There ain't nobody here but us chickens

There ain't nobody here at all. Honest. Now just look the other way while we write anti-spyware legislation.

Everybody remember the Federal "CAN SPAM" law (official title: Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act) from 2003? It was supposed to stop Evil Spammers dead in their tracks and was signed with much hoo-rah.

Unfortunately, not even the Feds really believed it would help. FTC chairman Tim Muris, in fact, opposed it. Why? Because it would make it easier for the companies who hire spammers to claim ignorance of the spammers' business practices. According to Muris, "the FTC would have to prove that the seller (who hires a spammer to advertise a product or service) knew, or consciously avoided knowing, that the third-party ailer intended to violate the law. This standard requires proof of both the seller's and spammer's level of knowledge...These requirements to prove intent pose a serious hurdle that we do not have to meet to obtain an injunction under our current jurisdiction". It also negated existing state anti-spam laws, many of which were more restrictive.

And, of course, we all know what a significant effect the law had on spam, right?

Never content to let well-enough alone, however, Congress is now out to follow up on its anti-spam success with anti-spyware laws. Never mind that, once again, the FTC told Congress over two years ago that it already has the laws it needs, thanks very much. A new law means new photo ops. Let the games begin!

Cynicism aside, there are good reasons to be more than a little wary of this effort. For one thing, major adware and spyware vendors such as WhenU think Federal legislation a good idea - strongly suggesting that this particular chicken coop will have foxes on the no-bid contractor list. CAN-SPAM overrode stricter state laws. Any bets as to what effect new anti-spyware regulations might have on often-stricter state laws like those in Utah?

Ain't nobody here but us chickens.