Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Domains

Domain: adlawbyrequest.com

Stories and comments across the archive that link to adlawbyrequest.com.

Comments · 6

  1. Re:My problem with this "Bill of Rights" by ln+-sf+head+ass · · Score: 1 · on California Offers Cellular Bill of Rights

    The Telephone Consumer Protection Act prohibits telemarketing calls to numbers for which the subscriber would bear a cost for the telemarketing call. Here's an article by the telemarketing "industry" whining about the law as it relates to number portability.

  2. California financial privacy initiative by John+Jorsett · · Score: 3, Interesting · on Web Firms Choose Profit Over Privacy

    This is why a California Financial Privacy Initiative is going to have to go before the voters. All the attempts to get a financial privacy measure thru the corrupt California legislature have failed due to opposition of big financial institutions and insurers, who are big contributors to the Democrats who run the place. We need something like this at a national level as well, but I'm not going to hold my breath till we get one through a Congress that lives with its hand out continually. A measure like this at the state level is better than nothing, at least.

  3. Enforcement by sql*kitten · · Score: 1 · on E-mail Tax As Way Of Preventing Spam

    The problem with any anti-spam proposals is not making laws, it's enforcing them. The EU can pass all the anti-spam legislation it wants, but that doesn't help when the spam originates outside your jurisdiction. Deputize ISPs to fight it? Doesn't work; after all, Customs and Excise officials aren't sent to jail when drugs come into the country, the smugglers are, if they can be caught. The Post Office aren't responsible if someone sends unwanted junk mail.

    It won't be long now before people only accept mail from known senders, and if you want to be on someone's list, you have to contact them by another means to get set up. That's how it is on ICQ right now, if you ignore everyone that you don't specifically permission, then even your friends can't contact you to ask to be permissioned, unless they use mail, the phone, etc. Once that happens, the spam problem will go away shortly afterwards, and the inconvenience will be minor. Even now, people have a "spam" account that they use when they need to register on a website, and a private one given only to friends. The signal-to-noise ratio makes it worthwhile; I abandoned Usenet years ago because S/N was too poor, closed mailing lists are far better. Slashdot was almost unusable for a while, then moderation and thresholds were introduced.

    Spam's a real problem, but it's one that can be solved in a fairly straightforward way, and it will be as soon as more people get the support for "friends only" in their mail clients.

  4. junk fax analogy by MacAndrew · · Score: 2 · on Lessig Wagers His Job On Anti-Spam Theory

    I agree with this approach and am surprised more people don't promote it. The anti-fax law appears reasonable, constitutional, and strangest of all effective.

    The "junk fax" law in enforceable privately in state court, but also by the FCC.

    Interestingly, here is a recent Missouri decision declaring the statute a violation of freedom of speech. I haven't looked closely at this aberrant ruling, not because junk faxes aren't speech (they are), but it appears wrong because of the way it analyzes Congressional intent.

    Re junk faxes, junkfax.org has some interesting information that would relate to a junk email law.

  5. Re:1st A. and PJ by MacAndrew · · Score: 2 · on Update To Pavlovich DeCSS case; Stay Lifted
    Once you establish a business presence in a state or other country you fall under the jurisdiction of the local courts.

    The Australian decision did not turn on local presence. Rather, it held that a posting in one place is publication anywhere the internet may be accessed. (some commentary)

    On the face of it, the Australian court made a strictly logical decision, as defamation law to the present has had no limiting principle except place of publication. The internet renders place of publication an anachronism. The court declined to develop a new limiting principle. As one of the concurrences reasoned:
    165. Moreover, the spectre of "global" liability should not be exaggerated. Apart from anything else, the costs and practicalities of bringing proceedings against a foreign publisher will usually be a sufficient impediment to discourage even the most intrepid of litigants. Further, in many cases of this kind, where the publisher is said to have no presence or assets in the jurisdiction, it may choose simply to ignore the proceedings. It may save its contest to the courts of its own jurisdiction until an attempt is later made to enforce there the judgment obtained in the foreign trial. It may do this especially if that judgment was secured by the application of laws, the enforcement of which would be regarded as unconstitutional or otherwise offensive to a different legal culture.

    166. However, such results are still less than wholly satisfactory. They appear to warrant national legislative attention and to require international discussion in a forum as global as the Internet itself[202]. In default of local legislation and international agreement, there are limits on the extent to which national courts can provide radical solutions that would oblige a major overhaul of longstanding legal doctrine in the field of defamation law. Where large changes to settled law are involved, in an area as sensitive as the law of defamation, it should cause no surprise when the courts decline the invitation to solve problems that others, in a much better position to devise solutions, have neglected to repair.

    The Australian decision isn't obviously "wrong" but its implications are very disturbing. I don't know the structure of Australian gov't; perhaps there these problems are expected to be taken up by the legislature. In the United States, unlike most countries I know of, the courts can in certain cases overrule the legislature ("judicial review"), and are in a sense its co-equal.

    The upshot is that a website operator not wishing to publish in Australia will have to find some clever way of preventing access, though the structure of the Web makes that all but impossible. Alternatively, any publisher not wanting to roll the dice of international litigation will have to publish to the lowest common dominator of all internet-connected countries, or avoid referring to anyone in countries it wishes to elude. So much for free speech.
  6. Domain hijackers by Robin+Lionheart · · Score: 1 · on .Info, .Biz, .Behind The Scenes At ICANN
    You can fault ICANN for many reasons but telling the .web and .biz squatters to take a long walk off a short pier is not one of them.

    The wildcat squatters were told when they began that they would not be recognized.

    The application by IOD, a current operator of .web, received an inaccurate assessment and was rejected. However, because of the dispute, ICANN also avoided giving .web to Afilias, and assigned them .info instead.

    ICANN wasn't entirely dismissive of IOD, perhaps because IOD actually paid the exorbitant $50,000 fee and applied for it. IOD has also demonstrated a willingness to fight for .web in their Federal lawsuit against CORE, another .web operator, for unfair competition and trademark infringement.

    Inconsistently, ICANN ignored a similar conflict with .biz, and gave it to NeuLevel, ignoring Pacific Root's operation of the legitimate .biz domain for the past six years.