FTC Won't Act on SpywareUrges spy/adware industry 'self regulation' ( old news - 09:26AM Tuesday Apr 20 2004) One of our users was in attendance at the FTC spyware conference yesterday, and gives his impressions of the event in our Security forum. Apparently the consensus is there will be no new laws to help combat spyware anytime soon, the FTC chief supporting the concept of "industry self-regulation" when it comes to intrusive spyware. The e-marketing industry would be responsible for creating their own "best practices" standards and policing their own actions. As we mentioned previously, marketers of spyware, adware, and other intrusive applications have been scurrying to try and defend their products while lobbying lawmakers to prevent future anti-spyware legislation. The one state that has passed tough anti-spyware legislation was recently sued by WhenU marketing.
|
 
Nam Vet
Premium
join:2001-12-03
Allentown, PA | YEA ,SELF REGULATION WORKS GREAT another dog and pony show in DC. | |
|  | mdupont
Premium
join:2004-04-20
Varennes, QC
| Re: YEA ,SELF REGULATION WORKS GREAT I do computer service and spyware are causing more and more problems with systems. They are getting worse every day!
Last system i repaired had 28 diffrent spyware prog!
It took 5 utils to clear it!
Look for Norton Spyware remover 2004 on your local store
shelves soon! (the last line was a joke... or was it?) | |
| | 
Slidetbone
Mazin Go
Premium
join:2002-11-10
Land O Lakes, FL
| Wait until it happens to their PC's and find out that their info got splattered somewhere on the net and also try to figure out why they are getting IQ tests, porn pop-ups and their hijacked browsers open up to iamahorsesbutt.com.
Anything for money, potential votes and for those that lobby for them for all the wrong reasons! | |
| | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA | Hey, it worked for telemarketing, right?
(In case anyone's wondering, I'm being sarcastic.) | |
| | | Beeper
Part Of The Problem
join:2001-09-27
Dayton, OH
clubs:
| Re: When will they get it? said by PhoenixDown  :
When will these companies and politicians start to understand that we don't want malicious and obtrusive programs installed without our knowledge on our PC's nor do we want our privacy violated.
1)When they get handwritten letters and phone calls to their local offices.
2)When an incumbent loses.
Neither one is likely.
--
Guaranteed Fear and Loathing. Abandon all hope. Prepare for the Weirdness. Get familiar with Cannibalism. | |
| | 
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
 ·Cox HSI
 ·AT&T Southwest
| said by PhoenixDown :
When will these companies and politicians start to understand that we don't want malicious and obtrusive programs installed without our knowledge on our PC's nor do we want our privacy violated.
I think they know that. It's just for whatever reasons, they *want* to be able to install malicious and obtrusive programs without our knowledge on our PC's in order to steal and learn our private information and make sure we dont have any *privacy*. Whether it be for greed or for power, whichever one, they want it.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| 
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Regulation isn't the answer As bad as spyware is, regulation isn't the answer. Software is a form of speech and it's protected by the 1st amendment. Perhaps the ACT of installing spyware deceptively should be illegal, but the mere existence of software that may be undesirable should never be banned. Also, why can't truly deceptive spyware be prosecuted under existing fraud laws? I realize this sets the bar pretty high for prosecution, but there really should be actual damages demonstrated before we go about fining and locking up people for writing certain types of software. Fraud laws are sufficient for dealing with truly bad spyware.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| | blah1
join:2002-03-04
Lake Charles, LA
| That is a bunch of horsecrap If someone is writing a program that is specifically designed to enter my computer without my knowledge and either take over my resources or report information that I do not want reported, then that it tantamount to breaking and entering, and that is NOT free speech. | |
| | |
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Re: That is a bunch of horsecrap Just as copyright infringement isn't "stealing," distributing spyware isn't "breaking and entering" either. You have no legal right to privacy, and if you accept a spyware license you should expect them to run software on your PC and report on your PC usage. As I said though, if you can demonstrate actual damages and the spyware is deceptively installed, it should be illegal.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| | | | cbs228
Geeks Of The World, Unite
join:2000-09-04
Saint Louis, MO
| Re: That is a bunch of horsecrap While it's true that users must specifically agree to a EULA with provisions that allow "ET to phone home," these provisions are very obscure and often buried in paragraphs of ridiculously long legalese.
said by The FTC:
According to the Federal Trade Commission Act and the FTC's Unfairness Policy Statement, an ad or business practice is unfair if:•it causes or is likely to cause substantial consumer injury which a consumer could not reasonably avoid; and•it is not outweighed by the benefit to consumers.
