Remote Spy Software Blog

In case you’re curious, here is the link to the press release we are issuing later today about the Court’s ruling in our favor.  Obviously, you get the most complete picture by reading the whole thing, but the gist of it is captured in a few choice snippets:

If you learn nothing else, know this:

“On November 25, 2008, the U.S. District Court denied a proposed ban of the remotely-deployed computer monitoring software product, RemoteSpy, sold by CyberSpy Software, LLC.  As of December 3, 2008, RemoteSpy is once again available for sale and users of the popular software can once again access their accounts.”

I give special thanks to the customers who spoke up for us:

Spence added: “After considering the sworn testimony of numerous parents and employers who depend on our software to monitor the activities of their children and employees, the Court rightly denied the FTC’s attempt to shut us down.”

Our General Counsel, Clegg Ivey, makes an interesting analogy:

“Yet, they tried to shut us down because some unspecified person out there might violate our license agreement, ignore the warnings contained on our website and in the user guide, and misuse the software to break the law,” Ivey continued.  “That’s exactly what the Recording Industry said when they asked a court to ban MP3 players as being useful only for music piracy,” Ivey said, “but I represented Diamond Multimedia in that case and the Court agreed with us.” Ivey added: “The Recording Industry was wrong then just like the FTC is wrong now.”

I’ll post more soon about our amazing customers and the various ways in which they stepped up to set the record straight.  I am also hoping that Clegg will devote a future post to talking more about the similarities between MP3 players and computer monitoring software.

I just noticed a brief discussion of our case over at JOLT Digest, the online blog that accompanies the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology.  Andrew Ungberg posted his article to the blog very early on November 25, 2008.  That would be the same day the Court issued its ruling denying the FTC’s request to extend the temporary restraining order (TRO) and the day after we appeared in court for the hearing on the preliminary injunction (PI).

He seems confused about when the hearing was held and, much more importantly, what the judge decided:

Following a hearing on November 17, Judge Gregory Presnell of the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida upheld his November 6th decision to grant the Federal Trade Commission’s request for a temporary restraining order prohibiting the sale of CyberSpy Software’s RemoteSpy keylogger software.

Well, no, actually.  The hearing was on the 24th, not the 17th.  And Judge Presnell did not uphold his decision granting the FTC’s request for a TRO prohibiting the sale of RemoteSpy.  On the contrary, he vacated the ban on selling RemoteSpy in his ruling the day after the hearing, which is why we are now selling the product again.

I think Mr. Ungberg is a first or second year law student, so we’ll cut him some slack.  But I would like to see him post a correction.  Even better, he can make it part of a follow-up, in which he discusses the merits of the case in light of the Court’s latest ruling.  What say you, Mr. Ungberg?

Matthew Humphries writes this article on Geek.net applauding the FTC’s attempt to ban RemoteSpy.  Most interestingly, Mr. Humphries says the following:

When you read about what RemoteSpy actually does then it is clear to see that it was made to act as spyware and must break a number of laws. What’s surprising to me is the fact it has been sold since August 2005.

I would challenge Mr. Humphries to find even a single law that our software breaks.  He seems unaware of the important distinction between surveillance tools and the purposes for which people use them.  I could go on at length about the numerous legitimate and beneficial uses of RemoteSpy — indeed, we have received hundreds of testimonials from parents and employers on the subject.  It’s possible Mr. Humphries has neither children nor remote employees, both of whom are often more tech savvy and have better access to the computer than the parents or employers who have a legitimate need to monitor their computer usage.

It’s also possible that Mr. Humphries repeats the mistake of the FTC: focusing on the potential abuses of a new technology, rather than its intended legitimate uses.  What would happen if we banned every technology that could be abused?  No cars.  No guns.  No MP3 players.  At the end of the day, the people abusing these technologies to break the law are the ones we should be focusing on.  Otherwise, we unduly hamper innovation and technological progress because we are paralyzed by fear of how someone somewhere might abuse these new technologies.