Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics

Spyware Fines OKed By House 429

Posted by timothy from the what-about-spyware-operating-systems dept.
A user writes "The US House of Representatives passed a bill that imposes fines on the use of Spyware by a majority of 399-1. This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spyware Fines OKed By House More

Spyware Fines OKed By House

Comments Filter:

  • Please define spy agencies? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mpost4 ( 115369 ) * on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:51PM (#10447134) Homepage Journal
    How tight or loss will this definition be??? can any organization apply for it. Or will it be only for government spy agencies? How about foreign ones? The article has this line in it " The House bill approved Tuesday explicitly permits snooping software built by the FBI (news - web sites) or spy agencies secretly collecting information under a court order or other legal permissions affecting federal departments." Ok which courts? US? ones, how about if N. Kora spy agency got court orders to investigate some one in the US (ya right really like this will happen but just for the sake of the question please give me this one) will that be allowed? Now how about company X higher a company in China, that gets a general court order there to do spy ware, and lets say for further argument, lets say this chines corp gets "classified" a spy agency? Is that legal, or is the lay written that only US spy agencies? How about the spy agencies ones from our friends to the North Canada, lets say they are investigating some one that is part of organized crime there, but lives in the US? Or is this just another feel good law, like the can spam law? I would hope this does decrease spyware (but how many of these spyware organizations are just going to move off shore?) I am tired of cleaning it off of friends computers, (one reason I make it a part of my procedure, no mater what I do, I install spywareblaster)

    Put on tin foil hats now?

    • Re:Please define spy agencies? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by baximus ( 552800 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:55PM (#10447159)
      Better yet - Please define "spyware". A lot of internet users and anti-spyware companies consider browser cookies to be a form of spyware. Does this mean that I will end up having to recode all my web pages to not use cookies, in order to avoid a fine?
      • if so, then having a P3P [w3.org] file, and let the user choose to block?

      • Re:Please define spy agencies? (Score:5, Informative)

        by heli0 ( 659560 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:27PM (#10447715)
        Please define "spyware"

        Here are the criteria specified in the bill

        http://thomas.loc.gov
        H.R. 2929

        (1) Taking control of the computer by--

        (A) utilizing such computer to send unsolicited information or material from the protected computer to others;

        (B) diverting the Internet browser of the computer, or similar program of the computer used to access and navigate the Internet, away from the site the user intended to view, to one or more other Web pages, such that the user is prevented from viewing the content at the intended Web page;

        (C) accessing or using the modem, or Internet connection or service, for the computer and thereby causing damage to the computer or causing the owner or authorized user to incur unauthorized financial charges;

        (D) using the computer as part of an activity performed by a group of computers that causes damage to another computer; or

        (E) delivering advertisements that a user of the computer cannot close without turning off the computer or closing all sessions of the Internet browser for the computer.

        (2) Modifying settings related to use of the computer or to the computer's access to or use of the Internet by altering--

        (A) the Web page that appears when the owner or authorized user launches an Internet browser or similar program used to access and navigate the Internet;

        (B) the default provider used to access or search the Internet, or other existing Internet connections settings;

        (C) a list of bookmarks used by the computer to access Web pages; or

        (D) security or other settings of the computer that protect information about the owner or authorized user.

        (3) Collecting personally identifiable information through the use of a keystroke logging function or similar function.

        (4) Inducing the owner or authorized user to install a computer software component onto the computer, or preventing reasonable efforts to block the installation or execution of, or to disable, a computer software component by--

        (A) presenting the owner or authorized user with an option to decline installation of a software component such that, when the option is selected by the owner or authorized user, the installation nevertheless proceeds; or

        (B) causing a computer software component that the owner or authorized user has properly removed or disabled to automatically reinstall or reactivate on the computer.

        (5) Misrepresenting that installing a separate software component or providing log-in and password information is necessary for security or privacy reasons, or that installing a separate software component is necessary to open, view, or play a particular type of content.

        (6) Inducing the owner or authorized user to install or execute computer software by misrepresenting the identity or authority of the person or entity providing the computer software to the owner or user.

        (7) Inducing the owner or authorized user to provide personally identifiable information to another person by misrepresenting the identity or authority of the person seeking the information.

        (8) Removing, disabling, or rendering inoperative a security, anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology installed on the computer.

        (9) Installing or executing on the computer one or more additional computer software components with the intent of causing a person to use such components in a way that violates any other provision of this section.

        • Re:Please define spy agencies? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by jginspace ( 678908 ) <jginspace@nosPam.yahoo.com> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:12AM (#10447932) Homepage Journal

          Yes, this is the "Spy Act", as opposed to the "I-Spy" act (4661).

          Looking at the provisions it seems the attribution "Spyware" is more a case of hype though. The act is much wider in its scope than what a /. reader would define as spyware.

