was necessary, rather then insulting me.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[rahrens]

Don't know why you had to quote the part of the article that _seemed_ to back up what you were contending, when the relevant quote that you admit proved you wrong was just as available to quote...and you admitted it anyway.

Yes, although the law varies from state to state, corporations DO have constitutional rights in America. The way they are treated, legally, is different in different matters, again, from state to state, depending on how the law in each locality is written. But they DO have basic constitutional rights.

As for the insult, it wasn't meant to be, really. You wouldn't just take someone's word for it - this point has been made in the public realm I don't kow how many times. I've heard about it in books, newspapers, on TV. It took me about thirty seconds to find the page I linked to - you could have done the same thing. But you had to just keep on making your erroneous point, instead of looking it up.

My sig is obvious in it's meaning - it is a waste of time to try to teach someone something new if they are unwilling or unable to listen. The use of the pig metaphor is just that, a metaphor, and is not meant to be descriptive. Just as it is useless to try to teach a pig to sing, as they have no vocal cords, it is useless to try to teach or inform a person who is unwilling or unable to listen to the message. The object of the lesson gets irritated, as you have, and the one attempting to do the informing wastes his/her time.

So, have I wasted my time, or do you concede that I made my point?

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[Lord Flipper]

and IMO, the more power to him

Absolutely God-damned right. I met Eliot Spitzer a few weeks before he announced he would seek the governorship. He was at the Twin Trees Bar/Restaurant at the bottom of Tipp Hill, in Syracuse. It's an inexpensive bar that has good, reasonably priced food, where I used to get pizzas, a block from my place. He is a simple, brilliant, down-home, hard-working attorney, who knows the Law, inside and out. Very personable and approachable.

In a country where the wealthy and privileged have the Congress, the Administration, the Supreme Court, and all of the so-called regulatory agencies working overtime creating loopholes you could fly a fleet of 787s through, here comes a guy who simply holds some of the worst, crass abusers of what laws remain on the books, accountable. And these cowards, hiding behind their AC posts, have the gall to call this guy an opportunist?

No wonder the country's going to fucking Hell in a sled; the people are mental midgets with no sense of the history of this country, no concept of the importance of Rights and Equal Protection before the Law, and what seems like an utter disregard for the people who came to this country and built it, and went off and died to protect a Way of Life that is being auctioned off in Washington, DC, to the highest bidders.

This isn't about political parties; it's about a country full of working families vs. the greediest robber barons ever to walk the Earth, aided, by a corrupt system and a sleeping, paid-off Media, and abetted, by what looks like a Nation of easily-manipulated retards.

My first thought, when I heard Spitzer was looking at the governorship, was, "What the fuck will happen to law enforcement in the State of New York, now?"

There are plenty of wealthy Americans [anybody heard of Warren Buffet, for example?] who are appalled when they see the greed and criminality that seems like business-as-usual in America, today. It has nothing to do with Left, Right, Liberal, Conservative, or Dems and the GOP. It's about nobody being 'above the law', fair play, decency towards our neighbors, and a lot of other humane characteristics that used to define "America" to people in other countries, and here in the USA.

I've lived in a lot of places, seen every state, and I know Americans are a good, decent bunch of people. They're gettting short-changed, and robbed by the people supposedly representing them. It's a travesty, and, yes, in a lot of cases, it is criminal. And when there's crime, we need people to use their offices to bring the criminals to justice...who else is going to do it? GE? Fox News? The lapdogs in Congress? Anonymous Cowards? Jesus Christ, spare us.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[aussie_a]

Oh no I concede your point, but corporations having all the rights as humans isn't intrinsic within the idea itself. As for my not knowing that yes, in America, corporations do have constitutional rights, it isn't something I've seen on slashdot before, and I'm Australian, so I don't get too much American news. All I said was "they don't necessarily have constitutional rights" and ammended it to "although I am willing to admit they do, if you can point to something saying they do."

