Unintended Consequences Continued: Does the adware business support the Spy Act?

As a follow-up to my earlier post on the Spy Act, it appears that this act has industry support. Adware/Spyware industry support, that is.

We have always said that we support fair, well-written legislation, particularly national legislation that will bring uniformity and certainty to the industry. Last week brought us one step closer to such legislation with the first markup of the 110th Congress, this by the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection on the “SPY ACT” – more formally known as H.R. 964, the “Securely Protect Yourself Against Cyber Trespass Act.”

While the SPY ACT would overall certainly benefit the industry, the legislation does not come without its share of controversy. As we have noted before, and as others are also pointing out, the otherwise appropriate SPY ACT carries with it a liability exception for so-called “Good Samaritans.” This liability exemption was undoubtedly well-intended when it first appeared in earlier versions of the legislation. However, it is potentially both anticompetitive and, based on our own experience, subject to commercial abuse.

We look forward to continued discussions with legislators on this front and to the ultimate passage of fair and effective federal spyware legislation.

More here.

(The “Good Samaritan” exemption mentioned basically exempts people like antispyware developers from being held liable for removing spyware).