FTC Seeks Anti-Spyware Authority

Zyxwvut writes "The FTC is seeking more legal authority to go after spyware vendors, and Congress has passed a few bills to support them, but the Senate is ignoring them. While the FTC has prosecuted a few of the largest spyware makers, most of them fly under the radar because the FTC has to meet very stringent legal standards before they can do anything."

Comments

And we trust the FTC since?

[ealar dlanvuli]

"Essentially, the FTC wants the ability to impose fines that are not directly tied to consumer loss or company profit."

I can see this ending very well for the consumers.

WARNING: Pedantry in effect

[Red Flayer]

Congress has passed a few bills to support them, but the Senate is ignoring them

Congress contains the Senate. The House of Representatives has passed a few bills, not Congress as a whole. If Congress had passed a few bills, all that would be left would be Presidential approval.

The reason I mention this is that the House passes lots of bills that never are passed by the Senate. Sometimes the Senate will pass their own version of a bill, and send it back to the House. This is why we have a bicameral legislature -- so that one legislative body can't pass laws by itself. It's a check within a division of the federal government, and serves a useful purpose.

Re:WARNING: Pedantry in effect

[Red Flayer]

you may recall that they split of congress was a compromise between the big/little states that could not agree if the # of reps per state should be based on population or be a set number.

While the debate between how the # of reps did affect the system we ended up with, the concept of a bicameral legislature was older than that debate. England had a bicameral system in the 17th century, for example.

It was originally intended to only have one group in the legislature.

I think you might want to reread your history. There was never a unified 'intent' to have a unicameral legislature. The majority of framers understood the need for a bicameral institution, but were faced with the problem that they did not want an aristocratic house (like the British House of Lords). One fix would have been a single house, as with the NJ plan. Another fix, the one ultimately accepted, was to find another way of assigning the different houses.

What's next?

[pipatron]

Stopping spyware would be great, but if I were you ('you' as in 'citizen of the united states') I would read any proposed laws on how to stop these people very carfeully before jumping up and down of joy.

If the new laws wouldn't be outright hostile to your freedom to use the internet and your computer from the start, they might possibly be easily modified to become that in the future.

this could be worrisome...

[Dance_Dance_Karnov]

I wonder who gets to decide what is spyware? who is going to write the definition? what other powers will they decide to give themselves why they are at it?

ask yourself, when was the last time the federal government did anything which was in your best interest, and not that of big business or other moneyed powers?

Nothing But Good Press

[VengefulCynic]

While this issue has the potential to be a lot more nuanced than the article is letting on, what I really find curious is how no Senator has latched on to the idea of regulating spyware as a good thing. This issue, to my mind, is a lot like passing legislation that ruins the lives of sex offenders. Sure, you can pass laws that go way too far, but in the mind of the voting and news-watching public, if you're going after the Bad Guys, that's Always a Good Thing. I guess what I'm trying to say is, I'm really shocked that there aren't a couple of Senators (especially among those up for re-election) who haven't decided that it would be a Good Idea to get their names attached the the Law That Stops Bad Guys and run it through the Senate.

It seems to be a break-down in the fundamental egoism and show-boating that runs the Senate... almost as if they were all distracted by a massive policy black hole somewhere else that's absorbing all of their somewhat limited time. I don't know, maybe a war or something.