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[roguebfl]

Absolutely - if you are obviously having to circumvent some security (nomatter how crap) then you probably shouldn't be doing it. But what I'm saying is that when people leave systems completely open why should the "client" be held responsible for this rather than the "server" - in many cases it's impossible to tell (at least before connecting to a service) whether it was intended to be a legitimately public service or not. Using 802.11 as an example - when I see an open 802.11 network broadcasting invitations for me to use it how would I be expected to know if it's accidentally open or intentionally open?

the Same why you are have implicit invitation to enter a shop, but not to enter the unlock stock/back room.

Re:No, you can't have a constitution

[FireFury03]

when I see an open 802.11 network broadcasting invitations for me to use it how would I be expected to know if it's accidentally open or intentionally open?

the Same why you are have implicit invitation to enter a shop, but not to enter the unlock stock/back room.


Sorry, that argument makes no sense - by your analogy an open 802.11 network _is_ an open shop - how is anyone supposed to know if it's actually open or if the owner accidentally left the "open" sign in the door and the door wide open?

By your analogy, I can connect to any open network (the shop) but not to any of the machines on that network (the back room) - i.e. I can still use it for internet access. People have been arrested for doing this.

So again, I'm asking - given 2 wireless networks, one of which is open intentionally for public use and the other is open accidentally because it was set up by a complete moron, how would I be expected to know the difference?

So who gets the cash ?

[Anonymous Coward]

the owners/companies who have had to spend billions on getting their PC's fixed/replaced ?
can other countries join the suit ?

Spitzer eh?

[TubeSteak]

From what I understand, his style is to pick a fight and make a lot of noise about it in the press.

The defendants are usually judged guilty by the court of public opinion, long before an actualy jury gets near the case.

I'm not saying his technique is good or bad, but it's worth noting that more often than not, he gets a settlement instead of a drawn out legal battle.

Re:Spitzer eh?

[NewmanBlur]

Yup. He went after a bunch of mutual fund companies a couple years ago http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutual_fund_scandal_( 2003) that got big press. I was living overseas at the time and it was in the news. I think he went after H&R Block at one point as well, but I haven't looked that up.

This guy is definitely the most high profile State Attorney General in the country, and he does have a pattern of making his targets look bad in the media.

Re:Spitzer eh?

[Sqwubbsy]

and he does have a pattern of making his targets look bad in the media.

As well as himself.

Re:Spitzer eh?

[HiThere]

At least he's been choosing people that deserve to be made to look bad. There have been much worse prosecutors.

The only thing wrong with his approach is the culprits get off easier than they should. The positive side is that if he didn't attack them, they'd get off scot-free.

Re:Spitzer eh?

[VoxCombo]

gee, why would a guy in his shoes want to make a lot of noise in the press? I'm sure it has nothing to do with his campaign. (for those outside of NY, he's running for Governor)

Re:Spitzer eh?

[The Warlock]

And I'll fucking vote for him, as he's a fuckton better than Pataki, the incumbent.

Re:Spitzer eh?

[evilviper]

From what I understand, his style is to pick a fight and make a lot of noise about it in the press.

The defendants are usually judged guilty by the court of public opinion, long before an actualy jury gets near the case.

This is disingenuous at least. These companies were convicted in the court of public opinion LONG before Spitzer got involved.

The fact that the Attorney General is prosecuting the companies that 99% of the public-at-large believe NEED to be sued, seems just about EXACTLY what his position is supposed-to entail. We're just so used-to corporate/political bribery and favors that we're shocked when we see elected officials aggressively doing their job.

Re:Spitzer eh?

[Jafafa Hots]

"he gets a settlement instead of a drawn out legal battle." That's supposed to be a good thing from the point of view of the legal system. It's considered a loss for both sides if you end up having to go to trial.

Or anyway, that's what Vinnie Barbarino said in that movie "A Civil Action."

Re:Spitzer eh?

[tundog]

bingo

Ok...