          1B,C,D,E could be paraphrased in a nanosecond by the average /. reader. Leaving the most important provision: "utilizing such computer to send unsolicited information or material from the protected computer to others".

          And yes it does contain a provision banning "Collecting personally identifiable information through the use of a keystroke logging function or similar function."

          This part, "Removing, disabling, or rendering inoperative a security, anti-spyware, or anti-virus technology installed on the computer." ...would be easy to break. I suppose the action has to be "wilful".

        • Thanks, I think I pretty much get what this bill says now. Well I guess now windows is illegal then; or did I misread that.

        • Section 1B and Verisign? (Score:4, Interesting)

          by babybird ( 791025 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:34AM (#10448016)
          Section 1B would seem to me to cover what Verisign did a while back when they were redirected unregistered domain names, or am I mistaken? Any lawyer types care to comment?
        • (2) Modifying settings related to use of the computer or to the computer's access to or use of the Internet by altering (C) a list of bookmarks used by the computer to access Web pages
          Looks to me like 2(C) at last outlaws that incredibly irritating thing Microsoft do when they patch Internet Explorer (and decide, in passing, that you must have really wanted them to add a bunch of bookmarks linking to their useless web services as well).

          Not before time.

    • Re:Please define spy agencies? (Score:5, Informative)

      by FrYGuY101 ( 770432 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:56PM (#10447161) Journal
      The House bill approved Tuesday explicitly permits snooping software built by the FBI (news - web sites) or spy agencies secretly collecting information under a court order or other legal permissions affecting federal departments." Ok which courts? US? ones, how about if N. Kora spy agency got court orders to investigate some one in the US (ya right really like this will happen but just for the sake of the question please give me this one) will that be allowed?
      This is an American law affecting American companies, american citizens, and american institutions. Set up shop outside the border and you're immune, sadly.

      • Not immune. Act has nexus in US. (Score:5, Informative)

        by Ungrounded Lightning ( 62228 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @12:55AM (#10448088) Journal
        This is an American law affecting American companies, american citizens, and american institutions. Set up shop outside the border and you're immune, sadly.

        'Fraid not.

        Installing spyware on a computer in the US (even if you do it from outside the US) is an act that has a nexus in the US (the instalation of the spyware). It's the same case as a civillian in Mexico or Canada firing across the border and killing someone in the US. So the US has NO problem in declaring that a crime has been committed in the US and going after someone outside.

        If the jurisdiction the bad guy is in also has such a law and an extradition treaty with the US he may just be shipped over here.

        Alternatively, he can be captured and brought back extrajudicially (i.e. by a bounty hunter) or grabbed while in US territorial waters, international waters, on a US-flagged ship, on a plane that touches down in a US airport, or a number of other ways. While the snatch might not be legal where he was, that will cut no ice with the courts once he's here.

        Or he can be tried in absentia and any assets the US can reached siezed.
      • Set up shop outside the border and you're immune, sadly.

        Sadly? Excuse Me?

        Ok, I'm as much against spyware as the next guy, and from what I've read this seems like a pretty good, well intentioned bill.

        But I am MUCH more opposed to having a foreign country impose its laws on me, restricting the freedoms that I possess according to my country's laws than I am to spyware.

        Please, think before you say such things, people around the world are just as opposed to having the US impose its laws on them, as you wou
    • and retake american government.

      The only loopholes are for US GOVERNMENT law enforcement agencies to wiretap you. The same thing they have been doing to telephones for decades, they will now be able to do to computers if you are suspected of a crime and a judge agrees.

      private organizations cannot do this. foreign agencies also cannot legally do this since the US signs treaties that favor our sovereignty.
    • Ok which courts? US? ones, how about if N. Kora spy agency got court orders to investigate some one in the US (ya right really like this will happen but just for the sake of the question please give me this one) will that be allowed?

      This is a pretty simple legal issue - one that deserves much less delineation than you apparently imagine.

      In this case, a "court order" would be an order by a court having jurisdiction over the area in question. In other words, you aren't going to be held accountable in Calif

  • How do I register my company as a spy agency? (Score:5, Funny)

    by 3770 ( 560838 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:53PM (#10447140) Homepage
    I'm sure that I'll get other benefits as well. Maybe I can get search warrants for my former girlfriends new boyfriend.

    It is worth looking into.

    • Hummm (Score:2)

      by Klar ( 522420 ) *
      I guess this means that I should return the porche I just bought so I can use the money to pay fines..

  • By clicking OK... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by JorDan Clock ( 664877 ) <jordanclock@gmail.com> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:54PM (#10447143)
    Spyware isn't as secretive as they seem to think it was. Much of it is installed with full knowledge of it's existance, but many people ignore the functions of what they download. I really doubt this will do anything at all because people will keep downloading things like WeatherBug, and think that all it's doing is reporting the weather...
    • RTFA. The bill outlaws spyware that hasn't asked for the users permission to be installed or to do whatever spying it is that is done. Spyware that you elect to install will still be perfectly legal. Much of the spyware that is floating around is of the kind that is secretive. Most people that run adaware are unpleasantly surprised, and it's not because they forgot. It's becasue stuff has been installed without being asked for.

