Can Malware Firms Use EULAs To Ban Security Firms From Stopping Spyware?
from the interesting-tactic dept
The maker of a keylogger program that is advertised as a way for parents to watch what their kids do online is threatening an anti-spyware maker for listing their product as potentially being spyware. There have been some lawsuits like this before, over the issue of whether or not the product actually is "spyware," but this case is different in some important ways. Instead of quibbling over the definition being used, the keylogger maker, RetroCoder, says it put a note in its end user license agreement (EULA) saying that the program could not be used by anyone who creates "a program that will affect this software's ability to perform its function." In other words, they're trying to get around the issue by saying anyone who might disable their software is forbidden from looking at their software, as per the license agreement. Just think of the can of worms that opens up, if allowed. Any malware writer would just have to put similar language into an EULA, and antispyware firms wouldn't be able to do anything. Hell, Sony could do the same thing with their little rootkit. Hopefully, this case actually does go to court (though, you'd have to think the lawyers for RetroCoder would understand it's a bad idea), because it would help define the limitations of these EULAs. There is already some precedent. Back in 2002, Network Associates was sued for putting language in their EULAs that banned any negative reviews of the product. The company lost that case, making it clear that you can't put just anything into those agreements.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
So....
Right...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Can Malware Firms Use EULAs To Ban Security Firm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Can Malware Firms Use EULAs To Ban Security
The wording of a EULA cannot ever be allowed to supercede the word of law. If a court allowed such a thing it would set an extremely dangerous precident. Fortunately, legal documents with wording that's supposed to let them bypass certain laws have been repeated defeated in the courts. No judge in his/her right mind would allow such a thing to happen.
No unless they wanted to be disbarred.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sunbelt Software == spammers
are well-known spammers; have been for years.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Comparison...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Retrocoder's Reply
"As you can see, at the moment it is just a warning to them to stop blacklisting the program. Our program is not a "trojan" or "virus", it is used to keep a remote "eye" on your kids or employees. The user must have access to the users machine in order to install the client. Only the installer of the program can view the client machine. Our program does not attempt to bypass firewalls or other such protection." - Retrocoder (Slashdot)
(Note that this is governed by UK law which made pretty much all breach-of-copyright a criminal offense about 2 years ago. I thought this was stupid and complained to my MP, but almost nobody else did.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How about an Installed Software Licensing Agreemen
1) being monitored by whatever means the end user wishes to monitor you with, be it other software or additional hardware.
2) do not change my hardware nor more software, nor my settings for either hardware or software without notifying me, and allowing me to change those settings back at any time if they are changed.
3) being modified for any reason by the end user, up to and including complete removal from the hardware.
4) must give the end user a way of removing you completely from the end user hardware. This is a separate issue from #3.
5) Updates are at the option of the end user (Are you listening Google? Apple?)
There's more I'm sure, but that's what I've got at the top of my head.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]