A while ago, I came up with the term antisoftware to refer to software that undermines a computer owner's control or rights over his own computer:
antisoftware n. Software written so as to restrict or harm its user, rather than to empower or assist him or her. The proper function of software is to work for its user: a word processor enables the editing of documents; a database enables the structured storage of facts; a chat or email system enables communication.
Classes of programs which restrict or harm the user -- in other words, to do the opposite of what is expected from software -- include Digital Rights Denial, spyware, Trojan horses, and "license managers". Much antisoftware can be identified by the user being compelled to run it, or held in ignorance of its running -- s/he would not run it by informed willing choice.
Other possible words in the category might include usurper software and scumware.
I might draw some distinctions:
Usurper software is software that, without the knowing intention of the user, seizes control over an existing software process. For instance, a program which pops up banner ads is not usurper software (since it does not seize control of an existing software process) but one which redirects search-engine requests to a competing search engine is. Likewise, antivirus software which intercepts file accesses is not usurper software, since the user knowingly and intentionally installs it for that purpose.
Scumware is software that attempts to take money or other value from the user without the user's knowing intention. Porn dialers, which attempt to cause the user's computer to dial high-priced long-distance numbers, are scumware. Likewise, a program which installs a background process to run computationally intensive "number crunching" for the program creator's profit, without the user knowingly intending to install it, is scumware -- the increased CPU load runs up the user's electric bill.
Note that above I use the criterion of knowing intention rather than passive consent. Because a personal computer acts in many ways as an agent for the user, it is not sufficient that the user passively consent to unsolicited alterations of its behavior.
|