Slashdot Mirror
Anti-Spyware Law Snags Anti-Spyware Vendor
Country Lawyer writes "Washington state's anti-spyware law has just resulted in a $1 million victory for the state, the first successful prosecution under the new law. The weird thing? They sued an anti-spyware vendor." From the article: "Washington State went after the company after 1,145 state residents purchased the software and the complaints began rolling in. Secure Computer president Paul Burke will now pay $200,000 in penalties, make $75,000 worth of restitution to Washington residents, and pay another $725,000 to cover the state's attorneys' fees. The irony of an anti-spyware law being used against an anti-spyware vendor was not commented upon."
"$725,000 to cover the state's attorneys' fees"
that's just insane!
Sometimes I think it would be best to have less laws if only to keep lawyers from getting all the money.
Yes I know its a government entity but I bet there are many "consultants" on that list that are not as well.
I don't think lawyers, singular or as a corporation, should ever get more than the reward.
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
FTFA: "The dubious marketing tactics did not end there. Secure Computer also sold its product using pop-up ads which warned users that their computers might be infected with spyware, and it offered them a free system scan. The results of the scan were invariably positive. "Our investigation found that this so-called free scan always detected spyware, even on a clean computer," said Senior Counsel Paula Selis, who led the state investigation. "In order to remove this falsely detected spyware, users were instructed to pay $49.95 for the full version of Spyware Cleaner." It is illegal under Washington law to "induce a computer user to download software by falsely claiming the software is necessary for security purposes," she added."
I was kind of tired of seeing stuff like they used....
Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
These guys used bullshit popups in web browsers to convince people they needed to buy an Anti-Spyware product. Go get'em Washington.
There is a war going on for your mind.
Just because you get rid of spyware doesn't give you the right to BE spyware...
I think the 'lack of irony' is that the supposed anti-spyware company was itself corrupt. "The company allegedly spammed", did fake scans then informed customers they needed to buy the product ("Our investigation found that this so-called free scan always detected spyware, even on a clean computer,"), broke their own consent agreement, used shaddy sales tactics, etc.
So, oddly enough, it seems the law worked. Just calling yourself an 'anti-spyware vendor' is no protection from being a spyware company.
A.
It passed itself off as anti-spyware, but actually caused problems for users that installed it, was sold by spamming, etc., etc., etc.
Sometimes boldness is in fashion. Sometimes only the brave will be bold.
I am overjoyed to see this precedent established. I am not a lawyer, but I think this ruling can only help other cases, even in other states.
Bearded Dragon
This is not a story of an innocent company harmed by a stupid & malevolent government. The company is the equivalent of a glass window replacer who advertises their services by throwing a brick with their flyer wrapped around it through prospective client's windows.
They spammed and pop-up advertised with no opt-out.
They made false claims as to a limited time offer.
They provided free scans that resulted in a false-positives.
They offered upgrades to a "pro" version of a product that was essentially the same as already purchased.
Say what you want about over-regulation, but these guys seemed a perfect target for these type laws. Has nothing to do with their supposed status as anti-spyware vendor.
So basically Washington gets $925,000, while the people actually affected by this have to split $70k. Thats a bit money-grubbing for me. That covers about 1400 people that were actually dumb enough to buy the spyware. This is just my opinion, but I think a lot more people than that actually bought it. They can then reinvest that $50 back into Gator.
Note, this is not an anti-spyware vendor who have got used. It is an so called "rouge anti-spyware" vendor. Rouge anti-spyware software is often distributed along with spyware. The rouge antispyware then tells you to buy it to get rid of spyware. It also popups on websites and misleads you into buying their software.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_software
$750000. Damn, they some blood sucking lawyers!
used shaddy sales tactics
That's the same as fishy sales tactics.
US: 0
THEM: -1
LAWYERS: 1
The practices of this company to sucker in people to buy there software is highly dubious.
