Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    796
    House votes 395 to 1 to kick spyware butt
    A good start .... 2 years in the clinker for spyware .... 10 million additional dollars a year for Justice Department to enforce spyware law. Details:

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7958038/

  2. #2
    2005 Linkshare Golden Link Award Winner  ecomcity's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    St Clair Shores MI.
    Posts
    17,328
    If you want to see why only one lame congressman voted not to whack the Adwhores you have to see what the other 395 saw. The mating of the Adware/Spyware/virus writers seeking ways to hijack shoppers systems. The newest drive-by installs of network monitized include trojan horse "backdoor" viruses to enable the affiliate distributors of Malware to stuff ever more Adware for infestation fees from the network darlings.

    http://www.dslreports.com/forum/rema...8396~mode=flat

    http://www.viruslist.com/en/weblog
    http://www.bleepingcomputer.com/foru...tx10649-0.html

    Try removing some of these newest BHO infestation exploits if you have a few days of free time.
    Webmaster's... Mike and Charlie

    "What have you done today to put real value into a referral click...from a shoppers viewpoint!"

  3. #3
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    Its almost a good bill, but its not.

    "Whoever intentionally accesses a protected computer without authorization, or exceeds authorized access to a protected computer, by causing a computer program or code to be copied onto the protected computer"

    If it stopped there, woohoo! but it doesn't and adds limits to the above on when that is deemed illegal, those limits being spyware activity, not adware activity. Is there a different bill than this one?

    http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c109:H.R.744.IH:

    I don't see some of the stuff the msnbc article claims.

    Chet

  4. #4
    Resident Genius and Staunch Capitalist Leader's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    12,817
    a protected computer
    What's their definition of "protected?" I would think that the normal user's computer wouldn't have any special protection...
    There is no knowledge that is not power. ~Hemingway

  5. #5
    Internet Cowboy
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,662
    I want to know who the 1 who voted against this bill is.


  6. #6
    Roll Tide mobilebadboy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Mobile, Alabama
    Posts
    1,220
    "Dr. No", Ron Paul. Nickname dubbed for quickly apparent reasons.

    http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2005/roll200.xml#N

    (old article, but gets the point across) They call him Dr. No for good reason

    http://www.google.com/search?q=Ron+Paul+Dr.+No

    Shawn Kerr (.com) | Disney World | SEC Football

  7. #7
    Full Member Tech Evangelist's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 16th, 2005
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    374
    Based upon his voting record in some of those articles, I wonder how he gets re-elected.
    There's good, fast and cheap. Pick any two.
    [url=http://www.topranksolutions.com]Phoenix SEO[/url] :: [url=http://www.tech-evangelist.com/category/affiliate-marketing/]Affiliate Marketing Tutorials[/url]

  8. #8
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    1,205
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech Evangelist
    Based upon his voting record in some of those articles, I wonder how he gets re-elected.
    He's the only one not bought and paid for by lobbyists.

  9. #9
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    Quote Originally Posted by chetf
    Its almost a good bill, but its not.
    Will have holes - no doubt.
    I'd bet it'll introduce new issues as well.
    But I'd say it's progress - and more than we've ever seen on this issue and related issues.

  10. #10
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    Donuts, has can-spam stopped spam? Do you see it getting updated to be more effective?

    These laws are passed so lawmakers can say - "Look we did something, we passed this law, it must be the FTCs fault"

    Chet

  11. #11
    ABW Veteran Mr. Sal's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    6,795
    has can-spam stopped spam?
    No.

    and some days are worse than before the can-spam.

  12. #12
    Defender of Truth, Justice and the Affiliate Way
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    The Swamp
    Posts
    7,503
    Legislation is generally way behind the curve.

    These laws are passed so lawmakers can say - "Look we did something, we passed this law, it must be the FTCs fault"
    And also this:

    10 million additional dollars a year for Justice Department to enforce spyware law.
    New laws feed funding into Agencies.

    Yeah, I'm getting cynical.

  13. #13
    Full Member Tech Evangelist's Avatar
    Join Date
    March 16th, 2005
    Location
    Mesa, AZ
    Posts
    374
    Laws are passed to allow law enforcement jurisdictions to go after the spammers, parasites and other bad guys. Some one has to take the initiative to actually pursue a legal course of action.