[gcnaddict]

We see all of this, and yet no one has bothered to sue Claria yet... even AFTER they announced their restructuring plan.

Please sue Claria!

Re:Ok...

[Parallax Blue]

Yes, on one hand it's good to see some action against companies that use spyware and adware in their business model, but on the other hand you're right: what about the BIG spyware/adware companies? I can think of one that I'd LOVE to see taken down: C2Media. C2Lop is a NASTY piece of spyware/adware for sure.

Re:Ok...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wasn't the CEO (or CIO?) of Claria made US cybersecurity czar? That should protect them from state litigation (unfortunately).

Forget NY governor, get him to be US AG

[Anonymous Coward]

Send him to the U.S. Attorney General's office - it'd probably better for both him and us USians. Forget NY governorship. When's the last time NY Governor's gone off to do anything interesting. Pattaki is a loser, and Cuomo has disappeared.

Re:Forget NY governor, get him to be US AG

[Seraphim1982]

When's the last time NY Governor's gone off to do anything interesting.

I hear FDR did a few interesting things after he was Governor of New York.

Re:Forget NY governor, get him to be US AG

[smithmc]

  When's the last time NY Governor's gone off to do anything interesting.

From Wikipedia's List of Governors of New York:
George Clinton - Vice President
John Jay - first Chief Justice of the United States
Martin Van Buren - President
William H. Seward - Secretary of State
Samuel J Tilden - won popular vote in Presidential election of 1876 (but lost election)
Grover Cleveland - President
Theodore Roosevelt - President, Vice President, first American to receive the Nobel Prize
Franklin Roosevelt - President

So it may have been a few years now, but given the track record, I wouldn't count New York out just yet.

He's been suit-happy the past few years

[Attackman]

Spitzer really REALLY wants to run New York State, so he's been suing everyone the last few years. He's the one that nailed AOL for not letting customers cancel their accounts.
Doesn't bother me much. All the suits he launches appear to come from complaints to his office, so he's "working for the people" as much as he's in business for himself. Plus, he's suing people that I have issues with myself: spyware companies, AOL, the RIAA.
I just might be pushing the button under Mr. Spitzer's name when it comes election time. Hopefully all he's after isn't just the bigger office in Albany.

Re:He's been suit-happy the past few years

[sgt_doom]

I don't think it's that AG Elliott Spitzer wants to run NY as much as he is filling a tremendous void left by the absymal, nonperforming and nonfunctioning F.B.I., who appears to be involved with far too many of their very own inhouse scandals and problems.

The F.B.I. should really be doing everything the Mr. Spitzer is doing, but thank goodness at least he's doing it!!!!

You know, if this country had an F.B.I. director like Mr. Spitzer, as opposed to that useless shyster, Mueller, or better yet, a real attorney general at the federal level......

Re:He's been suit-happy the past few years

[Attackman]

Well, the only reason that I assert that the want to run the state is because he's running for governor
(above is not intended as political endorsement, just backing myself up :) )

Re:He's been suit-happy the past few years

[blunts and drink]

If he fought against AOL for not allowing customers to cancel their accounts, Pray-tell why did I have them denie me that over and over, and when I finally did get them to agree guess what... I got billed after supposedly "canceling"

DirectRevenue developers should do jail time

[mrheckman]

I had personal experience with Direct Revenue's adware that took many hours to remove. Imagine how many hours have been spent by people trying to clean up their computers from their adware. I think it is a shame that the developers were able to escape with just a fine from the Illinois lawsuit. They should have to do hard time -- at least one hour for every hour spent by people trying to remove their software. How many years do you think that would add up to?

Re:DirectRevenue developers should do jail time

[UngodAus]

Don't blame the developers. Blame the architects/management. 90% of the time, ideas this evil are because a pointy-haired has decided it's a Good Idea(tm) and has mandated that it must be a piece of the software. There are many times I have railed against a bad idea that has been poorly thought out by management/architects, some of them I've won against, some lost, some I've just walked away.

Re:DirectRevenue developers should do jail time

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck hours, how about money? You and I remove spyware ourselves, or don't get it in the first place. You and I remove spyware for our families and friends (despite it being a horrendous pain in the ass).

Not everyone has a geek in the family. So they go to the local geekery and pay upwards of $80 for "computer repair", namely, a quick run of Spybot/Ad-Aware/MSAS/whatever, followed by a backup-and-reformat if that method fails. Lots of people do this. Hell, I thought about making money off of it myself, but I'm not really business-oriented enough.

The point I'm trying to make is that there is genuine financial damage being done here, not just people spending some of their time removing this crap.

Re:DirectRevenue developers should do jail time

[Anonymous Coward]

I think I've heard that one before. Nuremburg, wasn't it?

"But it's in the EULA!"

[Opportunist]

Can you already see the defense? "But it's in the EULA!" is what will be said. You agreed to about a billion pages of legalese, of course after reading it.

As long as such EULAs can be used as an excuse to claim the user waived all rights and allowed the company to do whatever they please, hidden in a text nobody but a lawyer can decypher, we'll have buggy software, spyware and, as we've recently seen, even rootkits in our soft. Sure, EULAs don't hold a drop of water in most countries, but it already starts at the problem that most people don't even KNOW that the software they're about to install is going to cause a problem to them.

And as long as such shady practices don't have to be told in simple terms that can be understood by normal people who didn't study CS or law, this practice will continue. Whether or not this suit actually gets through.

He might be fined a few million bucks. Ok. Pocket change for the average spam king. As long as the revenue from illegal activities outmatch the possible damage charges (see also Sony's rootkit and the "settlement"), it won't stop them from bugging their users' computers.

Re:"But it's in the EULA!"

[Anonymous Coward]

How can a contract be "used as an excuse"?
And why are people installing software that they do not know the origin of, don't know exactly what it does, are not willing to read the contract before signing?

I understand the itend of your post but think about the implications of what you are saying on a broader (any contract) spectrum.

Re:"But it's in the EULA!"

[Anonymous Coward]

"hidden in a text nobody but a lawyer can decypher"

but... but... thats admitting that lawyers have the capability of serving some useful function!?

Re:"But it's in the EULA!"

[cHiphead]

Make 10 million dollars dealing drugs, spend 6 years in prison, retire. Most illegal professions could potentially end up worth a few years in prison. Its all a matter of being a.) willing and able to defend your precious virgin ass in prison and b.) just being a self centered p-o-s in general and not caring what effect your illegal actions could have on others, innocent or not.

Cheers!

Not yours

[Weaselmancer]

Not yours.

=)

Re:Not yours

[TubeSteak]

When I saw "not yours", I thought of that image of a little girl crying with a small thumbnail pic of a pony. And of course, the caption on the picture says "Not Yours".

Anyways, for everyone who didn't click the link, it's a picture of the U.S. Bill of Rights.

Re:Not yours

[gkhan1]

What the hell is that brown stain at the bottom? Did James Madison spill coffee on the Bill of Rights? I can just see Ben Franklin tearing him a new one for that... (I have no idea who wrote the bill of rights, so I apologise if I got the characters wrong. Hey, can any of you name a founding father of sweden? Didn't think so....)

Re:Not yours

[Weaselmancer]

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. =) Some other fellow posted "No you can't have a constitution"...but like a dork I replied to the thread instead of him. Woulda made more sense. Ah well. Never post when sleep deprived.

No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

> Direct Revenue settled a class action law suit last month in Illinois

Don't let them settle a lawsuit! Make the assholes release software to de-install itself, safely and completely.

Son of a bitch, I had to re-stage my wife's laptop because of Winfixer.

bah N,Y. is just pissed

[atarione]

that they failed to increase both penis length and girth.

Suit happy? He's the AG!

