1 edit | reply to eburger68
Re: FTC Spyware Workshop: 1st Impressions Hi All:
Just wanted to let you know that I have seen all the responses in this thread to my original post. Unfortunately, I simply don't have time tonight to expand on my initial comments. As is the case with Dave, Rob, Paul, and the other anti-spyware folks who attended the workshop, I'm busy catching up with email and other things that piled up during my absence. I will try to post additional comments tomorrow afternoon or evening, though (and there is plenty still left to be said).
A few quick notes, though:
First, the FTC has posted still more comments (# 172-188). Of interest in this batch is a second submission from Jason Lucas of C2 Media (aka, Lop.com):
# 181: Lucas-2 (04/14/04)
»www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/···cas2.pdf
I opined in an earlier thread about C2 Media's first batch of comments:
»Lop.com Goes to the FTC
And, of course, the longest of the three documents that I submitted to the FTC is a step-by-step analysis of a C2 Media "drive-by-download":
The Anatomy of a Drive-by-Download
»www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/dbd-anatomy.htm
This second batch of comments from C2 Media is also worth a read, because Lucas frames these new comments as a reponse to the critiques of anti-spyware advocates. Although he doesn't point to my comments by name, it's pretty clear that he is in fact responding to my "drive-by-download" document, which uses a C2 Media as the central example.
I won't bother responding to the several points he makes (though I do intend to after I get some sleep). I think you'll find C2 Media's response less than convincing.
Second, I want to respond quickly to what Dave Leary had to say on the issue of new legislation/regulations:
said by Dave Leary:
In all fairness to the FTC, remember they do not create laws, Congress does.
Yes, that's quite true, but that doesn't mean that the executive branch, generally, and federal agencies, specifically, don't participate in the creation of new legislation and regulations. In fact, it's quite common for government agencies to work with members of Congress to craft new legislation to address problems and issues that fall within their regulatory purview.
At the close of the workshop I did in fact ask someone from the FTC if we could expect the FTC to work with legislators on anti-spyware legislation or even to encourage its adoption. The answer I received was a quick shake of the head and a very quiet, "No..."
If you go back and look at my earlier postings here at DSLR, that answer shouldn't surprise you at all. Indeed, my reading of this Spyware Workshop is that its main purpose was to bring industry representatives together to talk very publicly about "industry self-regulation" and thus give the industry a bit of PR leverage in their efforts to resist spyware legislation at the state and federal level.
Finally, a quick notice that I have updated my FTC Spyware Workshop page.
»www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/ftc-spyware.htm
It now includes more news articles and links to still further information and research relevant to this issue. In addition to the PC Pitstop surveys introduced at the workshop, there were several other reports from Dell, Microsoft, McAfee, and others that were presented at the workshop and which I'll be trying to track down so that you all can see some of what we saw on Monday.
Bill P of WinPatrol has been adding more material to his blog as well (including, now, photos of all six panels):
»www.mysteryware.com/blog.html
In any case, I'll be back tomorrow with more comments on several burning issues. And I anticipate that several of the other anti-spyware folks in attendance at the workshop will be posting their own impressions and reactions as well.
Best,
Eric L. Howes |
