Spyware Maker Sues Detection Firm 503
Luigi30 writes "ZDnet reports that RetroCoder, makers of the SpyMon remote monitoring program, are suing Sunbelt Software, makers of ConterSpy, a spyware detector program, for detecting the SpyMon as spyware. According to the EULA, SpyMon can not be used in 'anti-spyware research,' and detecting it is therefore a violation of it. 'In order to add our product to their list, they must have downloaded it and then examined it. These actions are forbidden by the notice,' a RetroCoder spokesperson said."
i hate spyware....but.. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:i hate spyware....but.. (Score:2)
I can't believe that a court would find in their favor.
Re:i hate spyware....but.. (Score:2)
In fact, there isn't even a suit yet. Merely the threat of one.
If it did go to court, it should probably take a few years before anything happened, anyway. By that time, the question will probably be moot.
Re:i hate spyware....but.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Asshole is right. Look at this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Don't know what your kids are doing on the net?
Worried that your partner is cheating on you?
Want to see what your employees are really doing instead of working?
Ever wanted to be a hacker like in the movies?
Great product niche - allowing paranoid idiots to spy on everyone in their life. Then there's a fantastically smug notice at the bottom of the web site that says:
Please note that the "crack" by "team tbe" doesn't work anymore.
Like I said - everything these guys do and say has asshole written all over it.
Re:Asshole is right. Look at this... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:i hate spyware....but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:i hate spyware....but.. (Score:5, Interesting)
2. Why is the industry so lawsuit crazy? Lawsuits are supposed to reimburse you for actual unlawful damages done. What damage was done by the anti-spyware company downloading the software? A few cents' worth of bandwidth at the most. What damage was done by installing it? None at all. This is surely the most baseless lawsuit ever.
(I know that including the spyware definitions in anti-spyware software will [one hopes] hurt the spyware company, but that's not what the suit is about.)
Re:i hate spyware....but.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Though I am by NO means defending a spyware company, damage you overlook can most certainly be alleged to have been done. For example, having your program classified as spyware and blocking it from being installed costs said spyware company "customers" and hence, potentially at least, reven
Re:i hate spyware....but.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Simple solution (Score:3, Interesting)
Message for SpyMon developers (Score:5, Funny)
Re:i hate spyware....but.. (Score:2)
Re:Easily to counter by applying Isaac Asimov (Score:3, Insightful)
Alice, Bob, and Charlie may be off the hook (especially if they don't have the big picture), but the XYZ Corp that employs them definitely is not.
Re:how about this EULA (Score:5, Funny)
If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck... (Score:5, Interesting)
If it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, then it must be a duck. :P
Re:If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck. (Score:2)
Re:If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck. (Score:2)
Why should MS be excluded?
Re:If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:If it looks like a duck and sounds like a duck. (Score:3, Funny)
The answer... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The answer... (Score:2)
Re:The answer... (Score:5, Insightful)
What's nice about this is that it works out no matter whether such a clause would be accepted: if it is accepted, then the spyware maker would have violated the anti-spyware product's EULA by looking at how it classifies the spyware. If it's not accepted, on the other hand, then the corresponding clause in the spyware's EULA would also not be accepted.
Myself, I think that such clauses aren't valid, but I also think that even if a court thinks they are, it'd be pretty impossible to actually get a case, as they could trivially be circumvented. For example, if I visit a friend and use their computer to do something in Photoshop, am I then bound by Photoshop's EULA? Of course not; I didn't buy the program, I didn't install it, I didn't agree to anything. My friend might be (or not), but I certainly am not. A spyware maker could do the same thing: just don't install the spyware yourself, but rather classify it after it infected someone else's computer. (On a side note, I doubt that most spyware actually presents a EULA to the user where he can clearly see what is going to happen, where he's given the opportunity to say "no, thanks" and where, if he does, the spyware will not be installed, anyway).
I'm not sure which is scarier... (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that someone actually is trying this, or the fact that I'm half-afraid it might work.
Let's all hope not.
Re:I'm not sure which is scarier... (Score:5, Insightful)
For instance, how about that bit about not disassembling, decompiling or reverse-engineering software that's in so many EULAs? That's the same kind of thing as this 'not use in spyware research' clause. If the one is unenforceable, then is the other one too?
