| | Fri Jun 08, 2007 12:16 pm | | | | Comments: 0 Views: 65 |
|
The U.S. House of Representatives has recently passed two anti-spyware bills. The Spy Act passed this week by a margin of 368-48. It is significantly stricter than a competing measure dubbed the Internet Spyware (I-SPY) Prevention Act, which the House passed last month
The Spy Act calls for penalties for anyone who causes software to be installed on a PC without first clearly notifying and receiving the consent of the end user. It also proposes punishments for those who distribute software that tries to bypass a computer's security mechanisms, transmits personal information about the user without notification or is used to carry out a federal crime.
"The bill, as currently drafted, would regulate every Web site on the Internet and for any site that collects any 'personal' information, a proscriptive notice pop-up box would appear," Mike Zaneis, an opponent of the bill and a vice president with the Interactive Advertising Bureau, told CNET News.com. "Congress is not capable of carving out all of the benign technologies that currently exist or will be developed in the future." Among the legitimate activities critics say could be threatened by the bill is the use of cookies.
Instead, technology companies are throwing their weight behind the I-SPY Prevention Act, which takes a much narrower approach to combating "malware".
I-SPY creates penalties of up to five years in prison for some spyware-like behavior. Kevin Richards, federal government relations manager for Symantec Corp, said the bill is a "needed piece of legislation in order to protect consumers", adding that many online identity theft schemes start with spyware on a victim's computer.
However, the proposed bill's penalties may be superficial. Last month, the Electronic Frontier Foundation issued an alert about the SPY Act; they oppose the bill because they believe it will preempt tougher state laws against spyware and hacking. EFF lawyer Fred von Lohmann wrote that "in fact, having been massaged by lobbyists for the software and adware industries, the bill would actually make things worse, insulating adware vendors from more stringent state laws and private lawsuits".
In May 2005 the House passed I-SPY and a second spyware bill. The Senate did not pass these bills partly because of concerns that they too broadly defined spyware.
Currently, there appears to be less opposition to I-SPY because it has "broad support from the industry," said Geoff Gray, legislative consultant for the Cyber Security Industry Alliance, a trade group. "It concentrates on bad actions as opposed to bad technologies."
I-SPY now goes to the Senate for consideration but two champions of antispyware legislation in the Senate, Republicans George Allen of Virginia and Conrad Burns of Montana, were defeated in last November's elections. Although Burns and Allen are gone Gray believes that I-SPY has a "decent" chance of passing the Senate. He added that the House may have given it a better shot by not passing the more controversial SPY Act at the same time.
Representatives of tech-focused senators said their bosses are looking at antispyware legislation. "It's one of our priorities," said a spokesman for Senator John Ensign, a Nevada Republican and cosponsor of an antispyware bill in the last session of Congress.
Senator Ron Wyden, an Oregon Democrat, is also looking into the issue, a spokeswoman said. Wyden, cosponsor of the broader antispyware bill in the Senate last Congress, is "looking into what he feels the correct course should be legislatively ... based on the way the spyware issue has evolved over the last two years," said spokeswoman Melissa Merz.
| |
|
|