When you use spy-ware, malware to create a problem just so you can sell your product, you deserve to get smacked as hard as the law can allow (imo), how it is ironic when the company probably produced more spyware then it stopped.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
that, as briefly discussed in the article:
- spams without opt-out
- offered fake discounts
- had deceptive popups, offering a free scan, that always, in every machine, report that the user had spyware.
Except, your hiding under a tree, vs using a line and bait.
We know that they paid a total of $1 million in penalties.
But how much in profits did they make?
If they made $2 million in profits, then the law didn't work at all.
paintball
The irony of going after a spyware vendor ends once you discover that they're spamming lying scum:
"...their "Spyware Cleaner" product had, well, a couple of flaws: it didn't work well, it deleted a user's Hosts file after installation, and it tried to convince users to "upgrade" to another program that did essentially the same thing.
But it was the way that Spyware Cleaner was marketed that attracted the Attorney General's attention in the first place. The company allegedly spammed users to advertise its product, included deceptive subject lines, failed to include an opt-out mechanism, and suggested that the product was "discounted" for a "limited time," when in reality it was always available for the same price.
The dubious marketing tactics did not end there. Secure Computer also sold its product using pop-up ads which warned users that their computers might be infected with spyware, and it offered them a free system scan. The results of the scan were invariably positive. "Our investigation found that this so-called free scan always detected spyware, even on a clean computer," said Senior Counsel Paula Selis, who led the state investigation. "In order to remove this falsely detected spyware, users were instructed to pay $49.95 for the full version of Spyware Cleaner." It is illegal under Washington law to "induce a computer user to download software by falsely claiming the software is necessary for security purposes," she added.
Returned Peace Corps IT Volunteer
7 lawyers making $100/hour working about 6 months (40 hours workweeks, no overtime) would account for it.
Not to mention their legal staff. Evidence aquisition. Etc. Should they have sought a larger penalty? Sure. But don't underpay the lawyers just because the penalty is low.
Notice that vast majority (70%) of money goes to the lawyers... and you'd think that Local Govt would have sense to employ some of them fulltime at salary levels that would not result in such huge payouts...
that a handful of LAWYERS get $750,000 meanwhile the real engine of the economy, people who bought and used the thing have to split $75,000.
"If I owned this place and Hell, I'd rent this place out and live in Hell."
They Live, We Sleep
It would be ironic if they were more than nominally an anti-spyware company. I read the article, and it sounds like the ruling was correct.
More music, fewer hits
Giving good guys a pass for bad behavior sends a bad message.
It's like saying it's ok for a sports hero or rap-music artist to drive drunk. Oh, wait.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
The company certainly deserves what it got, what a bunch of scheming assholes. What's interesting is that there really wasn't any spyware involved (if Ars Technica's writeup is accurate), just spam and deceptive popup ads. So how does this fall within Washington's "new spyware law"? And I wonder what kind of precedent this could set (probably just for the state, but, you know Redmond is located there too).
why? forty-two.
What is the deal with State Attorney's fees? This action was brought by officials of the State Attorney General's office, their salaries are paid by taxpayers. As employees of the State, the prosecution lawyers have already been paid for their work. Sure the State has a right to recover their expenses in this lawsuit, but this seems like an awfully high dollar figure, and seems like double-dipping at the taxpayers' expense. Do the prosecutors get a bonus for winning?
WOOOSH
My favorites are the ones that references DLL's or windows-specific conditions, and sometimes manage to pop-up on my linux system. Any chance civilians could sue 'em for false advertising?
...and pay another $725,000 to cover the state's attorneys' fees.
Well, i think i fucked up good when i picked my career path.
Where has all the semi witty slashdot drivel gone? I was expecting to be entertained, because this topic is obviously wrought with irony, but instead all I get are these boring insightful comments. You people are pathetic. I hate you. Moegar ftw!
The ONLY irony is that the lawyer fees were more than the penalty and restitution combined. These guys were using the oldest trick in the book... Spyware that claims to remove spyware. Good Riddance! ~AR
... 459 days per year the hours add up pretty quickly.
Give a man a fish and you have fed him for today. Teach a man to fish, and he'll say "WHERE'S MY FISH, YOU IDIOT?"
