Arnold Muscles Spyware

Hi,

Quote:

---

California sets fines for spyware
By Peter Bowes
in Los Angeles

The makers of computer programs that secretly spy on what people do with their home PCs could face hefty fines in California.

From 1 January, a new law is being introduced to protect computer users from software known as spyware.

The legislation, which was approved by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, is designed to safeguard people from hackers and help protect their personal information.

Spyware is considered by computer experts to be one of the biggest nuisance and security threats facing PC users in the coming year.

The software buries itself in computers and can collect a wide range of information.

At its worst, it has the ability to hijack personal data, like passwords, login details and credit card numbers.

The programs are so sophisticated they change frequently and become impossible to eradicate.

Ad onslaught

One form of spyware called adware has the ability to collect information on a computer user's web-surfing.

It can result in people being bombarded with pop-up ads that are hard to close.

In Washington, Congress has been debating four anti-spyware bills, but California is a step ahead.

The state's Consumer Protection Against Spyware Act bans the installation of software that takes control of another computer.

It also requires companies and websites to disclose whether their systems will install spyware.

Consumers are able to seek up to $1,000 in damages if they think they have fallen victim to the intrusive software.

The new law marks a continuing trend in California towards tougher privacy rights.

A recent survey by Earthlink and Webroot found that 90% of PCs are infested with the surreptitious software and that, on average, each one is harbouring 28 separate spyware programs.

Currently users wanting protection from spyware have turned to free programs such as Spybot and Ad-Aware.

Source

---

"In Washington, Congress has been debating four anti-spyware bills, but California is a step ahead."

awwwwww Arne got them By the Scruff of the neck :D

Finally Some signs ..............Spyware have been ignored for too long now............

--Good Luck--

Nice spot SwordFish :)


The advertising/market research stuff has been ignored for far too long. It takes no account of the operating environment and frequently conflicts amongst itself, destabilises systems, ruins performance etc..................

The idea of compensation is good as a lot of people have to pay to get their computers cleaned up so that they work properly again.

Difficult to actually enforce though? I would expect the scumware manufacturers to just go offshore where there is no legislation?

:mad:

Quote:

---

A recent survey by Earthlink and Webroot found that 90% of PCs are infested with the surreptitious software and that, on average, each one is harbouring 28 separate spyware programs.

---

Dear God! That has to be FUD, doesn't it? 90%?!? I know it's a big problem with many home users and clueless folks, but 90%?

Anyone have corroborating evidence from other sources?

yay for Muscles :D

Does anyone know what is takign Washington soo long to decide that for the rest of the states? I mean, if one state is doing it, and if its going to be succesful (i know we will have to wait and see) then shouldnt that help get the ball moving faster than the usual government crawl?

-z3

Zencoder,

Quote:

---

Dear God! That has to be FUD, doesn't it? 90%?!? I know it's a big problem with many home users and clueless folks, but 90%?

---

I would expect that refers to home/SOHO machines that are used for "surfing". Also I think that relatively "minor" items like cookies are being included. This probably means that cookies from sites' adservers are getting counted.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
I would expect that refers to home/SOHO machines that are used for "surfing". Also I think that relatively "minor" items like cookies are being included. This probably means that cookies from sites' adservers are getting counted.

---

Good point...that's kind of what I was thinking, but didn't mention exactly. Hey, it's still early for me here...too many RumRunners last night. Although, it's been said you can never have TOO MANY RumRunners! ;)

I would think it should read "...90% of casual, non-technical Internet users' computers..." although that is way too wordy and specific, and won't sell as many magazines/newspapers, would it?

/* Edit: so yes, FUD confirmed. */

Hrmm.. I wonder how much corporations are infected. I've seen many corporations stand by IE without any protection (even simplistic programs, never mind front line devices). The 90% isn't that far off except it should probably be 90% of Windows Internet surfers using IE. Reality is that a lot of our spyware detection products are "reactive" rather than proactive so we're all infected at one point or another.

