In a First, FTC Bans Company From Selling 'Stalkerware' (vice.com) 42
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced it has barred a company behind three pieces of so-called stalkerware from selling any more apps that monitor mobile devices unless they take steps to ensure their software is only used for legitimate purposes. From a report: Stalkerware is malicious software that is installed on phones or computers. Depending on the particular app, stalkerware can intercept text messages and calls, track GPS locations, and much more. Stalkerware is often used in abusive relationships, even if companies selling the software claim it is only to be used for legally monitoring children or employees. In this case, the FTC case is against a company called Retina-X and its owner James N. Johns Jr. "This is our first action against a so-called 'stalking app,'" Andrew Smith, director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection, said in a statement. "Although there may be legitimate reasons to track a phone, these apps were designed to run surreptitiously in the background and are uniquely suited to illegal and dangerous uses. Under these circumstances, we will seek to hold app developers accountable for designing and marketing a dangerous product."
But the phone is a stalker device (Score:1)
How does it matter if an app stalks you, when the device itself is already stalking you. I'd rather be stalked by my wife than a government.
Re: (Score:2)
Also goes for megacoporations.
Re: But the phone is a stalker device (Score:2)
The NSA knows where your kid is; you're not permitted to.
Re: But the phone is a stalker device (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So, now the government can now decide what software can be banned because it "might" cause harm?
I guess that next will apply to software like Kali Linux [kali.org] since pen testing software can REALLY be used to cause harm.....its a slippery slope right quickly.
Sure, I feel for the woman you describe above,
Re: (Score:2)
It is not that it 'might' cause harm, it is that in their opinion there is no legitimate reason to market software, to the general public, whose only purpose is to spy on another person without their knowledge.
Re: (Score:3)
So, an unelected body is making these decisions for us?
Shouldn't the actual lawmakers in congress be making laws to BAN something instead of a bureaucracy that is not accountable to the citizenry?
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding, also both parties in marriage have valid financial reasons they might be doing something like this and are certainly well within their rights to do so. At least in a community property state. It is no different than hiring a private detective.
Seriously they'd claim it is perfectly legitimate for your employer to spy on your activities when using a device they own but not for a spouse to do the same? Like it is nor marriage is a contract and your spouse has the right to use the access and informa
Re: But the phone is a stalker device (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
even if you can think up many examples of legitimate use
If they are legal ways to use it, then the FTC doesn't have a legitimate role in trying to stop people making the products, as they would be enabling people to do a thing that people have the right to do. Just like the FTC doesn't get to stop phones including text messaging, because of the fact some people Text while driving and cause deadly accidents, and the FTC doesn't get to use that reason to prevent companies from selling automobiles
Re: (Score:2)
even if you can think up many examples of legitimate use
If they are legal ways to use it, then the FTC doesn't have a legitimate role in trying to stop people making the products, as they would be enabling people to do a thing that people have the right to do.
False. I mean it doesn't matter, because they're not trying to stop "people" in general from making the products, they're stopping companies who advertised it for illegal uses from making or distributing it. That's very different.
But just because there is a possible legal use, does not automatically imply that whatever it is is something that you have a "right" to do, and it certainly does not imply that there is some absolute right that doesn't get balanced against other interests.
Re: (Score:2)
They want to prevent abusive people from using this app to cause physical or psychological harm.
This would be a good idea if it was done in a targeted way where the know the person has been convicted of being abusive before they're prevented from doing anything.
But restricting everybody to achieve it isn't likely to stand up to American process.
Instead, this is about something else. Not about preventing abusive people from doing anything, but rather, to prevent businesses from marketing a tool as being intended to assist in abuse. Completely different thing.
So I support this action, because it is just
Re: But the phone is a stalker device (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I said nothing about emergencies.
Re: (Score:2)
At least in a community property state. It is no different than hiring a private detective.
No.. very different. Mere title to property does not mean a right to spy on someone -- for example, a Landlord may not install hidden surveillance cameras in the bathroom to capture footage of tenants, etc. A private detective cannot use deception to plant malware on a target's cell phone or use pretexting to gain access to someone else's phone records, such acts are illegal -- the ECPA and the provisions of th
Re: (Score:2)
That's too many strawmen to even pick one out to talk about, but I will say I find it shocking that you thought laws affecting landlord spying inside a residence would be relevant to family members using technology at home. Regardless of the general problem of a stack of strawmen, that aspect shows a shocking level of idiocy. You should be ashamed of writing that many stupid words near to each other.
