The world of computers defines spywares as malicious software programs created to block or partially manipulate the operation of a particular computer without the permission of the owner of that computer. The spyware monitors all the activities of the user on the computer, and any information gathered will be sent over the World Wide Web. Information can include the websites visited by the user; these information like credit card numbers or passwords are then sent to advertisement companies.
Laws on computer crimes like the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of America consider unapproved access to any computer as illegal. Given the fact that people may be unaware of the spyware installed in their computers is already suggesting the criminal nature of spyware promotion. This has led several law enforcers to go after the people behind the creation and proliferation of spywares and other malicious programs and viruses. But despite this action, only spyware is still very much prevalent.
Many spyware companies are bravely defending that their operation is legal. Spyware with shareware programs usually give end-user license agreement, or EULA, which is written in a very technical language. Most users have made it a habit to disregard this disclaimer, which spyware producers take as another way of granting user's consent. Taking this perspective, it only shows that spyware authors have indeed given a disclaimer and users actually gave authorization for the installation -- thus, making the transaction consensual.
Only few case laws came about from the use of these ubiquitous EULA and clickwrap agreements. Many typical law jurisdictions have considered clickwrap agreements as binding contracts in specific cases. But generally, this doesn't make all clickwrap agreements an automatic contract nor all the terms cited in the clickwrap agreement enforceable. It is very possible that many jurisdictions would dismiss a lot of the questionable terms used in the agreement being against public policy. Many of spyware agreements were intentionally drafted long and ambiguous, and important contract terms go unnoticeable. Agreements of this nature are usually considered null and void. Furthermore, in the event that a user has no chance either to accept or reject the terms in the contract, like in drive-by downloads, it is clear that there's no contract justifying the spyware fraudulently installed.
Some states in America, like Washington and Iowa, have submitted laws making the production or proliferation of spyware a crime. Only the operator or the owner of the PC can legally input programs to change the settings of the internet browser, watch keystrokes, or turn off the security of the PC.
One incident of spyware lawsuits is the case in 2005 filed by Eliot Spitzer, an attorney-general from New York, against Intermix Media, Inc., a firm in California. Intermix dispersed its spyware through drive-by download, which resulted in its spyware being installed in a manner that it would be hard to delete.
Meanwhile, several internet publishers filed a law suit in June of 2002 against Claria for substituting advertisements, but the case was settled outside of the court. This spyware behavior of substituting web ads became a magnet of lawsuits. Replacing advertisements redirects income from the website, which carries the advertisement to the creator of the spyware.
Up to now, courts are still unable to have a final rule if advertisers can held liable for spywares carrying their ads. Most of the time, companies with ads shown in pop-ups of spywares have no direct relation with the firm running the spyware. The advertised business hires an ad agency, which then hires a web subcontractor who is paid based on how many 'impressions' -- number of the ads' -- are made. Dell Computer, Mercedes-Benz, and other big companies have terminated advertising firms which gave their advertisements in spyware.
On the other end of the issue are some spyware companies threatening websites that have displayed the specifications of their stuff. Claria, when the company was still named as Gator in 2003, sued PC Pitshop's website because the website categorized the program of Gator as 'spyware.' The lawsuit ended in a settlement, and PC Pitshop agreed to not use the term 'spyware,' although up to now, PC Pitshop still publishes descriptions of Claria/Gator software's adverse behaviors.
>>> Next: Keeping An Eye On Spyware
<<< Previous: How The Spyware Application Operates
All content on this site are copyrighted and protected by law. The reviews are written exclusively for userreviews.com. Distribution, copying and in any other way re-using this information for private or commercial purpose is forbidden.
|
