FreeLinux writes "USA Today has a story about a federal court ruling stating that Spyware can constitute illegal trespass. From the article: 'A federal trial court in Chicago has ruled recently that the ancient legal doctrine of trespass to chattels (meaning trespass to personal property) applies to the interference caused to home computers by spyware. Information technology has advanced at warp speed with the law struggling to keep up, and this is an example of a court needing to use historical legal theories to grapple with new and previously unforeseen contexts in Cyberspace.'"Ads_xl=0;Ads_yl=0;Ads_xp='';Ads_yp='';Ads_xp1='';Ads_yp1='';Ads_par='';Ads_cnturl='';Ads_prf='page=article';Ads_channels='RON_P6_IMU';Ads_wrd='security,doj';Ads_kid=0;Ads_bid=0;Ads_sec=0; PCs Posted No Trespass Log in/Create an Account | Top | 240 comments (Spill at 50!) | Index Only | Search Discussion Display Options Threshold: -1: 240 comments 0: 237 comments 1: 196 comments 2: 138 comments 3: 38 comments 4: 20 comments 5: 12 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way. Good, I'm gettin' mah gun (Score:5, Funny) by millisa (151093) on Friday October 14, @06:01PM (#13794278) Had thet dang sahn posted out yahnuh fer years now. I do b'lieve it states clearly ah am hav'n theh ra'ht t' shoot 'em. [ Reply to ThisRe:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun by Loc_Dawg (Score:3) Friday October 14, @06:16PM Re:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun (Score:4, Funny) by Tackhead (54550) on Friday October 14, @06:20PM (#13794406) > ...it's funny but also true. If people would ARM themselves with knowledge and caution, there would less trespassing to begin with.In other words, people break into your box at their own RISC? [ Reply to This | Parent Posted: Private Lan. No hunting. No Phishing. (Score:4, Funny) by millisa (151093) on Friday October 14, @06:31PM (#13794454) No SNMP Trapping.Violators will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold. Re:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun (Score:4, Funny) by fred fleenblat (463628) on Friday October 14, @06:39PM (#13794516) > ...it's funny but also true. If people would ARM themselves with knowledge and caution, there would less trespassing to begin with.In other words, people break into your box at their own RISC?Like we haven't hear that joke 80386 times before... [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun by gellenburg (Score:3) Friday October 14, @07:06PMRe:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun by silvaran (Score:3) Friday October 14, @08:48PMRe:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun by plover (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:50PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun by Dolda2000 (Score:3) Friday October 14, @08:22PMRe:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun by mobby_6kl (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:38PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun by Nivag064 (Score:1) Friday October 14, @10:26PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.2 replies beneath your current threshold. Re:Good, I'm gettin' mah gun (Score:4, Funny) by nutshell42 (557890) on Friday October 14, @06:16PM (#13794381) "My HD is my castle," or"~/, sweet ~/" [ Reply to This | Parent1 reply beneath your current threshold.1 reply beneath your current threshold. Not gonna change a goddamned thing. (Score:5, Insightful) by Caspian (99221) on Friday October 14, @06:03PM (#13794283) There will still be spyware, even if it's ruled that you can't 'trespass' on peoples' PCs without their knowledge. All that will change is that they will bury some legalistic bullshit which translates roughly to 'by installing MySuperScreensaverz.com on your computer, you give us permission to pwn your box and fling shitloads of pop-ups at you' five pages deep into the EULAs for all spyware-containing software.I strongly suspect that this has, in fact, already happened in many (most?) cases. [ Reply to ThisRe:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. by temojen (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:06PMRe:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. by merreborn (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:33PM Re:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. (Score:4, Insightful) by NMerriam (15122) <NMerriamNO@SPAMartboy.org> on Friday October 14, @08:23PM (#13795063) (http://www.artboy.org/) No, but it does have an effect on the company's assets and any business it conducts with companies in the USA. Spyware is usually for advertising of some sort -- advertising to customers in the USA isn't very effective if you can only advertise foreign companies with no offices in the USA, and your own company can never conduct contracts or maintain assets in the USA. [ Reply to This | Parent It might (Score:5, Insightful) by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday October 14, @06:40PM (#13794522) It might make spyware warn you, and remove itself when asked. That's all I ask of spyware, the same thing I ask of guests in my house. You have to ask my permission if you want in, and you have to leave the minute I tell you to get out, and not come back unless reinvited.The problem I have with spyware is that so much of it is so slimey. It'll install itself and then put all sorts of trickey checks in to ensure it's not