Attn Friends, I Am A Dumbass :The EULA Virus
	found on SARC written by dylanr, edited by Humberto (Plastic) [ read unedited ] posted Sat 26 Oct 1:32pm
		By downloading, installing, accessing or using the FriendGreetings, you authorize Permissioned Media to access your MicroSoft(r) Outlook(r) Contacts list and to send a personalized e-mail message to persons on your Contact list. "We're all, by now, familiar with the brand of e-mail viruses that have the capacity to e-mail themselves to people in your contact list," writes dylanr. In the past, they've exploited various technical vulnerabilities and prompted fixes to e-mail clients and updates to anti-virus programs. A new virus, however, exploits a vulnerability for which there is no known fix: human laziness. The Friend Greeting virus arrives by e-mail and installs itself openly. In a stroke of mad genius, the software brazenly presents the soon-to-be-infected user with an End User License Agreement. To complete installation of the software, the user must agree to the EULA, that, among other things, authorizes the maker of the software to raid their contact list and mail out copies of itself to all the infected user's friends and associates."

	"Thus, this brazen bit of e-mail trickery is not, technically, a security compromise. Further, there is no way of preventing it from working since the user's full participation is required. This may be a new low in the black art of viral marketing, but I suspect that the software makers may be trying to make a rather devious point. Just how many of us read these EULAs and are aware of what rights we routinely give away in such agreements?"

[ more plastic... ]    

show almost all: 34 commentsbest: 4 comments by oldest first (ignore threads) newest first highest scores first oldest first newest first (ignore threads)

1.  EULAs   by Pravda       at Sat 26 Oct 2:21pm score of 1 interesting     Has a EULA ever been challenged in court? I can't remember ever seeing a case about it. Seen in the subQ: "For once I have to +Pravda. Scary. - Anonymouse Savant"   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

