Well Boys & Girls;

There is a new piece of legislation running down the halls of congress called the Spy Act or as Jim Rapoza of EWeek calls it the "Please Spy Act". This will basically make it ok for "Corporations" to place spyware and adware on your systems. This is so that they can keep tabs on, and manage their content like movies, music, ...etc. This is another move by big business to take control of your system and access your private data. If the Spy Act was in force when Sony's rootkit was discovered they would have had every right to keep it in place.

For more info goto:

Spy Impact http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/archives/005224.php

and

Inside Info http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c110:H.R.964:

xor

Will this affect Linux (or other *BSD/*nix) systems?

I bet it won't. Guess which OS I'm going to continue browsing with...

With it's ridiculous DRM and stupid things like this spyware rubbish, Windows computers are quickly becoming the property of the Corporations.

Thank God for free software!

Lol-I doubt it. How can they force 400 open-source developers to put software on their OS's? If they do, I'm hiding my CDs....

Not to be combative, but would you point out what text/provision you're relying on to make that statement? From the second link you provided:
(emphasis added) Section 2(1)-(10)

The proposed legislation goes on further to state, in Section 3, that the owner of the computer must "opt-in" by way of notice and consent before any person (and corporations are considered "persons" under the law - artificial persons, but persons nonetheless) may transmit to or collect information from a protected computer (i.e. the consumer's)

It carves out an exception in Section 3(e) for service providers. That is, that the ISP will not be liable (or will have limited liability) for transmitting any violating software--they are just a middleman.

The EFF article you linked to also does not go so far as to give corporations the go-ahead to do what you suggest. The EFF's complaint is that the federal law trumps/overrides state law. The EFF claims some state laws allow more effective enforcement of already existing anti-"badware" than this federal statue provides. By trumping those laws, there's less effective deterrence. If their analysis is correct, then that certainly is a bad thing, but it does not mean corporations are free to do what they want.

Unfortunately, you'd lose that bet. The proliferation of online advertising and spam have a negative affect on all users of the internet. Even though it may not affect us directly, there are indirect costs to us all. Regardless of OS. It is in our own best interest to fight against things like this. To paraphrase the eff in that very interesting link up there - "Anything Zango advocates can't possibly be a good thing for internet users."

Fair point.

Consent can be given many ways; you can give and you do by using any software. Every time you select Yes I Agree when installing software; you are giving consent. So you are opting in to there rules the way they the authors want you to use there software.

xor

Ps I'm also parroting what other quote "experts" are writing about specifically EWeek; Jim Rapoza; Tech Directions; May 7 VOL. 24 NO. 16 Page 50(it's print, call me old fashioned but some people still read print, I don't have a computer in my bathroom yet ). Granted the market really decides, if enough people complain then most likely companies like Sony would then voluntary remove things like a rootkit, spyware, and or adware. However, with this Act they would be under no legal obligation to do so according to the article.

PPs. EWeek is available online at EWeek.com for the younger set who think print is a font, not a shameless plug and no affiliation just a subscriber. I get it for free so it's even better, just another trade rag. As for the other comments I have a lot of angst and distrust can't you tell from my sig . Yeah I know what you are thinking; God Damm Liberal. Well yes I am.

Well, its not like our Government breaks any amendments or anything. And there isn't even an amendment that says we can use any OS we want anyway.

(sarcasm)

I think I understand what you're getting at. It's that we're interpreting things differently. To make sure I understand, I'm going to rephrase what you said - in the context of how I think you are interpreting the legislation.

You're argument is that, when I pop a disc into my machine (or download a purchased piece of software) and choose to "install", I'm presented with a "Do you agree to the license/terms/whatever" window. If I click "Yes", then your interpretation means that I have decided to "opt-in".

That's valid, but my problem with that interpretation is that it doesn't change anything. In other words, the proposed legislation would have no purpose. Companies can do that now. They can couple other software with their product, include that the user "must" install the accompanying software as terms in their license agreement, and if the user agrees, the user is bound by those terms; that's traditional, vanilla contract law.