•Spyware causes actual harm. Its installation could possibly result in the theft of sensitive information, such as business trade secrets, depending on what information the program reports. It also decreases system performance and can present advertisements of questionable taste (i.e. marketing adult products to minors) on unrelated websites. Furthermore, since the average consumer is not willing to read a EULA, they are unable to discern what is going on and are thus unable to avoid it. For evidence that people do not know what is going on, see DSLR's Security forum.•Does spyware benefit consumers? While it certainly does provide a source of revenue for apps that would otherwise be distributed for a fee, the potential hazards of spyware probably outweigh this advantage. In addition, spyware can remain long after its "parent" programs have been uninstalled, which means that people continue to pay for something they do not use. Users will end up "paying" much more (consider the value of the information obtained and the ad revenues from what is presented) for spyware apps than if they purchased an equivalent application.
As such, I assert that spyware companies are engaging in deceptive business practices in violation of the FTC's Unfairness Policy. Start drafting those complaints.
--
"If you stare too long into the abyss the abyss stares back at you." -Nietzsche
GENERAL FAILURE READING ©: DRIVE
(A)bort, (R)etry, (F)rivolous Lawsuits, (B)ribe Congress? | |
| | 
EFudd
Premium
join:2001-09-08
Brownsville, OH
| Re: Regulation isn't the answer I would have to agree that regulation isn't the answer even though I do agree 100% that spyware is a menace. The virus/trojan checking programs need to start checking for these things as they are unwanted programs running on your pc just like any virus/trojan/worm.
These companies policies of simply ignoring the spy/adware when so many people hate the spy/adware is ridiculous.
--
Do you SetiAtHome | |
| | | 
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: Regulation isn't the answer I think that is a good idea.
I still believe, though, that this type of thing cannot ultimately be solved through a technical war, but can only have a political solution.
Until the government gives a clear signal that this is unacceptable behavior I don't think most virus programs will include these things, out of fear of being sued. We have already seen the tactics used against the anti-spyware sites. Suits and intimidation by business has already been used. Government refusal to confront this problem will only embolden the businesses engaging in it.
The fact that business is behind this legitimizing it will make fighting the problem much more intractable than fighting the individual cracker. | |
| | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| said by Rhobite :
Software is a form of speech and it's protected by the 1st amendment.
I suppose graffiti is protected free speech as well? | |
| | | | | | | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| Re: Regulation isn't the answer said by Rhobite :
said by TheWickerMan :
said by Rhobite :
Software is a form of speech and it's protected by the 1st amendment.
I suppose graffiti is protected free speech as well?
Of course it is, but the act of vandalizing private property is illegal. Please understand the difference.
My point exactly. My PC is my private property. They have no right to install this junk without my permission or knowledge. | |
| | | | |
Rhobite
Premium
join:2002-02-24
Cambridge, MA
clubs:
| Re: Regulation isn't the answer said by TheWickerMan :
My point exactly. My PC is my private property. They have no right to install this junk without my permission or knowledge.
Who installs it now? They do? They break into your PC and install it? That would be illegal, but merely offering it for download and informing you that it reports on your browsing isn't, and shouldn't be, illegal.
--
Jimmysquid.com - I take pictures. | |
| 
dadkins
Living on a Blu Planet
Premium,MVM
join:2003-09-26
Hercules, CA | Why... ...did I know that they weren't going to do anything? | |
| | 
Karl Bode
News Guy
join:2000-03-02 | Re: Why... Yes, isn't it shocking? | |
| | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA | My guess is that they can't afford to. Not after all the bribes campaign contributions the spyware companies gave out. | |
| 
Sysadmin
Premium,MVM
join:2000-07-07
Sacramento, CA
·Pacific Bell - SBC
| The government should stay out of it...for now. I would rather see the government fix the spam law before they mess up and give spyware the same rights they gave the spammers.
I am however, concerned about the spyware companies suing the "little guys" that are taking steps to help us get rid of this garbage on our computers. They cant afford the attorney fees to defend themselves and it could knock them out of business. I'm sure that is exactly what the spyware companies are hoping for.
--
Join Team Starfire SETI@Home
Put your unused clock cycles to work! | |
| | AquaBlaze
Premium
join:2004-02-02
Encino, CA
|  Self-Regulation My Foot
This is again akin to letting the inmates run the asylum here. Has ANYONE seen ANY effort on the part of the adware/spyware developers to make their products less stealthy/easy to uninstall?
Hell and no.
With time, the produts have just found more ways to stealth themselves from the users they leech off of, and have made themselves harder than hell to remove. (24 step WildTangent removal, anyone?) These companies have also gone after sites that are helping users regain control of their computers from their product!
Adware/Spyware companies have made no step in improving relationships with their customers/hijacked audience. In fact, it is in their best financial interest NOT to do so. | |
| 
Oleg
Bellsouth Fastaccess
Premium
join:2003-12-08
Birmingham, AL | Synclock spyware There is spyware called " synclock" that will set your system clock to the wrong time I just don't see point in this spyware | |
| |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK | Re: Synclock spyware I think it's point it to piss you off.
