Guys and gals, there were actually 2 bills passed. The other one got 3 votes against. One I cannot recall, but one was a rep based in California, near a tech center, and one is a liberal from Texas (how did that happen?) Both said however, that they voted against because they felt the bill violates some form of free speech. Now I love my freedom and all, but I think this freedom of speech/press has gone too far. The press has the right to state anything they please as factual, as long as they don't outright lie. And the civil liberties groups fight to keep speech free, even to the detriment of the public. In reality, if we had total freedom, we would have anarchy. Now I don't agree with giving up my rights, but to use my right to an opinion to support an argument against the fight on spyware is distasteful, at best. It seems the few who voted against the bill are the ones who need to be looked at more critically. Granted, I agree these measures will help out "legit" spyware organizations. However, if it prevents even a fraction of crapware from invading my system, then it has helped in leaps and bounds. As for those who argue not to use IE, or MS, etc. Let's give up the argument. In the recent tech news it has been documented that ALL popular operating systems and browsers have vulnerabilities. The same is true of any software. If one person makes it, another can surely break it. The reason you don't hear about the issues with Macs or Linux systems, or Firefox, Opera, etc. is because the majority of the users of those products are rabid fans. Script kiddies hate Microsoft and enjoy attacking it at every opportunity. It doesn't make MS good or bad (other issues do that.) In the end yes, vigilance by the public is key , and the passing of laws should be seen as just help. But every little step counts.