Re: (Score:2)
I find it shocking that you thought laws affecting landlord spying inside a residence would be relevant to family members using technology at home
They absolutely do apply. It is no different than surveilling any other family member who happens to live on the same property.
Relation by marriage does not equal automatic consent.
In many states this can carry criminal penalties for stalking and/or invading someone's privacy, aside from the potential federal crime here.
Re: (Score:2)
"No.. very different. Mere title to property does not mean a right to spy on someone -- for example, a Landlord may not install hidden surveillance cameras in the bathroom to capture footage of tenants, etc"
A spouse is not a landlord and is bound by an explicit or implied lease. Nor are they a separate and distinct legal entity in the home. A married couple is for most purposes a merged legal entity. Separate accounts, phones, cars, etc are largely just like the lines on your budget, internal accounting for
Re: (Score:2)
A spouse is not a landlord and is bound by an explicit or implied lease.
The absence of a lease is irrelevent -- It is not merely a lease which prohibits ANYONE from such surreptitious surveillance; its typically state and federal criminal laws which protect privacy, prohibit stalking, and private conversations. Relation by marriage does NOT equal automatic consent under the law.
Nor are they a separate and distinct legal entity in the home. A married couple is for most purposes a merged legal entit
Re: (Score:2)
"The absence of a lease is irrelevent"
It is relevant because relationship by OWNERSHIP is what entitles you to install something on the device, install cameras, or otherwise record and none of the law which draws special exceptions and status to tenets renting a property is relevant. Your spouse is not a renter or a roommate and none of the laws and exceptions that give them a special form of privacy from a landlord are applicable.
You are entitled to install a camera in your own home just like the corner ga
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No I'm talking legal. He is implying a landlord -> tenet status which carries a number of special protections. A tenet is entitled to a certain amount of control and privacy in the space legally speaking. A roommate is entitled to similar status to a certain extent. That doesn't apply to you and your spouse with regard to each other unless legally separated or possibly when you've expressed your intent to legally separate.
The moral reasons are only part of it. Almost every reason your spouse would be loo
Re: But the phone is a stalker device (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Those are school and hospital policies and they will let them access them immediately if you aren't in a state where you can do so. For every one of those there is another where you can't do something like put a house in your name alone without a waiver of interest from your spouse. Third parties can do whatever they wish.
The intention is to prevent kidnapping when couples are separated and the responsibility is on you to make sure there is actually some kind of legal requirement to without access from a sp
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook isn't the government? Citation needed.
Dangerous (Score:2)
Wow. Scary stuff. FTC is overreaching here. Are they now in charge of deciding what software is legitimate?
Re: (Score:2)
Isn't it essentially a hacking tool, and I think those are regulated.
I think the legitimate uses of this type of software would all include notifying the phone user that it is installed.
A different option is to prosecute certain users of the app.
Re: (Score:2)
Where did you get that idea?
Pen testing software is freely available to use...
Download and play with Kali Linux [kali.org].
The FTC is setting a dangerous precedent in banning things that "might" be used to cause harm.
What's next...knives?
Re: (Score:1)
What's next...knives?
No, Guns are next. Knives after that.
Re: (Score:2)
This would be funny if it wasn't true...
Re: (Score:2)
A different option is to prosecute certain users of the app.
Not for the FTC, that's somebody else's job. They only do this part of going after companies that market the illegal use.
Another option instead of notifying the client would be to only market it as a tool for security professionals. But that would mean much, much lower sales. Assholes are more common than private eyes.
Re: (Score:2)
Is there a legal use (other than by law enforcement) that shouldn't require the target to be notified? Isn't electronic spying without consent illegal?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Wow. Scary stuff. FTC is overreaching here. Are they now in charge of deciding what software is legitimate?
No, but in fact they are in charge of bringing down the hammer on companies that trade based on promoting illegal uses of a product.
This isn't about what software is legitimate, it is about what companies are legitimately trading in software.
This is exactly the same as if you sold a tool for breaking into cars, and made advertisements where it is implied the customer is using the product to steal cars. That would be illegal. Your company would risk getting banned from selling vehicle access tools. And yet,
Re: (Score:1)
Politicians running around on their wives? (Score:2)
Say it isn't so. No conflict of interest here.
FTC is not to make rules (Score:1)
If you didn't get elected, you shouldn't be signing off on rules.
This kind of stuff is Napoleonic.
Good, now apply this equitably (Score:2)
Let me guess what's next (Score:2)
Let me guess what's next: a big giant disclaimer at installation time. "I solenmnly swear to only use this software for valid legal purposes, amen", checkbox here, go on.