    • Re:By clicking OK... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by brxndxn ( 461473 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:31PM (#10447424)
      If I download a program called Weatherbug because it tells me that it will give me quick access to the weather, and then I find out that there were also many other stipulations in the 'user agreement' that 1% of people read, it's spyware.

      IMO, Realplayer is spyware, AOL Instant Messenger is spyware. There oughta be a crackdown on dishonest software. When Realplayer starts with all the subscription defaults as deactivated, except for the ones conveniently out of view, SPYWARE. When AOL Instant Messenger wants to put wild tangent bullshit on my computer when AIM used to be for IM'ing people, SPYWARE. Sorry, but it's dishonest programming and doesn't give people enough options for how to disable it or even realize that it's there. Weatherbug does not have anything other than small text about its spyware.

      Also, Microsoft is at fault. It's usually just one-click 'yes or no' that decides whether or not the average user has infinite spam, goes to coolwebsearch.com at default, and loses a reliable internet connection... 'Install on Demand' should be disabled by default. I once had spyware installed.. turns out I clicked 'yes' one time when I was just quickly closing popup windows.

      They ought to impose the same kinds of restrictions that credit card companies have. When I get a CC add, I can instantly sort through all the bullshit. When Capital One sends me their junk mail, I can open it up and instantly see that $79 a year credit card membership fee is a ripoff. In software, you have to read through a longwinded user agreement - often only available after the software is already downloaded and installed.

      The average user is stupid. But, it's not always only stupid users that are being deceived. The software itself lies about its purpose.

      • Re:By clicking OK... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by DarkBlackFox ( 643814 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:17PM (#10447673)
        Oftentimes the bullshit isn't in the software itself, but in the removal mechanism. If I notice a piece of software eating up my system resources, generating popups, sending an unreasonable amount of outbound traffic, first thing I want to do is head to the Add/Remove programs control panel, click "remove" and be done with it. I don't want to click Yes and No 4 times questioning why I want to uninstall, I don't want to enter randomly generated keys to uninstall, I don't want to hunt for registry keys and hidden files to manually uninstall, and I sure as hell don't want shit to reinstall upon reboot.

        Any software to the contrary is in violation of my personal space within my computer, and should be liable for whatever time or money I spend removing it from my computer. EULAs be damned, if I install an application claiming to display weather, that's all I expect it to do. If I notice 4 or 5 other applications installed along with it, whose installations weren't made obvious to me at the time of the original app's installation (no, fine print EULAs are not obvious notification), the publisher of the original application should be held liable.

        Disclaimer: I run linux at home, but work for a small computer repair shop. Roughly 90% of the jobs we do are cleaning spyware. Just today I ran into a little bugger that replaced a built in winsock DLL with it's own mangled version, where it would generate popups and install AdDestroyer and Wintools on boot if an internet connection was present (Windows 98). Yes, the registry was cleared of ALL startup entries, the system.ini was thoroughly inspected, and all startup folders were empty. Task managed showed nothing but Explorer and Systray running. Yet so long as there was an internet connection, within 10 minutes, HijackThis would report wintools and addestroyer set to run on bootup, with the respective programs present in the program files folder, despite having been deleted from safe mode command prompt only via deltree.

        I don't know about the rest of the world, but I think that's bullshit. Bullshit for me to have to clean it over and over, and bullshit for the customer to have to pay for that cleaning over and over. (while good for business, I'm morally opposed.) There should be hefty fines/prison terms/death penalties handed out to software vendors who do not provide proper uninstallation procedures, or valid contact information upon installation of their software.

  • Heh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by mfh ( 56 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:54PM (#10447146) Homepage Journal
    How would you like to be the one guy who voted no?

    • Re:Heh (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Ron Paul is one of the finest senators we have. It's worth reading why he voted 'no'. He is a man of principle and isn't scared to stand against the vast majority when something violates his principles.

      So in answer to your question, I can't say that I would like to be him, because I like being myself, but if I had to choose among which elected officials to be, he would be in my top 5, easy.

      The only defeat is when you compromise your principles. Then you are utterly defeated.

      • Re:Heh (Score:4, Interesting)

        by RancidBeef ( 412397 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:09PM (#10447635) Homepage

        Not to nit-pick, but he's a House member, not a Senator. I wish he *were* a Senator, then his voice would be a little louder...

        Go to the House web page [house.gov] sometime and look how he votes. For example, the spyware vote is here [house.gov]. Note that 32 members didn't vote. Who knows what their opinions of this were? Where they just too chicken to vote against it? Or were they too busy giving some cute intern a beef injection?

