The Chaotic World of Defining Spyware

Discussion in 'privacy general' started by ronjor, Apr 2, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. ronjor

    ronjor Global Moderator

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2003
    Posts:
    57,774
    Location:
    Texas
    Story
     
  2. Zhen-Xjell

    Zhen-Xjell Security Expert

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2002
    Posts:
    1,397
    Location:
    Ohio
  3. mercurie

    mercurie A Friendly Creature

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2003
    Posts:
    2,442
    Location:
    Sky over the Wilders Forest
    Thanks for the info. Mistakes are bound to happen, that can be corrected. This does not appear to be a mistake. It tracks useage and targets adware. Tisk tisk. :mad: .

    I do believe the law suites against anti-spy and Ad killer programs will heat up causing resource drain due to legal expenses. :( I also believe we are seeing only minor skirmishes compared to the major battles that will take place in the court rooms of the future. Eventually laws will be pasted defining more specifically what ??malware?? will be allowed. This of course will only result in more litigation and challenges. Stay tuned. Very interesting stuff to me. ;)
     
  4. Notok

    Notok Registered Member

    Joined:
    May 28, 2004
    Posts:
    2,969
    Location:
    Portland, OR (USA)
    I really don't understand why this isn't a consumer driven issue.. the user is aware of the removal, and if they want the program to support removal for something they deem undesirable, that should be the end of the issue. The consumer was not aware of the installation, the anti-spyware program makes them aware of it and offers to remove it for them.. I fail to see any real legal grounds there. Wouldn't this technically make any 3rd party uninstall programs (ie the add/remove replacements) illegal? I also don't see anyone starting any lawsuits over programs like AVs that uninstall other AVs during install, nor do I see Symantec sending legal threats to Wilders for our continual bad-mouthing of their products. At least when the guy from Amazing Software Products saw some disparaging remarks about his software he had the decency to jump in the fray and clear his name.. it may have been mostly an exercise in frustration for him, but he didn't take the route of holding Paul Wilders personally, and legally, responsible for defamation.

    It just seems ironic that there is more legal course FOR the spyware companies than AGAINST.

    Sorry, I'm not exactly in full form today, but I think my thoughts are still clear enough. It just doesn't make any real sense to me.. if these companies want to be seen the same as legitimate companies, they need to follow the same rules.
    Agreed. All I can say is that I hope that MS getting into the anti-spyware game will help things since they actually have the resources to set some real precedents.
     
Loading...
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.