Spyware impairs "users' control over material changes that affect their user experience, privacy or system security; use of their system resources, including what programs are installed on their computers; or collection, use and distribution of their personal or otherwise sensitive information," according to the Anti-Spyware Coalition, which includes Microsoft, EarthLink, McAfee and Hewlett-Packard.

The group hopes the definitions will clear the way for anti-spyware legislation and help create a formal, centralized method for companies to dispute or change their software's classification.

There's been a lot of talk about this in recent weeks, especially the Microsoft bid for adware/spyware/crapware giant Claria (among others, I think). I have to say anyone honestly believing Microsoft would work to create a definition that would pave the way for restrictive legislation needs to pull their head out of the sand. Luckily, Wired includes this little nugget of innuendo later in the article...

Software companies like Claria, which distribute their pop-up advertising software by bundling it with free programs such as peer-to-peer software, adamantly deny their products are "spyware." They point out that users can usually find a definition of the programs' effects deep in the user agreement.

It is unclear what effect the new definitions will have on current anti-spyware programs, such as Lavasoft's Ad-Aware and Microsoft's free AntiSpyware tool.

Recently, Microsoft downgraded the default program action for Claria's software from "Remove" to "Ignore," which prompted widespread criticism.

Microsoft responded by saying that it had changed the handling of "Claria software in order to be fair and consistent with how Windows AntiSpyware (beta) handles similar software from other vendors."

Microsoft is in negotiations to buy venture-capital-backed Claria, according to The New York Times.

But, honestly, what's the worse case scenario here? I mean, could the legislature (or Supreme Court, depending on which side of the barnyard fence you're on) really be so grossly swindled by this collaboration that it passes laws based on their partisan definition? I'm inclined to agree with the article that, at best, such legislation will secure a stamp of approval for these types of bullshit programs. At worst, however, I think that it could give truly malicious programs a narrowly defined facade of legitimacy in the face of supposedly adequate filtering software.

-janelane, subversively