Comments on: Will the adware industry beat Spitzer?

Professor Eric Goldman says New York's crusading attorney general may be left firing blanks. That's because no legal doctrine holds advertisers liable for using adware.

[LewisinDenver]

Then warn advertisers,"Spitzer will be watching" for the next x months

"Spitzer has repeatedly threatened advertisers who run ads with adware vendors."

I haven't followed details of this, but, suppose Spitzer announces that he'll "be collecting the names/companies that are advertised in adware between November and February". This gives company boardrooms notice that they SHOULD know how their advertising IS being spent. Then Spitzer should go after the top X advertisers. With data that "this advertiser appeared x% of the time" It would be hard for a company to say "Hey, I didn't know my $ were supporting Adware".

Or, Perhaps a simple "Your product/service has been appearing in adware" Warning letter should be sent first. Then if it doesn't stop, then "go after them".

With some real warning and a time frame, perhaps companies will pay attention? (and scare off enough so the adware 'company' dies...?)

At least, maybe they will...

yes please, stop adware

Anything that puts a stop to adware is okay by me. Maybe the legal arguments are obscure, but the moral ones aren't: you don't interfere with someone else's property (computer) without getting their permission first.

Let's respect privacy. Freedom does not mean that anything goes.

Paul Isaac is right:
my own computer is supposed to be my own computer!

Missing from the article and the discussion so far
is Spitzer's choice to prosecute spyware tactics
as violations of the Common Law.
This is not only legitimate, legally,
but refreshing.

Too bad it's such a rare perspective.

The Constitution of the United States
is a common law document.

One of its provisions in the Bill of Rights
says that the right of the people to be Secure
in their personal effects
shall not be violated.

Exceptions can occur, but must be based on
detected criminal suspicions,
and require a warrant signed by a judge.

None of these legal niceities
are respected by the spyware.


Elliot Spitzer is not making up new laws on the spot;
rather he is re-affirming
the fundamental Law of the Land.


It's about time!


I wish him success in his courageous action.

[EricsOp]

Your damn straight

Legal arguments...phuey. The problem is too many damn
lawyers and not enough intelligent, rational, moral people. It is
clearly a violation of my property and my rights to install
software on MY computer without my permission. It is electronic
trespassing, plain and simple. Laws should be passed which
reflect this practical reality.

If a company wants to advertise its products, and hires a
spyware company to do their advertising... they should get ONE
warning. After that, prosecute them out of business. They have
forfeited their right to do business by violating the public trust.

Free market doesn't mean "forget people's rights in the face of
the rights of corporations" ... it means a fair playing ground for
all to participate. Violating my rights doesn't constitute "assuring
a fair playing ground" it is simply violating my rights.

Enough of this legal hair-splitting. It should NOT be "legal" to
violate others fundamental rights. Any elected officials who think
it ought to be (or have been paid off by corporations to forward
that notion) had better look out because this government is "of
the people and by the people" and their term in office will be
coming to an abrupt halt.

Spitzer

Spitzer has said that he is going after any and all illegal adware companies, and going to make sure that the industry lives up to its promises of drastic change. I for one look forward to seeing the industry change.

Here is an interesting article about this:
http://www.nmreport.com/archives/2005/09/judge_rules_aga.php

-------------
Editorial Note:
Pesach Lattin is a leading online advertising investors, commentator and journalist. MarketingSherpa recently named him one of the top journalists for media buyers.