Slashdot Mirror
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.'"
I don't see who this will be a problem.
... 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
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.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
I wonder how much longer that'll fly with the local states. See: http://www.realidrebellion.com/ in regards to another law which steps on state rights, and who's unhappy with it.
Mod me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete!
...then all spyware will be legal. COMPANIES are the ones who install spyware in the first place. It's there for ADVERTISING. Who does advertising? COMPANIES! This bill will only completely legalize spyware.
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.
You can't handle the truth.
...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.
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.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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.
liqbase
Email your..no write..no call...well hell. They don't care anyway.
Soap box, check. Ballot box, check. Anyone remember what came next? Jury box? How do we get in on that? Oh well, probably won't work. Lets skip it and go straight to the ammo box.
What can we reasonably do against a government that sits there and sells our freedoms to the highest vendor? It won't be long before we're forced to pay three easy payments of $599.99 for a new TV-doo-hickie to watch us while we're watching TV. In the name of advertisement, of course, to figure out how we react to some shows.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
Moral desensitization leads to legal deregulation. With enough exposure and promotion, the public will accept the legalization of just about anything (as history has shown). It is in the interests of large businesses to protect their market and to discover new markets by having the upper hand in intelligence.
The problem has become that legitimate and morally acceptable markets are generally well serviced and difficult to break into. Companies are therefore very tempted to create new markets, or break into markets which hitherto have been illegal (usually because they are viewed as immoral or socially destructive), such as porn, prostitution, addictive substances, and now privacy invasion.
As the only way to create these kinds of markets is to change legislation, these companies are very active in infiltrating and influencing government. The US government is particularly prone to this kind of corruption.
All of this is obvious. But the techniques used are subtle. They will try to sell the idea to make it appear to be in the public interest. Who knows, maybe we can expect to see a report of a missing child found because of spyware, or some shit like that.
Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
I think that software companies behind the Operating systems being used today should take full responsibility at prevention and removal of spyware/adware/malware. There should be no need for anti-virus software. Microsoft should stay ahead of virus writers in order to patch systems with vulnerabilities, and in a much better way then the present.
This weekend, I was given a PC that needed to have viruses, spyware, malware removed... I thought it was a joke, this thing looked like a honeypot. It had every trojan known to man on it, every piece of spyware, backdoor, and virus had infected it, and no form of security (besides Service Pack 1 for XP). After 4 days straight trying to remove them (formatting not being an option, because the person was missing their OS restore cd and/or Windows XP home edition CD) I have finally gotten all of them removed... but my point, is that none of this should have ever been possible. An operating system should be designed more intelligently than those who want to exploit those same operating systems. I'm sure if they took the same amount of time they spend trying to promote new products and put it into better R&D for patching vulnerabilities, none of this would happen... but I suppose we don't know who scratches whose back in the world of Operating system / Anti-virus vendor's anymore....
Relocating to San Francisco / Palo Alto... Hire me?
Government seems to exist now to create and enforce laws of big business self interests, by big business lobbyists, for big business ever greater appetite for exploiting and plundering shared resources and rights.
Our democracy is lost, we no longer live in a democratic political system. Just the illusion is promoted through propoganda.
Bravo Republicans, Democrats and corporate leaders. You have won at all cost and now all is lost.
The next paradigm is already begun and will be the reclaiming and exposing of the crimes against the people of the earth and the earth itself, by selfish empire builders running the world. Shamre on you and shame on us for not seeing the fundamental problem of our time.
SimBuddha.
Are you serious, or just trolling? Here are the key snippets: "or for the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities" and "an affirmative request by the owner or authorized user for an update of, addition to, or technical service for, the software".
The first part means that anyone who sold you hardware or software can snoop around on your machine if they are doing it to detect fraudulent activities - meaning when the activity hasn't happened yet! Yes, yes, you have nothing to hide. Are you sure? Your SSN is probably around somewhere. As is your bank account, or a lot of others things valuable to identity thieves.
The second parts means that anyone who ever wrote any type of software can access your machine in whatever way they please - as long as it's a discrete interaction.
This means that the security features in your OS are there only to prevent you from accessing everything in it. It is expected to remain open so that law enforcement, ISPs, software and hardware owners can check for anything they please.