        He's one of the few (only) politicians who understands there are constitutional limits on what the federal government has jurisdiction over. Hell, even murder isn't a federal crime. (But killing someone might violate the victim's civil rights, which is a federal crime. How fubar is that???) I suppose you could claim the interstate commerce clause gives them this authority, but that part of the constitution has been abused so much in the last century...

        I just finished reading Rome Wasn't Burnt in a Day by Joe Scarborough. He was one of the 73 rookies voted into the House during the "Republican Revolution" in 1994. It's a great inside view into why the revolution ultimately failed, why the "small government" Republicans are now putting us nearly half a trillion dollars further in debt every year, and why someone like Ron Paul who tries to buck the system and vote his convictions almost never succeeds and loses favor in his own party.

  • spy agencies? (Score:5, Funny)

    by osho_gg ( 652984 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:55PM (#10447152)
    Let me guess, microsoft will be the first officially US government sanctioned spy agency?

    Osho

  • The lone hold out... (Score:4, Funny)

    by nativespeaker ( 797751 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:55PM (#10447153)
    Maybe Ron Paul(R-Texas) would like a free web toolbar that will keep his computer clock accurate and inform him of deals on vacations, Viagara, and more...
    • No, he sticks to what he believes. Read his website and see.

      While we may not agree with how he voted, it is rather nice to have a rep in DC that isn't a complete and total whore who changes their mind 50 times per second.
      • And I quote from his website:



        * Rights belong to individuals, not groups.

        * Property should be owned by people, not government.

        * All voluntary associations should be permissible -- economic and social.

        * The government's monetary role is to maintain the integrity of the monetary unit, not participate in fraud.

        * Government exists to protect liberty, not to redistribute wealth or to grant special privileges.

        * The lives and actions of people are their own responsibility, no

    • Re:The lone hold out... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Brandybuck ( 704397 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:41PM (#10447488) Homepage Journal
      Maybe Ron Paul (L-Texas) actually read the full text of the bill and understood that beneath it's geek-friendly title was a freedom-unfriendly law.

      You may think its funny to criminalize spyware, but that's the first step down a very slippery slope. Spywares are not viruses or trojans. They only get installed via user consent. A government that has the power to criminalize spyware between a consenting user and publisher has the power to criminalize [insert any consensual activity here].

      You don't outlaw mere annoyances. That's taking the power of government way too far, no matter what political stripe you are. Do we ban nose picking next? Belching at the table? Spyware may be annoying, but if it's on your system, you have only yourself to blame. If you're an admin and it's running amock on your wee 'bairns then look to your users and not to the spyware publishers.

      • in the libertarian fairy forest lives a... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gad_zuki! ( 70830 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:11AM (#10448340)
        >They only get installed via user consent.

        No.

        I spent a couple of years working with laywers and asked them to decode a couple of these spyware EULAs. They really couldn't. The language is purposely bad and misleading and written in a way to play down any privacy violations. If people knew what they were getting into they wouldnt install this stuff.

        Spyware by its nature already is illegal in many jurisdictions.

        Some "installers" are really just browser exploits.

        >You don't outlaw mere annoyances.

        Yes you can. At 3am my neighbor can't blast his stereo and keep me up all night. Its illegal to leave dog poop on the street. etc. I live in the real world not in the libertarian magical fairy forest.

        Lastly, Ron Paul is richer than you and me and can easily pay someone to clean out his PC every so often. This is not an option for most users. It should be self-evident that "libertarianism" is just a fancy way to say "classism" as those with wealth can get goods, services, peace and quiet, etc that others should have access to.

        See also: the cronyistic Ownership Society [everythingisnt.com]

  • Rep. Ron Paul and why he voted against it. (Score:5, Informative)

    by DAldredge ( 2353 ) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:55PM (#10447154) Journal
    They reason why Rep. Ron Paul voted against it is that he really sticks to what he believes, and one of the things he believes is that the goverment should stay out of transactions between private citizens.

    I am not one way or another if I think he voted correctly on this or any issue in the past, but you have to admire one of the few people in DC that doesn't sell out what they believe.

  • Nice (Score:2, Interesting)

    by XsynackX ( 775111 )
    The House proposal, known as the "Spy Act," adds civil penalties over what has emerged as an extraordinary frustration for Internet users, whose infected computers often turn sluggish and perform unexpectedly

    Nice, but when are they gonna do the same thing for straight up ad-ware? Ad-ware has many virus like qualities and totally screw up your windows box, but if it isn't spyware then this bill won't touch it from what I can tell.