So it may be some FUDing but it may not be that far from the truth.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by zencoder
Dear God! That has to be FUD, doesn't it? 90%?!? I know it's a big problem with many home users and clueless folks, but 90%?

Anyone have corroborating evidence from other sources?

---

Among home users? Believe it! Step into any university dorm and you'll agree. You won't find a single person that doesn't use win32+IE, and if you do it's because you found an IT major.

Theres a rampant plague of outdated security knowledge among home users and corporate users. We are WAY past the days of simple "don't download attachments! Install AV!" articles and I attribute the 90% statistic to that.

Quote:

---

The state's Consumer Protection Against Spyware Act bans the installation of software that takes control of another computer.

---

Then technically, if you take the wording of the above exactly as it is written, it would be illegal to install remote control programs that many networks use to monitor their users, and/or to configure machines/give assistance, etc remotely.

Any thoughts on that?

ac

I guess that somewhere in the fine print there is a clause that qualifies that to computers owned by other people, and without the owner's permission?

In other words a clandestine installation, rather than a commercial one.

Yes, that would be a pretty big (and stupid) loophole to miss. Malicious, clandestine, surreptitious...I'm sure they have a thesaurus full of words written into the statute to cover that. Hell, many MS shops rely on remote desktop these days, simply for system administration.

Go Arnie!! You guys really think that washington is going to be able to enforce it ? I mean there is a ton of spyware out there. I hope they can without getting overloded, like the INS or something.

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by dmorgan
Go Arnie!! You guys really think that washington is going to be able to enforce it ? I mean there is a ton of spyware out there. I hope they can without getting overloded, like the INS or something.

---

oh i don't know...california's done a pretty fair job of enforcing its anti-spam law because it's enforced by the start of california and not by washington. higher courts have just upheld the ruling. after that higher courts dont have to hear any more like it.

think ill move to CA put together an un-patched/un-protected box and start making some money off these bastages.

Quote:

---

Go Arnie!! You guys really think that washington is going to be able to enforce it ? I mean there is a ton of spyware out there. I hope they can without getting overloded, like the INS or something.

---

I don't think they'll be "overloaded" because they're still a lot of clueless users out there who don't know spyware even exists, as a matter a fact, before joining this website I had a fair knowledge of computers and I only began to know what spyware was after I hung around a bit. (now imagine 4yrs no formatting and no knowledge about spyware..had to format a few wks a go)
Also, I read that they have to mention that they included spyware..Don't they already do that in the agreement thing before you install a program or something? (Not sure because I never read it I just hit accept or agree) Or am I just wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally posted here by nihil
I guess that somewhere in the fine print there is a clause that qualifies that to computers owned by other people, and without the owner's permission?

In other words a clandestine installation, rather than a commercial one.

---

A lot of people do click "Yes" when things popup so that they can get free stuff. I wonder if that could be used as a legal defense. (You clicked yes to install so we didnt install it without your permission) It will be interesting to see this law.

Anyone know the bill number? (Searching right now)

Edit: Link to law info

CXGJarrod, I'm getting a blank page here..
[edit]Kind of odd, when I click your link, I get a blank page but when I looked for it again and got it, mine worked for me but yours still didn't and they look alike..well anyways for those who get a blank page also try: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/wa...ction=retrieve

Blank here too :(

I would guess that if the user clicks "yes" that gives permission.................I don't think that there is any law that requires them to have the intelligence to read and understand the fine print? :D

THe second link is still blank for me too :(

For those of you who see nothing...(i just retried the link and it didnt work)

Go here (http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html)

Check "all" and then put "spyware" (without the quotes) in the search box. It came up with only 1 result for me.

That's an interesting chapter on CA's spyware. Thanks for the link, CXGJarrod, that last one worked.

I'd like to know how "they" are going to determine some of the parts of this law? For example, 22947.1.(f) states:

Quote:

---

"Damage" means any significant impairment to the integrity or
availability of data, software, a system, or information.

---

How will they define "significant impairment"? One person's significant is another person's insignificant. There are obviously other parts of the code that I question, too, but I guess I'll be watching this one now to see how the Governator enforces.