[Anonymous Coward]

Suit happy? lol. He's the attorney for the state.. I'd think he'd be doing plenty of suing, don't you?

Re:Suit happy? He's the AG!

[Attackman]

Yes, it would be expected, but you don't see every state's AG suing corporation's like it's going out of style. These recent big press-drawing cases in Spitzer's recent legal orgasm are not the norm for him. He's doing more than he's reasonably expected to to garner favorable press and to great good will among the populace (and just to simply let people know who he is). His recent political ads highlight this.
So yes, I expect the AG to do a lot of suing. Just not to this extent.

Eliot is a Jedi

[i_heart_elliot]

I will name my first born Eliot.

Eliot Spitzer: Is he cool, or is he whack?

[Douglas Simmons]

I cannot make up my mind about this guy. I like this move, I hate his anti-online gambling moves. And then I saw him on CNBC's Mad Money with what's-his-name and he seemed like an aimeable dude.
So,

Eliot Spitzer: Is he cool, or is he whack?

Re:Eliot Spitzer: Is he cool, or is he whack?

[mhollis]

Actually, niether. He's a politician.

I generally like what he has been doing, which mostly amounts to leveling the playing field between big business and the people -- but one can easily see the opportunitism here of a very political animal in the cases he takes on and how his PR machine works it. He was elected by mostly Democrats to be the Attorney General under a Republican Governor with whom he has had a mostly uneven relationship. He did not challenge this Governor (Pataki) until the Governor announced that he is planning on leaving office, though he has gone after many of the Governor's financiers and political cronies.

In not running against this particular governor, he has set his office up as a stepping-stone to the office of Governor for himself. A very shrewd move. Were he to have remained as a candidate for Attorney General (especially with the favorable press he has been receiving in the state of New York) I'd say he's close to 90% altruistic -- a very hard-working prosecutor with an eye for the kind of justice that sells newspapers. By virtue of his run for Governor and the timing of that run, I'd say he's about 50 to 55% altruistic and would probably make a pretty good, if not combative Governor.

I recall another prosecutor who is rumored to have made a good executive: Giuliani. But Rudy Giuliani was best-suited to crisis management. He tended to get bored and pick fights (usually with the helpless) when things got quiet. Unfortunately I think Rudy has sold his soul to the Republican right (which is wrong).

My overall favorable impression of Mr. Spitzer will, likewise, tumble should he sell his soul to a national political machine. These types are best when they're fighting the good fight with no hangers-on and no encumbrances.

Re:Eliot Spitzer: Is he cool, or is he whack?

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliot Spitzer: Is he cool, or is he whack?

That's an easy one. He's actually on the side of the people, on the side of you and me. Totally cool. Washington State needs an Eliot Spitzer.

Funding for Bush's Internet War

[EmbeddedJanitor]

All the dough will go to the feds... Perhaps they'll just set up the malware vendors as the next wave of cyber munitions makers.

Re:Funding for Bush's Internet War

[Foobar of Borg]

Of course, there could always be a class action lawsuit. Unfortunately, the lawyers will get all the money and the people represented will get a coupon for a free copy of the spyware.

Fix the law.

[headkase]

I'd like to see it made illegal for software to resist an uninstall (e.g. reinstalling itself on the next reboot). Seriously, if you want it gone and it's your machine who the hell do they think they are to stop you?

Re:Fix the law.

[v1]

The spyware brats would just claim it is a "self repair" feature that repairs the app if it detects it's become "damaged". (ripped out by its roots by the user)

If I were writing laws, I'd make auto repair on reboot by anything short of an OS unlawful unless the user was prompted clearly with a fixed text message asking if they wanted the app to be repaired/reinstalled.

Re:Fix the law.

[Arramol]

There was a bill being passed around that would do that (http://www.pcworld.com/news/article/0,aid,114999, 00.asp), not sure what happened to it. /Offtopic - I want a T-shirt with your signature about rights management on it.

Re:Fix the law.

