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

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 ?

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.

"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: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: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: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: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.