unloaded. It'll have a reinstaller in the services, and in the startup group, and in the "run" section, and add itself to the "run once" section each time it runs, and latch on to explorer and so on. Thus when you try to remove it, even with the help of spyware tools, it's often very difficult to get rid of. Also, spyware often opens backdoors to allow other spyware in. In the beginning you have one peice, then through no further interaction you have 10.This is what needs to be illegal. The software needs to make it clear what it does, and it needs to uninstall, and stay uninstalled, upon request. If we can start prosecuting the sleeze that make programs that don't obey those simple rules, I'll be real happy. If you want to load up spyware on your system voluntairly, that's your business. I just get pissed when I get a service call to remove it, and it fights tooth and nail, or when a person installed one thing they wanted, and it invited 10 of it's friends they didn't. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:It might by Kaenneth (Score:3) Friday October 14, @06:50PMRe:It might by Sycraft-fu (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:36PMRe:It might by mrchaotica (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:26PMRe:It might by tchuladdiass (Score:2) Friday October 14, @09:51PMRe:It might by mrchaotica (Score:2) Friday October 14, @10:44PMRe:It might by fluffy99 (Score:1) Friday October 14, @10:53PMRe:It might by GoldMace (Score:1) Saturday October 15, @12:03AMRe:It might by archangel85j (Score:1) Friday October 14, @08:17PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Demand nothing less than software freedom. by jbn-o (Score:3) Friday October 14, @08:05PMRe:Demand nothing less than software freedom. by PhateDesigns (Score:1) Friday October 14, @10:14PMRe:Demand nothing less than software freedom. by jbn-o (Score:2) Friday October 14, @11:24PMRe:Demand nothing less than software freedom. by bedroll (Score:2) Friday October 14, @10:19PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. by Arandir (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:59PMRe:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. by phriedom (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:30PMRe:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. by Arandir (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @12:15AMSure let's play out this ridiculous analogy... by JustADude (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:41PM Re:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. (Score:4, Insightful) by Kadin2048 (468275) <kadin2048@@@mac...com> on Friday October 14, @07:56PM (#13794959) Well the nice thing about this case, is that the judge didn't invent any new laws for this case. He just took a very old law, and applied it to the (IMO rather obvious) situation before him. As judges should.Frankly, if we had more judges doing things like this, we probably wouldn't have to have nearly as many halfassed, more-harm-than-good, kneejerk reaction laws passed by politicians who are being hammered at by their constituents to "do something!"Although you have a very valid point about users being stupid if they allow spyware to be installed on their machine, I think everyone pretty much understands that some of what spyware does is wrong and ought to be unlawful: in particular making itself hard or impossible to remove, or once installed doing things other than what it says it was going to, do or installing other programs without your consent.You don't need to have a law for every particular thing that a person can possibly do wrong to another; there are a certain number of general principles that I think most people in a civilized society can accept (or will accept, if you want to keep living here), and one of them is that you shouldn't make someone else's property less valuable to them without their consent. And that consent is no good if the defendant lied about what they were going to do to the property. To use your analogy, it's as if you let someone in your house thinking they were a plumber and here to fix your toilet, but instead they sat around in your living room and watched TV for a while so you couldn't use it, and refused to leave when you asked. Sure, you let them in, but only because they presented themselves under false pretenses.But my biggest issue here is that spyware is a situation, at least in its more extreme forms, which is plainly obvious to the average person as something that ought to be illegal. Generally when you have a situation like that, you don't (and shouldn't) need to have a particular law for the case. Certainly there are ways in which computers and the virtual world of the internet differ so fundamentally from the physical world that the same laws shouldn't apply. But those cases are more rare than you might think, and in hesitating to apply the few thousand years of common law (and common sense) that we've acquired as a civilization from the past to computers we've allowed a lot of dishonest people to create a lot of aggravation and damage to others, doing things that would be illegal if they weren't being done through a computer. I'm glad that this judge, whoever he is, has wised up to this fact and is putting some of that established wisdom to work here. