Forum Moderators: phranque
The Internet Spyware Prevention Act of 2004 (H.R. 4661), which passed on a 415-0 vote Thursday, makes it a crime to intentionally access a computer without authorization or to intentionally exceed authorized access. If the unauthorized intrusion is to further another federal crime such as secretly accessing personal data, the penalty is up to five years in prison.
But wait, it's not all good:
The bill also permits computer software providers to interact with a user's computer without notice and consent in order to determine whether the computer user is authorized to use the software upon initialization of the software or an update of the software.
This isn't what we needed: another law allowing corporations/government to violate our privacy.
This law basically permits the digital equivalent of an illegal search.
It is the second half of the quote which betrays the real sense of the law: digital rights management, and protecting the rights of the big software companies over those of the public.
Let's just hope that none of this kind of nonsense is going to make it north of the border.
(Edited to remove some politics, to try to keep within the TOS)
Yes. I see that those companies will also check ME when I do an update or some such. But that's no big deal, because I always buy the software I use. Unless it's Open Source which is something else again....
Hit dog barks?
Are you guys saying you think it's BAD that companies should be able to check for pirated software without a potential pirater's consent
Only if you think that it's reasonable for companies to regard every software user as a 'potential pirater'. Compare to the government sphere where police forces must have specific, individual and detailed reasons for intruding into private space...
-B
Are you guys saying you think it's BAD that companies should be able to check for pirated software without a potential pirater's consent?
Absolutely. No private entity or company should ever, under any circumstances, have the right to run code on my machine without my express consent. Companies are not law-enforcement agencies, and there are no checks on their activities.
This law reiterates that cracking is illegal for individuals, but it legalizes cracking for companies.
I see that those companies will also check ME when I do an update or some such. But that's no big deal, because I always buy the software I use.
Speechless.
No private entity or company should ever, under any circumstances, have the right to run code on my machine without my express consent. Companies are not law-enforcement agencies, and there are no checks on their activities
Ditto
However, I WOULD agree to allow companies to run code for that express purpose, since I do NOT pirate software. Maybe that's the breaking point?
[Edit: BTW encyclo, why would that make you speechless? I can't possibly be the only person in the world who actually buys the software she uses.]
Would you like your co-hosted server to crash ever once in a while, because some component on it tries to run teh newest version of it's pirate software cehcker, which just happens to have a bug (since no softwere is ever perfact, adn you can bet your head that they'll have a disclaimer removing them from responsibility about the bugs in their code), which crashes your server and disables your business?
SN
I'm not suggesting software "piracy" should be condoned or that it is a good thing, but it's not for nothing that I'm an open-source/free (libre) software advocate.
I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one ;)
Ditto. A quick look at recent history should do the trick, enron, ford explorer, ms in their constant nonsense that big enough campaign contributions managed to get swept under the rug.
Go open source, leave this s@#t where it belongs, in the gutter growing mold.
The more I look at the open source stuff, the more I realize what the free as in freedom part of is referring to. But the free as in beer part is nice too.
I like some stuff I'm currently testing so much that I'm probably going to have to give the developers some cash, and testing time [I've always had a rigid policy: you charge me for your software, you pay me to do beta testing for you], funny that, give someone money because you like what they're doing.. not an emotion I have with proprietary software ....
vkaryl, while theoretically in a perfect world your point would be valid, that's not the world we live in, give people room to abuse and you can rest absolutely sure that they will abuse that room. This is almost as certain currently as death.
vkaryl, would you let the police come by your house for weekly searches because you are not doing anything wrong?
What happens when your kid borrows his friend's video game and installs it without your knowledge? Would you rather find it yourself, uninstall it, and punish your kid? Or, would you rather that a corporation scan your computer and arrest your kid?
And I'd rather (had I any children at home which thank whatever I do NOT!) the police arrested the brat when he's doing something wrong - period. AND I wouldn't pay for an attorney for him - I'm the last person in the world to EVER say "oh, my kid wouldn't do that sort of thing!" Of course he would... they all do....
[Just as I would not approve of any child of mine going on welfare etc. I don't believe in it, I don't support it (other than as a forced-into-it taxpayer), and I certainly don't think welfare societies are a good way of life.]
