The Anti-Spyware Coalition, which is led by the Center for Democracy and Technology, has published a draft document that seeks to define spyware and other potentially unwanted technologies (announcement is here, document is here, both in PDF format). It includes an excellent glossary and is now in a 30-day public comment period. Here’s the definition the ASC has proposed, which is followed by a table listing lots of examples:
Spyware and Other Potentially Unwanted Technologies
Technologies implemented in ways that impair 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
- Collection, use, and distribution of their personal or otherwise sensitive information
These are items that users will want to be informed about, and which the user, with appropriate authority from the owner of the system, should be able to easily remove or disable.
Of course, any definition that a broad coalition can agree on is going to be vague and inspecific. The really hard work begins when someone tries to turn that general definition into specific, actionable items.
Ed Bott 
Ed,
Thanks for posting that info, and I agree that any definition coined in this fashion will be too broad to render it truly useful. I use this analogy that my grandfather taught me.
A weed is anything that grows where you don’t want it.
These companies are following the law.
If you want action then bribe/appeal to politicians. Anti-spyware makers are just going to get sued into oblivion.
This sort of empty talk does more harm than good, and you’re being irresponsible in promoting it.
So far, so good, but we haven’t gotten that far. I find it interesting that the first real details relate to how spyware vendors can complain to the antispyware vendors about the listings. I’m sure that was part of the negotiation process though.
I’m not totally sure what Tim’s point was, but I can’t imagine that “Anti-spyware makers are just going to get sued into oblivion.” After all, most users agree that anti-spyware products are doing the useful job of cleaning unwanted junk off the PC. Why would AS vendors disappear and allow their nemesis continue to spew unwanted garbage on to user’s systems?