4.  Re: EULAs   by Dry Brit       at Sat 26 Oct 4:53pm score of 1.5 helpful   in reply to comment 1     We-eell... yes and no. They have been challenged, but only in a district court. From what I've read, EULA's are probably on dubious ground, because you cannot arbitrarily remove consumer's rights (beyond what is permitted by law, e.g. copyright restrictions) without a cast-iron contract, which a mouse-click does not yet constitute. (All researched on the web, that reliable source of info). IANAL, but hey, you gets what you pays for ;) -Jakob Welcome to the internet. Where men are men, women are men, and children are the FBI.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   9.  Re: EULAs   by StofCircumstance       at Sat 26 Oct 11:57pm score of 3.5 informative   in reply to comment 1     They touch on EULA's in first-year Contracts classes in law school now. I know because I'm a 1L taking Contracts.... According to my Contracts professor, EULA's are indeed on dubious ground. THere is contention against them at all levels. There have been cases made that the EULA is presented after purchase, and as such is negotiation after consummation (a no-no for contracts law). Some claim that the fact that notice of the EULA inside the package is too small and innocuous to survive scrutiny. Others simply claim that EULA's are engineered not to be read, and provide some nasty loopholes. The present instance is a wonderful example of this fear. Additionally, the ALI (American Legal Institute) is currently examining the EULA, and other computerized forms of creating contracts, with great scrutiny. Likely, they will soon issue a new Restatement of Contracts, with that subject in mind. The problem is, these types of cases are constantly being tried in "courts of first impression." This implies that many things are not governed by law yet. Worse still, even if a court has ruled on a case, it very likely is not binding on any other jurisdiction. For example, a court saying that a EULA violates law x in Michigan puts absolutely no obligation in a court from Wisconsin, even if the facts are identical. Moreover, the case would not bind another court in Michigan, if it's from a different jurisdiction. Civil procedure sucks like that, but that's how it goes. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   11.  Now, lets criticize Plastic for the hell of it.   by OneWingedAngel       at Sun 27 Oct 12:59am score of 2 astute   in reply to comment 9     What about Plastic's EULA (and any other website's EULA)? Anyone read it before? Or notice the link (Terms of Use at the very bottom)? It's not called a EULA but it works with the same principle: your use implies agreement. And reading it, it looks pretty scary...if any of our posts actually was worth something. I'm interested in knowing if a message board can take over copyright from an individual with an EULA. Yeah, the right to reproduce on this website is definitely an implied right given by us posters, but granting a "royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive right (including any moral rights), and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from..."? I know they're not going to take this post and turn it into a movie (god forbid) but if someone shares an anecdote about something or other on Plastic, then it looks like Carl can take the story and put it in some screenplay he's secretly working on (hypothetically). Which is wrong--morally if not legally. I'm not necessarily criticizing Carl here for reaching in too far--I understand producers sometimes need to overstate their rights in order to protect themselves. But still, there's a potential for abuse. Granted there's no purchase involved here, so negotiation after consummation is not involved. But that link is rather tiny.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   15.  Re: Now, lets criticize Plastic for the hell of   by Philosawyer       at Sun 27 Oct 10:16am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Of course, as you note it is very different from a EULA. Awhile back, I read the whole thing and for the most part it appears designed to protect plastic from litigation from some random insane or over litigious user. a www.plastic.com link I forget how it came up but I once pointed out in a thread that there was a provision (I am paraphrasing) that information about the user could be released if you did not expressly request otherwise. Carl reviewed the agreement and took out that portion, now it provides: I have the following exceptions to these policies: I will release specific information about you or your account to comply with any valid legal process, such as a search warrant, subpoena, statute, or court order. I will also release specific information in special cases, such as if there is an attempted breach of the security of the Site, or a physical threat to you or others. This provision only makes sense because, for all Carl knows someone could be using Plastic to traffic in drugs, slaves, death threats, or what not and if the feds showed up with a court order I wouldnt expect Carl to go to jail (although he still has the option if he chooses but doesnt want you suing if he decides not to). I am NOT an expert on this issue, but as far as I could tell it essentially said don't sue Plastic if something bad to you happens. This does not constitute legal advice of anything remotely like it. It is posted for entertainment purposes only. Of course, Carl can change the User Agreement and Privacy Notice at any time. Please do not try this at home and leave it to the professionals who do so only in controlled circumstances on a closed road course. Caution! Contents may be very hot and serious burns can result if not handled in accordance with the provided directions. If you do find anything actually objectionable go ahead and post it. The marketing division of the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation defines a robot as "Your plastic pal who's fun to be with."   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   16.  Re: Now, lets criticize Plastic for the hell of   by StofCircumstance       at Sun 27 Oct 1:41pm score of 2.5 informative   in reply to comment 11     Plastic's Terms of Use are not an EULA. An EULA is an End License User Agreement, and not a Terms of Use notice. They effectively do the same thing, but their implications arise from different things. Better put, a Terms of Use agreement, in this context, comes from software freely distributed, and charging nothing for the service. Such an agreement serves, as Philosawyer so succinctly put, to indemnify Plastic from actions taken by the Users. On the other hand, an EULA serves as the software company's "official" contract with the user. As I said, it is a licensing agreement. When you buy or download software, you are not actually getting any rights to that software, beyond the use of it. You may not duplicate it, sell it, alter it, etc. Your only entitlement to the software is to use it for your own purposes. The EULA is one of those "iffy" areas of contracts law, since it cannot be read until you actually purchase the damn thing. Which raises the salient point: If you've already bought it, what is the EULA doing? Basically, the EULA acts as a unilateral contract; either you agree to the terms, or you don't. If you don't, you cannot use the software. Then there's the problem of "what if I don't agree?" Once software, videos, DVDs, etc. are opened, retailers do not want them back. They post this information, and in purchasing, you tacitly agree to their terms (silence as acceptance...) So, now you seem to be stuck with some property you do not want to use, but cannot return, right? Well, the Uniform Contracts Code (UCC) says you have to have recourse in this situation. Someone has to take that software back. Since it's generally not the retailer (an exchange of the same thing doesn't count, after all), the returns must be accepted by the developer or publisher of the software. These people do NOT want to take returns, and they'll make it difficult for you. In terms of copyright infringement from Plastic, I doubt there's any cause for worry. However, if you're feeling some trepidation, I'd recommend putting a .sig into your posts. You can pretty much retain all your intellectual property rights by just saying you reserve the rights associated with your posts. I realize it sounds pretentious, but it should work. Zen Happens   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   22.  Re: Now, lets criticize Plastic for the hell of   by Misch       at Mon 28 Oct 12:36am score of 1   in reply to comment 11     Well, in one case, Microsoft Germany got slapped in a lawsuit by Steffi Graf when someone posted photoshopped-nude pictures of Steffi to an unmoderated website. Lawmeme notes: "One of the problems the German judge saw, apparently, was that Microsoft's EULA gave others permission to redistribute the photos; sort of a GPL for photos. The idea on Microsoft's part, I imagine, of forestalling copyright violation suits when the posted photos were copied." While this wasn't exactly the case, the EULA actually gave Microsoft copyright over the materials posted. Slashdot covered the story too. (Note: GPL doesn't "give" copyright to anyone, copyright is kept by the original Author(s) of items released under the GPL. The GPL is also a "license", and far less restrictive than what current copyright law is. You can read up on the GNU GPL here.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   30.  Re: Now, lets criticize Plastic for the hell of   by Dupe       at Mon 28 Oct 9:44am score of 1   in reply to comment 15     This provision only makes sense because, for all Carl knows someone could be using Plastic to traffic in drugs, slaves, death threats, or what not and if the feds showed up with a court order I wouldnt expect Carl to go to jail Note to self: stop sending coded white slaver messages over Plastic.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   14.  Re: EULAs   by My name is Mudd       at Sun 27 Oct 9:23am score of 1   in reply to comment 1     As to most software EULAs IMHO, EULAs are an example of an "in terrorum" clause. As the name might suggest, they are intended to scare off potential litigants- but have little actual effect. A good example are those "not responsible for. . ." signs in supermarket parking lots. As my Torts professor memorably said "Bet me." EULAs are not bargained for; their boiler-plate language must be construed against the drafter; public policy dictates that most rights can only be signed away if the language is clear and conspicuous; and I really doubt that a click is a signature. There is also a good argument that the agreement lacks any consideration. (A valid contract requires that both sides get something out of the deal). The manufacturer is only giving the use of the product, which, by the time he sees the EULA, the consumer has already paid for. A promise to give something the other party already has rights to is not consideration. The consumer is giving nothing. Short then is the time which every man lives, and small is the nook of the Earth wherein he dwells.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   17.  Re: EULAs   by Chasm007       at Sun 27 Oct 2:57pm score of 1   in reply to comment 14     Sorry, shrinkwrap agreements (which are a form of end user license agreement (EULA) have been successfully upheld in a number of courts. In most cases, however, the clauses that were upheld were "expected" clauses like "don't post this on the Internet" and "don't provide copies to your friends." There has never been a case yet where an "unexpected" or possibly overreaching clause was challenged. I expect that the Courts would hold the clause unenforceable because it is unconscionable, e.g. "the parties lacked equal bargaining power and contract contains substantively unfair provision." I would guess that this would fall squarely into the unconscionable clause camp. The reason the courts would not hold this contract ot be void is because then you have a copyright violation program. You did install their software, and presumably derived some benefit. If there were no license, e.g. permission to use the software, then you would have a copyright violation. You're much better off striking the offending clause for unconscionability. Thalia -- IAAL   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

