• silicon.com
• Technology
• Security

By silicon.com, 9 June 2005 17:50

What's in a name?

In the fight against spyware, a lot.

Symantec has taken to the courts to be able to call web browser tools made by Hotbar.com adware. The security firm claims its efforts are motivated by benevolence for the internet and the good of the customer - not by profit.

On its website, however, Hotbar argues it protects customers' privacy and opposes spyware.

At the heart of the problem are the vague definitions of these terms.

The differences between adware and spyware are slight and most people would agree they are both annoying and privacy-invading and should be blocked by any decent security company.

The anti-spyware companies are trying - but their efforts are failing because they face the threat of being sued should they label certain companies' products spyware, adware or any other kind of malware.

Computer Associates, for one, circumnavigates this problem by labelling spyware and the like "pests".

While legal battles stall security firms' efforts, the people who make the pesky programs are reaping significant rewards.

It's a bit like little Johnny queuing up to ask the teacher for permission to call little Jane naughty for stealing his goldfish. By the time Johnny gets the response he wants, it's too late - Jane has already flushed the goldfish down the toilet.

Moreover, even a company as big as Symantec lacks the resources to take every adware and spyware creator to court. So they're left with the option of taking legal action against one or two offenders and hoping the rest will change their ways for fear of being next in line.

Hope could be seen in this week's news that makers of anti-spyware software are joining forces once again to come up with a clear definition for spyware.

We wish them luck. But they could use a little help from the courts, too. A few decisions in favour of the anti-spyware contingent, and spyware makers could well turn tail.