3 edits | reply to K McAleavey
Re: Tired of being hijacked? TELL the FTC! Hi All:
One quick followup to my previous post. There have already been a few bills introduced in Congress to address the "spyware" problem. They didn't go anywhere, but coupled with the FTC workshop, that could mean that we're at the start of a Federal discussion of the "spyware" problem, which until now has received almost no attention.
What are the potential outcomes of that process? There are three broad outcomes, so far as I can see:
1) Nothing gets done
The FTC wrings its hands over the problem but eventually agrees with the commercial crapware industry that government regulation is a bad thing; that the industry "self-regulation" is much more effective and even preferable; that consumers are being offered "choice" in the form of EULAs, commercial anti-spyware applications, browsers settings, and vendor provided uninstallers; that consumer education is all that is needed from the FTC for the "spyware" problem to solve itself. Everyone involved will give themselves a pat on the back for protecting consumer choice, respecting the beauty of the market, for committing themselves to self-regulation and consumer education, and then they will go home, having done absolutely nothing.
2) A CAN SPYWARE Act
The FTC works with the commercial crapware industry to craft legislation for Congressional adoption. This legislation will distinguish between "spyware" and "adware" by imposing a minimal set of requirements for software installation (a EULA for example). This minimal set of requirements will not stop the usual suspects from doing what they're already doing, but it will allow the industry to proclaim that their software conforms to strict government regulatory standards. It will also allow the FTC to prosecute a small number of the more unscrupulous "spyware" pushers, thus giving the larger players protection from unwanted competition.
3) Real "Spyware" Regulation
The FTC actually responds to consumer outrage (as it did with the Do Not Call legislation) and, to the horror of the commercial crapware industry, pushes Congress to adopt legislation that would place real restrictions on the abusive tactics of the commercial crapware industry.
Outcomes #1 and #2 are the preferred outcomes for the commercial crapware industry. Outcome #3 would be a disaster.
Outcome #2 does have one potential "worst case scenario" variant for those concerned with "spyware." In this variant, the FTC pushes for legislation that not only enshrines the "adware" vs. "spyware" distinction in law, but uses that distinction to give the commercial crapware industry relief from anti-spyware applications that target their programs for detection and removal. In other words, after establishing the distinction between "adware" and "spyware" and setting some minimal standards for vendors to make their applications "adware," this legislation would prohibit the unauthorized uninstallation of programs that meet the requirements for "adware." This clause would be surrounded by all kinds of language about "unauthorized" computer use (hacking), the enforcement of contracts (i.e., EULAs), and perhaps even the protection of intellectual property.
The result, though, would be a disaster for anti-spyware vendors. "Crapware" pushers would effectively be granted federal protection once they stuck a EULA of some sort in front of users. It would ILLEGAL to create or distribute software that uninstalled "adware" or that uninstalled software in contravention of the EULA that accompanied it (many EULAs now prohibit the use of 3rd party tools for uninstallation).
One last observation: if you'd like to get the flavor of what the commercial crapware industry will be serving up in Washington come April 19 (the date of the FTC's workshop), then peruse the following "ONLINE ADVERTISING 'RULES OF ENGAGEMENT'" offered up some time ago by Gator/Claria:
»www.claria.com/companyinfo/press···502.html
I might add that you need "rules of engagement" only when you've declared war on hapless enemies who have no real means of defending themselves.
Best,
Eric L. Howes |