In any case, y'all aren't going to change my mind. I'm okay with it. I'm okay with MS looking at my stuff - I send them error reports whenever it's needed. And whichever of you mentioned "CC" - do you mean credit cards? I don't keep credit card info on my computer....
[As an aside, considering the "invasion of privacy" dreck this thread seems to be rolling in, NOT ONE THNG ABOUT ME OR MY FAMILY appears anywhere on the web. I check this regularly, with some fairly high powered tools. You can find me if I want you to, but otherwise, not. Most of you know I live out of the way in southern Utah. The rest of the web doesn't even know that. My software vendors know it (*sigh* including the much-maligned MS!), because I register my software - with my full name, address, phone number and email. Who else knows where I am? Well, the FBI and the CIA - no joke, folks - because my family has ALWAYS worked in the defense industry. We all have very high level clearances.... I think y'all are paranoid - just because you think they're out to get you, right?]
[Standard disclaimer: This is a personal opinion only; others' opinions may and quite probably will vary. Others are certainly entitled to their own opinions and may express them fully with my complete approbation and cooperation - and while I will be interested in those opinions, I reserve the right to maintain my own in the face of any opposition or coercion.]
...the "invasion of privacy" dreck this thread seems to be rolling in...
This is not an 'invasion of privacy' issue. It is rather an issue of the gradual erosion of the right to the presumption of innocence - which is a basic principle of most North American and European legal systems.
This was a very difficult right to come by, historically speaking, and it shouldn't be given up in small degrees or large without very careful consideration - if at all.
It is because of this right that even governments (and their agents - police etc) must have good reasons for looking into normally-private areas of an individual's property or life. Legislation such as this looks to me like:
...I reserve the right to maintain my own in the face of any opposition or coercion
So you should, although I must admit I'd be happy if I convinced you ;-)
-B
*Especially since to do so arguably infringes on a very fundamental legal right...
[edited by: bedlam at 4:13 am (utc) on Oct. 9, 2004]
[thomas.loc.gov...]
This looks to be the operative language:
Sec. 1030A. Illicit indirect use of protected computers
`(a) 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, and intentionally uses that program or code in furtherance of another Federal criminal offense shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.
`(b) 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, and by means of that program or code--
`(1) intentionally obtains, or transmits to another, personal information with the intent to defraud or injure a person or cause damage to a protected computer; or
`(2) intentionally impairs the security protection of the protected computer;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both.
`(c) No person may bring a civil action under the law of any State if such action is premised in whole or in part upon the defendant's violating this section. For the purposes of this subsection, the term `State' includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and any other territory or possession of the United States.
`(d) As used in this section--
`(1) the terms `protected computer' and `exceeds authorized access' have, respectively, the meanings given those terms in section 1030; and
`(2) the term `personal information' means--
`(A) a first and last name;
`(B) a home or other physical address, including street name;
`(C) an electronic mail address;
`(D) a telephone number;
`(E) a Social Security number, tax identification number, drivers license number, passport number, or any other government-issued identification number; or
`(F) a credit card or bank account number or any password or access code associated with a credit card or bank account.
`(e) This section does not prohibit any lawfully authorized investigative, protective, or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency of the United States, a State, or a political subdivision of a State, or of an intelligence agency of the United States.'.
(b) Conforming Amendment- The table of sections at the beginning of chapter 47 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 1030 the following new item:
`1030A. Illicit indirect use of protected computers.'.
Ok ..so imagine that I ( now )"BIG" company find you have "softice" or "windasm" etc or but no pirated stuff ...Now there are many uses for these ( to begin with they are debug tools )...whats next ..
"You may not download this software as you have the means to maybe reverse it"...
"You have registry entries of the foregoing so you may have reversed some stuff in the past and now deleted it so you are suspect"...
...
Or even (remember the furore over who owns .gif technology )..
"We "company X" are currently engaged in a legal battle with "company Y" over the following( insert disputed tech here )..we consider that you are also using our tech illegally ( because we have detected it )and you will receive your subpeona shortly"...
"Whilst inside your computer we detected you had ...blah blah blah ..and we left a little "logger" to make sure that you don't do it again"
No ..
I will agree not to go looking in big businesses servers without their permission ..if they will return the courtesy...;)
As to the gov't....they do it all the time but at least you get to "kick out" your own ( in most places )when you catch them out .
But software companies are not the government ...yet.