    Barton acknowledged that experts had recently found more than 60 varieties

  • Great but... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:55PM (#10447158)
    These companies like Claria (Gator) will just hire lawyers to make sure the agreement you click yes to will protect them from any legal action. I would love to see these companies put out of business, but the bottom line is people agree to installing this software. It sucks for me to remove it from my friends' computers, but that's just the way it is. No matter how much I convince them not to install free windows software or use firefox, they won't change their habits any time soon.

    Still, it's a step in the "right direction."

    • Re:Great but... (Score:2, Insightful)

      by shubert1966 ( 739403 )
      Totally. This is user error.

      This bill, and others like it, are just kneejerk reactions to a perceived threat. The real problem is to O/S vendor and the user. Microsoft has tied so many spaghetti-code platforms together that most users have no idea of what they are getting into simply by using the internet. There's a substantial learning curve to overcome for most people, and frankly, most people just click "I agree".

      Many of us realize the importance of ghosting a new system once software is installed and

    • Re:Great but... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by mikefe ( 98074 )
      Then charge your friends to fix thier computers.

      It's surprising how much more respect you get from people if you charge them money for your services.

      Then you either make money or they do something (not clicking I agree, start using firefox or etc) that will help prevent them from having the problem in the future.

  • Fascism? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by essence ( 812715 )
    So the state reserves the right to spy, but nobody else can do it. How is this gonna fit in with anti-terrorism laws I wonder?

    Also, I wonder how close corps like the RIAA really are with the FBI, CIA etc. I wouldn't be surprised if favours are done...
    • So I should be able to legally spy on you? One of the last things a society needs is to be protecting perverted Eddie spying on his neighbor's kids.

  • fine with me (Score:4, Interesting)

    by moosesocks ( 264553 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:56PM (#10447165) Homepage
    the FBI exemption is fine by me as long as my 4th ammendment rights remain in place.

    because if they have the right to spy on your computer, they also have the right to break down your door and arrest you.

    and plus, I don't think that FBI spyware will be infectious or anywhere nearly as intrusive as the spyware most windows users see.

    of course, this all doesn't effect me since I use a mac.

    I could also avert the whole FBI thing by switching to BeOS or some other obscure platform which the spy thing hasn't been ported to.

    really, all I think this is going to do is help catch scammers, spammers, virus writers, and script kiddies.

    the ends are worth the means.

  • Spy Agencies (Score:4, Funny)

    by ravenspear ( 756059 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:56PM (#10447168)
    This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.

    Because after all, the US Gov must reserve every right to monitor everything about it's citizens. With all those terrorists running around we can't afford to have ANY activity go unnoticed.

    • Re:Spy Agencies (Score:3, Insightful)

      by DAldredge ( 2353 )
      Then explain why our borders are almost unprotected? We have much more advanced tech monitoring the afg/pak border than we do monitoring the US borders.

      It ain't about the terrorists, it is about controling US citizens.

      • Re:Spy Agencies (Score:3, Informative)

        by TykeClone ( 668449 )
        Then explain why our borders are almost unprotected? We have much more advanced tech monitoring the afg/pak border than we do monitoring the US borders.

        Both the Democrat and Republican parties are going after the "illegal alien vote" and are not willing to close off the southern border. Our northern border is with Canada, and (as Southpark says) if we need a scapegoat we can always "Blame Canada"

    • Who can only do it with a court order, just like a phone tap.

      Your paranoia is kind of funny though.
  • This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.

    It looks like the both major parties still have ways to go in improving the citizens' privacy.

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:58PM (#10447180)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • " The House voted 399-1 to approve the bill. Rep. Ron Paul (news, bio, voting record), R-Texas, who often votes against spending measures, cast the lone dissenting vote Tuesday."

    basically he's the old guy on the simpsons who yells out 'neh' after it's all done.

  • Let em rot (Score:3, Insightful)

    by afidel ( 530433 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @09:59PM (#10447187)
    I'm more interested in the criminal provisions which are hopefully coming later this week. Taking away all the ill gotten money is just a nice bonus in my book, hopefully keeps anyone from thinking its a legitimate revenue stream. That and it should be easier to use against corporations which are generally very difficult to press criminal charges against.

  • 399 - 1? (Score:5, Funny)

    by Twintop ( 579924 ) <david@twintop-tahoe.com> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:00PM (#10447197) Homepage Journal
    Well, I take it that one really enjoys his Gator to handle personal information and CoolWebSearch to find his pr0n. Maybe he thinks Intelimail does a better job of sorting his e-mail and Comet Cursor just looks pretty.
    • I know you are joking but I don't think that Gator will be affected by this since they usually state what it does in the license agreement. Which passes the test below.

      It requires that consumers explicitly choose to install such software and agree to the information being collected.

  • Definition of spyware ? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SuneSpeg ( 662034 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:01PM (#10447204) Homepage
    I wonder what the exact definition of spyware is according to that bill ?

