Kaspersky Wins Important Ruling for the Anti-Malware Industry
ABC writes "Zango sued Kaspersky Lab to force the Company to reclassify Zango's programs as nonthreatening and to prevent Kaspersky Lab's security software from blocking Zango's potentially undesirable programs. In the important ruling for the anti-malware industry, Judge Coughenour of the Western District of Washington threw out Zango's lawsuit on the grounds that Kaspersky was immune from liability under the Communications Decency Act."
(but this is /. anyway)
Ok, despite the marketing bias of the article, a decision against a malware vendor is always good, mainly if you have in mind which type of user will get these crappy things (w)installed.
!sig
IANAL but I don't think it means that you ISP could block access to material at their discretion.
"No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected, or any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [such] material."
So what I take from that is that you have to want the service to block said material AND said service must be "interactive", which I assume means that you have to run it yourself and have a direct say in what it does.
Right, because everyone knows how to find the registry, everyone knows how to find how to find the registry, everyone knows how to interpret the registry, everyone knows how to kill programs running as "SYSTEM" and keep them from running again, and all malware is immediately obvious as being on your hard drive.
You're an idiot.
Apology to Ubuntu forum.