Every spy has another one behind, supervising him. Is this principle applicable even in the case of the spyware and anti-spyware? So it looks.
The worse scenario is that ending in a court because bad guys and good guys seem to belong to the same group, or it’s getting harder to distinguish between them. The president of the Cyber Security Industry Alliance, Tim Bennett, said that content providers sued alliance members for labeling them as bad.
The Internet law expert Phil Malone, agreed that this accusations can upset a software providing company and the legal way is the suitable way to follow for solving the situation. A decision from last year of the U.S. District Court in Seattle, taken by Judge John Coughenour, stated that anti-spyware sellers have immunity due to the Communications Decency Act and the interrelation with other companies’ business is not a reason for suing.
The decision will be analyzed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that will try to establish what legal protection the anti-spyware companies will obtain.When the software provided by Zango was classified by Kaspersky Lab, a Russian company that also sells anti-spyware tools in the United States, as possibly dangerous, a trial seemed to be the right answer.
But Kaspersky used a section of the act that protects providers of technology to fight back the accusations. Users have the technology to stop any dangerous material, said Erik Belt, lead attorney for Kaspersky.
Although Zango drew attention about Kaspersky’s attempt to promote its products, the judge didn’t regard it as a problem. This situation of releasing a source of infection and then proposing to resolve it, is flourishing on the Internet. The law doesn’t offer enough support and it should be revised, improved. The Congress must do its job and shed light on this matter.
