Doing Something About Spyware

Click here to receive your FREE subscription to Campus Technology

Home > Doing Something About Spyware

Current News

Doing Something About Spyware

7/13/2005

By Terry Calhoun

Many of us find ourselves in a constant battle with our own computers and our own software due to sneaky programs that install themselves and do things we don’t want to happen--while taking up valuable computing power. And it’s even worse if you share a computer with a kid: Kids not only smudge your monitor with their sticky fingers, they do equivalently nasty things to the software as well.

The work of the Anti-Spyware Coalition (ASC) in setting definitions, agreed-upon language that can be used to clearly define the myriad of spyware-type threats, is a promising new step in reducing the problem. Unlike the Can-Spam Act, with its twisted title, this group seems really serious about being against spyware. Its definitional draft is open for comments from the public until August 12. You should read it and comment.

Wh'ever created the title for the Can-Spam Act had a great sense of humor at the time. Most of us, and all of the general public thought it was all about “canning” (stopping) spam and that the fact that the original meaty spam came in a can was a cool pun. Little did we understand, at least until it was all over, was that the act was intended to create parameters inside of which legitimate commercial interests now find that they can do what we all thought was spam a few years ago, but legally. They just have to follow a few rules. (Oh, by the way, they changed the definition of “spam” in the process—remember UCBE, unsolicited commercial bulk email?)

We don’t all even come close to agreeing about definitions for malware/spyware. Just get any group together right now and spend a little time discussing the differences between “spyware,” “adware,” or “surveillance software.” The intent of this current work is to set agreed-upon definitions so discussions can get past that part and move toward effective action.

Given the Can-Spam Act experience, I have to be a little concerned that this group might have something of the same intent. On the other hand, the current definitional draft is a really valuable piece of work and not only should result in standard definitions to make discussions clearer, just reading the relatively brief 13-page document is an education in itself. The idea is that once definitions are agreed upon, lines can be drawn between permissible and impermissible software and practices, and companies will be able to clearly see how to stay legitimate. (Of course the Can-Spam Act did that, too.)

A piece of good news is that the Anti-Spyware Coalition (ASC) not only includes software manufacturers and trade associations, it includes a number of consumer advocacy groups as well. In a Silicon.com article, David Fewer of the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (a member of ASC) notes that what consumers need is “notice, consent, and control. During installation of an application, it should be clear to the user what the tool d'es. The user should also have to give permission for installation and should be able to remove the application.”

Here’s just a part of the draft, which is titled “Spyware Definitions and Supporting Documents:”