2.  I'm no lawyer   by Blue Dot       at Sat 26 Oct 3:06pm score of 1     The length of these damn things pretty much precludes anyone from reading them: I know I don't and I seriously doubt that very many people do. I think the EULA is a perfect example of the so-called "information overload" that we're faced with now. It used to be that one couldn't work if one couldn't read, so staying in school was profitable. Are we all going to have to go for our J.D.'s to install the latest version of Excel? Something has got to give, cause I am tired of reading about how some piece of software has farmed out my hard drive/bandwidth/mother's life insurance policy to some other company.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

3.  No lawyer either, but...   by Minivet       at Sat 26 Oct 3:28pm score of 1.5 intriguing     I've done some research (admittedly very amateurish research, but helped a little by a lawyer relative) into agreements companies want to hold people to. What seems to be the case so far is that if you need to make some acknowledgement of reading, you can be held to it. In the case, say, buying a ticket to an event with various things you "agree to by purchasing this ticket" written on the back, there's no legal validity whatsoever: it's a sop to try to scare people away without consulting a lawyer. If the ticket-sellers were obliged to inform you of the conditions before handing you the ticket, so that you actually had some choice over whether to accept it, it would hold a little more water. Generally if they want to be able to enforce an agreement, though, you need a signature, and if you sign something it doesn't matter if you've read it or not; your signature attests to your reading and accepting it. All that's pre-computer stuff, though, and I have no more idea than anyone else if clicking a button is as good as a signature. It is an action you're obliged to take before you can move on, so it's not like the tickets. On the other hand, one might argue that the software is set up so that people have a tendency to simply hit the Enter key to get the agreement out of the way, and that action becomes automatic and much less of a burden than scribbling your name. But I haven't heard any cases about this (not that I was watching for them). Perhaps this virus could be a bolstering of that hypothetical argument: it gambles on the fact that large numbers of people clear the EULA without any reading. Who knows; maybe in the future we'll get a virus that has people agree to a contract to give its originator $100 per month indefinitely, and then EULAs will have to develop more legal robustness.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

