Court Rules That Anti-Spyware Companies Can Call Spyware Spyware
from the what's-in-a-name dept
All too often, we've seen cases where security software firms were sued for calling some piece of software "spyware" or "adware." In fact, Microsoft even wanted to make sure that new anti-spyware legislation would make it clear that there's nothing wrong with calling spyware "spyware." However, in the latest ruling on one of these cases (in which Zango sued Kaspersky), the ruling makes it clear we already have such a law on the books. The judge dismissed the lawsuit, noting that security firms have every right to label software as they see fit, citing part of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act.We often point to section 230, because it protects service providers from liability for the actions of the service providers' users. However, this is referring to a different part of section 230, which says that no service provider is liable for a good faith attempt to restrict access to something it deems objectionable. The court felt that the security company was a service provider, and that since it believed Zango was objectionable, then it has every right to try to restrict it. The court makes a second very important point. Zango complains that its software is not objectionable, and therefore the security providers cannot block it as objectionable. However, the court points out that the statute clearly says that it's for what the service provider finds objectionable. In other words, the content in question need not be "objectionable" at all -- it only matters what the service provider feels about it. This is a pretty strong endorsement for the idea that security companies absolutely can call software whatever they feel is appropriate.
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
Filed Under: adware, cda, section 230, spyware
Companies: kaspersky, zango
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
The law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The law
Good job for the law for a chance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The flip side (there is one - I'm it)
So... what should we do?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The flip side (there is one - I'm it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The flip side (there is one - I'm it)
I've been around that block with both Kaspersky and Spybot Search & Destroy - excellent products, but both have occasionally turned up a false positive. It's just one of the costs of running defensive software.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The flip side (there is one - I'm it)
If your toolbar is being flagged as adware, it's because it's triggering "adware-like" qualities in AVAST. Rather than blaming AVAST for calling your software spyware, spend more time making your software not like spyware. There are plenty off applications that utilize toolbars and plugins that don't get flagged as spyware.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The flip side (there is one - I'm it)
If your toolbar is being flagged as adware, it's because it's triggering "adware-like" qualities in AVAST. Rather than blaming AVAST for calling your software spyware, spend more time making your software not like spyware. There are plenty off applications that utilize toolbars and plugins that don't get flagged as spyware."
What he was saying, and correct me if I'm wrong Phil, is that he did try to contact them to have the flags removed, and to find out what his software was doing to warrant a red flag so that he could correct the behavior.
Unfortunately I have had the same issues with Norton and F-Prot years ago when I was developing software and they thought it was a virus. It was a screen capture application for monitoring telemarketing agents. Unfortunately the methods I used were tied to methods used by apps like VNC and back orafice. These apps are considered to be virii and are removed by most AV products. So I had to redevelope my apps because none of the AV vendors would talk to me unless I hired the highest priced lawyer in town to flex my legal muscle. And that was not going to happen. I didn't need the negative publicity.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The flip side (there is one - I'm it)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The flip side (there is one - I'm it)
If anyone has a problem, or they don't like an answer, they sue.
We are not children..STFU and stop complaining!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Competitors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Competitors
Norton already claims program like WinPatrol, Spybot and others need to be removed.
http://billpstudios.blogspot.com/2006/10/nav-2007-application-detection-error.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Competitors
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Thought
Anyone care to delve into this further over whether the fear is well based or not?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
devil's advocate
so, if google, as a service provider, decides that companies that have not paid for placement are deemed "questionable" then they can restrict access to sites that have not paid?
what sort of restrictions are considered legal and what sort is not? is a warning window ("google has deemed this site questionable, click ok to continue") considered "good faith"? what about redirecting a surfer to the site of a paid competitor? can google start redirecting searches for gateway computers to dell's website? at what point is that not considered to be "good faith"?
i don't think google would do something that stupid, but that doesn't mean that someone else won't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not good
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That's Rediculous
In this case, the anti-spyware company is using software, to restrict access to another piece of software citing objectionability as the cause.
Is this not parallel to certain software companies restricting access to software,say on an iphone, that locks a mobile device specific carrier? Perhaps theres a loophole here that makes it okay to pirate DVD's, unlock hardware or circumvent any control mechanism imposed by a company that is deemed objectionable?
Thoughts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Turns out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Turns out
You shouldn't have to have a degree in IT or center your life around your computer in order to use one. Yes, your setup works with careful attention, education and no risk-taking. It's not what I'd recommend for the average user.
And no, I don't think the average user is a "moron". Many are ignorant; most aren't stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Turns out
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
-Jamie M.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Jamie
Webmail.
Name a misspelled URL that will find an unpatched vulnerability in IE anyway.
Considering all the friend's computers I've seen virus and spyware riddled but "I don't know how I have antispyware and AVG/Norton/McAfee", I prefer my approach.
PS. It's not that I believe in "just a firewall", I believe in not being a moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
permission for non network neutral actions?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Heh
I feel it is an issue that does deserve a bit of discussion but I guess 'anon' was the only other person who recognized what I was saying?
Are we misunderstanding?
I do not know as nobody else has talked about it.
Just for reference if anybody just jumps to the end here, my original post is post #8.
Covers the topic of, doesn't this just allow ISP's to block any sites they don't want to let users deal with, and that's just a-okay now because "they find it objectionable"?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JHNN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]