Weekly Edition
Return to the Press page
| |||||||||||||
U.S. House Passed Anti-Spyware Bill (eWeek)
eWeek reports that
the U.S. House of Representatives has passed a bill that targets spyware
and phishing schemes. "The bipartisan Internet Spyware (I-SPY)
Prevention Act of 2004, passed by a vote of 415-0, is intended to punish
spyware without placing undue burdens on legitimate uses of the same or
similar technology. The bill, H.R. 4661, was sponsored by Reps. Bob
Goodlatte (R-Va.), Zoe Lofgren (D-Calif.) and Lamar Smith
(R-Texas)."
(Log in to post comments)
This law isn't just about spyware Posted Oct 11, 2004 19:08 UTC (Mon) by JoeBuck (subscriber, #2330) [Link] It appears to cover malware of other kinds as well. From the article: "In addition, the law would make it a crime to cause computer code or programs to be copied onto a computer to further another federal offense; to perform identity theft; or to impair the security protections of the computer. Penalties for breaking the law would run from two to five years in prison, in addition to fines." This would seem to mean that if you install a rootkit or a spambot on someone else's machine without permission, it's 2-5 years in jail.
This law isn't just about spyware Posted Oct 11, 2004 20:10 UTC (Mon) by allesfresser (subscriber, #216) [Link] Perhaps in Microsoft's view, installing Linux as dual-boot on a machine presently running Windows would qualify?
This law isn't just aboutspyware Posted Oct 11, 2004 22:15 UTC (Mon) by Duncan (guest, #6647) [Link] I'm not sure about the definition of "security" within context of thislaw, but AFAIK previously, the "break in" was defined as without the knowledge or permission of the computer owner. Of course, that means the next step would be EULAS that not only say it's a license to run the software, not ownership of it, but that also define "the computer" as the collection of OS and hardware it runs on, such that if MS owns the shipped OS, they'd retain ownership of at least a portion of "the computer" and so would retain permission rights on what ran on it. With the hardware and OS further interlinked in the "[un]trusted computing" initiative, that'd give MS even /more/ legal authority to shut out other OSs. Duncan
This law isn't just aboutspyware Posted Oct 12, 2004 3:59 UTC (Tue) by euvitudo (guest, #98) [Link] As far as I am concerned, as long as MS does not *own* the hardware on which I am working, they have no right to claim that part of it is theirs. I do not think any addition to a EULA on their part, regarding this issue, is legal, except maybe where they are also licensing the hardware to you. Of course, in that case they become a PC hardware company as well, thereby competing with the likes of Dell. However, I purchase my hardware, I do not license it. My own speculation is typically worse than yours. I more than often take the doomsday approach, but I end up realizing that my assumptions are not even reasonable, let alone legal.
Dare I say (i.e., I have not read the bill) that this seems to be more of a political ploy. The bill has yet to pass the Senate. My expectation is that it will probably get delayed in the Senate until after the election. I also believe that the spyware people will begin taking up the position that has been taken by our good buddies MS, and send a new swarm of lobbyists to encourage the Senate to accept a revised version that will allow them to continue what they have been doing up to this point.
My $0.02.
This law isn't just about spyware
|
|||||||||||||