    I'm not very fond of politicians, but passing a law is the first step. Enforcing the law is someone else's responsibility.
    There's good, fast and cheap. Pick any two.
    [url=http://www.topranksolutions.com]Phoenix SEO[/url] :: [url=http://www.tech-evangelist.com/category/affiliate-marketing/]Affiliate Marketing Tutorials[/url]

  14. #14
    Full Member
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    469
    I think it's a very week approach. See the critique I posted in January: http://www.benedelman.org/news/011905-1.html

  15. #15
    ABW Ambassador
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    4,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech Evangelist
    Laws are passed to allow law enforcement jurisdictions to go after the spammers, parasites and other bad guys. Some one has to take the initiative to actually pursue a legal course of action.

    I'm not very fond of politicians, but passing a law is the first step. Enforcing the law is someone else's responsibility.
    Actually this law removes the ability for individuals to pursue civil action (how i am reading it), and there is a reason you receive so few junk faxes, because everyone and their brother can sue these people to collect, it is very easy. Removing that ability, for the lone pissed off person to extract payment is a negative. That person is the most likely to seek retribution.

    Chet

  16. #16
    Super Sh!t Stirrer SSanf's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Posts
    9,944
    I am afraid Ben is right. This will do little if any good.

    However, can't they modify and add to it later? They have to start somewhere.
    Comments are opinion unless otherwise noted. Remember, pillage first. Then burn. Half of all people in the world have IQs under 100. You best learn to trust ol' SSanf!

  17. #17
    Lite On The Do, Heavy On The Nuts Donuts's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    Winter Park, FL
    Posts
    6,930
    Quote Originally Posted by chetf
    Donuts, has can-spam stopped spam? Do you see it getting updated to be more effective?

    These laws are passed so lawmakers can say - "Look we did something, we passed this law, it must be the FTCs fault"

    Chet
    I don't disagree with you - what they passed is a very small step - but a step nonetheless.

    And if they start blaming each other - the congress and the FTC - then that is de facto proof that a problem exists. Today, without this law, the courts aren't armed to do anything about what we rightfully see as abuses.

    And no, can-spam has not stopped spam - but it slowed it's unbelievable pre-law growth rate to a crawl. It also resulted in a few high profile cases that scare the majority of US abusers from entering or growing their spam enterprise. Most importantly, the US companies with huge ad budgets are NOT involved in SPAM to any meaningful degree. Again, not all email spammers have stopped, but many have. Before the law came, there were folks like us who would never use spam, folks who did and folks who were considering it. It's that third pool of people who get shoved off the fence into our yard. It focused the line between right and wrong. I believe this new spyware law will do something similar for spyware purveyors. Spam was easy to divide into right and wrong. Spyware, right now, is so misunderstood and convoluted that this law doesn;t have a hope of sharpening the divide to a razor's edge - but it will begin opening the chasm between right and wrong. We, as we move forward, will continue to shovel and spade those edges into a higher and higher ridge - with good actors on one side - and the scum on the other. Before this law, it was a wide open plain lacking any legal defining shape to the landscape.

    This new legislation passed in the house, will not stop spyware. But I think it'll raise questions in the fence sitters and make them think hard about how far to push their invasion tactics.

    This new law, if passed, also frames ways where researchers like Ben and Kellie can document violations of LAWS BEING BROKEN. No, it won't define everything the bad actors are doing - in fact, my read of it shows it is FAR from that. But it will give us our first pocket of enforcement allowing research to activate criminal investigations. As someone who has submitted evidence and been ignored, I see this new opportunity to expose bad actors within the court system as a good step in the right direction. It isn't the answer or the cure, but (if passed) it'll be our first public and bona fide chance to get the law on their ass quickly.

    This law could be far better, no argument there. 5 mintues with Ben or Kellie or Spitzer or Haiko or many others and they could have vastly improved it. Damn shame politicians don't listen to the right people all of the time - but they are listening to many people some of the time - and making some progress.

  18. #18
    Moderator BurgerBoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    January 18th, 2005
    Location
    jacked by sylon www.sylonddos.weebly.com
    Posts
    9,618
    Talking
    Quote Originally Posted by Tech Evangelist
    Based upon his voting record in some of those articles, I wonder how he gets re-elected.

    Money donated to him by the spyware and adware industry probably.

  19. Newsletter Signup

+ Reply to Thread

Similar Threads

  1. 49Above needs your votes
    By Sarah Bundy in forum Virtual Family and Off-Topic
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: May 15th, 2009, 02:16 PM
  2. House Approves Bill to Combat Spyware
    By Carolyn - ShareASale in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 16
    Last Post: May 23rd, 2007, 04:02 PM
  3. Todd, Kick HSN In The Butt
    By Trust in forum Commission Junction - CJ
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2005, 07:42 PM
  4. House panel passes spyware permission bill
    By Trust in forum Midnight Cafe'
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: June 19th, 2004, 03:42 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •