It's easier to just get a Mac.
Apple Founders Wozniak and Jobs receive the National Medal of Technology from President Reagan
Posted on 01/05/2005 3:58:47 PM PST by holymoly
JANUARY 05, 2005 (IDG NEWS SERVICE) - Spyware legislation that would allow fines of up to $3 million for makers of software that steals personal information from a user's computer or hijacks its browser will get a second look after the U.S. Congress failed to pass the legislation in 2004.
Rep. Mary Bono (R-Calif.) reintroduced an antispyware bill yesterday that passed the House of Representatives last year but failed in the Senate. The Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act, or SPY ACT, defines most functions performed by so-called spyware as unfair business practices subject to U.S. Federal Trade Commission fines.
Bono said in a statement that she expects the bill to sail through Congress this year. The measure passed the House in October on a 399-1 vote.
"The SPY ACT was introduced because we feel that consumers have the right to know and be protected when they are downloading software that has the ability to collect and transmit personal information," Bono said. "From its original introduction, the SPY ACT has evolved through a tremendously collaborative bipartisan effort to what we feel is strong and sound legislation. We ... are confident that this year we will see a spyware bill in the law books."
The SPY ACT would require a user's permission before software is downloaded onto a computer. It ran into objections from software vendors, who suggested that it could force them to notify users every time software scans their machines for updates. The SPY ACT also would prohibit unauthorized software from changing a browser's default home page, changing the security settings of a computer, logging keystrokes and delivering advertisements that the computer user can't close without turning the machine off or ending all sessions of the browser.
The bill Bono introduced is the same one passed by the House, except for a one-year extension in the bill's sunset clause, from December 2009 to December 2010. An earlier version of a Bono spyware bill, introduced in July 2003, sought to broadly prohibit spyware and defined it as "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."
Some software vendors, including those that market antivirus update software, objected that the definition was overly broad and could make their services subject to fines. Some technology companies continued to call the amended version of the bill too broad, but authors of the amended version attempted to address concerns that the original bill outlawed a type of technology instead of outlawing bad activities.
Some consumer and privacy advocates supported the bill, however. The Center for Democracy and Technology, a civil liberties group, supports the bill's penalties, said Ari Schwartz, the center's associate director. "It would be a lot easier to get the message out in terms of deterrence," he said
Fines are all well and good, but this should be a criminal offense with long jail sentences attached.
Until our inside the beltway CongressCritters wakeup --- or should I say, if and when --- I suggest everyone get anti- spyware and anti-adware software. Pay if you like, or go for the freebies like, Spybot S&D and Javacools SpywareBlaster and SpywareGuard.
I'd also like to see legislation that would allow defendants in criminal trial for nearly any crime short of murder to introduce evidence that the alleged victim acted, at any time following the passage of the act, as a producer of spam or spyware; and require that the jury be informed they were free to make of that whatever they saw fit.
Methinks such legislation would be a pretty strong deterrent.
The guys in the Ukrain must be shaking /sarcasm.
And I don't understand how it doesn't already qualify under existing laws against electronic fraud and tresspass.
Until its most recent incarnation, Ad-Aware was an excellent free anti-adware program. I didn't mention Ad-Aware because the newest version is not bug-free. YET! Many users have experienced significant problems, such as system/mouse freezeups and in some cases, system shutdowns.
And did Earthlink Seek permission to perform such a scan?????
Sounds good but, when it moves from a civil infraction to a criminal infraction all of the protections of criminal defendants kick in. It would require much higher standards of evidence. It would move from a preponderance of evidence to beyond a reasonable doubt. It is much harder to get a criminal conviction than a civil court case requires.
What are you trying to say here?
Why should a victim of grand-theft-auto be subjected to questioning about wether they were a spammer?
Your point is referentially opaque!
out=open LOL!!
You can keep your eye out if you wanna haha!
No problem. The civil case can still be brought by the victims, either separately or as a class action. Kind of like the victims' families making a civil claim for wrongful death against a defendant in a murder case.
It's easier to just get a Mac.
Apple Founders Wozniak and Jobs receive the National Medal of Technology from President Reagan
This is hilarious. None of the old fogies in Congress understand the Internet and how IMPOSSIBLE it is to control this. There are private sector products that protect against these things.
It is probably buried in your service agreement with Earthlink. So you give permission when you pay them $39.95/month and connect your PC(s) to THEIR service.
Isn't breaking (hacking) into a private computer or network already a criminal offense? Taken that way, new legislation is not needed - we just need for those responsible for enforcing the laws to get off their a$$es and do their damn jobs.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.