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. by Gargon the Rat (Score:1) Friday October 14, @11:09PMRe:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. by Arandir (Score:2) Friday October 14, @11:54PMRe:Not gonna change a goddamned thing. by zev1983 (Score:1) Friday October 14, @09:47PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. The Feds Have Taken The First Step (Score:5, Insightful) by geomon (78680) on Friday October 14, @06:03PM (#13794285) (http://www.cato.org/ | Last Journal: Sunday April 17, @02:12AM) When prosecuting a case of trespass, the owner must often demarcate their property with signs indicating that it is private property and trespass is not allowed. This isn't true for all jurisdictions, but the feds generally treat their networks and individual machines in such a manner. All of the ones I've worked on are required to post a warning that they are government property and that unauthorized access is considered criminal trespass. [ Reply to ThisRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by Reality Master 101 (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:12PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by infonography (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:24PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by myowntrueself (Score:3) Friday October 14, @07:30PMHey donna you a go by infonography (Score:1) Friday October 14, @10:07PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by surprise_audit (Score:3) Friday October 14, @07:40PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by Kadin2048 (Score:3) Friday October 14, @08:29PMLegal exceptions by bluGill (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @12:03AMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by mrchaotica (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:30PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by rk (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:32PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by Cruciform (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @12:59AMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by xs650 (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:32PM Re:The Feds Have Taken The First Step (Score:5, Funny) by Tackhead (54550) on Friday October 14, @06:16PM (#13794377) > When prosecuting a case of trespass, the owner must often demarcate their property with signs indicating that it is private property and trespass is not allowed.$ telnet 127.0.0.1 25 Trying 127.0.0.1...Connected to 127.0.0.1.Escape character is '^]'220 127.0.0.1 ESMTP Sendmail 8.13.37/8.00.8.135214 Don't even think about attempting to relay spam through here, n00b. Tresspassers will be pwn3d. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by kindbud (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:51PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by infonography (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:19PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by bluGill (Score:2) Friday October 14, @11:58PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Re:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by MichaelSmith (Score:3) Friday October 14, @06:26PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by geomon (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:38PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by Arandir (Score:3) Friday October 14, @06:50PM "No trespassing" signs are not a requirement (Score:5, Insightful) by WebCowboy (196209) on Friday October 14, @06:34PM (#13794488) ...if it was it would be pretty ridiculous.If I accidentally forget to lock the door of my residence when I have to leave to run a quick errand, and I return to unexpectedly find a stranger rummaging through my refrigerator it is criminal trespass. Said stranger need not enter by force or cause damage to be convicted of a crime, and I don't have to put a "no trespassing" sign on my front door to make it a crime. It is obviously a private domicile and "no trespassing" is implied.Spyware is the electronic equivalent of the above. Providing explicit notification should only be required when a given property could easily be mistaken for public property--and the same applies to computers. Spyware vendors should expect that it is a certainty that their distribution methods will target computers that are "private property" and that they must clearly and explicitly ask permission to interfere with that property. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:"No trespassing" signs are not a requirement by DutchUncle (Score:1) Friday October 14, @08:14PMRe:"No trespassing" signs are not a requirement by realbadjuju (Score:2) Friday October 14, @09:04PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by utlemming (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:47PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by geomon (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:04PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by bdcrazy (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:19PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by eric76 (Score:3) Friday October 14, @08:46PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by plover (Score:2) Friday October 14, @09:04PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by mrchaotica (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:35PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by geomon (Score:2) Friday October 14, @10:32PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by