I don’t like laws in cyberspace because I don’t see how they can be enforced without a shitload of money and government interference.
And face it, the government sucks at computer security right now. Microsoft sucks at computer security, and they can probably buy the United States if they wished.
I can’t help feeling like we’re sitting on the proverbial powderkeg. Right now we’re dealing with the anarchists in our own propagandistic ways, and sure they’re getting their shots in every now and then, but we own the twentieth-century dog and pony show.
Making it illegal doesn’t mean that the government has to put roadblocks on the internet. All they need to do is say “this is illegal”, then, if a person gets hit at a site, they report said site, police check site, if they get hit, they take action.
Just like, if I am robbed, I call the cops and they check it out. The difference being, checking a reported site to see if it drops spy/ad ware is much easier.
I don’t want the government telling software companies how to build their software. The software is fine, it’s the people using it in a way it shouldn’t. Just like, the door to my house works fine, but that doesn’t mean some criminal can’t abuse the fact that locks are pickable and enter without my knowledge. Blaming the OS companies is like blaming your car manufacturer if someone steals it. They can’t make it an impregnable fortress.
Software will NEVER be hackproof, so long as it allows you to actually go places and do things.
Don’t pass the buck. The Ad/Spy ware guys are at fault. It is they who are putting this stuff on your machine, and then manipulating said machine.
Yes, it should be illegal.
And also all the hidden things buried in the “privacy policy” page.
You don’t realize without reading that and all it’s tricky sup-links that you are installing Mozilla or GatorSpy and your name will be sold to anyone for 2cents/name.
The term “privacy policy” should be illegal to discribe things making your info less private.
I’d also outlaw anything AOL invents, like AOL-ad popups when you open your mail. Everything bad on the web seems to have been invented by them first. Hard to uninstall software, software that disables your other software, software that bypasses standard system protections,…
Who knows what code lives behind those Yes or No buttons. A unscrupulous developer could have “No” install the same stuff as “Yes”. How is your browser going to catch that?
Well, yeah, that would be a start.
** Well now you’re just being ridiculous. You’re expressing the same kind of fatalism that I discussed over in ** prisoner6655321**’s thread Shouldn’t spam designed to bypass spam filters be illegal?While there is no magic bullet to rid us of these problems, there are plenty of things that can be done to control Internet abuses.
We need to get over the notion that the Internet has some sort of unique, untouchable qualities. It has become a major part of our society and needs to be treated as such.
I am highly skeptical that any spyware/adware exists that installs itself without prompting (when prompting is enabled) or allowing you to decline installation in some manner. While what to do may be confusing, users with average computer knowledge will be able to cancel installation of everything but the already illegal software that exploits Internet Explorer bugs to install itself. That software can be blocked by running Windows Update or by not using IE.
Sorry, but it’s true. Visit CNN or MSNBC and you will never know that they install Avenue A, unless your spyware program tells you, like Spybot does for me.
It’s good that you’ve come here, Alereon, so that your ignorance may be dispelled. There is a metric buttload of exactly such software floating out on the internet. If you truly believe that it’s always a matter of choice, I invite you to activate what filters you may and browse some of the seedier porn link farms.
Sorry, but it’s true. Visit CNN or MSNBC and you will never know that they install Avenue A, unless your spyware program tells you, like Spybot does for me.
It doesn’t try to install every time. I believe it might be linked to ad banners or pop up windows that don’t always appear. But don’t think that just because CNN isn’t itself trying to spy on you means they aren’t guilty. They ARE supporting spyware tactics by allowing such behaviour on their website. And they do know that their advertisers are using spyware.
Avenue A is a tracking cookie.
The analogy I would choose is: “A door-to-door salesman shows up at my door, and I make a special point of not inviting him in, but he tricks me in such a way that he can snake-hip my computer to provide him with information I did not want him to have, nor did I invite him to partake of.”
Spam is a pain in the ass, but spyware and adware is a screaming friggin’ nightmare that takes up resources on my computer and violates my privacy.
