At the same time, makers of software judged to be adware or spyware have protested the flagging of their products by anti-spyware companies, to the point of threatened lawsuits. Microsoft, one of the new coalition's members and an anti-spyware tool provider, last week asked the Senate to rewrite anti-spyware legislation to prevent such lawsuits.
Coalition members include the major anti-spyware makers and several industry groups. Some consumer organisations, including the US Consumers Union, also participate, Schwartz said.
"This effort is really to try and answer questions about what consumers can do to protect themselves," Schwartz said.
The collapse of the Consortium of Anti-Spyware Technology vendors shows the difficulties facing industry efforts to tackle the problem.
If a user has a question about a potential threat, it should be answered in the same way, regardless of which anti-spyware company is involved, he said. "Users should not feel like they get a bureaucratic runaround from different companies," Schwartz said.
Formation of the Anti-Spyware Coalition comes two months after the collapse of the Consortium of Anti-Spyware Technology vendors, or Coast, which had many of the same goals. Coast fell apart after it admitted a company suspected of making adware, prompting the departure of several key anti-spyware members.
Despite similar goals, the coalition is different from Coast, Schwartz said. "Coast seemed to be trying to do too many things and trying to please too many people all at the same time. There seemed to be a lack of clarity as to their mission and who exactly they were serving," he said.
The Anti-Spyware Coalition won't allow members beyond anti-spyware software companies, consumer advocacy groups and distributors of anti-spyware tools such as PC vendors and Internet access providers, Schwartz said. Also, all new members have to be approved by existing members.
The participation of consumer watchdogs is also a key difference, said Richard Stiennon, vice president of threat research at anti-spyware company Webroot.
"At least there is a forum and the industry can't be accused of working blindly. It is extremely good that consumer advocates are part of the consortium because we are aligned with them," he said.
Still, while Webroot is part of the new coalition, Stiennon has doubts about its chances of success, especially in regard to the likelihood of a quick agreement on definitions. "When you get a bunch of technologists together in a room there are very strongly held opinions on definitions," he said.
Talkback
The "test" for deciding the "nature" of a software or program is its "functionality" and not its nomenclature. It is difficult to appreciate that by terming a spyware as adware its basic nature and functionality is changed. An adware remains adware even if it is called a spyware and vice-versa.Thus, the true test is the way a particular software or program works. If it's functioning is primarily and predominantly of the nature of spyware it is spyware for all practical and legal purposes.
Fewer's approach of differentiating between an adware and spyware, by relying upon the three components: notice, consent and control, is apt. During installation of an application, it should be clear to the user what the tool does. The user should also have to give permission for installation and should be able to remove the application.
If an adware does not satisfies these components ,breaches the privacy and creats nuisance to the end computer user, it is nothing but spyware irrespective of its nomenclature.