Slashdot Mirror
Domain: legalarchiver.org
Stories and comments across the archive that link to legalarchiver.org.
Comments · 7
-
strike two and three ..
"Private right of action got stripped out of it due to complaints from the direct marketers"
Strike two was the ISPs getting imdemnified against getting sued and strike three was dropping any suggestion that spam should be flagged in the header such as putting an `ADV' in the subject line. The only canning of spam in the Can-Spam Act 2003 was in the title -
A legal requirement?
It's a legal requirement, not a security requirement. If a company falls under SOX and they allow their employees to communicate electronically at work without recording and storing those communications, the company is breaking the law.
I'm obviously not a lawyer, but Sec 802/1520 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act only seems to apply to corporate communications directly relating to an audit. I can find no part of it which presents a legal requirement that an IM containing "Hey Bob, want to go out for lunch?", or even communication about the normal conduct of business must be recorded.
Can you clarify which section you think presents this requirement? -
Re: GPL violators are at risk> The synopsis above is misleading. Its is GPL violators, not simply GPL users who are at risk. From the article:
"Linux is a powerful operating system," says Jay Michaelson, an author of the study and Wasabi Systems' General Counsel. "But if companies violate the license, the consequences can be more severe than they think. If companies are violating the GPL, they don't have the right to use that software. And if they don't have the right to use the software, they're violating federal law if they claim that they do."
Which, if correct, means they're also in violation of the act if they have any unlicensed software of any type. (Which, I suspect, means every company on the planet.)
Also, the text of the act doesn't seem to contain the phrase "intellectual property". -
C'mon, you've gotta be trolling me!
Surely you've heard of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 which mandates privacy and security of healthcare information, and provides punitive measures, including fines and prison terms?
-
H I P A A
Say it after me: Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act.
HIPAA.
Not HIPPA.
By the way, the questions clearly states that the interested party is a medical doctor in a hospital in Europe. HIPAA does not apply, hobgoblin.
-
Re:Throw away the roomThese spammers are unrepentant, they don't care who's bandwidth and resources they abuse, they don't care who they might be hurting by their actions. All they care about is scamming money out of people who don't understand the issues of spam in the first place.
Alas, as long as their are clueless/ignorant people out there who might buy something from the spammers, spamming will continue. The CAN-SPAM Act is just that--a license to spam by certain rules. In light of this, all that one can really do nowadays if you need email is to use effective filtering and perhaps spreading the word about The Boulder Pledge:
The Boulder Pledge
Under no circumstances will I ever purchase anything offered to me as the result of an unsolicited e-mail message. Nor will I forward chain letters, petitions, mass mailings, or virus warnings to large numbers of others. This is my contribution to the survival of the online community.
-Roger Ebert
Before I coded my antispam solution, I was almost gnashing my teeth in frustration at all the spam I got at a webmail address that I had posted as a image file at an old website I had. It got spammed thanks to 'manual spammers' or (possibly) 'dictionary blasters'. Because of this I didn't give out a POP3 address at the time because I didn't want to deal with all that spam (and malware) inside Outlook Express.
Since July, 2004 by using my own software to check my POP3 email addresses my stress level over spam and malware effectively dropped to zero.
Nowadays I only get spam on two occasions.
1) Whenever I temporarily disable my software to get an important, one-time email.
2) The spammers send an email with absolutely no content in the email body in order to send a 'subject line' spam. Ho hum...pathetic.
Since 'No doesn't mean NO' to the spammers, filtering appears to be the only viable option left as legal based approaches are not working effectively.
Another option would be to send and receive encrypted mail only and 'autodelete' ALL unencrypted email. The only problems with this approach would be the extra time and resources devoted to encryption, as well as national security concerns for using encryption exclusively for all email traffic to and from your domain.
Killing spammers would be illegal and immoral in spite of the drain on resources they cause. Effective, content filtering and, to a lesser extent, legal enforcement of existing antispam laws appear to be the only viable solutions to the spam and malware problem....
The ultimate alternative would be to declare email dead and use phone, fax, postal mail, and in-person contact in order to facilitate communications with other parties. -
Re:This is pretty big!--The Feds missed one!
I just sent a complaint email to the abuse team responsible for Net access at a particular USA educational institution that is now hosting, at time of writing, a fake eBay 'phish' site. Presumably, it's just a compromised system cracked by outsiders--if not, then somebody there at said institution has got some 'splaning to do!
The Feds may pay lip service to the spam email problem with Band-Aid approaches like the CAN-SPAM Act, but fvck with the USA money supply (via ID theft in this case) and they will take notice!