    Theoretically the cookie set by /. when you read this is spyware, while the gator and 30 browserhijacks/toolbars/etc you volunteerly installed and accepted thru a 30 pages long eula isnt ?

    Not to mention various pieces of software that installs on windows machines when you try play a regular audio CD..

    Its imho a good thing to ban spyware, but im just really unsure what to ban..

  • Text of the Bill (Score:3, Informative)

    by discordja ( 612393 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:06PM (#10447242)
    Lifted out the definitions within the bill for those questioning. For the full bill follow this link. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./tem p/~c108Rz52yN:: (3) SPYWARE PROGRAM- The term `spyware program' means any computer program or software that can be used to transmit from a computer, or that has the capability of so transmitting, by means of the Internet and without any action on the part of the user of the computer to initiate such transmission, information regarding the user of the computer, regarding the use of the computer, or that is stored on the computer. In issuing regulations to carry out this paragraph, the Commission shall distinguish spyware programs from other commonly used computer programs used to share information among computers in an organized network of computers. (4) PAGE- The term `page' means, with respect to the World Wide Web, a location that has a single Uniform Resource Locator or other single location with respect to the Internet, as the Commission may prescribe. (5) PERSONALLY IDENTIFIABLE INFORMATION- The term `personally identifiable information' does not include any record of aggregate data that does not identify particular persons, particular computers, particular users of computers, or particular email addresses or other locations of computers with respect to the Internet.
  • This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.

    What's the proposal? That it include the FBI? The fines, I assume, would be available to the US budget, a part of which Congress itself allots to the FBI and "spy agencies". All that would do is slowly leech money out of the FBI budget and into the rest of the US budget - or at best, keep that money circulating and practically lost.

    What should be done is mark the alloted money in the budget as not for spying, if you're trying to prevent

  • Just goes to show... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Viceice ( 462967 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:07PM (#10447248)
    Barton acknowledged that experts had recently found more than 60 varieties of spyware installed on the panel's own computers. He said all the spyware programs had been installed without the permission of computer users.


    The committee's ranking Democrat, Rep. Jan Schakowsky of Illinois, called the proposal approved Tuesday "a bill whose time has come."

    "People are increasingly finding their home pages have been changed or their computers are sluggish," she said. "Their computers are no longer their own, and they can't figure out why."


    Just goes to show that if the low life spammers annoy the correct people enough (i.e congress), they will sunndely find themselves being 'The winner of this hours lucky draw of a free trip to' prison.

  • Get The Facts Straight (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pave Low ( 566880 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:09PM (#10447256) Journal

    This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.

    You left this out from the article:
    The House bill approved Tuesday explicitly permits snooping software built by the FBI (news - web sites) or spy agencies secretly collecting information under a court order or other legal permissions affecting federal departments. There excluded when they have a court order, issued by a judge for cause. They can't just do it willy nilly for kicks.

    You know, cops can also run red lights and speed when they're chasing suspects too. On no! abuse of power!! Sheesh.

  • Payable to: (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Romancer ( 19668 ) <romancerNO@SPAMdeathsdoor.com> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:15PM (#10447309) Journal
    As long as the fines are payable to the person who had to deal with them and remove them then I'm fine.

  • Oh, Great! (Score:4, Funny)

    by crucini ( 98210 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:22PM (#10447358)
    This bill excludes programs used by the FBI or spy agencies, though.

    Now I can expect popups saying, "Have you considered a carreer in Homeland Security?" And that familiar "Winners don't use drugs" screen from 80's arcade games.

  • So maybe we should have a special name for the (Score:3, Funny)

    by multiplexo ( 27356 ) * on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:34PM (#10447444) Journal
    federally installed spyware that our homeland security overlords will be installing. We can call it "fedware".

  • Interesting questions (Score:3, Interesting)

    by dmoore ( 2449 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:35PM (#10447452)
    Some interesting questions come out of this:

    1. Do corporations who install spyware on employees computers now face penalties? (unless of course the employee signed something consenting to the spying)

    2. If I were to run a packet sniffer on a network, does that count as "spyware"?

  • Spy Agencies... (Score:3, Funny)

    by Uncle Gropey ( 542219 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @10:38PM (#10447472) Journal
    ...use spy ware? Huh?

  • Accountability (Score:3, Funny)

    by manitoulinnerd ( 750941 ) <joelNO@SPAMbrunetti.xyz> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:11PM (#10447645)
    That is what it all boils down to. I have accepted that as a computer user, hell even a citizen of todays culture, there are people out there that are eager to abuse and take advantage of me.

    My computer is just one of the many ways they can do so. Many users have not come to terms with this. Vigilance is now part of computing and the internet.

    The one guy that voted against the others has the right idea. The internet is bigger then America. The recent attempts by the American Government to control this beast are not only offensive to me as a Canadian but also stupid as it is easy for the makers of this software to simply move their operation.