So I'm interpreting it as trying to change something or add something new. I see it as requiring vendors to bring notice of accompanying software and its effects to the user's attention. That is to say, the notice can still be "buried" in the license agreement, but accompanying software must be identified specifically as to its purpose as opposed to not mentioning it at all or simply stating that the accompanying software is "necessary". So my interpretation of the legislation is focusing on the misrepresentation/fraud/lack of notice. Clicking "Yes" or "I Agree" will satisfy the consent requirement here as well, but the user will know (or will have had the opportunity to know via the license) what exactly (s)he is installing.

Installing the badware without notice or consent would subject the company to liability. Sony would be liable for damages if the past repeats itself (i.e. by installing a root-kit on the computer simply by putting the CD in the drive - no notice there unless it were printed somewhere in/on the original package). At that point, provided there is effective notice, then the market comes into play. Would people pay for the CDs if they knew beforehand that extra software would be installed?

Also, I should point out for clarity that "accompanying software" would include "badware" incorporated into the purchased product itself--not just separate, distinct packages.

The fact remains that there are multiple interpretations of the legislation. Either the drafters need to refine the language or leave it up to the courts to decide what constitutes "notice" and "consent".

All this will really do (in all honesty) is flood the net with cracked software with 'bugs' removed from them. There is no way to regulate a whole country. I try telling people, but nobody believes me, NO ONE controls the net, and I don't care how many patents or laws there are, there are always people that will break them.

Technology lawyer, you sound like one just curious in a friendly way.

xor

It shows?

In fact, I've got a computer engineering undergrad degree and I'm in law school now. In two days, I'll be three semesters (or 34 credit hours) away from graduating and taking the bar exam.

I'll be going into anything technology-related I can find--haven't made up my mind yet.

So I try to "cut my teeth" so to speak by analyzing things like this that pop up.

Like it or not folks, the computer industry/arena will start seeing a good bit more government attention in the coming years--not necessarily patents/copyright, but general regulation as well. I wanted to be in a position to make an impact if I felt it necessary rather than watching from the sidelines. The money ain't bad either.

Is that American law? Surely you don't mean that companies can impose conditions that break any laws? European contintental law would declare such conditions void the moment anyone took it to court. Which is the whole point that the OP is raising: new legislation may create room for practices that until now have been illegal.

If you remember the Sony fiasco. Their EULA didn't mention that it would be not just spyware, but a root kit as well, and a host for 3rd party viruses which allowed them to easily escape attention of anti-virus software. The second version of it would install itself if a fragment was found of the first version on your system, even if you clicked NO on the EULA notice.

I think that what this amounts to is allowing media companies to apply coercion. You're computer video player won't work unless you give up your right to privacy. The opt-in might be implicit in installing the player software or by installing certain OSes.

After the Sony Root kit was discovered, the RIAA sued under the DMCA to make shift keys on keyboards illegal.

Technically, doing anything to get rid of DRM spyware is illegal under the DMCA. Although, I don't think you would be charged for simply reinstalling Windows.

A sincere congrats and kudos to you. Good luck on you endeavor . I would love to go back to school for my Masters personally I can't get enough. My brother is a CPA who is studying tax law and I know how hard he works especially at tax time. It's very hard work but well worth it. Most people really get upset with the cost of education. But the fact is the upfront costs pay for a life time of dividends. With the right field a $100,00 college education could well pay for it self in 1 to 5 years, the the rest of your life is gravy. Yet most people have no trouble going out and paying $40,000 for a car. For that money you could have a college degree, and be making at least that a year; but they would rather get the car; go figure. The out look for unskilled, high school educated or uneducated workers is absolutely grim in this country and getting worst. If you lucky you get a job at Wallmart or something. I watch a lot of CNN and MSNBC, (not lets make up our own news Fox)yeah I know what you are thinking God Damm Populist, Liberal. Well yes, I am.

xor

Ps My cousin ate rice every night for 3 years and got a law degree in corporate tax law and is now easily making $200,000 - $300,000. I friend with a Doctor In Engineer told me a long time ago go into Engineering if you love it, if you want to make money go into law or business.