Slashdot Mirror
Safe Harbor Spells Win For Kaspersky In Malware Case Against Zango
suraj.sun writes to tell us that the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled in favor of security company Kaspersky in the recent case questioning their classification of Zango software as malware. "The court ruled that Kaspersky Lab, which classified online media company Zango's software as malware and 'protected' users from it accordingly, could not be held liable for any actions it took to manufacture and distribute the technical means to restrict Zango software's access to others, as Kaspersky Lab deemed it 'objectionable material.' 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 precedent-setting ruling for the anti-malware industry, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed a lower court ruling that Kaspersky Lab is a provider of an 'interactive computer service' as defined in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 . Part of the Communications Decency Act of 1996 states: 'No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of ... any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to [objectionable] material.'"
So I looked it up:
Zango, formerly ePIPO, 180solutions and Hotbar
Oh look, they've had four different names, because they have to keep running away from how scummy they are.
KILL IT WITH FIRE!
As long as the anti-malware gives me the choice and some basic information they can clasify Firefox as malware.
Chances are if you don't recognize the software name it was either installed by the OEM or was installed without your knowing...
Plus the open market will sort this sort of thing out. If they start clasfiy incorrectly no one will use them.
This is interesting, because you would not like any malaware/software company to dictate what the antivirus company does, but at the same time, what does that mean for other cases (not in court... yet) like the fact that Microsoft makes it hard, in vista, to read/mount any ext2 partition???
( I just read this this comment
We actually need a court precedent for deciding if adding a feature to your program is legal?
Zango and all of it's various iterations have been a plague for countless people. I'm glad the court ruled against them and i hope it sets a good example.
I'm here for the experience, not the Hyperbole.
I'm pleased with this, but I'm confused.
Wasn't the CDA shot down way back?
I certainly remember 180-Solutions for being the last straw for me ever using MSIE. Several times they got me with their creative drive-by-installs back in the day, and those were just about the only malware infections I've had in my life. They're an absolute scumbag company and I'm glad about the outcome of this.
Dr. Eugene Kaspersky, it a leader in anti-virus anti-malware technology. Why listen to Zango, they
are the GATOR of today!
Russians are better programmers than their own counterparts that try tosteal data or infect machines. The good guys rule, the Russian Mafia drools.
Here you go:
http://adservices.zango.com/
http://corporate.zango.com/ ;-))
Everything I write is lies, read between the lines.
Child molesters suing to have their name removed from the registered sex offenders databases?
Porquoi?
So it's come to this. Kaspersky has to rely on a crappy law to avoid getting in trouble. This should be simple - freedom of speech! And the scummyness or otherwise of the plaintiff (or the defendant) should not be relevant.
Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
I don't see any standard that says what, precisely, "objectionable" materials might be. If this is used only in a very limited sense, it is probably OK.
However, I suspect there might be a considerable outcry if AVG decided to make their free tool treat various BitTorrent clients as "objectionable" but their paid-for version did not. Without extremely strict well-defined guidelines for what constitutes "objectionable" this sort of thing can be used to target anything and now there is a court precedent saying you can't sue them.
Let's see, would the MPAA consider BitTorrent to be objectionable?
How about a nice web-tool for searching out and downloading child porn?
What about complete instructions for altering a cell phone to make free, untracable calls?
Should an anti-virus company be able to delete files for these sorts of things? Why not? I'm sure they are objectionable to someone.
This expands the "safe harbor" of the CDA to cover ad-blockers. Now, ISP's can offer ad removal as a service. Corporate firewalls can provide ad-blocking. This would cut web traffic way down and speed up browsing.
http://www.imdb.com/video/imdb/vi1665335321/
You should have watched the movie. Around 47 seconds in, you'll see that the little bastards are far more deadly than the big bastard ever was!!
DO NOT CRUSH OR BREAK THE BIG BASTARD!!
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
http://xkcd.com/350/
Most human behaviour can be explained in terms of identity.
Zango sues Kaspersky for interfering with their business model. This is a legitimate move on Zango's part (and yes, I know they're scum but go with me here).
Kaspersky blocked Zango in the first place for being malware. What is malware? There is software out there that installs on a computer for the purpose of using customer data to make money for the software company or some related company. However to be classed as malware it has to be either installed via deceit or be non compliant when a user is performing an uninstall.
If Zango's business practices are intended to obtain money by deceit, and the courts have just agreed to that fact via the verdict in the Zango vs Kaspersky case, then it seems that not only is Zango scum, but also practicing in ILLEGAL BUSINESS PRACTICES.
Let me just reiterate that. It is entirely plausible to think that Zango is running an illegal business and can be sued/shut down. Therefore, any company that is involved in malware activities could be operating illegally too. This win for Kaspersky could open the floodgates and rid the internet (partially) of spyware.
Am I going crazy here, or did what I just type make complete sense?
You moved your mouse. Please restart Windows for changes to take effect.
Not only are fiat waivers of liablity an unsound basis for both commerce and public policy, but the CDA, which is unconstitutional as all fuck and should have been ruled so by now, should at least not be perverted to ends for whtch it was not intended. It might have got Kaspersky off the hook here, but it's a rotten of them, or their lawyers, to shore up a shitty law with an unfortuate precedent. I can see all kinds of unintended consequences coming from this judge's decision. Probably best not elaborated upon considering how larcenous some outfits are.
IANAL, but what is Zango's claim here? Tortous interference? Only time I ever see Zango is on Conficker/SpywareProtect scareware infected machines. What contract, in other words? And let Zango explain its close association with trojans, keyloggers, spyware, etc. to a jury. And/or to a criminal grand jury. Look, if you or I did what Zango did, and caused the amount of damage they have, we'd be up on Patriot level terrorist "hacking", computer fraud and abuse, and conspiracy charges. They put on suits, contract with advertisers, and "it's for business" so it's ok?
Fucking bullshit. Kaspersky should go for a jury trial, countersue, and talk long and hard with a prosecutor about criminal charges and RICO. .
... Here it is: http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2009/06/25/07-35800.pdf
geek. lawyer.
. . . sounds like an open invitation to hot and cold running censorship straight from your ISP's tap.