Re:I'm not sure which is scarier... (Score:4, Interesting)
If I got you to sign a paper saying I could beat the snot out of you, and a police officer walks by during the act, what do you think said cop would say if I said "Its OK officer, he signed a waiver saying I could do this to him." Its just ridiculous.
Congress should outlaw EULA agreements altogether, even the part that says 'If this breaks we aren't responsible.' They wrote the software saying that it works, and if it breaks, they SHOULD be responsible.
Does it work against FBI agents too? (Score:5, Insightful)
Anyone remember those MOTD's on pirate-software FTP sites giving us a pseudo-legal-brief about President Clinton signing some law, and then "FBI AGENTS YOU CANNOT ENTER THIS SITE"?
Re:Does it work against FBI agents too? (Score:5, Interesting)
They never stopped, FTP simply lost importance. IRC fserves used to have them too. Websites, DC++ hubs, eMule hubs, WinMX shares as well. It's funny, I've had people present me that and then ask me if I'm a cop as well. Even after sending them this [snopes.com] and this [snopes.com] they still think it is for real. I guess it's some kind of mental self-defense, denial or whatever that makes them go LALALALALA I can't hear you.
Kjella
Goes back even further (Score:3)
Re:Does it work against FBI agents too? (Score:3, Informative)
It isn't true.
I dont think they'll win (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't need to (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Don't need to (Score:5, Insightful)
Except that if a clause like this were upheld, all the spyware makers would start adding similar clauses in short order, and anti-spyware makers would be out of business. It shouldn't be too hard to explain this to shareholders.
Re:Don't need to (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I dont think they'll win (Score:3, Informative)
I personally think this is generally moral
Re:I dont think they'll win (Score:2)
If this software is being selected as spyware it probably reports to the vendor an undisclosed number of information collected
I can see it now... (Score:3, Funny)
I can just see the coder in his dimly lit basement cackling while rubbing his hands in glee: "I have you now Norton!"
Detection w/o "Research" on the product (Score:2, Interesting)
Prove my invisible friend ISN'T Jesus. (Score:5, Interesting)
Is it legal for contracts to include conditions that are physically impossible to do? If so, my next bit of software is coming with a "If you can't prove you didn't make copies of the software, you owe us for as many copies as could possibly have been made between the time you first run the program and the time we sue you." Since nobody reads those things anyway.
On a mostly unrelated note, I wrote a program that shows funny pictures. It's awesome, and it's only 1 cent, for... processing purposes, if anyone's interested in a download.
Re:Prove my invisible friend ISN'T Jesus. (Score:2)
Re:Prove my invisible friend ISN'T Jesus. (Score:2, Informative)
Heuristics ? Or the admit in the EULA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Where's Al Qaeda when you need them? (Score:2)
The subject line of this post is intended to be humorous. It is not an endorsement of terrorism nor is it intended to encourage anyone to commit any illegal act.... except of course for jaywalking, sodomy, and mopery with intent to loiter.
The llamas responsible have all been sacked.
Lee
Don't agree to eula! (Score:5, Insightful)
Other great EULA small print (Score:5, Funny)
You agree that in using this Software, You give Us the right to your first born child.
Section 6784.
You agree that in using this Software, you will never hit the "g" key on your keyboard between 4:50AM and 3:15PM. This clause will survive termination of the Agreement.
Section 6785.
You will never call the Software a Piece Of Shit in public or in private.
Unenforceble I'd Say (Score:5, Funny)
EULAs are becoming increasingly cluttered with unenforceable and in cases downright silly things. With any luck a few frivolous lawsuits might see some of them struck down.
Ame
Re:Unenforceble I'd Say (Score:5, Insightful)
No shame!! (Score:4, Insightful)
The spyware people should be treated like programming commands and scripts: "Carried out and executed".
In general, I think the USA should change its name to "SueSA". When are people going to take responsibility for their own actions? If someone walks on my sidewalks and trips in a hole in it, it's their own g*dd*mn f**ing fault for not watching where they are going, not mine.
Virus creator sues McAffee for USD 200$ Mio (Score:5, Funny)
For Heaven's Sake (Score:2)
Admitting distribution spyware? (Score:2, Insightful)
So much fun (Score:5, Funny)
not research (Score:2)
The day reading an EULA constitutes acceptance: (Score:2)
EULAs in general. (Score:3, Insightful)
Legal documents are written with the intention of covering all possible situations, and often worded such that each clause is as broad as possible this is to avoid said lattice fence gaps. This is because once a gap appears it is exploited by lawyers to make the entire document sound ridiculous. (Which is often the case anyway.)
For example a lawyer will jump right onto this clause, and talk about all the other methods of research, they'll attempt to broadly classify what research is (including using the software at all.) His final point will be that it's impossible to satisfy the terms of the agreement in any way, making it an invalid document. For example the phrase "by reading this line you agree to not read this line", is obviously ridiculous, but essentially any lawyer will be able to make this EULA analogous to this.
First prove that Sunbelt accepted the EULA (Score:2, Interesting)
This is spyware, so it's main purpose is to install it without the user noticing, right?
A user that doesn't notice the install obviously doesn't read and accect a f*cking EULA, so it doesn't matter what the EULA says.
Sunbelt might just as well have examined a contamined PC.
EULAs are not valid contracts... (Score:4, Interesting)
To a contrat be valid, it must be an agreement between two parts. In the case of an EULA the consumer doesnt have any power of negociation, and in pratice cant change anything on the EULA.
The brazilian legislation also states that you cant be forced to agree with a contract that prejudice, or denies, any of your rights. This way no EULA can really be enforced here.
Just my 2c.
Re:EULAs are not valid contracts... (Score:2)
Like terrorism, EULAs mainly serve as a mechanism for threat. They can be referred to in letters from attorneys. In an actual court session they don't have much value.
EULA's on individual computers (Score:5, Interesting)
This is fair too, because as much as I don't understand their EULAs, they wont be able to understand mine. Vive la revolution in software consumer rights!
Re: (Score:2)
It can be downloaded without OKing the agreement (Score:3, Insightful)
http://www.spymon.com/downloads/install.exe [spymon.com]
Then you can extract the files from the installer exe without agreeing to anything.
EULA's -- Does anyone read these? (Score:2, Funny)
Copyright is powerfull... (Score:3, Interesting)
Copyright law plainly wasn't designed for what RetroCoder is using it for, said Christopher Brody, a partner at Clark & Brody in Washington, D.C. "Copyright laws prevent copying, not examination, and I question the enforceability of such a clause based on copyright ownership," he said.
Well since copyright is alos used to prevent the unauthorized copying of banknotes, copyright is actually quite powerful. But copyright will not prevent you from studyding bank notes, it might prevent you from creating machines that can help you to duplicate bank-notes (try scanning in a bank note into photoshop and you get the point.)
Nothing to do with copyright (Score:3, Informative)
The designs of US currency, like other works of the US government, are public domain. Depiction of currency is restricted by the Counterfeit Detection Act. Adobe have, at t
Faking a key-/buttonpress (Score:2, Insightful)
It won't fly... (Score:3, Informative)
Also, legal documents like EULAs and Contracts cannot by their wording violate the US Constitution, the constitute of the State in which it is written, nor current Federal, current State, County, and City laws. EULAs and Contracts do not give companies and individuals the ability to bypass the Word of Law.
A few examples of companies trying to get away with this are:
* Company rules restricting employee fraternization - They may have the right do to this in company premises, but I'd like to see them try to enforce such a rule in an employee's private residence. I can smell Civil Rights Violation a mile away. The ACLU would drool at the chance to handle a case like this.
* At Will causes in company contracts - In my state some business I worked for have "AT WILL" clauses saying they can let you go for any reason or no reason at all. Technically this is an attempt to circumvent Labor Laws and Equal Opportunity Labor Laws and likely wouldn't hold up in court.
There are just some examples of what companies are trying to get away with. No one person is above the law and no company should be allowed to be above it either.
