Computer Spyware II
Matt Canham wrote a good article on my anti-spyware legislation. I agree with Pete Ashdown's observation that the market will provide the ultimate solutions to spyware. In addition to those private sector efforts, this legislation should eliminate some of the profit for the worst offenders in the adware world, thereby decreasing the volume of adware. Where the effectiveness of this legislation should differ from anti-spam legislation (as mentioned by Mr. Paull) is that advertisers are liable for knowlingly purchasing a spyware advertisement:
(5) Except as provided in Subsection 13-40-201 (2)(b), an action for a violation of this chapter may be brought against a person who purchases or acquires advertising described in Subsection 13-40-201 (1) if: (a) the person against whom the action is brought receives actual notice from a mark owner of an alleged violation of Section 13-40-201; (b) the notice required under Subsection (5)(a) contains a detailed explanation of the alleged violation; and (c) the person against whom the action is brought fails to take reasonable steps to stop the violation of Subsection 13-40-201 (1) described in the notice provided under subsection (5)(a).
Of course, there would be offshore advertisers willing to violate such laws, but it would significantly decrease the volume of adware (and bother for Internet users) to first push the biggest problems offshore and away from the "legitimate" domestic companies engaged in the practices outlawed by my bill. WhenU, for example, who along with Claria lobbied against the bill (thereby leading me to believe that both companies do violate its provisions), has a prestigious New York, New York address, is run by a charismatic Princeton graduate and brings in tens of millions of dollars a year running spyware-based pop-ups for significant companies.
WhenU states, "Assuming the Utah bill was redrafted in a way that doesn't restrain any productive legitimate businesses, such as WhenU, we do not anticipate any other challenges." I would encourage WhenU to do some accurate polling with average Internet users on what is "legitimate" in this arena. If it does, I'd say it would find overwhelming support for the provisions of this bill. Hopefully, it then would take the simple steps required to comply with this bill.
(5) Except as provided in Subsection 13-40-201 (2)(b), an action for a violation of this chapter may be brought against a person who purchases or acquires advertising described in Subsection 13-40-201 (1) if: (a) the person against whom the action is brought receives actual notice from a mark owner of an alleged violation of Section 13-40-201; (b) the notice required under Subsection (5)(a) contains a detailed explanation of the alleged violation; and (c) the person against whom the action is brought fails to take reasonable steps to stop the violation of Subsection 13-40-201 (1) described in the notice provided under subsection (5)(a).
Of course, there would be offshore advertisers willing to violate such laws, but it would significantly decrease the volume of adware (and bother for Internet users) to first push the biggest problems offshore and away from the "legitimate" domestic companies engaged in the practices outlawed by my bill. WhenU, for example, who along with Claria lobbied against the bill (thereby leading me to believe that both companies do violate its provisions), has a prestigious New York, New York address, is run by a charismatic Princeton graduate and brings in tens of millions of dollars a year running spyware-based pop-ups for significant companies.
WhenU states, "Assuming the Utah bill was redrafted in a way that doesn't restrain any productive legitimate businesses, such as WhenU, we do not anticipate any other challenges." I would encourage WhenU to do some accurate polling with average Internet users on what is "legitimate" in this arena. If it does, I'd say it would find overwhelming support for the provisions of this bill. Hopefully, it then would take the simple steps required to comply with this bill.
posted by steve u. at 3/21/2005
Subscribe
0 Comments:
<< Home