robct
rob
join:2004-04-09
Waterbury, CT
1 edit | that sucks!!
hope it does better!! |
|
novaflare
The Dragon Was Here
Premium
join:2002-01-24
Barberton, OH
| na gona be nearly as unenforceable as the can spam act. BUT it will open up these scum companies to lawsuits both small claims and criminal. So once modded a few times and a few nice presidents spyware companies (in the us) are gona be hurting prety bad 
Mst things like this are prety well toothless when they first get passed it just give us a chance to file against them then some judge decides in our favor sets a president and then they get lots of teeth
--
DSLR security chat at us.ausirc.net chanel #dslr_sec lets pack this channelopen source dns server for *nix and windows »powerdns.com |
|
koveman
join:2002-01-23
Phoenix, AZ
| But will anybody listen?
By the time this bill gets anywhere it may itself be a 22,000 word monster. I hope it works, but I have my doubts. Like most legal solutions to technology issues it will probably just make the offenders either move off-shore or change their tactics. Politicians are not good at hitting moving targets(Except Bill Janklow). |
|
Voyager2K2
join:2001-10-04
Wayne, PA
 ·Verizon FIOS
| Rep. Clifford Stearns?????
Source: Wired News Michael Grebb 02:00 AM Mar. 10, 2005 PT
»www.wired.com/news/politics/0,12···ophead_1
In February, Rep. Clifford Stearns (R-Florida), chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection, attached an amendment that would exempt software cookies, including third-party cookies, from the spyware definitions covered by the bill.
That amendment also exempted embedded ads on web pages from the bill's requirement that online ads (often pop-ups that appear without a site's sanction) include identifying information so consumers can find and remove the software causing them.
On Wednesday, Stearns introduced a new amendment that would create another exemption, this time for web "beacons" (HTML and JavaScript that facilitate the ordinary construction of web pages but don't monitor consumers' behavior or gather information about those users). Such code wouldn't be considered spyware under the bill's new provisions. Hmm Web Beacons?
Now where did I hear that term before?
Maybe Yahoo?
»privacy.yahoo.com/privacy/us/bea···ils.html
Now explain to me why SBC throws 8 grand at Cliff for the 2004 election as well as taken very good care of Cliff in the past.
»www.opensecrets.org/races/contri···pecial=N
SBC doesn't even a a presence in FL.
Yahoo has thrown some money at Cliff in the past.
»www.opensecrets.org/pacs/memberp···cle=2004
Hey I am not damning Cliff outright, just asking some questions. |
|
zoom314
Superman
Premium
join:2001-04-30
Yermo, CA
| reply to robct
Re: that sucks!!
said by robct  :hope it does better!! Me too! Of course that's just for those here in the USA, The ones outside are going to be tougher and may require a treaty on It.
--
Firefox forever!»mysite.verizon.net/zoom314/ |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
| a toothless load of cra...................
See, that's the biggest part of the problem, the EULA. It makes no difference if they make a law for "cyber trespass".
A GREAT DEAL of "spyware" is installed, unwittingly, by click happy users who have NO IDEA what they just clicked, much less agreed to. And there's the catch. They agreed to it. If I let somebody in my front door, willingly, they ARE NOT trespassing. They were invited.
If you get a popup, "In order to view this page, you must click yes to install update for internet explorer"........blah blah blabidy blah........."by clicking yes you agree to.........blah blah blo blah blee."
"OH! UMMMMM DUMMMMM DEEEEE DUMMMMMM uh UPDATE! OH OH, update!!!! I am supposed to do that"
Yes yes yes.......next next next.........
BANG
You are infarcted.
AND, you AGREED to install this junk, and you AGREED to let it do anything it wants to, YOU installed it! It wasn't some automated, underhanded, sneaky thing, it flat out asked, and you said YES
Now, here is where the problem lies. It does NO GOOD to pass some load of crap just to pacify public outcry. If you SAY YES, it's not trespassing, and thusly NOT AFFECTED BY THIS ACT!
NOTHING, short of user education, training, and READING, will help get past these threats. This "Act" serves no purpose other than to make the public feel as though there "government" is doing "something" about "something". It will solve nothing.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
·AT&T U-Verse
| If you think about it, this is going to be like Can-Spam
for spyware. And about as effective, too.
The law as it is being proposed, is rather weak, and I
wouldn't be surprised if the marketing lobby have their
hands in the lawmakers' pockets already.
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors.To RIAA/MPAA - You can sue but you can't catch everyone! |
|
MASantangelo
Premium
join:2004-07-19
Pittstown, NJ
| Good grief.
So what's our answer to 22,000 word EULA's and nasty business practices?
22,000+ word bills and acts in a corrupt Congress.
Fun stuff.
--
Don't Let Them Take Your Rights! |
|
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA
 ·EarthLink
·DSL EXTREME
| reply to Doctor Four
Re: a toothless load of cra...................
said by Doctor Four :If you think about it, this is going to be like Can-Spam for spyware. And about as effective, too. The law as it is being proposed, is rather weak, and I wouldn't be surprised if the marketing lobby have their hands in the lawmakers' pockets already. or down their pants
--
BlooMe |
|
Taranis
join:2001-12-06
Mount Vernon, WA | reply to owenhome
Damn good post Owenhome... |
|
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs: | reply to Voyager2K2
Re: Rep. Clifford Stearns?????
Sounds logical--cookies and so-called "web beacons" are not spyware nor are they harmful in any way. Ads on webpages are also not spyware. Thus, these things do not belong in an anti-spyware bill.
Hmmmm.... |
|
sivran
Long Live The Suite
Premium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
clubs:
 ·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to owenhome
Re: a toothless load of cra...................
Ah, but if a man gains your permission to enter by false pretenses, and you then decide you want him out, he must leave or he is trespassing. 
Thus, you can agree, then change your mind, and if the junk doesn't provide a way for you to change your mind.. well, then it's trespassing.
--
TCPA - Treacherous Computing
Kerio 2.1.5 - Best damn firewall
Home licensing should be just that. |
|
SRFireside
join:2001-01-19
Houston, TX
| Who comes up with these names?!?!?
"Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act" (aka Spy Act). What kind of idiot thinking brought that one up? It's like they went, "Hey. People are complaining about spyware so I want to make a Spy Act. Hmm.... what acronym will spell out Spy Act....?" If you think about it, the whole thing is actually called the Spy Act Act.
I want that job. Give me a law you want and I can bring up a ridiculous name and make it sound feasible. Want a law banning Christmas Carolling in your neighborhood because you think the singing is lousy? Here's one:
The Listening of Outside Unwarranted Singing at Yuletide Act (Lousy Act).
How about dogs crapping on your yard? Want a law for that? here's one:
The Pet's Objectionable Objects on Property Act (Poop Act).
The possibilities are endless!!! |
|
owenhome
keeper of the magic blue smoke
Premium
join:2002-07-13
Bentonville, AR
1 edit | reply to owenhome
Re: a toothless load of cra...................
I honestly think what's going to happen is spyware will be legalized rather than banned. And the purveyors of which will hide behind this act effectively putting the federal stamp of approval on it. Add to that the false sense of security it will give people and OMG, look out.
"Spyware is illegal, this _must_ be OK."
said by sivran :Ah, but if a man gains your permission to enter by false pretenses, and you then decide you want him out, he must leave or he is trespassing. But, when you doorbell rings, do you open the door and just walk away without ever looking to see who it is you just let in? And do you instantaneously forget who it was and what they wanted? Do you look the other way and never notice as they walk out the door with your wallet, TV, VCR, and every other thing they can find? And after they're gone, and you've been looted, do you yell down the street saying "HEY, YOU GET OUT OF HERE!"?
Addressing user ignorance is the first step. All of the dotes out there will be basking in the warm glow of this act as they clink through every little box that passes in front of them.
--
Never argue with a fool, people might not know the difference. |
|
SurferGuest
@algx.net
| reply to robct
Re: that sucks!!
Just what the police state needs: More Admiralty-Maritime Rule-of-Law. I hope their prison construction plans are on schedule. They're going to need them to house all of the police state 'criminals' their police state 'laws' have created.
Simple police state equation: More Rule-of-Law = More 'crime' = More prisons.
Ain't freedom and democracy grand?  |
|