Downloading vs. Installing (Score:3, Interesting)
And I'm 90% sure this part of the EULA wasn't written by a lawyer. Defendant can basically say "This isn't research" and tapdance all the way to the bank.
Honestly, next thing they'll be saying is that strapping these dummies to a table and yanking their entrails out with an iron hook is "anatomical research." It'll be fun to win that case by telling the jury I wasn't doing research---I was drawing and quartering a spyware manufacturer. The best part will be hearing the foreman say "not guilty on account of he was drawing and quartering a spyware manufacturer. And here's the addresses of a few spammers I know about."
how does one respond to this rationally? (Score:3, Interesting)
That's the only response I could come up with. When the whole world's gone crazy, how does one respond rationally?
Seriously, purveyors of spyware should be brought up on charges in criminal court. We do the same for virus writers, how is malware any different? Can you imagine the courts allowing a virus writer to sue AV firms? :)
Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:5, Informative)
This is a copy of the text sent to Sunbelt:
"If you read the copyright agreement when you downloaded or ran our
program you will see that Anti-spyware publishers/software houses
are NOT allowed to download, run or examine the software in any
way. By doing so you are breaking EU copyright law, this is a criminal
offence. Please remove our program from your detection list or we will
be forced to take action against you."
The action will be that we may be (in our opinion) forced to get the UK police authorities involved with Sunbelt over copyright theft. This is a criminal offence, not a civil one I believe.
Retrocoder Limited as the copyright holder, has the right to say who may or may not have its program. If someone has its program without permission, are they not guilty of a criminal offence?
For example, if you have a copy of Windows without MicroSofts permission, is this not a crime?
Below is a copy of the text sent to Joris Evers (who wrote the original article from it):
"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.
This is very different from "trojans" and "viruses" - they replicate
themselves and spread uncontrollably, you do not usually need direct
access to the users machine. They often try to bypass firewalls in
order to "reach" the internet.
Our problem is that companies like Sunbelt do not properly look at
software before they blacklist it. They clearly ignored legally
enforceable warnings that what they would be doing is not allowed by
the copyright holder. This shows that either they do not examine
programs properly or that they ignore copyright law. In order to add
our product to their trojan/virus list they must have downloaded it
and then examined it. Both of these actions are forbidden by the
copyright notice.
A similar situation arose with Grisoft with the AVG product. We sent
a similar warning letter out to them and they responded by removing
our programs from their blacklist. This resolved the situation and no
further action has been taken.
I will be consulting with our solicitor in the next few weeks about
companies like Sunbelt, what civil/criminal laws have been broken, and
how best to involve the UK Police authorities in action against them."
Re:Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:3, Interesting)
It may not be a virus as you say - so GRI would be right to remove it as such - but it could be used as a trojan as you are very well aware.
If someone had installed this on my system, I would want to know it was there. Would you?
If it's my system and I h
Re:Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:3, Informative)
You should have consulted a solicitor before you embarked on this course of action, as you clearly have no understanding of copyright law. If you had consulted one they would of explained the "doctrine of first sale", (aka exhaustion) to you, and you would understand that you have no case.
For example, if you have a copy of Windows without MicroSofts permission, is this not a crime?
It is not a crime.
The action will be that we may be (in our opinion) forced to get the UK police authorities involved
Maybe they never downloaded it in the first place (Score:4, Insightful)
Maybe they never downloaded it in the first place. Maybe they are acting on the basis of experience that is typically gathered by a practitioner of the field who also works to diagnose malfunctions in client computers where previous detection efforts have failed. This would not necessarily mean your software caused any such problems, but rather, your software may have co-existed on a machine with previously undetected malware which was also performing similar spying actitivies, although for malicious intentions. On the basis of these activities, they would never have agreed to your EULA in the first place as they would never have downloaded a copy of the software.
The ability to detect software like yours, which presumably has no ill-intent, is still necessary, IMHO, because of the existant possibility of ill-intended installation by other parties, such as kids spying on their parents first (it happens), or one spouse spying on the other in domestic issue civil cases (it happens a lot). Unless you can prove that your software has unbreakable facilities that prevent anyone from installing the software except in cases where it would involve only legal spying (e.g. parents spying on kids), I don't think you have a valid basis for demanding that your software be exempted. And I do not see how the software is capable of evaluating the domestic role of the person doing the installation.
