Utah spyware act challenged
p2pnet.net News:- A lawsuit lodged against Utah by WhenU, a hard-sell New York ad company, claims the state’s new Spyware Control Act violates US and state constitutions.
"The suit, filed late Monday in 3rd District Court by WhenU.com Inc., lists the state, Gov. Olene Walker and Attorney General Mark Shurtleff as defendants," says a Deseret Morning News story here.
"It seeks to have the court prohibit the act from taking effect early next month."
The Utah law aims at cutting down on spyware "by making it illegal to create or install the software, which monitors Internet activity and sends that information elsewhere, usually without the user being aware of it or consenting to it," says the report.
"The law also curbs pop-up advertising on the Internet and calls for penalties of $10,000 per violation."
April 14th, 2004 at 8:12 pm
It’s about time!!!
April 14th, 2004 at 8:54 pm
I’m an IS manager & I’d like to know… Why is this being challenged? In the last 2 years the amount of time that I have had to spend getting rid of ad-spy ware has gone up 4000%. I’m having to resort to using mozilla as a browser on just amout every system that I manage just to keep the systems up to speed.
It’s hard enought to keep the “users” from installing everything under the sun on the system & choking up the memory, muchless WEB Advertizements that do it without authorization.
In my opinion, you touch my system…
you loose a finger…
enought said..
April 14th, 2004 at 9:17 pm
I can’t understand how this can be challenged. To me it’s a violation of my privacy to have spyware. It’s not legal for another person to put a camera in my house to watch me, why should it be legal for them to put software on my computer to watch me? For that matter, do we even need a law like this? Isn’t it already illegal? But I do like the idea of punishing them with incredibly heavy fines.
April 14th, 2004 at 11:06 pm
Spy/ad/mal ware is nothing more than corporate “cracking.” It should not only be illegal, period, it should suffer punitive damages in the range of millions of dollars per infringement. It says, by way of example, that placing unauthorized control on someone else’s computer is okay. If a computer cracker does it to a corporate computer, his computer equipment is confiscated and he’s sent to prison along with hefty punitive “damages.” Why should businesses be allowed to do to individuals what they can use the FBI to prevent individuals from doing to them? I will rejoice to hear that all the states and their courts finally shut these A-holes down forever. What’s good for the consumer is good for business.
April 15th, 2004 at 3:29 am
“Why should businesses be allowed to do to individuals what they can use the FBI to prevent individuals from doing to them? ”
…excellent point!