It’s also a pretty safe way to get me to MAKE A POINT of never buying your friggin’ product. A sales pitch is one thing, but jackin’ my computer around is quite another.
Try again. Cookies are not spyware, adware, or in any way malicious. Software installation via Internet Explorer are how you get malicious software, and those always present an ActiveX security prompt or “Open from this location?” prompt before they are installed (unless you’ve disabled such prompts). The only exception is software that exploits an IE security vulnerability, which is illegal already. Software like this usually does that lovely switch-your-dialup-number-to-a-1-900-# thing.
Find me a large-scale, commercial website that doesn’t use a company like Avenue A or Doubleclick for its ad system.
A cookie from an ad company is a far cry from Bonzi Buddy. Somewhat invasive, yes, but they’re what pays for all that great, free content you find online. If you’ve got a problem with it, you have the option of visiting sites that don’t have advertising.
The problem with the spyware detection programs is that they get a lot of people really freaked out over privacy violations that are pretty harmless. More on Avenue A:
Anyway, on the question of whether spyware should be illegal, well, it depends. I’m in favor of a standard that outlaws the truly duplicitous stuff while still placing some responsibility on the consumer to avoid being a frickin’ idiot. It’s called assumption of risk, and it seems to work pretty well for regulating most other things.
If the gas tank in your car blows up under normal driving conditions, the carmaker is at fault. If it blows up after you get drunk and wrap your car around a telephone pole at 80mph, you’ve got nobody to blame but yourself.
I minimize my own risk by using a browser and operating system that are relatively secure compared to IE and Windows. Hell, most people don’t even need to change their OS; just stop using IE.
I’d be pretty steamed if the government decided to regulate the net based on the lowest common denominator of consumer ignorance and gullibility.
What do you use instead of IE?
The latest Netscape provides individual files and folders, per user, not PC, and email that I don’t want our users messing with.
I like Opera, but unless the new version is vastly improved, it’s not smooth enough for the users.
I am an IT guy for a company. Just recently we went to a web based Database that forced us to fully enable Active X. Since then, some of more ardent surfers are getting upwards of 100+ peices of ad/spy ware a week (not including cookies). Some of these Take over your browser, and even forceably open you CD ROM drive. None of the users have installed anything (I check), and they claim to never have been prompted for anything.
So, for those of you that don’t believe that Spy/Adware is so bad, they why do you care if it is illegal. If it is so minor, it won’t affect you much. But for those of us that deal with it constantly, we would prefer it go away.
sghoul: Either the users are installing the software, it’s set to install automatically without prompting (IE security options), or the software is exploiting security vulnurabilities in IE. You should, of course, have all of your systems patched to the latest version of IE with all security updates. It’s possible for the admin to approve ActiveX only for that one site, disabling it for all others.
Wrong. A quick look at the source for Yahoo’s front page reveals they use ads served by Doubleclick. Dunno about Amazon, I didn’t look, but since their primary purpose is not to serve free content, I don’t think they count.
As for carnivorouseseses question about what browser I use, well, Firebird on Linux. There’s also a version for Windows; it’s essentially the browser component of Mozilla/Netscape stripped of all the other clients:
Though such tactics are morally reprehensible, your complaint should not be with the scoundrels who take advantage of exploits to install programs on your computer but the scoundrels who leave the exploits there in the first place.
Yeah, that’s easy to say if all you do is surf and write and create webpages. When they start making 3D Studio, Maya, AutoCAD, and ArchiCAD for Linux (or even Mac) I’ll switch over. Right now, security isn’t my top priority. Doing Architecture is.
I do wish there were other choices though. I hate M$.
**Hmmm… I looked. I don’t see that. And anyway, they don’t install doubleclick cookies.
Cookies do steal bandwidth, by the way. Sure it’s slight and I have broadband but it’s enough to turn me off. Think about how much bandwidth all of the spyware in the world steals every day (tracking and downloading and reporting). The internet traffic would probably be 10% lighter without it. Alright maybe I’m being pessimistic, but it sure does seem that way. They sure don’t help matters.