10.  Re: No lawyer either, but...   by Violator       at Sun 27 Oct 12:06am score of 1 disingenuous   in reply to comment 3     The point about the clicking of a button being a signature is moot when, in all honesty, a great many people are not the ones to install their software. You can pay someone to install your software - it was a paid-for hand that clicked the tick box or radio button, not yours. If they just happened to muff something, it would be a fairly tricky prospect to say that you had breached the EULA. On the point of EULAs, it is worth reading them. For instance, I managed to find out that one particular M$ EULA mentioned that I, by clicking below, agreed to be held to the laws of Washington State, namely, Seattle. This was good news for me, who if I had been caught would have enjoyed a summons to Seattle on M$'s account for defending myself against breaching the EULA with respect to disseminating the products of my labours with the program which Microsoft owned the copyright to according to the EULA. Yes, that's right, I in my non-legalese manner interpreted the 32 page EULA to mean that M$ owned anything I would write with M$ Word. Maybe I was wrong. But after slogging through 15 pages of the agreement which dealt with such things as source code, restitution for damages that may occur to my machine, person or dwelling by installing M$ Word, I figured it was a joke and clicked the button. What, I wondered, and how would M$ Word threaten the house I lived in? Cook the hard drive and burn it down? Consistently modded down for being an asshole since 2003   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   32.  Re: No lawyer either, but...   by call -151       at Mon 28 Oct 12:27pm score of 1   in reply to comment 10     I don't see how delegating the installation of software to others releases one from EULAs. If I hire someone to do something as my agent, presumably I can only do that if I grant them permission to do things on my behalf. If I have a reasonable expectation that they complete the assigned task, presumably I have nescessarily given them authority over things needed to do in the course of that action. Of course, most of the time people don't worry about this, but I don't think you can say that you are absolved from EULAs just because someone else set up your computer for you. The main point is that EULA have not been fully challenged in court and it is good to see preposterous examples like this that remind people how silly they can be. I remember years ago when Dilbert inadvertently clicked an agreement to be Bill Gates' towel boy...   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

5.  EULAs suck   by Mad Ogger       at Sat 26 Oct 5:19pm score of 2.5 funny     Imagine if there were a EULA for every single product you bought. Every time you bought a gumball you'd have to read a long contract to make sure you weren't signing your life away. Commerce would grind to a halt. This is clearly a job for: Government Regulation. (Well, it's probably not that important until someone actually does create the power-of-attorney EULA.) They should create a standard EULA that works well for most software and doesn't do anything heinous to the buyer. Most software would just have a tag saying "Standard EULA". If there were any special provisions, it would say "Standard EULA except [short list of exceptions]" so it would be easy to check. And ridiculous clauses that have nothing to do with normal business needs (such as, we can hack your computer any time we want) should require an actual paper signature (read: too expensive to do it for mass-market wares) to be enforceable.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

6.  And they can do you rotten...   by neuralgia       at Sat 26 Oct 6:35pm score of 1     The EULA in this case also lets them use the Messenger function to pop-up ads to you whenever they want and the program installs a little gateway that allows the company to turn your Messenger back on if you disaqble it. Sneaky bitches. EULAs in general are a bunch of BS and I make it a point to ignore them as often as possible.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

7.  Another problem with EULA's   by David Flores       at Sat 26 Oct 7:48pm score of 1     Another problem with EULA's; specifically computerized ones: Since you never see the whole document at one time (because its inside a scrolling window) you can't quickly scan it for anything fishy. You've got to scroll through the entire thing and watch as it zips past in that tiny window and hope you catch the rambling, subrodinate clause that mentions your first-born son. Basically, if it's not from Apple, Microsoft, Real Networks or Macromedia, there's very little chance I'm going to install a plugin of any sort on my machine. This is sad, of course, because it works to the detriment of competitors to those companies; I'm sure I'm not the only one who thinks like this. Warning: Your Computer is not Übersnazzed. Click here to download our helpful toolbar that will ensure your computer is always Übersnazzed* *and grants Übersoft permission to host kiddie-porn galleries on your hard-drive's unused free space. GAFB and GAFB2   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