ezberry (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:09PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by SysPig (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:21PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by Just Some Guy (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @12:57AMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by geomon (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:28PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by Daniel_Staal (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:54PMRe:The Feds Have Taken The First Step by geomon (Score:2) Friday October 14, @10:38PM4 replies beneath your current threshold. Trespass!? How about Break and Enter? (Score:5, Insightful) by DigitalJeremy (907237) on Friday October 14, @06:03PM (#13794286) Seriously though, it's refreshing to learn the courts are looking at it, and at least TRYING to make spyware fit into the legal system somewhere.If I've ever said "there oughta be a law", here is where it most certainly applies. [ Reply to ThisRe:Trespass!? How about Break and Enter? by heff (Score:2) Friday October 14, @11:54PM Makes Sense to Me (Score:5, Interesting) by Trip Ericson (864747) on Friday October 14, @06:04PM (#13794287) (http://www.rabbitears.info/) But how much spyware is installed by the user unknowingly, via misleading dialog boxes or other methods in which the user is fooled into installing it? I somehow doubt that would fall under the trespassing rule, due to being allowed in, no matter how sleazy the entry.I can understand those that are installed without the consent of the user through security holes, but those are a minority of the cases. The overwhelming majority gets in through the user inadvertantly allowing it in. [ Reply to This Re:Makes Sense to Me (Score:5, Informative) by Fiver- (169605) on Friday October 14, @06:08PM (#13794319) From TFA:"One of the defendants supposedly has an end user license agreement pursuant to which computer users are to be informed that spyware will be installed. However, the plaintiff alleged that that defendant has three means by which to avoid showing this agreement to computer users." [ Reply to This | Parent Re:Makes Sense to Me (Score:4, Insightful) by robertjw (728654) on Friday October 14, @06:09PM (#13794326) (http://www.alltheinfo.org/) But how much spyware is installed by the user unknowingly, via misleading dialog boxes or other methods in which the user is fooled into installing it?Exactly, where will this end. If spyware is trespass how about all the advertisements or demo software that is routinely installed with commercial applications.From TFA the defendants caused spyware to be downloaded onto his computer.It would be interesting to know how exactly the defendants 'caused spyware to be downloaded'. Looks to me like the plaintiff was visiting sites that had spyware attached to them, he shouldn't have visited these sites if he didn't want spyware installed. That's what I do. It's like he had a party and his guests brought some friends. Now he wants to charge his guest's friends with tresspassing. Would make more sense to be careful who you invited to start with. [ Reply to This | ParentHow about by temojen (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:14PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by Rob the Bold (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:18PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by robertjw (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:25PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by tepples (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:49PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by Feanturi (Score:3) Friday October 14, @06:28PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by Snover (Score:2) Friday October 14, @09:46PMFriends go home by lilmouse (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:29PMObligatory by amliebsch (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:20PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by techno-vampire (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:47PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by robertjw (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:03PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by MurphyZero (Score:3) Friday October 14, @07:24PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by Fulcrum of Evil (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:30PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by mrchaotica (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:40PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by zippthorne (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:56PMAnalogies suck... by mangu (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:28PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by evilviper (Score:2) Friday October 14, @09:51PMMisleading software by Rob the Bold (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:13PMI guess spyware is like vampires... by ebyrob (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:48PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by rea1l1 (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:38PMRe:Makes Sense to Me by readin (Score:1) Friday October 14, @08:45PMinterpreting the law by Brigadier (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:04PMRe:interpreting