If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Trump's Truth Social Bakes Section 230 Directly Into Its Terms, So Apparently Trump Now Likes Section 230
- Wireless Industry Now Claims 5G Will Miraculously Help Fix Climate Change
- New Bill Claims To Ban 'Surveillance Advertising,' But Doesn't Actually Do It
- Airline CEOs Freak Out Over 5G Despite Limited Evidence Of Real World Harm
- Senator Blumenthal Blames TikTok... Due To A Popular And Widely Championed Science Experiment Gone Wrong
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Spyware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spyware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spyware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spyware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spyware
However, as someone else mentioned, we are already heading in that direction.
What is unfortunate is that while the government or Media organizations can effectively "monitor" our internet usage, there's no law against bone-fide spyware doing it.
The government should either step out entirely, and let the Internet be (including trying to police copyright infrindgement by allowing the misuse of the Judicial system,) or it ought to at least protect the privacy of the citizen just as much as it protects companies that misuse obtained innformation.
I guess we just have to accept the fact that information is now a greater commodity than ever before, and it will only get worse.
Regarding different anti-spyware programs detecting each other or different items, the finally decision should and already is in the hands of the user. E.g: If "Spyware Bleacher" and "Spyware Buttwiper" detect each other as spyware, who cares, because we can always do our own research and see who we trust more.
The government needs to get out and stay the hell out of the internet completely and let it be our best tool for free speach and sharing information.
It should be common sense that Government and Information are a bad mix!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Spyware
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Let us decide...
I think all these lawsuits against anti-spyware companies such as Symantec claiming that Symantec is falsely labeling company X's product "spyware" is ridiculous!
Why doesn't Symantec just create a list of questionable actions that various apps perform:
[ ] Programs that send your search queries to a third-party.
[ ] Programs that record and report back to the software maker that you have run their product.
[ ] Etc.
And let the end user of the anti-spyware app check off the actions that are objectionable to them. This way, *I* can choose which type of apps I deem as "spyware" and want the anti-spyware app to remove. Thus, there will be no reason for a software maker to accuse anti-spyware company's to mis-classifying their product as spyware, since the end user decides what type of apps they want removed. Simple huh?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us decide...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Let us decide...
Simple...the app could have all the check-boxes "checked" by default - which would indicate that the user wants to block ALL suspicious apps/actions. But, by allowing the user to de-select certain actions/apps eliminates Symantec from liability that they forced users to accept that the app from xyz was spyware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rework email
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Two words
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The USA government unable to stop spyware it seems
[ link to this | view in chronology ]