Techdirt asked if a firm should be held responsible for false positives in its anti-phishing tools, while Earthlink was deemed innocent of such.

The answer could be over-complexified, but my opinion is NO!

First off, there is likely little damage to be had from a company whose site is designated as a phishing trap. Most existing customers will go directly to the site anyway, and direct approach (usually via bookmark) is hardly an example of how phishers lure folks in. Second, a simple communication can set the record straight between the tool provider and the website owner.

The bottom line is..no harm, no foul…and better to be safe than sorry.

we have the largest rate of originating spam in the modern world. Now we can add spyware to the list as well.

And if that doesn’t pain you enough, the US also hosts more phishing sites than any other country with electricity.

So…it comes as no surprise to hear that there is a big spamware vendor down the street from AOL.