Not so, Antivirus2008

[ad#ad2-left]On F-secure blog they talk about this rogue antispyware.

OK, so let’s say the user (by some stroke of luckless chance, or courtesy of a trojan downloader) ends up with the demo installer of Rogue:W32/VirusRemover2008.C on their hands and it runs
[via F-Secure]

According to them, they have many different version of this rogue antispyware.  They have de, dk, es, fr, it, no, nl, and no, which are all attempting for you to buy this no so Virusremover2008 software.  They talk about how it tells you have a 9 infected viruses and that you need to remove them, but in truth, they use a text file to create this lie.  Check out all the details for further information.

Spammer sues Anti-Spammer and Wins!!

Anti-spam activists often need to do quite a bit of hunting to track down the real identity of various spammers. Over the years, spammers have become increasingly adept at hiding from those trying to shine light on their activities. However, when one well-known anti-spammer used some standard whois and DNS lookup tools (the same kind many of us use every day) to find out the identity of a spammer, the spammer sued him… and won! The anti-spammer has to pay over $60,000 in fines, and possibly much more once lawyers’ fees are added up. The judge ruled that some rather basic tools suddenly constituted “hacking” even though the details don’t suggest any actual hacking. The anti-spammer simply used the tools available to get the information necessary. He didn’t need to break through any security or do anything malicious to get the info. If you read the ruling, it sounds like a judge could define plenty of perfectly normal online activities as “hacking.” Update: There’s a good discussion in the comments, suggesting that there’s a lot more going on here than is clear from the article itself. The judge’s finding of facts suggest that the anti-spammer did some questionable things, including lying and ignoring an injunction — which certainly hurt his case. However, others are suggesting that the judge’s finding of facts are incorrect and there’s much more to this story that will come out on appeal.
[Via TechDirt]

Now this really boils my blood. I haven’t read the comments, but I will later on today. I don’t know what the judges are thinking these days? Do they even have internet access at home to even understand this process. I think this will turn out to be a big thing in the appeals court. I know I will be interested in the decision there.

Jammie Appeals, Citing “Excessive” Damages

Peerless writes “Capitol v. Thomas defendant Jammie Thomas has officially appealed the RIAA’s $222,000 copyright infringement award. She is seeking a retrial to determine the RIAA’s actual damages, arguing that the jury’s award was ‘unconstitutionally excessive’: ‘Thomas would like to see the record companies forced to prove their actual damages due to downloading, a figure that Sony-BMG litigation head Jennifer Pariser testified that her company “had not stopped to calculate.” In her motion, Thomas argues that the labels are contending that their actual damages are in the neighborhood of $20. Barring a new trial over the issue of damages, Thomas would like to see the reward knocked down three significant digits — from $222,000 to $151.20.'”

This should be interesting.