NationStates Jolt Archive

After the original proposal was close to gaining a quorum, I noted the areas of dissent, and come with a new proposal. Support would be greatly appreciated.

Text of proposal follows:

Description: It is a rare computer user that has not noted, upon running the appropriate program, the existence of spyware on their machine. Spyware, in a nutshell, is a program/string placed (often unknowingly) on a user's computer. The spyware then enables the distributing company to monitor, to varying degrees, the user's Internet or computer usage.

This is a blatant violation of a user's right to privacy, and the private use of the Internet. Hence, this problem must be solved.

It is proposed that all distributors of spyware must do the following:

Clearly and distinctly inform the user that spyware is being placed on their machine, and offer a simple and clear way to opt-out, and prevent the spyware placement. The company must also state what will be done with any gathered information, and the exact scope of what the spyware is capable of gathering. Spyware must be clearly labeled as to place of origin.

If this is not done in such a matter that the average person without computer literacy can understand the consequences, then the offending company will be dealt with according to their host nation's laws on information theft.

Thanks. :)

Whilst I'm only new, I cannot see a problem with this proposal. Spy Ware is a problem that a lot of computer users are not aware of.

Spy Ware can slow computers done, consume resources from the computer system as well as cause instability.

This is something that should be looked at, but what about perhaps adding some form of anti-spam resolution with this as well? Would that be possible?

As I said, I'm only new so I'm not sure how successfull, or unsuccessful previous attempts at placing an anti-spam proposals have been, if they have been proposed at all.

I can see problems with this. It's better, especially in principle, than most proposals that come drifting through here, though, I'll surely give you that.

Spyware, when present, is almost invariably a topic that is covered in the massive "Terms of Service" agreements a user is typically required to agree to before installing a given program. At that point, the user has given their consent for the installation of the spyware; if they didn't read the TOS and still agree to its provisions, that's really their own risk and their own fault, and I see no reason to mandate that companies provide in-depth explanations in their TOS, seeing as how such an explanation (and the subsequent increase in length) would only discourage users from actually reading it -- when was that last time any of you actually bothered to read one?

How can the government hope to discern between spyware that has been willfully or unwillfully installed? In most every case where software is installed, the user is required to signify their desire and consent by several keystrokes.

Spyware that functions as more of a virus is a definite concern, but I hesitate to recognize it as an issue before the United Nations, and I believe that other instances of spyware might better be left to individual nations or, better yet, consumers themselves.

If the punishment is decided by each nation, isn't the whole proposal rendered something of a moot point? As I look even more closely, I see that the phrase "...the offending company will be dealt with according to their host nation's laws on information theft," doesn't mandate any punishment at all.

There are already programs like adaware that remove spyware. Plus like Santin says, you do agree to it in the terms and services (if you ever read it).

While I must congratulate you on this proposal being spelled correctly (unlike that stupid, stupid pop-up ban proposal), I fear new government laws and regulations also a hurt a country. Remember, there are programs to erase spyware.

Finally, it all goes back to the business model, like I constantly stated in my views against the pop-up proposal. SOMEBODY HAS TO PAY FOR THE INTERNET. A lot of times companies make money from spyware, and if they didn't, they couldn't offer the programs they do, or the websites they do. You seem like a reasonable person, so these are my suggestions of things to take into account as well, thanks.

While a section on spyware is nearly always included in the EULA for new programs, the agreement is often unclear unless the reader is highly computer literate. Hence, my statement that the warning must be very clear as to what the spyware does and what it can be used for.

As for making money, well, I firmly believe that most people would be willing to pay a few extra bucks to avoid the inevitable spam, popups and other annoyances that often stem from spyware. For example, several years ago, my cousin received large amounts of spam from a well-known firm he has dealt with. However, this was at an email address he did not willingly disclose. The address must have been gathered via spyware.

Now, as to punishment. This was purposely left open-ended. If a nation is particularly harsh in treatment of all criminals, it would make no sense to mandate a sentence that may, in fact, be lower than what a normal information theft might warrant. If a nation is particularly lenient, the spyware monger might be sentenced to community service or to fines. Hence, the law must be flexible enough to allow each nation to punish as to their tastes.