In short, your computer is yours and secure only in name. Anybody else can trespass pretty much at will. If your computer is broken into and the other party says "I was just checking if anything fraudulent was going on", they're in the clear. Especially if they are a large corporation.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
So even if you have never installed, for example, Adobe software, Adobe can monitor your computer to determine if you ever run an illegal installation of Photoshop. No sunset on the monitoring; they can continually probe your machine in suspicion of piracy. That'll degrade your bandwidth. And not just Adobe will be permitted to do it, but every software vendor out there. They don't have to be your provider, just a provider.
Also "initialization" is a nebulous term. Are you sure you know how the law defines it? It could easily be phoning home with every launch, or perhaps with every forked process. A perverted vendor could treat it as initialization of any variable, constantly phoning home to make sure every thing you do does not violate their EULA.
Meanwhile, Windows Genuine Advantage has had a not insignificant number of false detections of installations as non-genuine. A little hiccup in an algorithm and they'll cripple the software. Better hope its use wasn't essential to your business. BTW, the EULA makes it clear it should never be used for any essential purpose and disclaims any liability for failure to operate.
Next, read the full text of the act for the prohibited behaviors and realize that with these exceptions it gives those entities license to do every one of them to you whenever and however often they'd like with impunity.
Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
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.)
You can't handle the truth.
Did anyone actually expect a law that limits the power of businesses and hands some back to you? Can you name a single law that was created in the last, say, 7 years that actually promotes privacy and limits the power businesses have over you?
Oh, yes, it "outlaws" spyware... with a few hand picked exceptions that can be summed up with "spyware is outlawed unless some company uses it".
In fact this legalizes spyware rather than outlawing it. Until now you could at least try to get a lawsuit going and at least get a humiliating settlement (humiliating for you, not the corp using spyware against you). See the Sony rootkit trials for details.
With this in effect, the judge would have to throw it out of court even before anything starts, because it would certainly fit the "exceptions".
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
"Never say Never."
List of sponsors: http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d110:HR009 64:@@@P
I wonder how much donations from companies these guys get.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
The exceptions are too broad.
You are being MICROattacked, from various angles, in a SOFT manner.
When it says "Nothing in this Act shall apply to", that doesn't mean "the following is legal". It means, "Nothing is in the books about the following as far as this bill is concerned".
So if an existing Federal or state law specifically mentions that a provider or software vendor may never access your computer under any circumstance, then that law will supercede this bill.
Or am I missing something?
Rick Boucher D-VA (and Slashdot darling), GK Butterfield D-NC, Lois Capps D-CA, Dianna DeGette D-CO, John Dingell D-MI, Michael Doyle D-PA, Eliot Engel D-NY, Anna Eshoo D-CA, Sam Farr D-CA, Charlie Gonzales D-TX, Bart Gordon D-TN, Gene Green D-TX, Darlene Hooley D-OR, Jay Inslee D-WA, Ed Markey D-MA, Jim Matheson D-UT, Jerry McNerney D-CA, David Price D-NC, Bobby Rush D-IL, Janice Schakowsky D-IL, Hilda Solis D-CA, Bart Stupak D-MI, Anthony Weiner D-NY
23 of 36 co-sponsors are Democrats but it is a Republican bill?
Oh, and the kicker? Author: Ed Towns D-NY
But it is a Republican bill.
You obviously looked up the bill... why lie about the sponsor and co-sponsors? Did you just assume that they were Republicans since the Democrats can do no wrong and the Republicans are evil? The fact that you were modded up here as informative is indicative of the general group think that permeates Slashdot regarding politics. Come on people, is it so hard to fact check this stuff rather than blindly accept what someone else tells you?
Don't leave your mind so open that your brain falls out. Don't close it so much that you cut off the blood.
Stand back baby, I'm a Nessus monkey with a long list of a**holes, a can 'o nmap, a fully loaded Metasploit, and I ain't afraid to use 'em.
The Russians have won. They have made the world a cesspool of distrust, greed, fear and hate.
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.
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The State does have a duty to protect its citizens...
Actually, no, it doesn't.
They'd like you to think it does. But the state's duties are things like preserving order, providing equal justice, and having a Republican form of government.
Individuals are just cannon fodder. In the mass the state MAY try to protect them in various ways, as part of preserving order or some other compelling state interest. But they have no duty to protect any particular one of them - unless they've explicitly created an extraordinary and risk for some particular one.
Don't believe it? Try suing the cops for failing to protect you against a crook - say, one you've repeatedly complained about or one you're a witness against.
(That's why it's so hard to get witnesses, especially against possible gang members, in states that restrict personal carry of guns for self-protection.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way