Spy Act of 2007 = "Vendors Can Spy Act"

strick1226 writes "Ed Foster over at InfoWorld describes the Spy Act bill (H.R. 964) as having the same relation to the prevention of spyware that the CAN SPAM Act had to the prevention of spam. It allows exceptions for companies to utilize spyware for any number of reasons; if this bill had been law when Sony distributed their rootkit, they would have had perfect cover. Most troubling is that the bill would preempt all state laws, including those more focused on the privacy of people's data, and disallow individuals from bringing suit. It is expected to pass soon with 'strong bipartisan support.'"

Comments

Re:Legal, not moral

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least there was legal recourse to prevent them from continuing their actions.

Look! Rights go down the hole...

[Marrshu]

... there go more of our personal rights simply to support the big business and such. Who wants to guess how long it'll take Sony to restart their whole rootkit campaign? Can't forget Microsoft and all those ISPs that want to spy on you. Big Brother is watching you after all

Re:Look! Rights go down the hole...

[miskatonic alumnus]

Democracy, privacy, and human rights are antithetical to the "free market". We either get to rule ourselves, or the corporations get to rule us. Guess which way it's turning out?

Re:Look! Rights go down the hole...

[FooAtWFU]

Please note that the "free market" about which you're complaining deserves its name in quotes, because insofar as these the issues you are complaining about are market issues, they are not Free, and insofar as they are free, they are not market issues. Buying legislation is just rent-seeking and as old as the hills.

Free Markets and Free Enterprise don't mean the freedom of Enterprise to do whatever the heck they feel like. It means a freedom for people to engage in enterprise (you know, selling things to each other) as long as they're both willing and able to do so. Nothing in this is contradictory with democracy or against human rights.

The contribution of funds to influence the political process is an entirely nonmarket affair. Blaming market economics for the hazards which are induced are roughly equivalent to saying "Hey, this guy got a job with $COMPANY and used the money to buy a gun and shoot people. $COMPANY is antithetical to human rights!".)

Re:Look! Rights go down the hole...

[miskatonic alumnus]

You have human rights to the exact extent that you have property rights; they are fundamentally inseparable.

How do you figure? How is my right to speak or move or breathe air tied to my property rights --- unless you consider me someone's property?

Re:Look! Rights go down the hole...

[homer_s]

Tell that to the people of Bolivia after their water supply was privatized.

I like how you start a story in the middle to make your point. How was the govt able to sell it to a private company?
The govt control of the market for water was what allowed them to unscrupulously sell it to a company that paid enough 'campaign contributions'. And govt control is what allows them to prevent other people from entering the market (they made it illegal for people to dig wells and use their roofs to harvest water). A private company can never prevent you from digging a well or using other means (including what is common in India - getting water delivered by trucks) - only govt can do that.

So, the next time you want to bash free markets and free enterprise, take the time to learn the difference between free enterprise and mercantilism.

Re:Look! Rights go down the hole...

[JesseMcDonald]

How do you figure? How is my right to speak or move or breathe air tied to my property rights --- unless you consider me someone's property?

property right: the right to control how a piece of property is employed.

Move to where? That "somewhere" is either unowned, or someone's property. With private property rights you can own that place -- or receive permission from the owner -- and move to it freely. No one else can legitimately prevent you from doing so. On the other hand, if all the property is collectively owned, or belongs to the State, you'll need to get permission to move. Your right to move is thus artificially subject to someone else's will. (If all property is unowned and cannot be homesteaded then it cannot be employed by anyone (see the definition above), in which case you don't have the right to move anywhere. This is a fairly useless case but it ought to be mentioned. When most people speak of an absence of property rights they really mean ownership by the State, or collective ownership by all, which in a democracy is the same thing.)

You want to speak? I assume that means you want to address a group? Where will you do it, if no one owns any property? Without private ownership the use of suitable gathering places much necessarily be decided by majority vote, and/or the State. Resources are limited; not everyone who wishes to speak will be able to do so. If your position is in the minority good luck finding a place for your audience to hear you.

At a more fundamental level, if you don't own anything you cannot ensure your own survival -- food, shelter, defense -- or save for the future. If the Majority doesn't care much for you they can reallocate your rations elsewhere, leaving you to starve. If you objected then you'd be claiming a right to that food, that shelter; a property right, to be exact. But on what basis? You didn't produce that food, or construct that shelter. In a private property system you could claim that the prior owner gave it to you in exchange for something else of value, but without private property you are necessarily at the mercy of the State.

Property rights are essential for survival. Private property rights are essential for freedom.

Re:Look! Rights go down the hole...

[miskatonic alumnus]

I didn't turn anything around. But I am not my own property, as evidenced by points given in my previous post. I hope I am not government or corporate property. Perhaps human beings should transcend being property.

Re:Look! Rights go down the hole...

[zippthorne]

Is.. Ought.

You ought to be your own property. But you are not. At best, you're renting you. For the price of taxes. With some restrictions.

Re:Legal, not moral

[csmacd]

Yes, organizations that distribute spyware care.

>sarcasm off

When organizations have the legal cover to do junk like this, they will. No amount of moral outrage is going to stop them, unless they monitor and report some random elected official's illegal activities.

Spying Is Ok... If You Have Money

[Wandering Wombat]

So now they're just making the cash-enema legal? I guess it beats all the lying and sneaking and stealing... just change what's considered "legal" until you can do whatever you want!

If you have money.

Re:Legal, not moral

[LighterShadeOfBlack]

but the protest would have been the same - it was more of a moral outrage than a legal outrage. The moral outrage might have been greater, but it was the legal outrage - or at least the potential for one - that really made Sony do a 180. Moral outrages typically go completely unheeded by major corporations. I guess pretty soon we'll find out precisely to what extent a company can bend it's customers over before their objections become too loud for them to take. I'm betting it's pretty damn loud.

Di not use Vista and other DRM enabled tech

[roman_mir]

We had this discussion before. The law will make it perfectly legal to spy on you, and you new shiny OS will make it perfectly impossible (well, as long as DRM works) for you to prevent this by technical means.

People who say that it doesn't matter to them, whether Vista has DRM or not as long as they can play their games, maybe surprised to find out that the DRM may make it impossible for them to enjoy their games through enabling the spying and whatever other active measures that can be taken by spying software. Do you like modifying your games in any way? It may become impossible if you are on a DRM platform and you are spied upon. Of-course there are those, who would rely on the DRM to be broken but this is not a very good practice to rely on that, I mean there are so many problems with that, for example why would you trust a 'DRM removing patch' from someone to be spyware/rootkit free? It is better to avoid such products altogether. Avoid DRM products, avoid spyware infected products, that's the only way to really stay in the clear. Besides, isn't it illegal to remove 'security protection' under DMCA anyway?

Free Software becomes more and more attractive in this culture of customer spying and DRM locking every day.

Another reason to use

[drgonzo59]

...open source software. Even in the Linux world that means not using binary drivers. Who knows perhaps Nvidia or other binary drivers have a backdoor installed at the request of NSA. Is that probable - No. Possible? - Maybe. AT&T for example was diverting (still is?) a lot of the their data to NSA, if they wrote drivers, don't you think they would be willing to include a backdoor for U.S. government to use? For all we know such a backdoor exists in Windows. After a high number of cyber attacks on .mil, I am sure Uncle Sam can ask Microsoft to install a small code fragment that would allow access to any machine after say a pre-determined pattern of socket connection attempts or something like that.

Seems like a non-issue to me.

[WhiteWolf666]

What's the deal?

Why do people think you can legislate your way out of these issues? Spyware, spam, etc . . .

For e-mail, use a system that is not susceptible to spam (good filtering, and a white list).

For software, use a system that is not susceptible to spyware (OS X, or Linux).

Spyware doesn't bother me now, it hasn't bothered me in the past, and it won't bother me in the future. If you've got a problem with spyware, either stop buying products from the people who are infecting your system (ahem, Sony), of stop buying systems that are prone to infection (ahem, Microsoft).

If a company sells you an unsafe car, do you blame the government, or the car company? And having been sold 2 or 3 unsafe cars already, why would you go back to the same vendor?

Non issue. Something Congress shouldn't discuss or legislate about. Get over it, and stop being a slave to the MS monoculture.

Re:Just have "bad stuff" described in EULAs

[LiquidCoooled]

No, I think its right to point out the limitations and practicalities of installing certain software.
However, I believe they should be stated in one legible none scrolling frame.
Further information can be linked to any point, but what a user sees upon installation are clear plain English terms.

Re:OK, What Am I Missing?

[powerpants]

I don't see anything to get terribly alarmed about. What am I missing? The bandwagon.

Re:Since no one here uses windows

[TheGratefulNet]

this is actually way beyond windows.

it SEEMS that this bill gives vendor-tunnels the OK. and also it notes that they can be stealth. you know, like the sneak and peek procedures we have today.

yes, this is the electronic form of sneak and peek.

and that is why you should be afraid of this. it gives remote 'special parties', well special priviledges on YOUR BOX.

this is such a bad idea, it must have come from congress and/or special interests.

this surely has NO benefit to We, The People ;(

Re:OK, What Am I Missing?

[roman_mir]

You are missing the part where spying on you becomes legal and you have no legal recourse to combat it in case if you are unwilling to be subjected to spying on the first place.

When you allow MS or your ISP to troubleshoot your computer remotely, you are actively giving them permission to do so, spying software does not require your active permission and in this case it doesn't even have to be disclosed to you that it is happenning. If you do find out, you have no legal solution to it except for removing the software (if it will allow you to remove itself on a DRMed system.)

Re:If companies can install spyware...

[dreamchaser]

Please cite where in the DMCA that it is made illegal to remove software from your computer. I'm against the DMCA as much as you are, but that is just pure FUD. Yes, I've read the entire act. Have you even read it?

Re:Since no one here uses windows

[bberens]

More than that, now a government official can get a warrant for [insert major company] who will gladly allow them access to your system via their pre-installed spyware. They're in your network and you don't even know it. More snooping without the ability to detect or fight in court. Remember, they're looking at the corporations records, not looking at your box (which you stand a chance to fight in court).