My real concern has nothing to do with your software. It has everything to do with all spyware in general, and the establishment of legal defenses that they all may use if you take this matter to court and prevail. Such a ruling would be universally harmful to everyone.
In an unrelated issue, how is your software going to spy on kids that are skipping Windows and booting up a Knoppix CD instead to get to the internet to surf for 7un3z, w4r3z, and pr0n? You know kids are doing it, and not just the smart ones. Do you warn parents that your software cannot detect all these cases?
Re:Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the answers are NO and NO.
When you buy a copy of Microsoft windows in a store, you enter a tacit sellin contract with that store. Then, on TOP of that, Microsoft tries to limit your possible use of that good, which may or may not be legal. But the only restriction that Microsoft places legally and in an unchallenged way is that you have to BUY their product.
In the same way, once you have allowed people to download the software, you cannot restrict who can use it or not. It would be discrimination.
Microsoft does not prevent researchers or black people or foreigners to use their software, they just prevent people WITHOUT a LICENSE. Then, on top of that, they want to restrict your rights to only USE the software. Here, you grant a license to all (free download) and then say that some kinds of people (anti spyware researchers) are not allowed to use it. It is like saying that french people could not use it. Or any group of people. It is discrimination, pure and simple.
Even restricting a type of use for a product you have the right to use may or may not be legal. A court maintained the right of a company to disassemble a program they had bought to keep it working and improve it.
Re:Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:3, Insightful)
If you read the copyright agreement when you downloaded or ran our program you will see that Anti-spyware publishers/software houses are NOT allowed to download, run or examine the software in any way.
I am not a lawyer, I just read about law on Slashdot.
As far as I know, copyright law gives you the right to control transfer (copying) of the program. It doesn't give you the right to control how someone who is in possession of your program uses it.
Furthermore, since you as the copyright holder perfectly
Re:Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:3, Insightful)
Sometimes large corporations with expensive legal teams can sway courts into making wrong decisions. That was such a case in California, which wil give you no precedence in an English court. Even in California if I wanted to get that precedent overturned I would choose to take you on. Adobe has an aura of respectability that Retrocoder does not, though that is unfair, they are in actuality just as sleazy as you.
Re:Hasn't a crime been commited by Sunbelt? (Score:3, Insightful)
And allows stalkers to spy on unsuspecting prey. And allows abusive spouses to spy on their spouse. And allows nosy neighbors to spy on others in the neighborhood. Your product is reprehensible, and a violation of all of the basic tenets of a free society.
2. Some anti-virus software blacklisted our software.
Which is their right. Bravo for them.
3. We state that they are not allowed to download our s
Microsoft provide SunBelt with their spyware defs (Score:3, Informative)
"Microsoft shares their spyware definitions with Sunbelt, but SunBelt uses the threat information differently."
That would mean SunBelt haven't violated any EULA's and that the lawsuit should be aimed at Microsoft...
Either Possess Guts or Does Not Possess Mind (Score:3, Interesting)
One or the other. It's bad enough the company has this in their EULA, but the fact they are trying to enforce it through the courts proves one of two things. They either have a legal department/management team with serious balls or their legal department/management team is out of their mind. One or the other. I personally would believe the latter. I can't wait until it gets laughed out of court or, even better, the judge takes the evidence and does whatever he has to do to get the company prosecuted.
Since I'm not logged in yet when posting this message, I have to type in a captcha. This one is "agree". By typing this, what am I agreeing to? Crap, time to get my lawyer to read this page before pressing preview.
The Victim Didn't Agree Means a True Legal Mess (Score:3, Insightful)
Not a funny question at all when you consider the ramifications of one person installing software on a computer and agreeing to an EULA that a second person then uses. How do you sort this out?
Re:Ya know... (Score:2)
Re:Ya know... (Score:2)
Maybe, just maybe, collective punishment is no justice at all. At least it will be self-eradicating: the relatives of the people that perished in your collective punishment are allowed to retaliate against proponents of that law and anybody that allowed it to come into force.