the law by robertjw (Score:3) Friday October 14, @06:14PMRe:interpreting the law by ScentCone (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:42PMRe:interpreting the law by The Angry Mick (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:15PM1 reply beneath your current threshold. No dammit! (Score:4, Insightful) by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Friday October 14, @06:46PM (#13794565) The last thing we need are millions of little laws governing every damn thing! We've already gone way too far in that direction. The law is supposed to be something everyone obeys. Well a prerequisite of that would be it has to be something everyone understands. You can't obey that which you don't understand. Also our laws are supposed to be somewhat rooted in common sense. When you get down to it, most of our most important laws are just formal codifications of basic kindergarden manners: Don't take stuff that isn't yours, don't hurt other people, don't lie, etc.Real and virtual property are basically the same when it comes to access rights, and what most people would find acceptable. If something is open to the public and inviting, like a store front or a public website on port 80, clearly it's an invitation to all to come on in. You only have to stay out if the owner explicitly forbids you access. If something is locked up, like a private residence or a passworded SSH server, it's clearly a message that you need to obtain permission first to come in, otherwise stay out. Likewise, regardless of permission, you aren't allowed to destroy anything.Basic property law really can be very well applied to virtual property, in such a way that I think everyone would understand it and most resonable people would agree it's a good set of rules. We don't need a whole new set of complecated laws for it. [ Reply to This | ParentRe:No dammit! by surprise_audit (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:04PMRe:No dammit! by mOdQuArK! (Score:2) Friday October 14, @09:13PMRe:interpreting the law by mrchaotica (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:46PMTrespassing? by Neurotoxic666 (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:05PMBut if I had a shirt saying I was an AC... by punkass (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:25PMRe:Trespassing? by surprise_audit (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:10PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Prison time by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:05PM"installing through security holes" by Karma_fucker_sucker (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:22PMRe:Prison time by ScentCone (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:50PMThis was bound to happen by GWBasic (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:05PMCan we also apply this to SPAM? by Lost Penguin (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:06PMRe:Can we also apply this to SPAM? by Radres (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:10PMRe:Can we also apply this to SPAM? by krray (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:41PMRe:Can we also apply this to SPAM? by drewxhawaii (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:09PMRe:Can we also apply this to SPAM? by Damer Face (Score:1) Friday October 14, @09:13PMwill this set precedent? by HappyDrgn (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:07PMSo I guess that what we need now.... by 8127972 (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:07PMRe:So I guess that what we need now.... by Karma_fucker_sucker (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:36PMKing Tut's Abacus by HermanAB (Score:3) Friday October 14, @06:10PMThe basis of the law is still the same by infonography (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:11PMRe:The basis of the law is still the same by techno-vampire (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:00PMHowever by Big Nothing (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:13PMRe:However by TheRaven64 (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:34PMInternational law of commerce by tepples (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:52PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Let me be the first by saskboy (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:13PMRe:Let me be the first by robertjw (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:21PMRe:Let me be the first by gbjbaanb (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:37PMRe:Let me be the first by robertjw (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:08PMRe:Let me be the first by saskboy (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:44PMInvasion of Chattel law, P2P, RIAA, MPAA, etc... by ProphetPX777 (Score:1) Friday October 14, @09:31PM in case you don't rtfa (Score:5, Informative) by ecklesweb (713901) on Friday October 14, @06:13PM (#13794352) the court didn't rule the case in the plaintiff's favor. The court just denied a motion to dismiss the complaint. I'd say that there's still a way to go before any precedent is set. [ Reply to ThisI can see the headlines by thib_gc (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:15PMGator is now part of Microsoft. by infonography (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:31PM The court did not make a ruling... YET (Score:5, Insightful) by Shadowhawk (30195) on