be collected by the spyware. This law would pre-empt state law. The Federal Trade Commission would have the sole power to enforce the terms of the legislation. The law also prohibits the taking control of a computer, modifying internet settings, keystroke logging, obtaining PII through misrepresentation and actions to disable protective software.
SPYBLOCK would also restrict the downloading of software onto a computer unless it meets certain standards of disclosure.
The Computer Software Privacy and Control Act restricts collection and the transmission of PII, monitoring web activity, changing default settings, using software to display ads and transmitting software based on misleading notices and standards for getting user consent and is substantively similar to the proposed SPYACT legislation.
The problem in the US may not be one of under-regulation but one of over-regulation at both the State and Federal level. This panoply of legislation is counter productive. The proliferation of very narrowly specific privacy legislation in the United States is of concern. The consumer is faced with a bewildering range of spyware devices and techniques and is then confronted by a similarly confounding array of legislative provisions and yet, ironically, all of this proposed legislation relies on a notice and consent approach to privacy. Consumers may be left confused and英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 unsure of the standards applicable.
The EU response
In contrast, the European legislative response is contained in only two legislative instruments: the E-privacy Directive of 2002 and the Data Protection Directive. The European approach has been to consider the user’s terminal and the information contained therein as private spheres that benefit from the privacy protections of the European Convention on Human Rights.
The E-privacy Directive introduces controls on the use of cookies on websites. Cookies and similar invisible tracking devices will be subject to a new two-stage transparency requirement; anyone that employs these kinds of devices must provide clear and comprehensive information on them and allow subscribers or users to refuse to accept them if they wish. However, the right to refuse need only be offered once. This limitation on the right to refuse was included in the Directive as an acknowledgement of the usefulness of cookies.
This is rather controversial. The directive provides that the transparency requirements do not apply where the cookie or other tracking device is intended for the sole purpose of enabling or facilitating the transmission of a communication or where it is strictly necessary for the provision of an online service requested by the user or subscriber. Clearly, the first exception is relatively narrow
本文来自：英语论文网 【http://www.51lunwen.org】 |
论文编号：
org200806160940437174 
