Hippo, birdie, two ewes...

... to sammyd!! Have a good one!!

Spyware is spyware is objectionable, and other matters

Techdirt: Court Rules That Anti-Spyware Companies Can Call Spyware Spyware

...The judge dismissed the lawsuit, noting that security firms have every right to label software as they see fit, citing part of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act

We often point to section 230, because it protects service providers from liability for the actions of the service providers' users. However, this is referring to a different part of section 230, which says that no service provider is liable for a good faith attempt to restrict access to something it deems objectionable. The court felt that the security company was a service provider, and that since it believed Zango was objectionable, then it has every right to try to restrict it. The court makes a second very important point. Zango complains that its software is not objectionable, and therefore the security providers cannot block it as objectionable. However, the court points out that the statute clearly says that it's for what the service provider finds objectionable. In other words, the content in question need not be "objectionable" at all -- it only matters what the service provider feels about it. This is a pretty strong endorsement for the idea that security companies absolutely can call software whatever they feel is appropriate.

This is bigger than it looks, since it also implies that LJ/6A, for example, can block whatever they choose to label as "objectionable".

One more reason for owning your own data.