[morie]

Next: Spyware OS-es

It will be an ongoing battle one way or another.

And for more fun.....

[wehup]

Here's the AG's site: http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/apr/apr04a_0 6.html But the real fun is in reading the actual complaint. It is clear the AG does not think highly of Direct Revenue. http://www.oag.state.ny.us/press/2006/apr/Direct%2 0Revenue%20Affirmation%20of%20Justin%20Brookman.pd f Caution... large PDF, but a fascinating read.

Re:And for more fun.....

[kawika]

The Brookman Affirmation is definitely an fascinating read. They got hold of plenty of internal emails that totally nail these guys. From the account in that pdf it seems like their CTO Dan Doman was trying to warn these guys they had stepped over the line but the money was talking a lot louder. For example, when they put in an Add/Remove entry their revenue went down, so of course they took it back out. They had some distributors that requested Add/Remove entries so they would put them in and then stealth-remove them after a few days. When they changed the minimum time between popups from 1 minute to 2 minutes their revenue dropped by 15 percent, so they moved it back and eventually they dropped it down to 45 seconds! Their internal emails bragged about how hard it was to remove the software. These guys knew exactly what they were doing.

The Direct Revenue response is basically "We did nothing wrong, and besides we're not doing it anymore." So people shouldn't be punished for past crimes?

Re:Good lawsuit. Wrong target.

[DrEldarion]

Is there anywhere on Slashdot that is free of this anti-Microsoft bullshit?

In no way is this Microsoft's fault. Spyware can be installed on ANY machine that is not completely locked down. Keep in mind that most spyware is installed alongside other programs during "legitimate" installations (or even part of the program itself, see Gator / Bonzi Buddy). If you give the users the ability to install any program they want, then they can also install spyware. This could happen on a Mac. This could happen on a Linux box. This could happen on ANY COMPUTER that can have programs installed on it.

Re:Good lawsuit. Wrong target.

[realmolo]

Oh please.

Do I sue Ford when someone steals my Mustang? They obviously didn't make it secure enough.

Re:Good lawsuit. Wrong target.

[dlZ]

I write this reply from a Linux box. What do I do for a living? I own a PC shop. A huge amount of what I do is removing spyware from computers. I don't think this is Windows fault. The people that bring the PCs in many times admit to what they did, saying they didn't care and just clicked yes to make it all go away. These same people would type their password and hit OK just to make it "go away" on a Mac or in a Linux GUI, too.

I run Linux because I want to and enjoy it, not because I'm on some anti-MS agenda. I sell mostly Windows machines. Most of my clients couldn't handle a Linux machine, but the anti-MS proganda on /. is extreme.

I guess we must both be new here.

As a spyware company...

[butterwise]

...they probably saw it coming.

Re:IN THE SLASHDOT FAGGOT JUSTICE SYSTEM

[butterwise]

Does that make you a fag hag?

Obligatory PMITAP reference

[sinij]

I hope they all go to Pound me in the ass prison but not before Jury find them guilty.

Re:IN THE SLASHDOT FAGGOT JUSTICE SYSTEM

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought that the only two kinds of fags were givers and takers...

Rough Rider

[Doc Ruby]

Spitzer is the frontrunner in the upcoming 2006 NY state governor election. His career is starting to remind me of Teddy Roosevelt's.

Beware false sense of security

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

You've got a point if you're only thinkng of drive-by downloads. Spyware scum, if we deprive them of the chance to do drive-bys, will put even more work into what I call EULA-ware, where there's some obfuscated text at line 1000 of a document shown in a 3-line scroll window which says in effect "by clicking this you give us permission to install keyloggers, send your credit card number to Belarus, and you agree never to uninstall our software". EULA-ware is really just a kind of Trojan, attached to bait such as weather forecasts, form fillin assistants, or animated cursors.

EULA-ware is a cross-platform threat. You'd need mandatory access control or the equivalent to stop it. Non-Windows users are having a better experience *now*, there's a little bit of speedbump to the attacker if the user is not running as root, but that won't stop good social engineering.

