It all reads ok until the latter part... shudder...
Nicole
-----FW: <200410081600530249.000E013B@mail.themezz.com>-----
The general consensus seems to be that companies that choose to obey the
law will simply disclose everything their software does in many, many
paragraphs of legal language that few people will actually read. This will
allow them to claim they have consent for whatever it is that they do.
On the bright side, it will at least be possible for those who are
sufficiently curious and diligent to determine what the software is doing by
picking through the legal language. I've heard that Gator's license is 20%
longer than the constitution.
DS
Oh, how festive. Anyone got that "Bill (Gates) Blocker" filter ready? 
Left to their own devices, congressmen should NOT be allowed to write bills
about things they don't understand. Well... Ok, that's too restrictive.
No bills would ever get written.
We'll still see the same problems coming from the same non-US places where
it isn't exactly feasible to prosecute. But it made someone someplace feel
better, I'm sure!
Scott
"The bill also permits computer software providers to
interact with a user's computer without notice and
consent in order to determine whether the computer
user is authorized to use the software upon
initialization of the software or an update of the
software."
I find this aspect of the Bill objectionable, since it
contradicts other laws, which make it illegal to break
into a computer. There is also no guarantee that
the person doing the snooping is above criminal intent
and would create an operational nightmare for
most prudent ISP/NSP organizations.
-Henry
It all reads ok until the latter part... shudder...
Nicole
-----FW:
<200410081600530249.000E013B@mail.themezz.com>-----Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2004 16:00:53 -0400
Sender: cybercrime-alerts-bounce@freelists.org
From: cybercrime-alerts <alerts@theMezz.com>
To: cybercrime-alerts@freelists.org
Subject: House Toughens Spyware PenaltiesOctober 8, 2004
House Toughens Spyware Penalties
Scott Morris wrote:
Oh, how festive. Anyone got that "Bill (Gates) Blocker" filter ready?
Left to their own devices, congressmen should NOT be allowed to write bills
about things they don't understand. Well... Ok, that's too restrictive.
No bills would ever get written.We'll still see the same problems coming from the same non-US places where
it isn't exactly feasible to prosecute. But it made someone someplace feel
better, I'm sure!
Sure, but as long as most spyware and spam is originated and operated by US citizens on US soil, it makes sense to make them responsible for their junk?
Pete
"The bill also permits computer software providers to
interact with a user's computer without notice and
consent in order to determine whether the computer
user is authorized to use the software upon
initialization of the software or an update of the
software."I find this aspect of the Bill objectionable, since it
contradicts other laws, which make it illegal to break
into a computer. There is also no guarantee that
the person doing the snooping is above criminal intent
and would create an operational nightmare for
most prudent ISP/NSP organizations.
It's really a trivial issue, because even without this provision, the
license could just say (and most do), that the software will validate your
authorization to use it. Without this provision, one could argue that using
a hidden (location undisclosed) key in the registry to keep track of a trial
start date violates the letter of the law. After all, you are storing
something on someone else's computer and you don't tell them what it is or
where it is.
DS