how-to block ads
|
|
Uniqs:
900 |
Share Topic
 |
 |
|
|
|
4 edits | FTC Spyware Workshop Panelists - Worries... Hi All:
As most of you probably know, the FTC's Spyware Workshop is on Monday April 19, just a few days away. The FTC has posted an agenda for that workshop on its web site:
»www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spyware/agenda.pdf
While perusing that agenda this evening, I became worried by several of the six panels that the FTC has organized and the mix of panelists it has selected for those panels. What follows is a list of the panels and panelists along with a quick rating (X - industry/corporate friendly; U - unknown/undetermined; P - privacy friendly):
said by FTC Agenda:
Agenda - Panels & Panelists
Panel One: Defining, Understanding, and Disseminating Spyware
Panelists:
X - Ed Black, President & Chief Executive Officer, Computer & Communications Industry Association
X - Mark Bohannon, General Counsel & Senior Vice President Public Policy, Software & Information Industry Association
X - Marty Lafferty, Chief Executive Officer, Distributed Computing Industry Association
X - Avi Naider, President & Chief Executive Officer, WhenU.com, Inc.
U - Ari Schwartz, Associate Director, Center for Democracy and Technology
Panel Two: Security Risks and PC Functionality
Panelists:
U - Maureen Cushman, Legal Counsel, U.S. Consumers, Dell
U - John Gilroy, Technology Contributor for The Washington Post and Co-Host of WAMU’s “The Computer Guys” program
U - Bryson Gordon, Senior Manager, Product Management Group, McAfee Security, Consumer Division
P - Austin Hill, Co-Founder and Chief Privacy Expert, Zero-Knowledge Systems
P - Roger Thompson, Vice President, Product Development, Pest Patrol
P - Michael Wood, Vice President of Sales, USA and Canada, Lavasoft
Panel Three: Privacy Risks
Panelists:
P - Ray Everett-Church, Chief Privacy Officer, TurnTide, Inc.
P - Evan Hendricks, Editor-Publisher, “Privacy Times”
P - Chris Jay Hoofnagle, Associate Director, Electronic Privacy Information Center
U - James H. Koenig, Esq., Chief Practice Co-Leader, Privacy Strategy and Compliance, PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP
X - Ronald Plesser, Esq., Piper Rudnick LLP
Panel Four: Industry Responses to Spyware – Industry Best Practices and Working
with the Government
Panelists:
X - Brian Arbogast, Corporate Vice President, Identity, Mobile and Partner Services Group, MSN and Personal Services Division, Microsoft Corporation
X - J. Trevor Hughes, Executive Director, Network Advertising Initiative
X - Chris Kelly, Chief Privacy Officer and General Counsel, Spoke Software
X - Fran Maier, Executive Director & President, TRUSTe
X - Andrew McLaughlin, Senior Policy Counsel, Google
X - Jules Polonetsky, Vice President, Integrity Assurance, AmericaOnline, Inc.
U - John Schwarz, President and Chief Operating Officer, Symantec Corp.
Panel Five: Technological Responses to Spyware
Panelists:
U - Steven Bellovin, AT&T Fellow with AT&T Labs-Research
U - Jeffrey Friedberg, Director of Windows Privacy, Microsoft
P - David Moll, President, WebRoot (maker of SpySweeper)
P - Wayne Porter, Co-Founder and Primary Editor, SpywareGuide.com (distributor of X-Cleaner)
U - Daniel Weitzner, Technology & Society Domain Leader, World Wide Web Consortium; Researcher at MIT
Panel Six: Government Responses to Spyware – Law Enforcement, Consumer
Education, and Coordinating with Industry
Panelists:
U - Jennifer Baird, Legislative Counsel, Office of Rep. Mary Bono
U - Mark Eckenwiler, Deputy Chief, Computer Crime and Intellectual Property Section, Department of Justice
U - Mary Engle, Associate Director, Division of Advertising Practices, Federal Trade Commission
U - Elizabeth Prostic, Chief Privacy Officer, U.S. Department of Commerce
P - Matthew Sarrel, Technical Director, PC Magazine
P - Stephen Urquhart, State Representative, Utah House of Representatives
Key:
X - industry/corporate friendly
U - unknown/undetermined
P - privacy friendly
Please bear in mind that my "ratings" are fairly simplistic and are based on my knowledge of the organizations, companies, and individuals represented. That knowledge or familiarity ranges from "good" to "almost nothing" in some cases. It is certainly possible that I have completely misjudged some of the panelists.
Two of those panels in particular are of concern:
** Panel 1: Defining, Understanding, and Disseminating Spyware
This is an absolutely critical issue, as almost everyone in the discussion or debate over "spyware" recognizes, and this panel is loaded to the gills with industry representatives. Four of the five panelists there will be pushing very similar lines -- namely, that the term "spyware" ought to be construed to exclude their software or ought to be defined so narrowly as to exclude almost all of the unwanted, intrusive software that consumers are complaining about. Several of the organizations represented have already gone on the record against various anti-spyware legislation at the state and federal level, and their angle of attack has almost uniformly been the definitional one.
Only one organization represented on that panel (the CDT) could even remotely be regarded as privacy friendly, and yet even the CDT is known to be industry friendly as well, having led the push for "industry self-regulation" through privacy trustmark programs like Truste and the like. Moreover, the CDT has gone on record against the recent anti-spyware legislation in the state of Utah, and its objection to the legislation was based on the "overly broad" definition of "spyware" contained in that bill.