So what happens when

[andrewa]

the city manager of Tuttle gets some spyware on his pc....?

Re:Good lawsuit. Wrong target.

[michaelhood]

Next time someone gets carjacked, lets sue Toyota.. after all, they should have mounted machine guns to take care of any intruders.

Dumbass.

Sony off scotch free?

[xvalentinex]

Hmmm.... interesting, but where is Sony's lawsuit for all the rootkits they installed?
I won't hold my breath for that one.

Re:Sony off scotch free?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sony might get off scotch free, but you can bet 3M won't!

Running for Governor

[bill_mcgonigle]

From what I understand, his style is to pick a fight and make a lot of noise about it in the press.

I suspect the Press part is what's important here. I saw a 'Spitzer for Governor' ad on my NYC WNBC satellite feed this weekend on McLaughin Group.

Whats the draw to settle

[Instine]

What's the point of settling if (and for cowardly reasons, I'm not saying they are) you are already a company with a reputation for being a bunch of evil spyware spreading SOBs. I mean what the 'bad publicity' going to do other than drum up more customers?

Re:Whats the draw to settle

[Anonymous Coward]

Because the last thing you want is to lose in court and, in the process, set a legal precedent that makes it easier for everyone and their dog to come after you. When it's just one or two key figures with the money and political agenda to sue, you can afford to take the hit so long as you're generating tons of money. If you suddenly have to face mass class-action lawsuits from millions of users it's probably a little more intimidating...

Re:Whats the draw to settle

[Instine]

Good point.

Re:Good lawsuit. Wrong target.

[evilviper]

Keep in mind that most spyware is installed alongside other programs during "legitimate" installations

Yeah, but it's still perfectly fair to blame Microsoft for the ~10% of spyware installations that happen due to bugs in Internet Explorer, DirectX, VBScript, etc.

The New Untouchables

[Anonymous Coward]

Eliot Spitzer and his crew are the new untouchables, when he comes knocking it is brown alert! and imminent change of underwear. He has gone up against the inept and corrupt funds companies and made them pay. These are companies that could afford to slog it out in court but chose to fold instead.

Why doesn't other attornies work like him?

Re:Good lawsuit. Wrong target.

[dbleoslow]

Next time someone gets carjacked, lets sue Toyota.. after all, they should have mounted machine guns to take care of any intruders.
,
Or at least some freakin' lasers.

Physical equivalent of spyware?

[icebrain]

Seeing spyware companies get away with all this made me wonder, "what if I tried this with a real store?" Basically, let's say I own a store. Do I have the right to plant a GPS tracking bug on your car, write down your license plate and VIN and do a search on them, copy down your driver's license (if presented to go along with a sale) and search it too, then monitor wherever you drive your car? I would then sell all the data to whoever wants it, and hire people to meet you at home and in the parking lots of other places you go to try and sell more products. Oh, and all of this is protected because of the business-card-sized disclaimer I stuck on the ceiling as you walk in. I would think most people would say no. Why, then, is a computer so different?

Replying to your sig...

[Anonymous Coward]

Are we perfect? No. But where I should move when I renounce my U.S. citizenship, North Korea, Libya, China, or Iran?

How about Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Germany, England or other such countries? Sure, they're not perfect either, but at least they have FREEDOM without having to harp on about it all the time even as it erodes away to nothing. ("we live in the land of the free! We're so much better than you! Oh, but we can't really do anything without permission...")

Haven't you people learned...

[aybiss]

...voting on a piece of paper is the only way to actually vote.

Don't look now...

[ConvenienceComputers]

The fact is that installing and then executing spyware no any computer should be illegal. I can almost guarantee that there is some "blanket law" out there that should be exhumed ;-), thereby allowing enforcement entities to pursue companies or individuals which practice this form of activity. We need more of these law suits, across the board, in an effort to make these types of enterprises think twice!