Friday October 14, @06:17PM (#13794384) RTFA! All it says is that the court denied a motion to dismiss the charge of trespass to chattel by the defendants. The whole thing still has to go to trial. While this is a hopeful sign, the judge may later decide against the idea. [ Reply to This2 replies beneath your current threshold.Go after Sony by mwilliamson (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:19PMNext Up: Zoning, Public Right of Way by G4from128k (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:20PMRe:Next Up: Zoning, Public Right of Way by Ritchie70 (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:49PMRe:Next Up: Zoning, Public Right of Way by Torinir (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:59PMREALLY dangerous precedent here by theLOUDroom (Score:3) Friday October 14, @06:20PMRe:REALLY dangerous precedent here by SeaFox (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:45PMRe:REALLY dangerous precedent here by theLOUDroom (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:10PMNo it doesn't by geekoid (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:45PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.Nice Review of the Cases by putko (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:31PMAll EULA software can share the blame by BeBoxer (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:34PMBe careful supporting judgements such as these. by NathanBFH (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:39PMTangible property by tepples (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:58PMSouthern States by panic911 (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:44PMRe:Southern States by Dachannien (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:02PM1 reply beneath your current threshold.finally by blackcoot (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:52PMThe best "no tresspassing" sign you can make by Orion Blastar (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:00PMRe:The best "no tresspassing" sign you can make by SheeEttin (Score:1) Friday October 14, @08:12PMRe:The best "no tresspassing" sign you can make by FullCircle (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:52PM2 replies beneath your current threshold.Just Switch by innerewut (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:01PMBanjo playing in the background... by fingerfarm (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:08PMJust Spyware? by msbsod (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:08PMClearly Illegal by whawk640 (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:14PMAbout time too by NoMercy (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:24PM"historical legal theories" are just fine by Eric Smith (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:26PMExactly! by Beardo the Bearded (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:55PMNot innovative... by crazyhorse44 (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:29PMIt's only a first step... by Fantasio (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:34PMThis is a start. by elgee (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:41PMRe:This is a start. by FullCircle (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:44PMRe:This is a start. by jotux (Score:1) Friday October 14, @08:12PMRe:This is a start. by FullCircle (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:35PMRe:This is a start. by elgee (Score:1) Friday October 14, @09:38PMNo trespassing... by MiKM (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:42PMIn other news... by ozbird (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:52PMIt's still early, but it's progress by Animats (Score:2) Friday October 14, @07:54PMKinsella on cyber-trespass by srussia (Score:1) Friday October 14, @07:59PMRIAA spyware? by E8086 (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:02PMArgh! Stop calling it cyberspace! by sudog (Score:2) Friday October 14, @08:59PMdoes this mean by Some_Llama (Score:2) Friday October 14, @09:03PMI love technical reporting by Anonymous Coward (Score:1) Friday October 14, @09:17PMSlippery Slope? by dada21 (Score:2) Friday October 14, @09:24PMYAYY!!!! by Hosiah (Score:3) Friday October 14, @09:29PMthe law doesn't fall behind by Jessta (Score:1) Friday October 14, @11:18PMRe:the law doesn't fall behind by plasmacutter (Score:1) Friday October 14, @11:40PMLatest CD DRM. by plasmacutter (Score:2) Friday October 14, @11:42PMI'm not sure that it's really trespassing by Gary Destruction (Score:2) Friday October 14, @11:49PMNEW and UNFORSEEN? by SmurfButcher Bob (Score:2) Saturday October 15, @12:59AMRe:So uh, Is Microsoft guilty of aiding and abetti by Radres (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:07PMRe:well, not really by Meagermanx (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:10PMRe:well, not really by Billly Gates (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:20PMRe:well, not really by Spy der Mann (Score:2) Friday October 14, @06:26PMRe:well, not really by DavidTC (Score:1) Friday October 14, @08:48PM Re:YEA (Score:5, Funny) by muszek (882567) on Friday October 14, @06:17PM (#13794383) What is spyware? Is it this kind of software that I need Wine to run? [ Reply to This | ParentGood one by The MAZZTer (Score:1) Friday October 14, @06:36PMRe:partitioning this baby up for Linux by Anomalyst (Score:1) Friday October 14, @08:16PM