Spyware

(Ed Foster's Gripe Line)---Mercifully, it appears the out-going
Congress adjourned without passing a spyware law. Unlike its work with
the Can Spam Act, at least in the spyware arena the 108th Congress did
no harm.

Unmercifully, it appears the next Congress is likely to pick up the
spyware ball right where the old Congress left it. And that means
they're going to have to deal with the very tricky issue of how adware
companies give notice to their "customers" about what is being
installed on their computers.

Self-professed adware companies like Claria/Gator, WhenU, and the even
shadier DirectRevenue claim not to be in the spyware business because
users consent to install their pop-up ad serving software installed.
Of course, that consent is based on the users supposedly having read
the adware vendor's hard-to-find, hard-to-read, hard-to-comprehend End
User License Agreement. In reality, of course, most adware
customer-victims don't even know the EULA is there, much less read it,
which is a big reason why the spyware plague has gotten out of hand.

The great danger with spyware legislation is that it can easily wind
up endorsing the EULA approach for notice and consent to adware.
That's what California's new supposed anti-spyware law does, to the
point that Claria happily endorsed it. The political problem comes
from the fact that it's not just the adware companies that get nervous
when legislators start talking about requirements for real notice and
informed consent. As we know, there are a lot of companies in the high
tech sphere that like to use the EULA fine print to hide the true
nature of the deal they're offering customers.

So will Congress do any better than California did at mandating honest
adware notice? One of the bills that was under consideration in
Congress before it adjourned at least took a step in the right
direction. It would have required adware vendors display a notice
saying: "This program will collect information about Web pages you
access and will use that information to display advertising on your
computer. Do you accept?' But while even that was much too blunt for
the tastes of the direct marketing lobby, I fear it does not quite
make what the adware folks are up to clear enough. So, just to be
helpful, allow me to propose my own version of an honest adware
notice:

"Warning: This program will display innumerable pop-up ads over
content you might wish to see. It will watch what you do on the
Internet and report that information to people of questionable
motives. It might automatically download additional software from
other parties that will also display ads and/or collect information
about you. Installing this program will thus inevitably degrade the
performance of your computer until it's a useless piece of garbage. Do
you agree, bozo?"

Well, maybe it needs works, but you get the idea. Let's just hope our
new Congress does as well.


http://weblog.infoworld.com/foster/2004/12/13.html#a192

Steve wrote:
(Ed Foster's Gripe Line)---Mercifully, it appears the out-going
Congress adjourned without passing a spyware law. Unlike its work with
the Can Spam Act, at least in the spyware arena the 108th Congress did
no harm.

Why would you expect them to do anything? This is the same congress that
passed the YOU CAN SPAM act (meaning that **** poor law they passed does
nothing to curb BUT ALLOW spammers to continue to spam).

In article ,
says...

(Ed Foster's Gripe Line)---Mercifully, it appears the out-going
Congress adjourned without passing a spyware law. Unlike its work with
the Can Spam Act, at least in the spyware arena the 108th Congress did
no harm.

snippety

Seems kind of off-topic for a Dell hardware group, but I could be
wrong.

I'll throw in my $0.02 worth. Anyone who connects their computer
to the Internet in ANY way should not do so until they've learned at
least some basics about good security habits, networking, and the
potential damage from spyware, adware, spam, and virii.

They most especially should not do so until they've installed, and
brought up to date, a solid antivirus package and, at the bare minimum,
a software firewall OTHER THAN the joke that comes in the package with
Windows X(tra)P(ain). Ideally, they should already have a properly-
configured router-based firewall in place.

In short: Connecting to the 'net is something that should only be
done with a healthy dose of paranoia. If computer owners choose to do
otherwise, and just blithely connect their unprotected systems to the
'net without doing their homework first, they deserve what they get.

Keep the peace(es).


--
Dr. Anton T. Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute.
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, ARS KC7GR,
kyrrin (a/t) bluefeathertech[d=o=t]calm -- www.bluefeathertech.com
"If Salvador Dali had owned a computer, would it have been equipped
with surreal ports?"