Microsoft Helps Write Oklahoma's Anti-Spyware Law

groovy.ambuj writes "The Inquirer reports that Microsoft has developed Oklahoma's 'Computer Spyware protection Act'. The law will supposedly protect people from unwarranted hackers or virus attacks and can fine individuals up to $1M who are found guilty of breaking into a computer without the owners knowledge. At the same time, it also allows some of the better known capable companies to 'look' into your computer for possible virus/spyware and fix the problem without informing you. And, while these friends are doing their job, they can also take the moment to do other things. "

Big Brother, nothing we can do?

[Komarechka]

When then pen it into law that companies can look inside of out machine to "fix" problems, does that mean it is illegal to prevent them from doing so?

Hmmm... On one hand...

[ursabear]

My Pavlovian [wikipedia.org] reaction was, "OhhhhhhhhNNNNNNNNNNNNNNooooooooooooooooo!"

Now that the bell has rung, my kibbles are ingested, and I feel better...
If you were a state agency and needed security expertise, where would you go to get the information you need (to write a law/rule/proposition/etc. that is based on highly technical stuff)? Would you go to a security firm? Would you go to the local IT management firm? Would you go to a support shop like Geeks 'r' Us?

A little voice inside my head (yes, I have those sometimes - be afraid) says that something inside the law may be done to tilt things Microsoft's way - but I don't know that Microsoft would be such a bad partner (all feelings of MSHatred(tm) aside - just looking at it as a business).

This is the problem damnit

[IHateAllofYou]

Why in the HELL would you let Microsoft or any other company PERIOD to write or even assist in the writing of a law like this. All Im saying is that they wrote the law to protect the computer from all illegal activites but give them and every other company free reign on your machine. Thats NEVER good! What kind of dumbass do you need to be to see this is a positive thing?

Re:Uhhhhh.... (more rights erosion)

[Intron]

Next thing you know, websites will be trying to prevent you from copying and pasting quotes [okgazette.com] into /. articles using hokey javascript.

and about the monpolis...!!!

[hihihihi]

From TFA "it is probably the first written overtly by a major company without bothering with the tedious problem of lobbying"

ar'nt there any laws that prohibit a monopoly from acting like this???
just curious..

Re:Who mod'ed that "troll"?

[aplusjimages]

That's scarey, not only will Microsoft be able to snoop inside my computer and install stuff, but those who always hack Microsoft programs will be able to do the same. Plus how will Microsoft know whats good for my computer. I'm running a certain version of Adobe Premiere on my Win2K machine. It runs fine as long as I keep it on SP2. If I upgrade the service pack, I unleash a whole new set of bugs that cause Premiere to act the fool. What if Microsoft decides it's about time I upgraded to SP4 and they screw up my stuff?

wrong

[c6gunner]

The 4th amendmend applies to the government, not to private individuals or corporations. Why do people keep getting that wrong? The constitution DOES NOT place ANY restrictions on the actions of individuals or businesses.

Re:Why

[tompaulco]

Why Oklahoma?
Because Oklahoma is trying like mad to become a progressive state. I live in Oklahoma, and the state definitely has a stigma of being unimportant, stuck in the past, backwoods, you name it. Even our local radio jockeys often quip "Welcome to Oklahoma, please set your watch back 50 years". However, the government in Oklahoma is attempting to make the state more mainstream. Even though many Oklahoma businesses have no web presence, the state has built web site portals to create at least some web presence for practically any business in Oklahoma. Oklahoma was the first state to regulate medicines that were being used to make methamphetamines. Oklahoma doles out big incentives to companies like Dell to bring high tech industry into the state. I can't say I'm crazy about them choosing Microsoft as a partner, but at least the state is doing something constructive.

Re:Why

[UttBuggly]

As much as I sometimes hate to admit it, I live in Oklahoma. Born and raised here.

There are really, really smart people here and then there are those who keep buying mobile homes IN THE ONE PLACE MOST LIKELY to have an F5 tornado.

Some of those people are elected officials.

True story #1:

A 17 y/o boy escaped a detention facility. Yes, he had been in trouble before but he hadn't hurt anyone in his life. He was shot 13 times by a police officer...mostly in the back. It was ruled reasonable force by the local DA. The family has filed a civil suit.

True Story #2:

A woman in my town ran for City Council on a platform that basically amounted to "we need to encourage more retail businesses to build here so I have more places to shop". I'm not kidding. She lost in a landslide as most people in my ward thought she was a loon, but I wasn't sure until the night of the election it would go that way.

Oklahoma has produced some great folks; Jim Thorpe, Mickey Mantle, Chuck Norris, Will Rogers, Carl Albert (former Speaker Of The House), numerous C&W music folks (Garth Brooks, Toby Keith, etc.), the last American Idol winner, the still current record of 47 wins by the Oklahoma Sooner football team, and on and on.

I'm proud to be an Oklahoman, but you need to know we have "Okies" here as well. Politics and corruption have long been regular bedfellows. We whored Dell into town, why not let Microsoft write our laws?

Devil's advocate

[Ana10g]

I'm going to play devil's advocate here (probably get me killed on the karma, but whatever).

Now, from an optimist's point of view, the reason that a third party might wish to look at your computer is for "telemetry" data, so that they can "make their software better". By looking at the data that exposed the security hole (think forensics), they can fix the exploit. Something akin to the 'Send details of your error to Microsoft?'.

The idea was probably conceived of in good faith. Unfortunately, from what I've seen in the past, this doesn't work. It probably was presented to the higher-ups within MS, who said "Great! We can make this a 'feel good' fix, and collect information on our users too! And, fix the piracy problem at teh same time!". Yikes.

This is legalizing spyware!

[Opportunist]

Think about it for a moment. If I got that right (a lawyer might clarify the details), when I write some software that requires "updates", I am allowed to sniff in your computer when you agreed first to use my software.

This means, though, that if I write a, say, download manager, that installs sniffing software that phones home (hey, it's just updating itself, after all it has to update the ad-pages I pop in your face!), this actually becomes legal. I could harvest whatever information I want from your machine, and it is legal. If you should dare to install an ad-blocker, I'll remove it (legally), because it interferes with the operation of my adware ridden spyware.

Nice to know. Time to open some software company in Oklahoma.

Re:Big Brother, nothing we can do?

[rob_squared]

If its in software and you need to reverse engineer it to prevent them from getting in, they can just say "DMCA" and its illegal to stop them.

Easy-peasy.

Re:Intent of a law != Content of the law

[laughingcoyote]

Well, not that I'm a lawyer or a lawmaker, but something to the effect of:

Providers of a product or service may connect to a computer at the owner's request. If the connections will occur at the user's request, the program must inform the user what steps will be taken, and give the user the option to deny the connection. If the connection will be automated, the program must, at installation, provide a clear and complete accounting of what will be done at each connection, and to the extent technically feasible, allow the user to opt out of undesired effects.

Under no circumstances shall the inclusion of any language in a program's license agreement satisfy the previous requirement.

Re:Intent of a law != Content of the law

[zotz]

"The intent of a law and what it actually allows are often totally separate things."

True, and:

The stated intent of a law and the true intent of a law are often totally separate things.

Another statement for your consideration.

all the best,

drew
---
http://www.ourmedia.org/node/187924 [ourmedia.org]
Some Bahamian Nonsense