Re:Legal, not moral

[PopeRatzo]

Moral outrage is not going to protect consumers. In the name of commerce, free markets and the consolidation of capital, we are losing every bit of privacy, security, integrity, dignity.

I think of the report in today's news about the collapse of the housing market. We're seeing a coming depression that is unique in that it will only affect the middle class. I reflect on the anger and aggression with which my credit card company deals with me and my wife just because we pay our bill in full every month. Our banker is shocked because we have paid our mortgage and aren't interested in refinancing our home "to pay bills, take a vacation. Living within our means, not participating in the orgy of consumerism makes us the enemy of those that would see us become indentured.

Tonight I heard a news article about the lenders who give student loans. They learned that there's more money to be made from having those loans go into default than to have the borrower repay, so they actually discourage repayment. Loan payment checks "get lost" so that late fees and penalties can be levied. The Department of Education knew about the crooked practices in student loans since 1998, but with the end of the Clinton administration and the emergence of the Republican majority in Congress in 2000, the problem was ignored. Foreclosures are at an all-time high.

They want to make us the consumables. Is it worth having a 42" plasma TV if you lose your soul?

This will legalize the NSA Spying and more

[SpaceLifeForm]

The exceptions are too broad.

Re:This will legalize the NSA Spying and more

[TheGratefulNet]

I have Good Reason To Believe(tm) that there is already a shadow set of remote management commands that are not documented in standard user manuals for SOME comms equipment. these allow remote access to networking equip (entirely at the request of the gov, who is paying for such R&D in some key companies) and things like port mirroring, packet capture, triggering and so on.

you think you have the 'docs' to the equipment in your data comm room? are you sure? in fact, its all closed-source and there's very little you can do about it ;(

and in fact, most people IN the comms equiment vendor don't even know about this behind-the-scenes stuff.

I'm not kidding and I'm not nuts. this isn't hard to extrapolate given how our gov is SO hell-bent on spying on its own citizens.

at this point, you do pretty much have to assume that all things you do on the net (this included) are being sniffed and if it 'hits' the right triggers, remote events can be sent or log data retrieved at will.

its basically already too late. the horses are already out of the barn. just - BE AWARE of that fact. its all you can do. just be aware.

Re:Legal, not moral

[Brandybuck]

I heard all these same arguments twenty five years ago. It was Reagon instead of Bush, and the Greed Generation instead of the Sheeple Generation, but it was otherwise identical. Funny thing, the dire future never happened.

The myth is that big business rules over us. The truth is that the only dollars they get from you are the ones you voluntarily give them. Your "soul" is in your hands. No one can take it from you without your consent. If you buy a 42" plasma TV, it is your fault. Stop blaming business for the shit you buy.

Re:Legal, not moral

[cbiltcliffe]

They do have good understanding of wallet vote, though.

Yes. Unfortunately, consumers don't.

Re:Legal, not moral

[mr_mischief]

They get money off of all customers, including those who pay cash. The customer-to-store-to-CC company route is indirect. If you're not paying interest or a carrying fee, then you're a number the credit card company can sell to the vendor along with all the other numbers.

The direct money in this scenario is actually from the vendor you buy from, and is not passed on to the credit card buyer directly, but spread out among all customers of the business equally or absorbed as a cost of doing business. This is because the merchant agreement one must make to accept credit cards as payment require that credit card customers not pay a surcharge.

The vendor pays the CC company or the processing company a percentage of CC purchases (plus usually a small flat fee per transaction and a monthly fee for having the service, and sometimes an equipment rental). Since they can't charge a surcharge for CC purchases, all the customers of the vendor pay a little bit more than they would otherwise.

Mission Creep

[xZoomerZx]

1. Never underestimate the ability of a law to expand beyond it original ill-conceived boundaries given enough time. 2. States' rights have been non-existent for over 140 years, not just the last few. 3. Politics is about the accumulation of power in the hands of a few. 4. Read the sig. 5. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

Re:Legal, not moral

[TheVelvetFlamebait]

I have a theory: Slashdotters' opinions are often not at all representative of the majority, so consequently, they often believe that the system, designed to benefit the majority, is completely broken because nothing they want ever happens. This situation is a good example. People who make the parent's case usually believe at least one of these two things:

a) The wants of consumers do not filter through to these corporations, and that boycotting will make no difference, or
b) These consumers don't actually know what they want, that they are blinded by corporate advertising saying they are happy when they really aren't, and that they (the person making the argument) know what these people want more than they themselves do.

It is a fact that most (if not all) corporations exist solely for the purpose of making money, and if you starve them of that, they will sit up and notice. I don't subscribe to the idea that I know what is best for other people, or that other people don't know what they want. If they want no rootkits, then they will think about it. If they don't know what a rootkit is, they probably won't notice or care. If you can't get a significant enough movement up and running (it's not like you don't have the communication equipment to set up an international boycott) then you may just have to accept that people don't care about the same things as you, and that you will have to just avoid the offending products.