×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Microsoft Helps Write Oklahoma's Anti-Spyware Law

ScuttleMonkey posted about 8 years ago | from the things-not-to-farm-out dept.

232

groovy.ambuj writes "The Inquirer reports that Microsoft has developed Oklahoma's 'Computer Spyware protection Act'. The law will supposedly protect people from unwarranted hackers or virus attacks and can fine individuals up to $1M who are found guilty of breaking into a computer without the owners knowledge. At the same time, it also allows some of the better known capable companies to 'look' into your computer for possible virus/spyware and fix the problem without informing you. And, while these friends are doing their job, they can also take the moment to do other things. "

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

232 comments

Be afraid... (5, Insightful)

IamGarageGuy 2 (687655) | about 8 years ago | (#15107291)

be very afraid

Who mod'ed that "troll"? (4, Informative)

khasim (1285) | about 8 years ago | (#15107376)

From TFA:
Now because Microsoft knows that it sometimes need to get information from their users for upgrades, it has put in a clause to allow software companies to do this. Basically the Vole law demands that a software company licence agreement tells you the sort of data they are taking.

The problem is that if you agree, you give the company you bought upgradable software the freedom to come onto your computer for "detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of or fraudulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network, service, or computer software, including scanning for and removing computer software prescribed under this act."

In other words if you install Vista, Microsoft can come in, snoop around your computer see if you are doing anything illegal and delete it.
That certainly sounds like people should be opposed to this "law".

Re:Who mod'ed that "troll"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107548)

Unfortunately, a lot of folks who get mod points take things waaaayyy too seriously, have an axe to grind, or just don't like what's said. A lot of the mod's don't get the subtleties of sarcasm or automattically mod things down if it even appears to be negative.

The meta-modderation system is a joke. I've been meta-modderting BS mods like the GP DOWN for a while and nothing is changing.

I'm glad you've said something - I think it'll help educate some of these jackasses with mod points that maybe they should think or at least give someone the benefit of doubt.

Re:Who mod'ed that "troll"? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107767)

I've seen a hell of a lot of ideological pro-Microsoft moderation recently.

If you have mod points, go to your preferences - set "insightful", "informative", and "funny" to a modifier of -6, and set "troll", "offtopic", "flamebait", and "redundant" to +6. Browse newest first in nested mode. You'll spot the abuses REAL fast.

Re:Who mod'ed that "troll"? (1)

Nikker (749551) | about 8 years ago | (#15107775)

One thing that always gets me is that they (large companies) want some legal backdoor into your computer.

I think more people would be comfortable with it if there was a client installed that monitored the network for something comprable to Windows Update(tm) where it would let you know something is going on that is effecting the network and give you the tools (patch, instructions, etc) to get it fixed. All the while leaving your system online. As a choice the ISP could block traffic associated with the virus, malware, spyware, et al, or just slow it down.

The only thing I can think of that would make companies want to fix your problems for you and without you knowing is that they can charge for such a service and really as much as they want or when they want, because you don't know. Then it becomes a monthly charge because people will inevitably get a massive bill for all the remote fixing that went on. The thing that really sucks is that it will be illegal to refuse it, therefore it will be almost manditory to have a firewall, antivirus/spyware to offset the cost.

But at least Microsoft has a spyware program ;)

Re:Who mod'ed that "troll"? (3, Interesting)

aplusjimages (939458) | about 8 years ago | (#15107777)

That's scarey, not only will Microsoft be able to snoop inside my computer and install stuff, but those who always hack Microsoft programs will be able to do the same. Plus how will Microsoft know whats good for my computer. I'm running a certain version of Adobe Premiere on my Win2K machine. It runs fine as long as I keep it on SP2. If I upgrade the service pack, I unleash a whole new set of bugs that cause Premiere to act the fool. What if Microsoft decides it's about time I upgraded to SP4 and they screw up my stuff?

Skip the lobbying and move straight to legislation (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107808)

This is rather disturbing in that MS is able to completely skip the lobbying phase and goes straight to drafting its own legislation.

Do not be afraid: State of Oklahoma != Oklahoma (2, Funny)

NRAdude (166969) | about 8 years ago | (#15107530)

Remember...the State of Oklahoma was created by Congress; whereas it can't legislate to Oklahoma because it is a state already created by the people; thereby, Congress can't create a state within a state unless by Admiralty jurisidiction (libel) to say our (the people's) Oklahoma is a Territory under the US Constititution. This brings in many presumptions whereas this Oklahoma (not-confederated several states of the people) are not a part of that OKLAHOMA (a federal State upon the dejure state known as Oklahoma libeled/Admiralty to be respected as a Territory for Congress to charter and "graze" its a corporation upon). The United States (plural) is not the United States (singular; USCODE Title 27 Section 3002, 15 ; '"United States" means a federal corporation') in the Admiralty mode can only see Territory when it has a Treaty to extend its venue.

Produce an affidvate that such and such person (trust, association, partnership, etc) of a man is a state/Oklahoma Citizen and not existing as a State/OKLAHOMA citizen (sometimes known as a citizen of the United States), then you can reserve the rights of that person all without leaving the de jure county of the people/king's favorite bench/bank. Welcome back to America; maybe with some effort, the misnomer and the psychopathic tendancy of a man to confess he is paper/person can all be burnt at the Door of the courthouse.

with love,
  Gregory-Thomas:Mundt

Re:Do not be afraid: State of Oklahoma != Oklahoma (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107544)

Holy crap, are you off your meds, dude?

What'dy'a mean man? (0)

NRAdude (166969) | about 8 years ago | (#15107888)

Only the best comes from the unlicensed pharmacists. What's this "meds" thingk you're talking about? Are those from those licensed drug-dealers in them HMOs?

with love,
  Gregory-Thomas:Mundt

So Linux and OS X will be defined as spyware? (5, Funny)

fdrebin (846000) | about 8 years ago | (#15107292)

Wouldn't suprise me none...

/F

Re:So Linux and OS X will be defined as spyware? (0, Flamebait)

fdrebin (846000) | about 8 years ago | (#15107384)

Troll? Some people just ain't got no damned sense of humor. I should know better than to speak up, lest all the morons come out of the woodwork (or (I) be declared one of them).

OS X is already spyware (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107399)

For that matter any computer which has Itunes installed contains spyware [theinquirer.net] .

Re:So Linux and OS X will be defined as spyware? (2, Funny)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 8 years ago | (#15107855)

Well, this is Oklahoma, and it seems that CentOS is already a virus or hacker tool of some kind there...

Big Brother, nothing we can do? (5, Interesting)

Komarechka (967622) | about 8 years ago | (#15107297)

When then pen it into law that companies can look inside of out machine to "fix" problems, does that mean it is illegal to prevent them from doing so?

Re:Big Brother, nothing we can do? (1)

Agent00Wang (146185) | about 8 years ago | (#15107337)

Perhaps it will be akin to police serving a warrant to search your home. You can stop the police from coming in if they don't have one, but you'll be enjoying a nice knee in the back if you try to stop them when they do.

Re:Big Brother, nothing we can do? (5, Insightful)

TomTraynor (82129) | about 8 years ago | (#15107360)

Unless it is written into the law that you cannot prevent them from going in then it is allowed. Hopefully someone will get the lawmakers a clue bat and let them know that a third party has complete access to all of the lawmakers private and confidential information on their computers. The third party won't even need to be security cleared, that third party can grab anything and do anything without letting the person know.

Re:Big Brother, nothing we can do? (1)

Mecdemort (930017) | about 8 years ago | (#15107560)

Every lawmaker needs a monkey standing behind him with a clue-by-4 (TM) to take action whenever said lawmaker picks up a pen.

Just great. (5, Funny)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | about 8 years ago | (#15107325)

In other news, Charles Manson has produced a flawless plan for the public to avoid being murdered by crazed serial killers, relying heavily on letting him murder you before any "really bad people" can.

Re:Just great. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107446)

I scoff at your trotting out of Manson! Even the Public Affairs branch of the Department of Homeland Security could...uhh...never mind...

Re:Just great. (3, Insightful)

timeOday (582209) | about 8 years ago | (#15107504)

Not exactly. From my reading of the article, this law doesn't legalize anything that's illegal today. It says, "no spying, except for these loopholes." Now, we can (and probably should) complain about the loopholes, but don't forget that right now there are no loopholes, because there is no law - whatever's in the fine print, goes. This law would prevent most companies from doing whatever they want simply by hiding legalize in the fine print, as they do now. The only catch is, certain companies (such as Microsoft, not surprisingly) can keep writing arbitrary EULAs wherein you "grant" them permission to do whatever they want.

Re:Just great. (1)

SecretAsianMan (45389) | about 8 years ago | (#15107552)

As an Oklahoman, I can assure you that there are not nearly as many savvy users here as are needed to "complain about the loopholes". The best bet is to not run the software that allows the loopholes to be exercised. That is a choice any Oklahoman can make.

Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion) (1)

z-kungfu (255628) | about 8 years ago | (#15107332)

I have to call Bullsh!t on this one.... If they let this go through they are dooming themselves... When will this kind of erosion of rights stop?

Re:Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion) (4, Interesting)

Intron (870560) | about 8 years ago | (#15107413)

Next thing you know, websites will be trying to prevent you from copying and pasting quotes [okgazette.com] into /. articles using hokey javascript.

Re:Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion) (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | about 8 years ago | (#15107619)

That's why the web developer tool bar for firefox is so good. Just 2 clicks to disable javascript, and you're free to copy to your heart's content.

Re:Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion) (1)

Main Gauche (881147) | about 8 years ago | (#15107820)

"That's why the web developer tool bar for firefox is so good. Just 2 clicks to disable javascript, and you're free to copy to your heart's content."

Of course those that don't have that extension will consider Ctrl-A to be one keystroke. ;)

Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion)-Armchair (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107436)

"I have to call Bullsh!t on this one.... If they let this go through they are dooming themselves... When will this kind of erosion of rights stop?"

I got a better one. When will we stop asking the obvious and actually start doing?

Re:Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion)-Armchair (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 8 years ago | (#15107703)

I got a better one. When will we stop asking the obvious and actually start doing?

Well, for starters, it would be much easier if Slashdot allowed us to communicate using personal messages (and thus keep our anonimity while being able to organize ourselves).

Slashdot has the potential to form interest-based communities, why don't they do it? Frankly, I have no idea.

Re:Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion) (1)

reachums (949416) | about 8 years ago | (#15107488)

I'm gonna have to cry Bullsh!t too. did anyone else notice it was from the Inquirer? I just don't know, it seems suspicious to me

Re:Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion) (1)

Spy der Mann (805235) | about 8 years ago | (#15107614)

When will this kind of erosion of rights stop?

When people get together and say NO MORE. (Just look at the immigrants, with their marchs they're making the whitehouse sweat, aren't they?)

Where I live we have this saying: "The brave lives until the coward decides" (where brave = bully, coward = victim).

People in the US need to say STOP to lobbying, to the bipartisan system, to the electoral votes system and all that garbage that strips the rights from the people.

Re:Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion) (0)

c6gunner (950153) | about 8 years ago | (#15107836)

....do you have ANY idea what you're talking about? While I might not like the idea of MS dicking around with my computer, this law is actualy an improvement on the status quo. The only "rights" it's stripping is the rights of corporations to infect your computer with spyware. Stop being a doofus and either explain why you're opposed to the law, or stfu.
Where I live we have this saying: "The brave lives until the coward decides"
Wonderful. As soon as I read that, I pictured a knight in shining armour, atop his glorious steed, surrounded by a horde of deranged peasants. What a great ideal. Why strive to be the best that we can personaly achieve when, instead, we can tear down those better than us and bring them to our level. Your mindset is truly a sign of the times.

Re:Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion) (1)

harveyr (967607) | about 8 years ago | (#15107852)

While I'm not necessarily in favor of this law, the question of what online rights we really have is still up in the air. There must be rights to begin with for any erosion of them to take place.

obligatory... (4, Funny)

revery (456516) | about 8 years ago | (#15107358)

Clippy: It looks like you are writing a state law, do you mind if I insert Microsoft-friendly boilerplate?

[User clicks no.]

Clippy: Congratulations, your document has been modified and submitted for sponsorship and ultimately passage by Microsoft-owned employees... err shills... err statesmen... Thank you for using Microsoft Word. (Also, we'll keep that private folder between you and me, ok? It'd be a shame for the attorney general to see that...) Have a nice day! You poor little sheep... HA HA HA HA HA!

Hmmm... On one hand... (3, Interesting)

ursabear (818651) | about 8 years ago | (#15107365)

My Pavlovian [wikipedia.org] reaction was, "OhhhhhhhhNNNNNNNNNNNNNNooooooooooooooooo!"

Now that the bell has rung, my kibbles are ingested, and I feel better...
If you were a state agency and needed security expertise, where would you go to get the information you need (to write a law/rule/proposition/etc. that is based on highly technical stuff)? Would you go to a security firm? Would you go to the local IT management firm? Would you go to a support shop like Geeks 'r' Us?

A little voice inside my head (yes, I have those sometimes - be afraid) says that something inside the law may be done to tilt things Microsoft's way - but I don't know that Microsoft would be such a bad partner (all feelings of MSHatred(tm) aside - just looking at it as a business).

Re:Hmmm... On one hand... (3, Insightful)

PitaBred (632671) | about 8 years ago | (#15107444)

You know, it's nice you looked up Pavlov. If you had spent half that time actually reading the 7 (tiny!) paragraph article in question, you'd have noticed this sentence "In other words if you install Vista, Microsoft can come in, snoop around your computer see if you are doing anything illegal and delete it." and it would have confirmed that "little voice inside [your] head"

But my guess is that you're just trying to get karma [wikipedia.org] with as little work as possible.

Will Tuttle have any input? (5, Funny)

Snap E Tom (128447) | about 8 years ago | (#15107366)

Heh. Because if they do, I'll bet Apache and CentOS gets listed as spyware.

Re:Will Tuttle have any input? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107500)

Yeah, I was wondering if that prompted this or not. Guess I was too lazy to find out if the bill was drafted prior to the Tuttle Taylor incident or not... any one care to look? ;)

Who the hell marked this "off topic"? It's VERY relevent! That Taylor dumb ass thought Apache / CentOS was malware! And he is a city manager in Oklahoma. And this is an article about a new Oklahoma law regarding malware. How is this at all off topic? Me thinks we need to revoke someones /. account... talk about abuse of karma!

clause for defective OS liability? (5, Insightful)

potus98 (741836) | about 8 years ago | (#15107373)

Perhaps the Act should be expanded to include liability for companies that offer operating systems with poorly designed security that permit (some of) such problems in the first place. Sure, users are responsable when they flip their car off the road, but auto-makers are still liable when they manufacture a vehicle with inherintly weak suspension arms.

Well, it looks like dual boot may not be enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107374)

I'm seriously thinking of using two independent computers for everyday business. One to surf the web and download what I want to, and another for all my working software, etc. I can transfer stuff between them with a thumb drive, after checking any files very carefully. A pain, but I'll be damned if I am going to let Big Brother have access this easily.

Re:Well, it looks like dual boot may not be enough (1)

bb5ch39t (786551) | about 8 years ago | (#15107550)

With Linux, this should not be necessary. I have two "user" accounts. One is for everything other than Web surfing. The other is for the Web. Even there there is some Linux-malware the likelyhood of it being able to do anything other than wiping out my "throw away" Web user's files is very small.

Re:Well, it looks like dual boot may not be enough (1)

Intron (870560) | about 8 years ago | (#15107581)

You might just consider an O/S where users have specific defined capabilities. One account might be used for web browsing, but not have access to sensitive information, for example. That user's files could be read by another user with a higher level of access.

Why (1)

Kuukai (865890) | about 8 years ago | (#15107378)

Why Oklahoma?


(No offense, just curious, because this undoubtedly costing Microsoft's legal team big monies, yet I can't really see the strategy...)

Re:Why (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107417)

Because Kansas was still busy with it's sex ed legislation?

Re:Why (1)

soft_guy (534437) | about 8 years ago | (#15107480)

Perhaps because it is one of the redest of the red states, so if you can bribe republicans there, they still don't have to worry about losing an election. You could probably perform vivisections on babies and still be re-elected there as a republican.

Re:Why (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107636)

There is no bribery needed of a republican to do this. Most (certainly all neo-cons) are solidly behind DRM and allowing the coorporate world to have more power.

that's just great (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107386)

What's next, the recording industry passing laws to sterilize children so they can't breed more downloaders?

This is the problem damnit (2, Interesting)

IHateAllofYou (962039) | about 8 years ago | (#15107391)

Why in the HELL would you let Microsoft or any other company PERIOD to write or even assist in the writing of a law like this. All Im saying is that they wrote the law to protect the computer from all illegal activites but give them and every other company free reign on your machine. Thats NEVER good! What kind of dumbass do you need to be to see this is a positive thing?

Re:This is the problem damnit (1)

Zephyros (966835) | about 8 years ago | (#15107457)

The kind of "dumbass" who doesn't know how computers work and doesn't care, just as long as they do work. In other words...the majority of the computer-using population.

Re:This is the problem damnit (4, Funny)

Like2Byte (542992) | about 8 years ago | (#15107464)

What kind of dumbass do you need to be to see this is a positive thing?


Hrm, I'll bite. http://www.tuttle-ok.gov/index.asp?Type=B_BASIC&SE C=%7BCC5DEFB6-1B2A-4783-A5F8-A92275C95081%7D [tuttle-ok.gov]

Re:This is the problem damnit (1)

IHateAllofYou (962039) | about 8 years ago | (#15107487)

HAHA I figured that would come up so yeah I can definately say Im not surprised I just hope it doesn't pass. Someone has to be smart enough to know this is very bad. Whenever you let a corporation get their hands on a law they mold it to best suit them and that is exactly what has happened.

Re:This is the problem damnit (1)

the_rev_matt (239420) | about 8 years ago | (#15107629)

Got news for ya sparky, the majority of legislation at both the state and federal level is written in part or whole by lobbyists. New energy laws written by energy lobbyists, entertainment laws written by entertainment lobbyists, toothpick standards laws written by toothpick lobbyists (I'm sure there are at least a few). Not all legislation, but certainly the majority. At this point we'd be better off firing all the elected officials and just letting the lobbyists do it directly. It'd be cheaper and more honest.

The alternative is to pay attention to what your elected officials are doing and to hold them accountable, but I don't think that's likely to happen.

Re:This is the problem damnit (3, Insightful)

stinerman (812158) | about 8 years ago | (#15107647)

You do understand that monied interests writing the bills is tending to be the rule rather than the exception these days, right?

Re:This is the problem damnit (1)

computersareevil (244846) | about 8 years ago | (#15107801)

Why in the HELL would you let Microsoft or any other company PERIOD to write or even assist in the writing of a law like this.

Uh, MONEY!!! Doesn't cost much to buy yourself a middle-America legislator.

`Capability' is for sale! (1)

Itsacon (967006) | about 8 years ago | (#15107394)

I wonder what will be the definition of `the better known capable companies', and what will set them apart from `individuals'. I bet the term `Campaign-sponsor' will be involved somewhere...

Protect the Spyware! (1)

bunco (1432) | about 8 years ago | (#15107395)

I for one support the protection of spyware. Without the propagation of spyware, malware and viruses, many companies would go out of business. :P

Maybe they could rename the act?

And in other news (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107418)

Kevin Mitnick is to help Oklahoma write anti-hacker laws.

the user is protected how? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107427)

If it allows any company that is given permission by the user to search the computer at will, how does this prevent adware and spyware?
Most spyware comapnies have fought for the ability to exist based on the fact that the user had to click on the link to download the software from a pop-up constitutes agreeing to the terms of the software use. I believe gator uses this argument...

The Year of Linux on the Desktop in OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107447)

They keep trying to heat up the water and hope the frog cooks and doesn't notice.

I think the frog is going to jump out of the pot.

and about the monpolis...!!! (1, Interesting)

hihihihi (940800) | about 8 years ago | (#15107462)

From TFA "it is probably the first written overtly by a major company without bothering with the tedious problem of lobbying"

ar'nt there any laws that prohibit a monopoly from acting like this???
just curious..

eh what? (1)

zoloto (586738) | about 8 years ago | (#15107475)


The law will supposedly protect people from unwarranted hackers or virus attacks...


Aside from laws being merely an extension of a socially acceptable psychological deterrent with provisions for those we deem "law enforcers" (which should have a more describing name of their true nature), laws of this type really do nothing.

That and the fact that Microsoft has helped to write it is a step in the right direction, one of being guided by a technologically aware firm, but I don't think MS should be the ones to write it given their history.

just my 2 cents worth of a rant

$1M for doing something without permission? (1)

Fastolfe (1470) | about 8 years ago | (#15107485)

The articles were light on this information. Does anyone know more about this $1 million penalty for breaking into someone's computer without their permission? I'm all for nailing spyware companies to the wall, but if Jane decides one day to cross a line and read her boyfriend's e-mail without his permission, does that mean she's going to be paying off a $1M debt for the rest of her life? That seems a bit excessive.

Unusual punishment? (2, Insightful)

ehiris (214677) | about 8 years ago | (#15107491)

Is this law unconstitutional? 1 Million dollars for breaking into just any computer seems pretty steep.

It should be cheaper to fend off some REAL bad people that the authorities can't get around to catch.

Re:Unusual punishment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107586)

Is this law unconstitutional? 1 Million dollars for breaking into just any computer seems pretty steep.

Yes, I doubt they can get away with such an insane fine. Especially since there are ALREADY FEDERAL LAWS against unauthorized use of computer systems. This law would not only be redundant, but also falls under the catagory of "cruel and unusual punishment" which would make it unconstitutional.

Of course with the republicans in charge, promoting the "unitary president" idea (friendlier term than saying what this really is, a DICTATOR!) who knows how much longer that will be the case. Remember, when pushed on the torture issue the Bush Administration has NEVER said they do not condone torture! They have only argued the extent to which they should be allowed to torture someone. "Well, it's ok to put them through sleep deprevation (very dangerous and could even be deadly!) but not OK to grab their balls with a pliers." is basically their argument. And when our goverment is defedning forms of torture... well... that opens the flood gates for all kinds of shit!!

Re:Unusual punishment? (1)

jasen666 (88727) | about 8 years ago | (#15107595)

No shit. This would make it a harsher penalty for remotely peeking at your neighbor's computer over his unprotected wifi, than if you broke into his house and stole his computer.
Hell, some people don't make a million dollars in their whole lifetime.

OK (3, Insightful)

hackstraw (262471) | about 8 years ago | (#15107510)

1) What does MS know about preventing spyware aside from charging extra for it in an upcoming newly released service?

2) $1mil fine is not sufficient. Its still very profitable to break into a computer and steal over a million dollars worth of information.

From the real FA [okgazette.com] that does not allow copy and pasting from their website via a DRM like mechanism, documented here:


* Disable select-text script- © Dynamic Drive (www.dynamicdrive.com)
* This notice MUST stay intact for legal use
* Visit http://www.dynamicdrive.com/ [dynamicdrive.com] for full source code
*/


I can still grab the text via the source, so here's the gem:

If you click that "accept" button on the routine user's agreement, the proposed law would allow any company from whom you bought upgradable software the freedom to come onto your computer for "detection or prevention of the unauthorized use of or fraudulent or other illegal activities in connection with a network, service, or computer software, including scanning for and removing computer software prescribed under this act."

So, all you have to do is ask the user to install spyware. Shouldn't be too tough.

Good law!

Re:OK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107519)

except now that when the user clicks accept the spyware has legal rights to all the information on your computer

Select-Text Script -- Only in Vole-Land (0, Offtopic)

slashbob22 (918040) | about 8 years ago | (#15107628)

I haven't seen this DRM before, though I am sure there are a lot of them around. I really like it though, since it appears to be another fine example of an application developed for IE. Firefox 1.5 doesn't appear to be hindered by it too much. It appears to block selection IFF you are selecting top down, but select text from the bottom and move up and it works like a charm (sometimes you had to click a few times).

Well done Dynamic Drive - another fine example of security through obscurity (no one uses Mozilla do they?)

// End Rant

Foxes And Hen Houses Come To Mind (1)

blueZhift (652272) | about 8 years ago | (#15107522)

Hmmm, foxes guarding hen houses comes to mind. But in all fairness, it is still a good thing that Microsoft is involved and in a way shows a sense of responsibility. I can only hope that the baser aspects of human nature won't raise their ugly heads here later.

In other words (1)

darjen (879890) | about 8 years ago | (#15107534)

The various governments of the US are in bed with large corporations. So what else is new? I think it's been like this for awhile now. It's funny, the very people who are charged with protecting us from these so called evil companies abusive consumer practices are pandering to them left and right. This is what you get when the government has the power to grow uncontrollably and make practically any new laws they want. Sure they still need a majority, but with how things are going the majority who are in control are only interested in furthering their own wealth and power at the expense of the rest of us.

The FULL article by Ben Fenwick is here. (4, Informative)

enforcer999 (733591) | about 8 years ago | (#15107539)

Re:The FULL article by Ben Fenwick is here. (1)

entrylevel (559061) | about 8 years ago | (#15107867)

From TFA:

"It's crazy," Reynolds said of the law. "The vote was unanimous. We were in the middle of some other bill. Someone walked up to me and said, 'I thought you'd vote against that.' And I said, 'Duh.' I thought it was about spam. I didn't bother to read it to that level."

Does this make anyone else's blood boil? From what I can tell, Reynolds is the "good guy", yet he can't even be bothered to read the law he is passing.

I hear about this all the time. Apparently it's "standard operating procedure." What the FUCK do our elected officials actually do all day?

Finally american politics out in the open! (1)

presarioD (771260) | about 8 years ago | (#15107543)

"This legislation is brought to you by Microsoft(TM)". Happy democracy(TM) and freedom(TM)...

aOK (0, Troll)

Doc Ruby (173196) | about 8 years ago | (#15107547)

In a sick twist, the Oklahoma City bomber can now posthumously claim he was right, that he blew up the Federal Building to protect us. A sicker twist would have Microsoft spyware catching him before he blew up the office in which Microsoft was writing the antispyware law.

=oO= (4, Insightful)

qeveren (318805) | about 8 years ago | (#15107574)

Section 6 of the act says such a prohibition "shall not apply" to "telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software provider or provider of information service."

So... the law doesn't even apply to spyware, since companies that produce spyware are technically "software providers or providers of information service", no?

Loop Hole Already (1)

creeves1982 (880009) | about 8 years ago | (#15107691)

Now because Microsoft knows that it sometimes need to get information from their users for upgrades, it has put in a clause to allow software companies to do this. Basically the Vole law demands that a software company licence agreement tells you the sort of data they are taking.
Welcome to Chucks software Company of DOOM. They type of software we make? Oh well thats just so that we can have access to your computer

Think about what they could do with this... (1)

sarcasticfrench (949383) | about 8 years ago | (#15107733)

With this law, any company that wants to could easily just delete their competitor's software on your computer!! That is unless you read the license agreement really carefully, and who does that?! As someone else mentioned, all Microsoft would have to do would be to classify linux/mac os x as spyware. Also, what if you install some piece of software, and part of the license agreement that you didn't read is that they can come into your computer and steal all your passwords, credit card numbers, etc? That could make what is currently spyware legal, as long as they say what their gonna do in the license agreement. The only solution I see is to read all those license agreements...

I'm just happy I'm not in oklahoma...

Oddly phrased submission (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 8 years ago | (#15107788)

Links to both the Inquirer article and the OKGazette article are present, but the latter is far more informative. Why mention the Inquirer article (basically just a summary) at all?

Big Brother is watching.......and Big uncle-in-law (4, Informative)

Drinkgreen (964785) | about 8 years ago | (#15107799)

For those of you unaware, Oklahomans are allowed to look at "special" pornography. "Special", meaning no penetration or ejaculation in our magazines, skin-a-max, or anything. Its hard as hell to find a total nude strip club in this state. Neighboring states already know this, such as Texas. When you travel south from Oklahoma, into Texas, the first thing you see (even before the "Welcome To Texas" sign) is a little building with a giant XXX sign. We Oklahoman's know when we've left the state, because all the porno shops appear.

I'm glad about this spyware law, but I think its just more about getting to see what's on user's computers , legally. The Anti-Spyware law is just a front. Oklahoma has been wanting to be able to monitor people for a long time. Which I understand on one hand, but also kind of sucks. I mean, our porn sucks anyway, but now we have to worry about someone watching us visit "non-Oklahoma" approved sites.

old news (2, Insightful)

cosminn (889926) | about 8 years ago | (#15107810)

From TFA:

In other words if you install Vista, Microsoft can come in, snoop around your computer see if you are doing anything illegal and delete it.

This was an issue since Windows 2000 SP2 actually. This clause was removed with Windows XP due to complaints from companies and such.

Also, unless the Vista EULA includes this clause again, Oklahoma's law doesn't affect me whatsoever since I don't live there. And if more states pass laws with a similar clause, or they make it a federal law (doubtful), then companies and people will again complain and they'll take it out.

Just another conspiracy theory in the making...

4th ammendment (1)

Sandbags (964742) | about 8 years ago | (#15107813)

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

I think this puts a clear stop to any ideas Microsoft may have on this issue.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...