    Though I would love a flashing screen that says "Kazaa is installing spyware on your system" I don't see it a a viable option. Users need to be aware and accountable of their actions.

    Computers as well as many things have been over-simplified and as a result we are now seeing these problems.

    • Re:Accountability (Score:3, Interesting)

      by jmulvey ( 233344 )
      Give it a rest, man. First you find the bill offensive..("The recent attempts by the American Government to control this beast are not only offensive to me as a Canadian but also stupid as it is easy for the makers of this software to simply move their operation.") and then you'd admire it..("Though I would love a flashing screen that says, Kazaa is installing spyware on your system, I don't see it a a viable option")

      If you are, as a Canadian, truly offended by the bill (as you say you are), then its time

  • Get your worms the MSN way! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by heybo ( 667563 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:25PM (#10447709) Homepage
    Funny how this story came up on a day like today.

    Today I got a call from one of our clients we take care of about spyware problems. Now they have all the latest and greatest in cleaning tools. They all are net savy and don't click every box that pops up. Well some got so bad today they wouldn't function. The woman's in charge was the worst and I know this lady does know how not to screw things up and she was swearing up and down. "I haven't done anything!"

    Well 4 hours later for 2 people we get everything cleaned back up. I set the "Tea Timer" on Spybot S&D and set it to show a prompt when it hit something. (setting the prompt is something I have never done before). I fire up IE and the home page is msn.com and BANG "Cannot download file AvenueA, Inc". FROM MSN!!!! Yes folks trying to download in the background from an ad image. Coming from machine name view.atdmt.com and it hiding behind the image trying to sell you msn broadband service!!!

    They call this "Trusted Computing"?

    Yes friends not only will MS sell you a holey OS but then we will pirate it from you using their own exploits in their browser!

    I called MS and of course it wasn't us. (even offer to send them the logs and the captures from the network, but I don't know what I am talking about...) After 3 hours I talked with a supervisor that "acted" like he cared. Well log files don't lie and neither do I.

    No this is no joke. I wish it was. At least the problem is solved for our client. We blocked msn at the firewall

    A point about this I'm not really a M$ basher hell I've made my living on NT since 3.51. True I perfer Linux but have always siad that M$ was ok and you could TRUST them. Well that ended that today. As I said I don't lie especially to people who are paying me and putting their trust in me so the next time I am asked "Can you trust Microsoft?" the answer will be NO!

    • Well 4 hours later for 2 people we get everything cleaned back up. I set the "Tea Timer" on Spybot S&D and set it to show a prompt when it hit something. (setting the prompt is something I have never done before). I fire up IE and the home page is msn.com and BANG "Cannot download file AvenueA, Inc". FROM MSN!!!! Yes folks trying to download in the background from an ad image. Coming from machine name view.atdmt.com and it hiding behind the image trying to sell you msn broadband service!!!

      I guess you

    • Mod Parent Down (Score:5, Informative)

      by MrNonchalant ( 767683 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @05:14AM (#10448843)
      Dude, it was a cookie. I've gotten plenty of Spybot warnings about Avenue A as well and every last one of them have been about cookies. What you're seeing is a third party advertiser attempt to set a cookie from their ad in order to track you. I think I'm not alone in saying that I'd prefer not to be tracked, but wouldn't call it Spyware and wouldn't blame Microsoft one bit for allowing a cookie to be set.

  • Cool! Spyware Fines. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Orion Blastar ( 457579 ) <orionblastar@@@gmail...com> on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:27PM (#10447721) Homepage Journal
    If I work for an employer and they monitor me via Spyware, they can be fined!

    If I browse an Internet ad that installs Spyware, the host of that ad can be fined for infecting my system.

  • A bill is not a law. (Score:3, Informative)

    by Leebert ( 1694 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:28PM (#10447724)
    So will it make it past the Senate and the White House?

  • "spy agencies", defines (Score:5, Informative)

    by jmulvey ( 233344 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:29PM (#10447727)
    The poster takes a lot of liberties with the defintion of "spy agencies". Here's the limitations, according to the current version of the Bill:

    SEC. 5. LIMITATIONS.

    (a) Law Enforcement Authority- Sections 2 and 3 of this Act shall not apply to--

    (1) any act taken by a law enforcement agent in the performance of official duties; or

    (2) the transmission or execution of an information collection program in compliance with a law enforcement, investigatory, national security, or regulatory agency or department of the United States in response to a request or demand made under authority granted to that agency or department, including a warrant issued under the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, an equivalent State warrant, a court order, or other lawful process.

    (b) Exception Relating to Network Security- Nothing in this Act shall apply to any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or other network connection or service by a telecommunications carrier, cable operator, or provider of information service or interactive computer service for network security purposes, diagnostics or repair in connection with a network or service, or detection or prevention of fraudulent activities in connection with a service or user agreement.