Until you have become a tryrant, i suggest you shelve those little plans
Re:My god (Score:2, Funny)
Well, it didn't say that in TFA exactly, but it's a close approximation.
Re:My god (Score:5, Funny)
Re:My god (Score:5, Funny)
spywares sue YOU now becomes reality
Next, write this on your T-shirt
"By looking at me, you agree to
Re:My god (Score:3, Insightful)
"By looking at me, you agree to
Sadly, for full effect, it would have to be printed on the *inside* of the shirt.
Re:My god (Score:3, Insightful)
The modern world is completely founded on contracts of one form or another - an EULA being an example of such a contract. Now this case is clearly ridiculous, and as such I fully expect the challenge to fail (and further could set interesting precedents regarding the reach of EULAs). BUT the company should have the right to bring the challenge, and should be heard by a judge.
You cannot just wave your hands at someth
Re:My god (Score:5, Insightful)
They've been stuck down as non-binding as many times as they've been upheld;
they often have clauses in them which are not only onerous, but downright illegal;
they do not have any form of traditional contractual agreement methods, wherein both parties have the ability (allowed by contract law) to modify the contract to their satisfaction;
and they represent the interests of one party to the exclusion of the rights of the other.
Tell me again why this sort of dispute should be allowed past the doors of any courtroom?
Re:My god (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:My god (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, don't worry... they can't possibly win this case.
The EULA only enforces certain rules if you want to use the program. If you do not use the program - which would mean running the binaries, if I'm any judge - you may not use the program.
It would be most interested to see whether their EULA contains something along the lines 'this software is provided as-is, and is not fit for any express purpouse' - something similar can IIRC be found in MS Office. That clause would counter and dispel the clause that claims it can not be used in spyware research - regardless of the fact that the program does not have to be running for it to be examined. It doesn't even have to be installed, and the EULA doesn't even have to be read, let alone agreed to.
The package can be extracted, binaries examined... And, if the sued company wants to be evil, they can just claim that any software that forbids the end-user to include it in spyware research (and how in the world would you enforce that rule against NOD32's heuristics and automatic mailing suspicious binaries to their lab really escapes me) deserves to be added to their spyware list. They never had to get past reading the EULA to add the program to their list, so they never would have installed it and, of course, never agreed to the EULA in the first place. If they never installed the program, the EULA is unenforceable.
Finally, proving a negative is not what the US court system is based on, at least from what I've heard about it - innocent until proven guilty (unless it's a terrorism accusation, but I don't really want to troll right now). So the spyware maker has to prove that there was no possible way for the sued company to examine their binaries without agreeing to their EULA. If the sued company can prove that there is at least one way for them to do that, the spyware maker cannot prove that they didn't do it. Innocent until proven guilty.
Hell, I could successfully defend them against this, and IANAL.
Re:My god (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My god (Score:3, Informative)
That's patently false. Sometimes, the burden of proof is with the defendant because of the nature of the case. For example, in cases of joint liability (for example, where 2 people are shooting wildly in the woods and a third person is shot, and neither of the 2 people actually know which one killed the 3rd person), then the 2 people must prove that they didn't kill the 3rd pe
Re:My god (Score:3, Informative)
No, it isn't. For one thing, a civil trial will never result in a verdict of guilty or not guilty, but in a verdict of liable or not liable. Second, there may or may not be a presumption of liabilty for any particular matter. While a prosecutor always must establish the guilt of criminal defendant, a civil defendant in some cases may be presumed liable un
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:My god (Score:5, Interesting)
Sunbelt never *ran* SpyMon, nor did they ever download it, therefore no EULA[1], nor PDA was violated.
[1] Other post deal satisfactorily with the *run* issue.
Re:My god (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:My god (Score:3, Informative)
From the forums you see people are using this to try to spy on spouses they think are unfaithful, etc.
yes and no (Score:3, Interesting)
BUT
no, because their delisting was contingent on the company modifying the way their software installs/removes/whatever
some spyware companies changed a few of their nasty ways and were rewarded by being delisted. The anti-spyware companies (of course) have reserved the right to relist lapsed spyware makers.
Re:That's not going to fly (Score:3, Insightful)