What is especially surprising and worrisome is the fact that while one known distributor of advertising software is represented (WhenU.com), NOT A SINGLE ANTI-SPYWARE VENDOR is represented on that panel -- not Lavasoft, not Webroot, not Pest Patrol, not anyone associated with Spybot S&D, no one. This is a glaring ommission, given that the problem of "defining spyware" would almost seem to beg for comment from anti-spyware vendors that make decisions about what to target in their applications on a day-to-day basis. The panel will, apparently, simply not represent those views or provide that information.
Unfortunately, this panel is a potential disaster for consumers and web surfers, as the discussion will be dominated by those either pushing unwanted advertising software on consumers or those who are friendly to such businesses and organizations. The voices of consumers who are actually affected by this software will be difficult to hear, if indeed they ever do get a fair hearing.
Regretfully, I can't say that I'm too surprised at this turn of events, as it is precisely what I had feared would happen when the discussion turned to the issue of defining "spyware" -- see my earlier comments in these two threads:
»Tired of being hijacked? TELL the FTC!
»Telling the FTC About Spyware: A Few Tips...
See also the various news articles on my FTC Spyware Workshop page:
»www.staff.uiuc.edu/~ehowes/ftc-spyware.htm
...for a sampling of what several of the organizations have already said on the issue of defining "spyware."
I certainly hope the CDT takes a strong position, as the CDT is the only shot we have of making the views of consumers heard on this absolutely critical question.
** Panel Four: Industry Responses to Spyware – Industry Best Practices and Working with the Government
It was completely expected that the FTC would prefer "industry self-regulation" (a ridiculous concept, if you think about it) over governmental regulation and oversight. And it is entirely proper for a panel on the subject to include a number of industry representatives. But this panel is currently dominated either by those who would prefer that their companies' practices and software not be regulated to protect consumers or by organizations that have a vested interest in "industry self-regulation" (Truste). In other words, the panel is dominated by folks who have every reason to put a shiny gloss on "industry self-regulation" in order to head off governmental regulation. The panel is devoid of skeptics of the viability of "industry self-regulation."
Consumers and web surfers (i.e., actual spyware victims) are better represented on several of the other panels, but the first panel in particular spells trouble.
I certainly hope that events on Monday prove me wrong, but I had to let you know about the way things are looking to shape up.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
 sivranBack to Opera againPremium
join:2003-09-15
Arlington, TX
kudos:1 | Bad news for us bears, I guess. I hope the later panels can make up for the crap parade that the first panel looks to be. | |
 NanDogThe Pup Was Female, I'M NotPremium
join:2003-12-28
Bremerton, WA
1 edit | reply to eburger68
Man, Eric, the agenda you've listed doesn't seem too promising for good results for the end-user: those of us who spend lots of time surfing the web and who have to put up with all the spyware/malware/hijack crap that currently exists and makes our surfing an exercise in frustration!
It's too damn bad that there doesn't seem to be a place in that FTC agenda for citizen comment: remarks from folks who post their problems on the BBR board, Wilder's, Gladiator and all the other security-oriented forums who deal with this sh**! You, as all the rest of us, have seen the frustration and desperation of people who have computers which barely function due to browser-hijacks, spyware and other bugs! If only those frustrated and angry people could address this panel! Maybe you should encourage the panel participants to peruse the various computer security forums that exist for a week or two and experience and review the problems that a lot of the computing public have to deal with!
Granted, there a number of us who are pretty security-savvy and who don't have to deal with these issues. But most of the computing public wouldn't know a hosts file from a NAT router from a script blocker from a .......
So.....
Is there a way for us out here in the hinterlands to help the problem? Is there an avenue for input for us common folks?
Please let us know what we can do to help your efforts!
| |
| I think you can put Matthew Sarrel from PC Magazine in the (P) category. What I've read about him makes me think he really gets it.
I've included a link to an article below in which he's very helpful and points his readers to www.grc.com more than once. »www.pcmag.com/article2/0,4149,642999,00.asp
I'll be attending the workshop myself and will be posting a BLOG of my experiences and other information on »www.mysteryware.com
Bill Pytlovany
BillP Studios
»www.billp.com | |
| reply to NanDog
NanDog:
You asked:
said by NanDog:
So.....
Is there a way for us out here in the hinterlands to help the problem? Is there an avenue for input for us common folks?
Please let us know what we can do to help your efforts!
Well, for now, submit comments to the FTC, if you haven't already. Use the email link on this page:
»www.ftc.gov/bcp/workshops/spyware/index.htm
You can view comments already submitted here:
»www.ftc.gov/os/comments/spyware/index.html
And, of course, I posted some tips on writing and submitting comments to the FTC in this earlier thread:
»Telling the FTC About Spyware: A Few Tips...
Once I get back from the FTC workshop I'll be looking into other ways to make your voice heard. There are several anti-spyware bills in in state legislatures and in Congress. We'll have to start looking at how to communicate our concerns about "spyware" to our elected representatives so that they don't let the commercial advertising software industry alone define what constitutes "spyware." If that industry is allowed to monopolize the discussion of "spyware," you can be sure the problem not only won't get solved, it will get much, much worse.
Best,
Eric L. Howes | |
| reply to BillPStudios
Bill:
You wrote:
said by BillPStudios:
I think you can put Matthew Sarrel from PC Magazine in the (P) category. What I've read about him makes me think he really gets it.
Great. I've edited my original post and changed Mr. Sarrel's "rating" from a "U" to a "P." Perhaps others will chip in here with info about some of the rest that I've marked as "U."
Best,
ELH | |
| reply to eburger68
I vote this topic gets stickied, at least until D-Day. IMHO this is something important that we can't afford to overlook. Keep up the good work folks 
--
" Her eyes were just the end of Hell-- / All pain, / Articulate " | |
|