    (c) Good Samaritan Protection- No provider of computer software or of interactive computer service may be held liable under this Act on account of any action voluntarily taken, or service provided, in good faith to remove or disable a program used to violate section 2 or 3 that is installed on a computer of a customer of such provider, if such provider notifies the customer and obtains the consent of the customer before undertaking such action or providing such service.

  • All Windows needs to put an end to spyware. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Another AC ( 151302 ) on Tuesday October 05, 2004 @11:44PM (#10447793)
    I just spent a while this weekend trying to remove dozens of these things from my parents' laptop and I decided the main problem are three things in windows:

    1. IE shouldn't be "customizable" by other apps at all, period. Any extra browser bars added on should be able to be seen and removed (permanently) just by going to the "View > Toolbar" menu.

    2. There should be one easy way to see for sure what programs are running at startup and decide if you want them to or not. It'd be nice if you didn't have anything in your "startup" folder if nothing started up when windows booted! Somehow, that's not the case. Being able just to stop these things from auto-starting when you do get one would be 99% of cure.

    3. Every application should be able to be fully uninstalled from the "add/remove programs" area.

    If these three things just worked, spyware would soon be a dim memory of the early 2000s!

  • Users' Responsibility (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Simon G Best ( 819178 ) on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @01:04AM (#10448117)

    People want to enjoy the benefits of using computers, but don't want to be responsible for what they do with them.

    A computer, after all, is a tool that we use. What it does it does on our behalf. It only does what we tell it to.

    If I choose to buy a computer with spyware, or whatever, on it, I am choosing to buy a computer with that software on it. If I choose to install a piece of software, I am choosing to install that piece of software. If I choose to make these choices without finding out what these pieces of software actually do, I am making that choice, and am responsible for the consequences.

    But hang on. One of the wonderful things about computers, about software, is that we don't need to read the software in order to use it. The computers do that on our behalf. One of the most wonderful things about software is how we can use it without finding out every single thing that it does.

    On the one hand, I am responsible for what I have my computer do, I am responsible for what I allow my computer to do. But on the other, one of the greatest benefits - if not the greatest benefit - of software is that I don't need to find out everything about what it actually does in order to use it.

    Open Source is itself a solution to this problem. It's really just peer review. It's open, it's transparent, it's democratic, and it works. By choosing open-source software, and by choosing the right open-source software, I am choosing software that has been, and continues to be, thoroughly and publicly peer-reviewed. If I'm not sufficiently satisfied, I can still examine the source code myself, or hire someone to examine it for me. Wonderful!

    The point of this is that it is possible to reconcile taking responsibility for software choices with the benefit of being able to use software without having to read all the way through it. This means that there is no excuse for using software, or allowing computers to do 'unintended' things, without taking responsibility for that.

    But many users now seem so steeped in a culture of 'blame the computer', 'blame the software providers', and so on, that re-education is what's really required. Of course, it's more than understandable that so many computer users have ended up with this 'I'm not responsible!' attitude - how can they be when the only software available is effectively secret? How can users be responsible for what the software does when they can only go by what the providers of that software tell them?

    If I have a choice between a piece of open-source software, and a similar piece of closed-source software, and I choose the closed-source software, I am choosing to use that software even if it does other stuff that I don't even know about. I would have to take responsibility for that, as I could have chosen the open-source, peer-reviewed software instead.

    But if there isn't an open-source option available - what then? How are users supposed to know whether or not a piece of software they need isn't going to do something they'd never agree to? Users need to demand open, independently-verifiable software. But for that to happen, users first need to be educated.

    The new law in the US is the wrong solution to an unnecessary problem. It further reinforces the idea that we are not responsible for what our computers do on our behalves. It panders to those who want to enjoy their rights, but don't want to be responsible for the consequences of how they exercise those rights. It treats computer users like children who are too young to take responsibility for their own choices.

    We need to work to liberate computer users from the shackles of misconception.

  • Microsoft & Google are finable (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Agret ( 752467 ) <alias.zero2097@g ... inus threevowels> on Wednesday October 06, 2004 @02:59AM (#10448475) Homepage Journal
    (2) Modifying settings related to use of the computer or to the computer's access to or use of the Internet by altering-- (A) the Web page that appears when the owner or authorized user launches an Internet browser or similar program used to access and navigate the Internet; (B) the default provider used to access or search the Internet, or other existing Internet connections settings; Section 2A Microsoft are chargable as MSN Messenger ask you if you want to set your homepage to MSN Today (Box ticked by default) Section 2B Google Labs are chargable beacuse the Google Toolbar asks you if you want to set your search page to Google (Box unticked by default)

Slashdot Top Deals

"The great question... which I have not been able to answer... is, `What does woman want?'" -- Sigmund Freud

Close