I dont get it. These people arent doctors, and filing a case against someone who is clearly breaking the law is a no brainer. Lawyers should make no more than $50 an hour.. And class action lawsuits never benefit the ones they are intended for. The Cum guzzling lawyers seep ever last sap of money for themselfs leaving the the rest of the people a $40 rebate somewhere..
please type the word in this image: Incest
Why is slashdot making me type incest?
As a PC Tech. this is one of the companies we always tell people, they are the spyware. Don't Click It, or Install It!
...remember that one reason that laws like this create a state right of action on behalf of the victims is because they address cases where the cost of litigation is prohibitive for private plaintiffs given the uncertainty of success and the work required to make the case and the small amount of damages, but when claims are aggregated, even though it is still expensive to litigate. Aggregating the claims mitigates somewhat the imbalance between the cost of litigation and the available damages, but often not that much; what it mainly does is make the action more tenable because the probability of success on some significant number of the claims becomes greater, and by making the claim viable at all increases the deterrent to wrongdoers.
Anyway, $725,000 in attorneys' fees is a lot less than 1,145 plaintiffs suing on their own would probably have to pay.
Anti-spyware that cannot be easily uninstalled and constantly harrases the user to purchase an upgrade is no better at all than the malware that it proposes to eliminate. The tactics of such software are to harrass the user to the point that they ultimately surrender and buy the software simply to be rid of it. I've recently been witness to this happening on a Windows system that had both a firewall and current virus protection at the time, yet not even the latest antivirus signatures loaded into it would get rid of the malware. After spending three days trying to eliminate it using every tactic I could think of, I reformatted the drive and reinstalled Windows. For the sake of reference, it looked like it was promoting the software "Virus Bursters" and "Drive Cleaner". Any product I could find that claimed to get rid of them either simply failed to do the job or else cost money to get rid of it (although the scan was free). The latter policy frankly struck me as no different than the tactics that the author(s) of this particular malware are trying to employ, and I will not submit to such blackmailing tactics.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
It was NOT a ruling, it was a settlement. HUGE difference. The most important is that no "precedence" has been set. What that basically means is that this case cannot be used in the future to help in the prosecution of other offenders.
Is it a beginning? Yes. Does it move us closer to being able to prosecute others? No.
While I applaude the state of Washington on bringing charges in the first place, I think that they did the people of the state a disservice by settling. It seemed they had a pretty solid case yet caved at the last moment.
I suspect that what happened is that someone decided that in order to collect ANY funds from the company, they had to settle. Otherwise, the defendants attorneys would have "used" up all the funds in an effort to defend the company leaving none for the "fines".
Attorneys have been known to obfuscate, delay and appeal cases all in the name of extending their own value, and thus, their fees.
The magical number is: 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0
It suggests that the anti-spyware law is defined broadly enough to cover related offenses.
It reminds me of the way the term "computer virus" has expanded, at least in general use, to cover worms, trojans, and other sorts of malware that don't technically fall under the original definition. This has happened concurrently with antivirus programs expanding their mandate to cover various types of computer security threats.
Similarly, going the other way, you have "spam" incorporating email-based phishing attempts, 419 scams, etc., even though they're not necessarily "unsolicited commercial email" or, in some cases, technically "bulk" -- not to mention applying to newsgroups, forums, comment threads, etc. in addition to email.
As far as the law goes, it's always tricky to find the right balance. You don't want to make the law apply in too specific a case, or it stops applying after a while. A law requiring all Model T drivers to use headlights at night would be useless today, but a law requiring all automobile drivers to use headlights will still be useful if we're all using Mr. Fusion-powered hovercars in 20 years. On the other hand, you don't want to be too broad, or you end up doing things like making MP3 players illegal.
Spyware Cleaner is anti-spyware now?
I make a nice chunk of change removing crap from computers. Spyware 'Cleaner' is one of the piles. Just like all the other crap you get when you click a flashing ad that says "You're[sic] computer is infected...click here to clean it!"
