Slashdot Mirror
Fighting Spam With A 17th Century Law
A reader writes "Here is an interesting article which describes how a law from the year 1610 could make Spam illegal in Australia. The same story in german can be found here." Actually, since the law stems from King James I (the VI, if you are Scottish), as such, could be held British Commonwealth wide.
someone shed some light on this. I just don't see how it would apply to spam. It sounds to me like they're grasping with straws here. We have several trespassing laws in the US, but I think any judge would strike down a case against a spammer using such laws.
that, at least in the U.S., absolutely NOTHING i$ going to happen untill $omebody make$ a buck doing it.
Just noticed that Earthlink, out one side of their mouth, has "spaminator" prevention tools, then out of the other side, a "mass email marketing tool" you can purchase. Cheez. They probably make $$$ sending spam, then turn around and make $$$ blocking it, just like the phone companies charging a fee for caller-id, then charging a fee for caller-id-blocking.
try { do() || do_not(); } catch (JediException err) { yoda(err); }
even if spam is illegal, does that really matter. spam email is here to stay.love it or hate it, it's how it is. can't we accept it and move on? oh, sure they're using some bandwidth here and there, and putting a HUGE strain on our corporate/private email servers. are there any concrete numbers on these claims? legislation is not the way to combat this type of thing. in a capitalistic society (i know the US is only semi-capitalistic) people would ignore spam and the spammers would stop because it's not profitable. kind of like banner ads, eh?
Maybe the problem isnt spammers, it's the idiots with email accounts. Of course your going to get mad spam if you give out your email address so freely. I have several email accounts. One strictly for receiving email from family and close friends, and another for the purpose of when i have to submit my email address to websites for various reasons.
And guess what, i never get spam in the email account i use for family and friends. Spammers can only send you junk mail if they know your address, so use your brain and stop giving it away.
Just as birds will surely shit on the hood of your car, your going to get spam. We dont need arcane laws to prevent something we can all not have to deal with if we just bump up our iq a notch or two.
YES, that is true. The people in the USA offten refer to ancient laws from the coloniel days. Mainly to point a finger at the Salem Witch trials, or the church rule of small communities, and sometimes we refer to the way in that the red-coats were searching, and seaizing false evidence, or how they would torture confessions out of inocent people. Yes, we look at the old laws offten, mainly to find how NOT to reproduce the mistakes of years past. After all, those laws are the basis for the bill of rights. We certainly have much to thank the British for, their tyrany forced a more free country into existence.
It isn't a lie if you belive it.
As is mentioned in the article, and as has been shown over and over again, spammers don't have an inch of morals. It would even seem that (at least in Russia) they're usually part of bigger crime syndicates;
So it doesn't really matter whether you can find a law to outlaw spamming. The spammers will never care about such a law. As long as there's money to be made, these kinds of illegal activities will continue. And even if spam would be outlawed, as it doesn't seem like there will be a 100% working filter for spam in the near future, all the spammers have to do is remain somewhat anonymous (or out of jurisdiction) to avoid prosecution.
Sad but true: nothing can be done against them.
<Sig>The good thing about having a good memory is ... euh
Hmmm... Now if we respect this like they did respect it sounds like,m thislaw meant : "Don't touch my property while I steal yours"...
Examples:
So, my advice would be never to invoke a law that not only has never widely been followed but also is totally dumb: If you interfere with some people's Bell because you want to contact him, he should not sue you.
So, I think this law itself is antisocial even though I agree with the fact we have to kick the spammers.
Trolling using another account since 2005.
Except for Louisiana, pre-revolution English common law is the basis for the legal system in the United States. Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England was a popular legal text in the United States for many years after the Revolution.
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I blame the idiots that pass laws just to try to score a few public relations points...
An anti-spam law would NOT fall into this category.
Nobody _really_ hates speed limits, we just disagree on the numbers. Most bust them up at one time or another, despite vigorous enforcement. You can't, however, call them ineffective. Without speed limits, American freeways would look like the Daytona 500.
With the exception of the law-enforcement agecies which are now profiting from it, everyone is either neutral or bitterly opposed to marijuana prohibition. Marijuana use usually happens in private, making it difficult to enforce prohibition against it.
Similarly, sodomy laws are a joke, because the conduct is quite private, and the parties involved are unlikely to report it.
Clearly, laws against behavior which is undertaken in private, particularly by many, consenting, people, and perceived as harmless by the rest are counterproductive, in that they do not stop the "crime" and they _do_ undermine the authority of law. Prostitution statutes fall into this category.
OTOH, nobody objects to laws against murder or sexual abuse of children, because 1) these activities are obviously harmful to their victims and 2) only a tiny minority feels that this is acceptable behavior. Everyone _hates_ spam (except the miniscule fraction who are committing it), it's a completely public activity, and nonconsensual on the part of the recipient and the relays in the middle. Laws against spam (unless totally botched in their construction) would be extremely popular. Everyone would help the law enforcement agencies in the execution of these laws.
And harsh penalties would be appropriate. That spammer isn't sending out _one_ toner ad, he's sending out a million.
Exceeding the recommended torque is not recommended.
Not that this has anything to do with the American government (which, as has also been pointed out--notably in the post you replied to--was based on a modified variant of the Roman republic). How we administer our laws is separate from the body of laws we administer. Except, of course, for those laws that govern the administration of laws. However, given your obvious discomfort with more basic concepts, the idea of meta-laws (and meta-governance) might be a little too esoteric for you.
Which is better? An AC who makes thoughtful, well-written arguments in support of a position, or a registered user who writes complete nonsense and is rude as well? I know which "expert" has more credibility in my book.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.
And where is your proof of the "fact" that 17th-century British common law conflicts with modern Australian law? For someone who takes reputation so seriously, you seem to be staking yours on emphatic statements on a subject you seem to know little or nothing about. In fact, you're making a prediction about the outcome of future events--something none of us can know anything about!
Finally, on what basis are you asserting that the parent is not anonymous, but a coward? Are all ACs cowards? Or just the ones that claim some expertise in the field under discussion? Would you be happier if the parent poster made no claim, but simply posted their statements claim-free? None of us can verify each others' credentials in any meaningful way; all we can do is judge the posts on their own merits, indepentently of outside context--the claim is irrelevant, the quality and presentation of the data is all that matters.
The tone of my posts reflects my own judgement of your posts, just as your tone reflects your judgement of the parent.
Any sufficiently well-organized community is indistinguishable from Government.