155999
submission
An anonymous reader writes:
InformationWeek, which until now has been writing worshipful fanboy praise of Second Life, gripes about some of its problems in three articles posted today. Mitch Wagner, who's been Info Week's head SL cheerleader, writes: "You ever have the experience of moving to a new city — a great city, like New York, Los Angeles, Paris, or London? For a couple of months, just walking down the street is magic, but then one day you wake up and, well, you notice the uncollected trash and the panhandlers and the fact that public transit is never on time. You still love it there, but you also wish that your bus stop didn't smell like pee. That's kind of where I am with Second Life." A second articke, "Bugs And Unstable Code Threaten Second Life's Future" describes a user petition drive to get Linden Lab to fix some of the service's worst bugs before the whole thing collapses. And Info Week also takes Linden Lab to task for promoting misleading usage stats.. Is the Second Life backlash gaining momentum?
147475
submission
njdube writes:
Last week a subcommittee of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce
reported out H.R. 964, a.k.a. the "Securely Protect Yourself Against
Cyber Trespass Act" or "SPY Act." This bill is the latest incarnation
of misguided legislative language that has been resurfacing since 2003
(in 2005, it passed the House as H.R. 29).
Although badware (i.e., spyware, malware, and deceptive adware) is a
serious problem for computer users, H.R. 964 is not likely to help. In
fact, having been massaged by lobbyists for the software and adware
industries, the bill would actually make things worse, insulating
adware vendors from more stringent state laws and private lawsuits.
H.R. 964 combines a variety of redundant prohibitions on deceptive
practices (Section 2) and ambiguous "notice" requirements (Section 3)
with broad federal preemption of state laws (Section 6). In fact, you
can essentially skip the first 15 pages of the bill — the FTC already
has the authority to police many, if not all, of the "unfair or
deceptive acts or practices" prohibited therein. If anything, by
creating a heightened intent requirement (Section 4(c)), this law could
constrain the authority the FTC already possesses against badware
vendors.
So these provisions are pure window dressing. Both the FTC and
Department of Justice have said (see p. 21 of this 2005 FTC report)
that they already have the enforcement authority they need. In just the
last two years, the FTC has commenced 11 spyware enforcement actions,
demonstrating that they've got the authority they need. Of course, more
enforcement would be a good thing, but H.R. 964 allocates no new money
for it. (There is one improvement tucked in Section 4 of the bill — granting the FTC the power to seek civil penalties against those who
violate the law.)
The federal preemption provisions (Section 6), meanwhile, trump most of
the stricter state laws that might have been used to go after badware
vendors. This is particularly disappointing, as state laws have opened
a new front in the war on badware. A few categories of state laws are
preserved, including trespass, contract, tort, and fraud laws. And, in
an interesting twist, H.R. 964 preserves state consumer protection
statutes, but only if the state's Attorney General is bringing the
enforcement action.
Reading between the lines in Section 6, one thing becomes clear: this
section is intended primarily to block the ability of private citizens
to sue badware vendors under state laws. By consolidating all the
enforcement authority against badware in the hands of the FTC and state
Attorneys Generals, software and adware vendors are trying to quietly
block consumer class actions that could target their misbehavior. For
example, H.R. 964 would have made it impossible for EFF to use
California's Business and Professions Code 17200 (which allows private
citizens to sue for unfair and unlawful business practices) against
Sony-BMG for its spyware-laden copy-protection software.
This is a terrible move. If Congress is serious about enacting tough
anti-spyware laws, it should create incentives that would encourage
private citizens to pursue the bad guys. The FTC and state AGs can't
possibly take on the entire job alone.
And, perhaps most disappointingly, Congress dropped the ball on the
most promising section of the statute, the "Good Samaritan" provision
(Section 5(c)). The consumer's most important allies in the war on
badware are the companies that make badware-removal tools. If Congress
really wanted to do some good, it would protect these companies from
legal harassment at the hands of the badware vendors. For example,
Congress could give the good guys a legal shield with which to ward off
bogus defamation, interference with contract, and DMCA claims brought
by badware companies (something like the immunities that CDA 230
provides for companies that host the speech of others).
Instead, Congress crafted a "Good Samaritan" clause that only protects
badware-removal tools from liability under the Spy Act itself — something that these vendors likely don't need (it's hard to imagine
the FTC going after Lavasoft, isn't it?).
Frankly, I think the testimony of Zango (formerly 180Solutions, a
notorious adware vendor) before Congress tells you everything you need
to know about H.R. 964: "Zango supports all provisions of H.R. 964 with
the exception of subsection 5(c) [the Good Samaritan provision]."
Complete
Story
147467
submission
njdube writes:
The Utah legislature has been considering a proposal that would require
the state's ISPs to ensure that minors are unable to access explicit
material on the Internet [1]
[2].
The scheme would also make open wireless networks illegal (!) unless
they are restricted to only allow connections on certain, censored,
"community ports".
Giving ISPs the responsibility and incentives to censor a paricular
subset of the web is precisely the same architecture that the Chinese
Communist Party uses for their "Great Fireall of China". The communists
use it to filter news and political information as well as porn
— but in neither case is it particularly effective. Users who
are either knowledgeable or motivated quickly learn that there are easy
ways around these filters.
The absurd Utah proposal has been pushed by the CP80 Foundation, which
pedals fanatasies of a world where certain TCP ports (80, for instance)
are free of any material that they consider "indecent". The group is
fronted by SCO Chairman Ralph
Yarro. Yes, that
SCO.
The chance that a state or even federal statute could (practically or
constitutionally) prevent sexually explicit content from being
transmitted through port 80 is approximately zero point zero zero zero
percent. The chance that politicians could pass foolish laws that cause
needless headaches and court battles for ISPs and users, however, is
significantly higher.
Complete
Story
147459
submission
El Lobo writes:
Microsoft Corp. today announced revenue of $14.40 billion for the quarter ended March 31, 2007, a 32% increase over the same period of the prior year. This revenue drove record profits with operating income of $6.59 billion and net income of $4.93 billion. This quarter marked the consumer launches of Windows Vista and the 2007 Microsoft Office system.
Maybe Vista is only selling slow on planet Slashdot?