Washington state gov signs anti-spyware bill

[ApostateAbe]

Contested governor Christine Gregoire and my personal hero did what a former attorney general has the brains to do--she is putting the foot down on spyware distributors. I couldn't believe it when I first read it in the news (http://www.informationweek.com/story/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=163105506&tid=13692), but then I read the actual house bill (http://www.leg.wa.gov/pub/billinfo/2005-06/Htm/Bills/Session%20Law%202005/1012-S.sl.htm). It is beautiful to read. The crooks include anyone who transfers personal information, modifies settings, changes bookmarks, resets the homepage, launches pop-ups, and everything else we hate about spyware. They can be fined a minimum of $100,000 and a maximum of $2 million. That's 100 frickin grand from every n-case, GAIN, cool web search, WildTangent, Comet Cursor, or anyone else brave enough to put spyware on my comp after July 24th (the effective date). I hope to milk this legislation for all its worth. Maybe I'll make it my goddamn career.

[Crumb]

Coolness

[freemonkey]

I hope to milk this legislation for all its worth. Maybe I'll make it my goddamn career.
Are you saying letting our guards down, switching off the firewalls and "CLICKing THIS" could be a lucrative part time venture for us Washingtonians?

[ApostateAbe]

I hope to milk this legislation for all its worth. Maybe I'll make it my goddamn career.
Are you saying letting our guards down, switching off the firewalls and "CLICKing THIS" could be a lucrative part time venture for us Washingtonians?The neighbor of my parents is a local judge, and I had a little chat with him about it. He speculated that the plaintiffs may be limited to the attorney general. I confirmed that speculation upon reading it.In addition to any other remedies provided by this chapter or any other provision of law, the attorney general, or a provider of computer software or owner of a web site or trademark who is adversely affected by reason of a violation of this chapter, may bring an action against a person who violates this chapter to enjoin further violations and to recover either actual damages or one hundred thousand dollars per violation, whichever is greater.That means that the money would be divided among other people who file complaints to the state AG, unless you are a professional techie. It wouldn't be chump change, but not quite enough to make me a millionaire as I hoped.

[flopstock]

The problem proving a violation is going to be found in the end user. Everyone loves to get the freebies out there and in the process of downloading, when the box pops up authorizing them to install themselves, folks just click through it instead of actually stopping to read the fine print. Does the law contain a provision covering this?

[viscousmemories]

The problem proving a violation is going to be found in the end user. Everyone loves to get the freebies out there and in the process of downloading, when the box pops up authorizing them to install themselves, folks just click through it instead of actually stopping to read the fine print. Does the law contain a provision covering this?
Did you read the bill, flopstock? I think they cover the end-user consent angle here, by prohibiting misleading warnings:
NEW SECTION. Sec. 4 It is unlawful for a person who is not an owner or operator to do any of the following with regard to the owner or operator's computer:
(1) Induce an owner or operator to install a computer software component onto the computer by intentionally misrepresenting the extent to which installing the software is necessary for security or privacy reasons or in order to open, view, or play a particular type of content;
But you're right, I think there are a lot of situations where it's really the end-users' fault.

In other news... :welcome: to the FF.

[livius drusus]

In addition to any other remedies provided by this chapter or any other provision of law, the attorney general, or a provider of computer software or owner of a web site or trademark who is adversely affected by reason of a violation of this chapter, may bring an action against a person who violates this chapter to enjoin further violations and to recover either actual damages or one hundred thousand dollars per violation, whichever is greater.

That means that the money would be divided among other people who file complaints to the state AG, unless you are a professional techie. It wouldn't be chump change, but not quite enough to make me a millionaire as I hoped.

I'm not sure that it does mean that, actually. To me this passage indicates that only software companies and site owners who have been damaged by spyware may seek recourse in the courts. I don't see that once recovered those damages would be divided among other people. :confused:

[livius drusus]

Welcome to FF, flopstock. It's good to see you all activated and posting. :welcome1: