From: Gary Britt 

What an amazingly horrible piece of crap legislation.  Thanks to the
democraps controlling congress!!!!!!  Not the republicans were a bunch of
genii when it comes to this kind of legislation.

Gary

Rich Gauszka wrote:
> 'The bill very specifically pre-empts all state laws that regulate "unfair
> or deceptive conduct" similar to that covered by the Spy Act. '
>
> http://weblog.infoworld.com/gripeline/archives/2007/04/spy_act_only_pr.html?s
ource=NLC-GRIPE&cgd=2007-04-24
>
> Here we go again. Congress has decided it needs to protect us from spyware,
> but - surprise, surprise - the bill they are most seriously considering
> actually offers no help in that regard. What's worse, the bill seems
> designed to make it harder for you to legally go after those who spy on you,
> particularly if they are doing so to determine if you're authorized to use a
> software product.
>
>
>
> Last week a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
> approved H.R. 964, the Spy Act, which bans some of the more blatant forms of
> spyware such as those that hijack computer or log keystrokes. The bill now
> goes to the full committee for approval, and it's expected to move quickly
> as it has strong bipartisan support.
>
>
>
> But why? There are already plenty of federal and state laws regarding
> computer fraud, trespass, and deceptive trade practices that make spyware
> illegal. The existing laws have been sufficient to allow the FTC and/or
> state attorneys general to even successfully go after some of the nastier
> adware companies like Direct Revenue and Zango/180 Solutions. So what is the
> purpose of this law?
>
>
>
> A clue can be found in the Limitations section of the Act, which features
> this rather broad exception:
>
>
>
>   Exception Relating to Security- Nothing in this Act shall apply to--
>
>
>   (1) any monitoring of, or interaction with, a subscriber's Internet or
> other network connection or service, or a protected computer, by a
> telecommunications carrier, cable operator, computer hardware or software
> provider, or provider of information service or interactive computer
> service, to the extent that such monitoring or interaction is for network or
> computer security purposes, diagnostics, technical support, or repair, or
> for the detection or prevention of fraudulent activities; or
>
>
>   (2) a discrete interaction with a protected computer by a provider of
> computer software solely to determine whether the user of the computer is
> authorized to use such software, that occurs upon -- (A) initialization of
> the software; or (B) an affirmative request by the owner or authorized user
> for an update of, addition to, or technical service for, the software.
>
>
> In other words, it's perfectly OK for basically any vendor you do business
> with, or maybe thinks you do business with them for that matter, to use any
> of the deceptive practices the bill prohibits to load spyware on your
> computer. The company doesn't have to give you notice and it can collect
> whatever information it thinks necessary to make sure there's no funny
> business going on. And by the way, another exception provision specifically
> protects computer manufacturers from any liability for spyware they load on
> your computer before they send it to you. Of course, the exception for
> software companies checking to make sure you're an authorized user is the
> strongest evidence of what this bill is all about. After all, in terms of
> function, there's not much difference between spyware and DRM. Too bad for
> Sony this bill wasn't already the law when its rootkit-infected CDs came to
> light.
>
>
>
> Another disturbing aspect of the bill is its enforcement provisions. The
> bill very specifically pre-empts all state laws that regulate "unfair or
> deceptive conduct" similar to that covered by the Spy Act. Now, the state
> spyware laws are pretty useless anyway, so that may not seem like a big
> problem. But the bill vests all enforcement power in the FTC and says that
> "no person other than the Attorney General of a State may bring a civil
> action" under the law. Private rights of action under state consumer
> protection laws are eliminated. So if you're victimized by a spyware-like
> deception and want to sue the perpetrator, you've got to talk the FTC or
> your state attorney general into taking up your case.
>
>
>
> Let's sum up. If the Spy Act become law, hardware, software, and network
> vendors will be granted carte blanche to use spyware themselves to police
> their customers' use of their products and services. Incredibly broad
> exceptions will probably allow even the worst of the adware outfits to
> operate with legal cover. State attempts to deal with the spyware problem
> will be pre-empted and enforcement left up almost entirely to the FTC. Gee,
> what's not to like in that deal?
>
>
>
> If Congress' approach on this sounds vaguely familiar, it should. It's
> basically the same formula Congress adopted four years to deal with spam. As
> we know, the dreadful Can Spam Act of 2003 proved to be the "Yes, You Can
> Spam Act." If wiser heads in Congress don't prevail - and who
knows if there
> are any - I fear the Spy Act of 2007 will just prove to be the "Vendors Can
> Spy Act."
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5