I think someone needs to install it on the machines at the FTC. | |
| 
Camelot One
Premium,MVM
join:2001-11-21
Austin, TX
clubs:
 ·VoicePulse
| Good, we don't need more regulation I'm glad they are going to leave it alone. I don't think government regulation in this case would do any good anyway, the government pretty much sucks when it comes to dealing with technology.
And I am sick of regulation for stupid people. Stop installing spyware if you don't want spyware, or take the time to learn what you are doing.
--
AMD 2400+M @2376mhz/ DFI Infinity II Ultra/ 2x 512Mb Kingston HyperX PC3500/ WD 120Gb on serial/ Gainward GF4 4600/ Enermax 465P-VE/Custom water cooler | |
| |
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
edit:
April 20th, @04:57PM
| Re: Good, we don't need more regulation The Voice of the Clueless barks forth.
"Let them Eat Spyware!"
Actually, that's a bit harsh. I understand what you are saying, however, much spyware these says installs itself illegally without any notice or acceptance from the owner, and even the ones that install as part of some package are misleading or deceptive at best. | |
| |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| You're right, it shouldn't be treated as an issue of regulation. It should be treated as a crime. When individuals engage in this behavior it is already treated as criminal. If I sucker you into installing trojan code on your machine by connecting it to a porn download, I would be treated as a criminal. If a 13 year old, with no business affiliation, was to do exactly what these companies are doing the fbi would be beating on his door and confiscating his xbox. If crackers and script kiddies were to start throwing a bit of legalese, in a pop-up, into the proceedings would their behavior suddenly become legitimate? We are talking about getting people to install code that they aren't aware is being installed by techniques of social engineering, that is trickery/deception. There really is very little distinction between this behavior and the behavior of crackers, hackers, people offering chocolate bars for passwords(after all one is offering something of value, a chocolate bar, in return.). There is only one real difference. In this case, business organizations are doing it and therefore rules don't apply. In short, the business community gets by with sleaze no individual would ever get by with.
You say why should we protect the stupid?
Very well. If being unable to adequately protect yourself from sleaze makes you stupid, and if being stupid means that others are justified in preying upon you then why should we be prosecuting crackers who break into secure business computers or government sites? Surely those sites deserve whatever they get since the people running them were stupid enough not to be able to protect them? Why should we "regulate" the behavior of individuals in the cracking community?
There is, as always, a radically different set of standards for the individual citizen. | |
| | |
Nowyn
@167.1.x.x
| Re: Good, we don't need more regulation There is stupid, then there is just not knowing.
I educated my mother on antivirus, firewalls and spyware cleaners, but she doesnt really understand outside the part that she never shuts down the firewall and that she needs to run the antivirus once a week and the spyware cleaner twice a week.
Is she stupid? No. She just has a hard time comprehending the underlying technology, she tries to learn and does what I tell her to make sure she stays clean.
Some people just are unable to pick up the technology as fast as some of us. Does it make them stupid? Negative.
I dont think they should step in, but calling this law "for stupid people" is showing complete ignorance. | |
| | | |
asdfdfdf
@xtraport.net
| Re: Good, we don't need more regulation I think you are misunderstanding my intention and I wouldn't want anyone to think I actually believe spyware victims are stupid.
I actually have no patience with the notion that people who are uninterested in the internal workings of their computers are stupid or foolish. I have been very critical of arguments that blame the user or believe that the less well informed deserve to be exploited.
I simply wanted to use the terminology of the opposing argument against itself and drive home the hypocrisy and double standards practiced.
It was an attempt to throw the other side's arguments back at them. | |
|
KrK
Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy
Premium
join:2000-01-17
Tulsa, OK
·Cox HSI
·AT&T Southwest
| "industry self regulation" So, they expect the theives, crooks, and cheats to restrain themselves?
I have this idea. How about we forget this whole War on Terror thing and just let the Terrorists know we want them to "play nice" and we'll let them "self-regulate" themselves.
Yeah, there's a good idea.
This Administration is a laughing stock.
--
"Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!) | |
| klross32148
join:2003-02-23
Jacksonville, FL | Self regulation Maybe they meant vigilante self-regulation where DoS attacks on spammers? | |
| 8744675
join:2000-10-10
Decatur, GA
| Give me what I want, and that's all! When I click a link to download and install program XYZ, I expect to download and install only Program XYZ on my computer and nothing else. I shouldn't end up with 3 additional programs installed on my computer.
The deception starts with the link for the advertised program. If they want to pass a law, it should be that the links to download the programs for installation should have a clearly visible 'What you get' description that names every application that will be installed and a description of what it does.
It is at that point where people should have the information and be able to make a decision on whether to click on the link and install, or find something else. | |
| | | |
|
|
