Arnold Muscles Spyware

[zencoder]

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.

[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.

[Tedob1]

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.

[Raion]

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?

[CXGJarrod]

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

[Raion]

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

[nihil]

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?

THe second link is still blank for me too

[CXGJarrod]

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.

[TheDaddy]

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:

"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.