8.  friendgreetings.com is currently down...   by funchords       at Sat 26 Oct 7:49pm score of 1     ...looks like someone e-mailed a card to the wrong hacker... Interesting that McAfee has decided that they will detect and clean this vermin. My address book has over 350 entries, many within my company that has some 70,000 employees in it. This could wreak havok. Sooner or later, someone is going to get fired for accepting an e-card. - -Born Free! (Except for the $15 co-payment.)   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

12.  I can't wait   by geekybob       at Sun 27 Oct 3:37am score of 1.5 helpful     I'm a support engineer at a 1300-user company running McAfee. They will release the virus defs for this next Wednesday. I heard about this late Friday, and recommended to my bosses that we either block friendgreetings.com entirely or send out a warning Email to the mostly computer-unsavvy users. He doesn't think we need to worry about it. Somebody please send a card to one of our night-shift nurses! I'd love to have the last laugh.... I'm not a Democrat, I'm a liberal. Democrats go to meetings.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

18.  I'm so sorry...   by veschke       at Sun 27 Oct 5:01pm score of 1     ... for those of you who will have to deal with this in an professional IT capacity, but this is hands-down the funniest thing I have seen in at least a week. If you're going to be the sort of human plague who comes up with these things, it helps to be clever about it. 'Scuse me while I kiss my Mac. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

19.  Re: I'm so sorry...   by SteamboatDreamboat       at Sun 27 Oct 6:44pm score of 1   in reply to comment 18     'Scuse me while I kiss my Mac. I suppose that you frequent this page "When life hands you lemons, make coffee... and then you'll have the desire to make lemonade." --Jon Friedman   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   28.  Re: I'm so sorry...   by gparizot       at Mon 28 Oct 9:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 18     'Scuse me while I kiss my Mac. Sure, it's easy enough to say that macs or Linux or TRS-80's or whatever don't have these problems. They don't have them because the vast majority of people don't run these OS's. If people did, then Macs and the like would be just as plagued by this crap as Windows is. Hackers, spyware companies and their ilk are going for the largest audience, the maximum damage. It's not inherently Windows. Or are you saying that your machine is superior because no one uses it? "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   31.  Re: I'm so sorry...   by asthmaticeog       at Mon 28 Oct 11:09am score of 1   in reply to comment 28     No matter how many people use them, Macs don't run .exe files, the preferred method of virus promulgation. That being said, no-one who knows shit would make the claim that Macs "don't have these problems," and anyone who's ever tried to give you that impression was either ignorant or full of it (I'm primarily a Mac user, and I have no illusions of safety). The company I worked for a few years ago got hit by the Love Bug (some assclown in our sales division opened the attachment two days after the virus made national news), and the Macs were SO not spared - indeed, the Mac-heavy design department lost almost all of its graphics files to corruption. Thank goodness our IT guy was both Mac-savvy (a rarity, in my experience) and dutiful enough to actually do nightly server backups, so no harm was ultimately done. Even though it happened on a heavy production day (of COURSE!), we were only set back by about an hour. Perfect is the enemy of good.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]   34.  Re: I'm so sorry...   by veschke       at Mon 28 Oct 1:36pm score of 1   in reply to comment 28     "Or are you saying that your machine is superior because no one uses it?" I didn't say my machine was superior; I just happen to like it. The vast majority of viruses can be kept at bay simply by not being ignorant. I've never had a Windows machine I was working on infected with anything, because I try not to be an idiot. Last week someone in our HR department sent out a message titled "ASSISTANCE REQUIRED - REPLY IMMEDIATELY" (yes, in all caps). I explained to her that this is not necessarily the best way to get replies. Cynicism is the opposite of wisdom.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

20.  edited EULAs   by notaphid       at Sun 27 Oct 9:01pm score of 1.5 brilliant     I've noticed that a great number of the EULAs they make you sign on the web before downloading drivers and the like are editable text fields. Even a few software installation agreements can be edited. I've taken to the habit of rewriting the agreements before clicking "agree", giving myself the right to redistribute the app and whatnot. Anyone keen to the legal ramifications of this? I mean, what if you blank it out, then agree, then use?   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

