Slashdot Mirror


Restraining Order On Commercial Spyware Lifted

Back in 2008, the US Federal Trade Commission filed a restraining order against CyberSpy Software, makers of a commercial spyware program that logged keystrokes, took screenshots, monitored IM conversations, and sent all the collected data back to the company's servers. Reader suraj.sun tips news that the order has now been lifted, allowing CyberSpy to sell its software, but with a few restrictions. "According to the US District Court settlement, the company must not provide users with the means to disguise the software as an innocent file or email attachment. Users must also be advised that doing so may violate US state or federal law. Additionally, all recorded information sent over the Internet must be encrypted and older legacy versions of the software must be removed from computers on which it was previously installed. ... RemoteSpy is said to employ rootkit techniques to hide from virus scanners."

5 of 97 comments (clear)

  1. Re:So Little by couchslug · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "Do the authorities care so little for the average citizen?"

    Yes. This will last a while, til things get rotten enough, then the purge-and-replace cycle begins again. It was ever thus, and so it shall be.

    --
    "This post is an artistic work of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact."
  2. Re:Use in the workplace by arth1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am assuming that the order was recinded because workplaces might want this functionality. It sucks for workplaces to do this but it's their right to install this sw on the computers they own

    Is it also their right to install cameras in toilet stalls they own?
    How about searching through cars in the parking lot they own?

    It's easy to extend your logic to the point where the company owns you, and I don't think we want to approach those times again. (Personally, I'd like to see the point where the workers own the company, not the other way around.)

  3. Re:Use in the workplace by GillyGuthrie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The name of the software company ("CyberSpy") sure seems to imply that its marketing strategy is to appeal to the obsessive stalker who needs a convenient way to spy on another person and steal their passwords, read their email, etc. I personally knew a guy that was so obsessed with his ex that he tricked her into d/l a similar spy program with very similar functionality to CyberSpy and all he did was change the filename of the install package to something a little less obvious (unicorns_with_flowers.jpg.exe was a good example).

    I agree that the most legitimate use of this software would be for employers to monitor their employees. An employer who owns the computers its employees are using has a right to install spyware without employee's knowledge... duh. They are handing out paychecks and if they don't want their employees farting around on Facebook all afternoon, it's their right to "spy" and verify that rules are not being broken.

  4. Re:Use in the workplace by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 2, Interesting

    That's a bit of a red herring. For example, a company that handles personal customer info has a duty to ensure that that information is handled properly, and closely monitoring employee's handling of that data is completely legitimate as is making sure that the employee isn't spending all day playing Farmville. This is a very poor slippery slope argument - it is NOT easy to extend that logic to to video surveillance of a bathroom stall.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  5. Re:Or on your own systems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    That is why smoke shops are so big on what you say you are going to use their glassware for.

    As someone who sold smoking accessories at one time, I can attest to this. We flat told people that these were for tobacco use only and that if they made any reference to illegal use, we would not sell to them. Ironic, but about 3% of the people were too stupid (or stoned) to understand this, thus they didn't get to buy. Otherwise, I would have been guilty of selling "drug paraphernalia" and subject to a fine or losing my business license.

    Then again, laws against marijuana are stupid to begin with, and half the cops I know would like them repealed. The only group that I am aware of that unanimously wants to keep marijuana illegal is the drug dealers, who profit greatly by selling a weed that will grow almost anywhere.