RSS
Twitter
Is It Possible To Outlaw Spyware?
from the might-be-difficult dept
Now that Congress is rushing around trying to outlaw spam, some are wondering if they should turn their attention to the next big annoyance online: spyware. The problem is that it's very very difficult to write a law outlawing spyware that doesn't also outlaw any number of completely legitimate applications. Right now, many spyware products are perfectly "legal", because they hide the details of what they're doing in the very very very fine print within huge, unreadable license agreements that most people agree to without even getting through the first sentence.
Reader Comments (rss)
(Flattened / Threaded)
Some Help ...
I found a nifty little program that can assist you in clearing your machine of spy ware ...
Ad Aware , available @ www.download.com has been downloaded over 22 million times. It is free for personal use. I use it on both office as well as home workstations and have had excellent results in the removal of Xupiter, Gator, Alexis & a host of other intrusive software.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
No Subject Given
and spybot s&d cleans up the messes that adaware leaves behind.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
What messes ?
How about a source for spybot ?
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: No Subject Given
Yeah, I actually use both AdAware and Spybot on my home computer. I've found that in combination, they do a pretty good job. Each one misses a few things, but the other tends to catch them.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
It's the license
The problem with the legality of spyware is that the warning flags are buried in a huge, obfuscated license agreement that nobody ever reads anyway. (This isn't just a problem with spyware, either.) So my idea is this: legally require that all new shrinkwrap or click-through licenses begin with a simple plain-English point-form abstract of 200 words or less which outlines all of the terms of the license. If they omit or obfuscate something from the abstract, that part of the license can be ruled invalid.
That way, all the dirty licensing tricks will come to light. Spyware makers will either need to say right out front that their programs do stuff behind the user's back or open themselves up to prosecution under existing laws.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Spybot links
http://security.kolla.de
http://spybot.eon.net.au/
Those ridiculous EULA's which purposely try to hide the disclosure of the spyware ought to be part of what's outlawed. The disclosure should be clear and up front.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
spybot DoD
Without actually mandating it DoD is actively encouraging sysadmins to install spybot on all their systems. A recent audit discovered a staggering number of PCs infected with Gator "we're not spyware just really good marketing" software.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Re: It's the license
The problem with the legality of spyware is that the warning flags are buried in a huge, obfuscated license agreement that nobody ever reads anyway. (This isn't just a problem with spyware, either.) So my idea is this: legally require that all new shrinkwrap or click-through licenses begin with a simple plain-English point-form abstract of 200 words or less which outlines all of the terms of the license. If they omit or obfuscate something from the abstract, that part of the license can be ruled invalid.
I agree with your analysis of the problem but not with your solution. The solution is that if the license agreement is too long or complicated to understand, people should refuse to load the software.
(reply to this comment) (link to this comment)
Add Your Comment