The company will probably switch to stock pump-and-dump scams anyway.
They really need to include the option to moderate stories and summaries in addition to the comments themselves. I'd like to put this one down for +1 misleading summary
This post just pointed out the the complete uselessness of the scoring system used on slashdot.
According to the post, it was scored 4 for being informative when it is comprised of nothing more then a cut/paste from the article, prefaced with a remark that attempts to point out the obvious. Don't get me wrong. I'm not slamming the poster here, but rather the scoring system.
Kudos, Slashdot, on an excellent scoring system.
(By the time some of you read this, it may have changed, dunno. But I can almost assure you that THIS post will be slammed as a Troll. Woot!)
Assume a billable rate of $150 per hour, which is more than the average general practice firm charges, but far less than the $300+ that big city specialist firms charge for their most experienced people. At the $150 rate, it takes only 4834 billable hours to to get to $725K, and that is excluding expenses (expert witnesses, courier services, etc.).
With 2000 work hours per year, that is less than three attnys full time for a year. With a case that complicated, and testing a new law (so they REALLY want to get it right to set the good prescedent), this doesn't seem unreasonable.
Of course, I'm sure he doesn't get a discount, or get to nit-pick the bill either.
One side effect of running Linux is that the fake dialogs are virtually guaranteed to not match your actual UI, whether they're imitating Luna, Windows Classic, or Mac OS X. Heck, I sometimes see Mac Classic style fake dialogs. Mostly in banners, though, since there are very few sites I visit that manage to get their pop-ups past Firefox these days, and I only block ads that are actively annoying. (Pop-ups are, by their very nature, actively annoying.)
My favorite is still "Your computer is broadcasting an IP address!"
Why did the state need a new law to handle this? Two thousand year old Roman law would have been adequate for a fraud conviction.
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
Sounds like they violated the rico act.
Well I guess I should be proud of what Washington State has done. As a lifetime resident I am a bit surprised they did this at all... you would have to live here to understand our local politics but back to the point at hand. Not only did they use deceptive tactics to sell this "anti-spyware" to you once you installed the product it actually reduced your overall system security like delete your host file and turn on file and print sharing and disable you firewall while also removing the little pop up window that warns you your firewall is disabled..... and more... If I could be your benevolent dictator for a day the company would have had it a lot worse than $1M in fines... and just you wait... I bet the company declares bankruptcy and never pays a penny. ahh but to be a lawer in Washington...........
There may be abuses, overcharges, and skewed payouts, but saying the nobody of some profession should ever earn more than $X per hour is absurd.
What you say is equivalent to some PHB saying that no programmer or system designer should ever earn more than $50 per hour.
In fact, some should earn much less, and some much more. Hourly rates are really just a shorthand in the capitalist system for how quickly you generate value.
I've got considerable experience in software and corp management, and so often had to deal with lawyers, mostly on IP and contract issues. As I worked with them, I was intrigued to find out how much the work resembled software development. In both arenas, one needs to evaluate the scope of the project, anticipate the opportunities, obstacles, and pitfalls, then design a structure that will handle all these cases. Once a overall plan and structure is selected, then the detailed modules or sections are crafted using custom code or language where necessary, and reusing pre-tested code or language where possible. SW Developers use the languages chosen for the project, and Lawyers use the English language and Terms of Art. Both professions have barely competent people at the bottom and utterly brialliant people at the top. Both have utter scumbags who should be shot on sight (spammers, spyware, or scammers), and others whose wisdom is a national treasure. Both professions have trivial problems handled mostly by cut-and-paste, and incredibly complex problems.
When given an interesting problem in their domain, the lower ones will take almost forever to come up with a bad answer, and the top ones will give a great answer almost off the top of their heads. This is what makes the good ones worth FAR more than the average, and the average ones worth more than amaterus on the street.
Zonk. Stop posting shit.
