Who Gets To Define What Spyware Is?

from the the-user? dept

One thing that's been clear for a long time is that spyware/adware companies and consumers define spyware completely differently. Most consumers seem pissed off over one main point: this stuff gets installed secretly without them realizing what it does. In the past, adware companies would say that the real problem is the "spying" and would then claim they didn't do that. They might be changing their minds a bit. We've recently been talking about how Claria's attempt to change isn't really a change at all. All they did was get rid of pop-ups. They still install secretly in too many cases and they still are doing things on the backend that make people uncomfortable. However, in yet another article talking about the Claria makeover, it's implied that this is okay because: "nobody much minds behind-the-scenes spying." This is symptomatic of the industry thinking that they get to define what does and doesn't annoy people. The latest example? 180Solutions is suing Zone Labs for giving their software a spyware designation. This is nothing new. Other companies have sued over the spyware label in the past as well. But, what it comes down to is that it should be the user's call what they do on their computer and how they define stuff. The industry doesn't get to decide what people want on their own computers, and telling anti-spyware companies that they can't point out that many people dislike these products and don't know how they were installed just makes it seem like they have more to hide. The answer isn't to sue anti-spyware companies but to stop making software that pisses off users.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. identicon
    surgy, 18 Jan 2007 @ 8:38pm

    Ok Guys It's simple. to me at least.

    ok, well (in todays "Blackbox" type of thinking) it might be hard to tell whats necisary and whats not, what needs to be consented and what doesnt. But the simple point here is; I bought my pc under the understanding that i was buying it and that it whould become MY physicle property until the time comes when i want to get rid of it.

    With that said, i will be bold enough to say that ANY information added to my computer without my knowledge should be a crime. And me and most of the people i know whould willingly kick someones ass over putting software on there pc without there knowledge. the problem is, we dont know who is putting it there or when. just simply that its there.

    I mean this shouldnt even be a question. If you go to a body shop and have you wrecked fender fixed with a new one are they then allowed to change your radio and relign your seats?

    if you have movers come in and put in a new stove, are they allowed to change your countertops? pet your dog? take your child to the park?

    NO, if it is yours, and they dont have permission, it is your constitutional right to protect it!

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.