21.  Klez, Nimda, AnnaK, I Love You, etc.   by Nexzus       at Sun 27 Oct 9:13pm score of 1     If any of these virii had included a EULA specifically saying what is was about to do, could the creators be responsible for the millions and billions of damage that they cost. After all, they are essentially doing the same thing FriendGreetings is doing, emailing itself to everybody in your address book. It probably wreaks havoc in your computer too. I see two possible outcomes of that scenario: 1) EULA's are finally analyzed for legality at a high level in the courts. 2) The virus writers are let go because of the EULA, and the fact that they described exactly what the virus would do, and the user still clicked Accept If the VP is such a VIP should we keep the PC on the QT? Cause if it gets to the VC, he could be MIA, then we'd go on KP   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

24.  Social Engineering   by moof1138       at Mon 28 Oct 7:16am score of 1.5 helpful     Hackers (or Crackers if you are a pedantic nerd) have known for a long time that security breaches are often best accomplished by exploiting the trust of individuals in an organization you want to exploit rather than software. Get a phone company uniform and a clipboard, and suddenly too many people will trust you to enter all sorts of places in an otherwise secure building. Call up a receptionist, tell them you are performing some tests for the IT department and you need their password, and sometimes they will give you one. Putting up an EULA gives a false air of legitimacy to the illicit software, and plays on the fact that nearly everyone dismisses the EULA without review. This worm is sort of interesting since it is propagated through a sort social engineering. The degree of its success is a mark of how many ready victims of social engineering there are out there. Bene agere et laetari   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

33.  Re: Social Engineering   by Web Maxtor       at Mon 28 Oct 12:43pm score of 1   in reply to comment 24     security breaches are often best accomplished by exploiting the trust of individuals You've made a wonderful point, but my experience suggests the individuals trust is not even necessary. Having worn a phone company uniform (by the way, having the portable orange buttset hanging from your belt is a plus) for years, I can tell you not only are you able to exploit the individuals trust, but you can easily intimidate users into doing and giving you access to things that they obviously don't trust you with. Solely in the interest of work efficiency, I have personnally coerced people into opening doors to manufacturing "clean rooms", legal record libraries, unrelated computer server rooms, opposite sex dressing / locker rooms, etc., all with a suspicious eye and a disapproving glare. I could usually take it a step further and ask for the keys to avoid having to bother them later. Had I had anything other than good work intentions, I could have wreaked countless levels of havoc accross multiple industries. I suggest, while the individuals trust is the simplest path, many people are too frightened or lazy to confront the 'virus', or are too embarrassed to confirm what they should or shouldn't know or be doing. I'm facinated by how much engineering, effort and knowledge go into powerful computer viruses, but even more so by some of the hoaxes that prey on the psyche rather than the software.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

26.  DumbAsses!   by phenry       at Mon 28 Oct 8:52am score of 1     Given the legal nitpicking that is the raison d'etre of all EULAs in the first place, it seems appropriate to note that Permissioned Media may have accidentally voided their EULA to begin with. For although I do have Microsoft Outlook installed on my computer, I do not own any software by any company called "MicroSoft." I wonder if this invalidates it in the eyes of the law. phh | Away for 3 years and still in the karma top 50! Woo hoo!   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

37.  Re: DumbAsses!   by Jedi Paramedic       at Wed 30 Oct 4:51pm score of 1   in reply to comment 26     Most likely, this would be a de minimus error in the contract, not sufficiently material to justify rescinding of the contract. If someone had substituted "Micro Soft" or "MicroSoft" or "MiCrOsOfT" or "microsoft" for "Microsoft," these, too, would likely be nonmaterial issues as a reasonable person would interpret the maker of Outlook as "that big company in Redmond." The truly material issue is that you have given them permission to access your address book.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

27.  Am I the only one   by chatsubo       at Mon 28 Oct 8:54am score of 1     or is there anybody else out there, who as soon as they read the word 'Eula', automatically thinks of the mournful cry of the Martian war machines in 'Jeff Wayne's War of the Worlds'. Every man is guilty of all the good he did not do   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

29.  Re: Am I the only one   by gparizot       at Mon 28 Oct 9:15am score of 1.5 scholarly   in reply to comment 27     yeah, you're the only one. "Just 'cause you feel it doesn't mean it's there" - Radiohead   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]

35.  Good   by digit       at Mon 28 Oct 4:47pm score of 1     We need a bad EULA that propagates wildly and contains really bizarre requests such as the "right to borrow your car" or "by agreeing to these terms we have the right to all your money". That way it can finally be taken to court above state level and we can (hopefully) do away with these one-sided "contracts" that should be anything but legal.   [ ...reply just to this | comment on the story... | next new ]