Seriously what is this crap? "Washington Law Stops Anti-Spyware Vendor"? The vendor in question was FALSE MARKETING claiming machines were INFECTED when they were clean. It was throwing pop-ups in peoples' faces and everything. The SEC could shut these guys down, seriously. You might as well say "Built-In FTP Password Sniffer in Linux Kernel" and talk about the Linux Kernel sniffing FTP passwords and sending them offsite; there's actually an example code out there to explain what a rootkit is and demonstrate connection tracking, it's not part of vanilla Linux or any distro, and this would make great FUD. It'd be right along Zonk's line of posting too.
My suggestion is that Slashdot needs to throw Zonk out because his stories are all bullshit.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Calling yourself anti-spyware does not make you anti-spyware. Ironic? No. Thats like saying it's ironic that Microsoft got slapped with an anti-trust suit.
Well, to be fair, those clean computers were running Windows.
Wanted: witty unique signature. Must be willing to relocate.
Now a days it seems that more than half the money of any lawsuit goes to lawyers. Fine ppl have to be paid for the work they do right? But what I don't understand is, why in the world is the justice process so complicated that everyone has to require a lawyer to solve a problem? There should be a better way in place, where if a person decides to file a lawsuit against someone else, all they have to do is provide the right documents according to an easy to follow standard that has been outlined by the justice system. There shouldn't be a need to refer to past judgements, thats the job of the Judge who is deciding on the case. He should use knowledge of the current law and make a decision, not what other ppl did in the past. Having never been involved in a legal proceeding, I might be a bit ignorant here. But my point is that laws were created to provide a guideline based on what legal decisions are made, why is the process involved to apply these laws so complicated?
You know, I agree with your sentiments entirely - the legal system does seem overly complicated sometimes. As for working on what other people did in the past, though, surely that's essential, or you'd never know what was considered legal, and what wasn't. Even simple rules lead to complex situations, so all you've got to go on is the interpretation of the law in past cases. It's useful to be able to look back at a case similar to your situation, and say "yep, the court said it was okay to do that".
Secure Computer, not Secure Computing! These are different companies.
This has been said a zillion times before, but the article is referring to what's more commonly known as a "rogue anti-spyware" company, who puts out a 3rd-rate "spyware removal" program simply because there's money in it (some consist of nothing more than a grep for certain "bad" filenames!), then tricks old grannies with fake Windows error popups saying they're infected, but for $49.99 this nice product can make it all better.
These are the same companies responsible for those "Your computer is broadcasting an IP address!!" ("Your house is broadcasting a street address!!", yadayada) ads your grandparents keep falling for. I say this is a good start, but the state should sic a few more of them.
Caveat Emptor is not a business model.
WOOOSH
(sonic boom)
For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
This should be marked with the Python foot
Per the cousin post 1150 Washington state residents.
Assume Washington state residents are average gullible, per Google Washington has a pop of 5.9E6, US pop (screw the foreigners) is 3E8.
That leads to a guesstimate of about 58000 suckers in the USA. Based on past elections the scammers had a bad conversion rate (sale to sucker ratio).
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
"$725,000 to cover the state's attorneys' fees" that's just insane!
Only the U.S. do you find a good chunk of the population preffering that money remain in the hands of criminals than (gasp!) laywers.
Secure Computer president Paul Burke will now pay $200,000 in penalties, make $75,000 worth of restitution to Washington residents, and pay another $725,000 to cover the state's attorneys' fees.
>> That the Lawyer's fees are more than the fine and the restitution combined. It seems to me, that just going to court is penalty enough -- much more than if you are guilty of anything.
You just get into court hoping that you don't have to pay lawyers fees. They might as well just say; "anti up!"
"I'm going to bring in a bigger and more expensive lawyer," says the plaintiff.
"OK, I fold, I was only holding a pair of Jacks anyway."
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
eAcceleration is another sleazy Washington State business hawking crappy security tools that I doubt do anything useful (and what's worse selling them as a subscription service). If they're advertising in Washington State the same way they are in California, they ought to be the Washington DA's next target. No Slashdot reader would ever buy their crap BECAUSE of the way they advertise, but the uninformed might be suckered by their terrorist fear-mongering.