No one really likes spyware. My own view is that it would be perfectly legitimate for government to ban it. The problem though, is that any legislation would likely inadvertantly hit legitimate activities and–most importantly–private-sector anti-spyware programs will in any case solve the problem far better than government. (Compare my relatively mushy position to that of fellow TLFer Jim Harper, who is trying to keep me in line on the subject.) That all said, I was a bit taken aback by Sen. George Allen’s statement (as quoted in Congress Daily) after the Senate Commerce Committee adopted spyware legislation yesterday. Congress, he declared “must come down with hobnail boots on the people who create this [spyware]”. Umm, I’m all for stopping spyware, but “hobnail boots” seems a bit too much, no? Let’s protect property rights here (and that includes cyber-property), but let’s be careful about issuing those hobnailers to regulators.
Just when you thought you had enough to fret about, here’s comes yet another Internet worry: Spam Over Internet Telephony, appealingly acronymed “SPIT.” As reported in MIT’s Technology Review, SPIT is the potential use of VOiP telephone services to send spam via voice mail, rather than via e-mail. Just imagine having hundreds of Viagra ads and confidential requests from Nigerian ex-strongman in your voice mail each morning. As TR says “it’s a nightmare that few of us want to imagine.”
Continue reading →
‘Anti-spyware’ legislation is being marked up in the Senate Commerce Committee this week. Here are the Top 10 reasons why it’s a dumb idea:
10. The lives of real consumers won’t be any better after it passes.
9. It doesn’t add any protections to existing law.
8. Preempting states prevents state legislators from learning how much harm they’re doing to their constituents with their own dumb anti-spyware laws.
7. In the future, so-called “consumer” groups and Luddite activists will use it as a sword against yet-unknown innovations.
6. Nascent software entrepreneurs, faced with yet more legal/compliance costs, will throw in the towel rather than delivering the next cool thing.
5. Requires lobbyists to pour more money into the Washington maw to protect against errant FTC interpretations and enforcements.
4. Legal ‘protections’ confuse consumers and steer them away from burgeoning market for anti-spyware tools (which actually work!).
3. Spyware writers, like spammers, don’t obey laws.
2. A bill that’s better than the House version is still not a good bill.
1. Once federal anti-spyware legislation passes, the tech lobbyists with nothing else to do will just push for another worthless law!
Good discussion-starter, Braden. Both these bills bring up some genuinely tough questions. Here’s what is clear (at least to me)…
One: the spyware problem–broadly defined to include all sorts of Internet pests, ranging from drive-by downloads of funky, unwanted toolbars to stealing your home phone number–is a serious one. People are frustrated. It is, for instance, the number one source of tech support calls to Dell. It’s also the source of quite a few calls to MacAfee, largely from my own household.
Continue reading →
The spyware issue on the Hill is heating up. Today the Judiciary Committee held a full committee markup hearing on H.R. 4661, the “Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act of 2004.” How does it differ from the H.R. 2929 “SPY ACT” (aka. the Bono bill)?
HR 4661 is in the Judiciary Committee, and carries with it criminal penalties enforceable by DOJ. The Commerce Committee bill HR 2929 imposes civil penalties as enforced by the FTC. The Judiciary bill contains only a few narrow prohibitions, while the Commerce bill has a long list of prohibitions relating to deceptive acts or practices and of collection of certain information (without notice and consent).
Which is the better bill? Do we really need spyware legislation? (this question asks not whether spyware is a problem, but whether legislation will do anything positive to reduce it).
Continue reading →