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.

Comments

Created in response to this

[InterruptDescriptorT]

It's well known that this was enacted after this scroll was found kingdom-wide, causing no end of ladies to faint, the filling of dustbins and a temporary shortage of parchment:

Lords and squires,

Were you aware of the fact that you could increaseth the size of your penis by as much as half a cubit? Come visit the apothecary and essay the new miracle tonic by Dr. Goodfellow! You'll have all the fair maidens screaming, 'Good Knight!'

:)

This could get interesting

[cecil36]

I wonder what type of legal precedent could be set should a ruling be made against spam. I could imagine the judge saying "Thou art guilty of spamming. Thou shalt be sentenced to spend the rest of thy mortal life with Bernard Shifman in the royal dungeon."

Can't we do better?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why only go back 400 years? Let's fight spam with the Magna Carta:

All Merchants (if they were not openly prohibited before) shall have their safe and sure Conduct to depart out of England, to come into England, to tarry in, and go through England, as well by Land as by Water, to buy and sell without any manner of evil Tolts, by the old and rightful Customs, except in Time of War.

See, spammers are merchants selling stuff, but not by the old and rightful Customs, in peacetime. It works, and the stretch is... just as rubbery.

Bring some 1297 smack down on em. It should be just as effective.

Re:Can't we do better?

[dgroskind]

Bring some 1297 smack down on em.

What about some 1780 BC? Hammurabi may well have been anticipating spam in his Code:
If a shepherd, without the permission of the owner of the field, and without the knowledge of the owner of the sheep, lets the sheep into a field to graze, then the owner of the field shall harvest his crop, and the shepherd, who had pastured his flock there without permission of the owner of the field, shall pay to the owner twenty gur of corn for every ten gan.

And he was clearly thinking of sys admins who left open email relays when he decreed:
If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the corn which he has caused to be ruined.

"Is there any thing whereof it may be said, See, this is new? it hath been already of old time, which was before us." --Ecclesiastes, 2:9

Re:Can't we do better?

[Sabalon]

So, what I'm seeing here is that if anyone does something to me over the internet that I don't like, I get corn?

Lets send this solution to everyone via mass e-mails labeled "MAKE CORN FAST!!!" ;)

Half a cubit?!?!?

[wiredog]

IIRC, a cubit is roughly 3 feet (1 meter). I think the ladies would run screaming for the exits if they saw that waving around!

Brings back memories...

[bachelor3]

The ancient law forbids a person from interfering with the goods and chattels of another person without their consent.

Ah, I remember the first time I had my chattels interfered with. It was at a drive-in...uh...no, wait. I think I misunderstood.

Cool!

[Bob McCown]

Does that mean that 17th century punishments apply? Beheading? Burning at the stake?

Trespass to chattels

[fmaxwell]

This same legal construction has been used in the U.S. in lawsuits regarding unwanted access to servers and computer resources. AOL has used this as a legal tool against spammers in lawsuits.

Now that will work

[duvel2]

Isn't it time to face the fact that the spammers don't care about the legality of their actions?

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.

Ancient Laws...

[DrWhom]

Well, okay ... that's the porn sorted. D'you think we could use the Anti-Witchcraft laws now to get rid of pop-ups, pop-unders, pop-bys and the rest!?

Attorney: yes

[hawk]

I am an attorney, this is not legal advice. If you need legal advice, contact an attorney licensed in your juridiction.

I've been suggesting this approach for years (but wihout the bungled reporting). When the spam enters your system, it exerts physical dominion over your chattels (the bits, the head mechanism, draws additional power, etc.). Trespass clearly applies, just as when some dolt lifts you windshield wiper to insert an ad.

The reporting is a bit mish-mashed, though: Common Law comes from the courts, yet it reports trespass as coming from a particular king (and it would have to have been a king *and* parliament).

I've always assumed trespass to chattels to be Common Law, not a statute, but I'm not willing to spend a half a day looking it up . . . my guess is that the seminal cases in the courts date to his reign, and possibly were decided by the high court known as "the King's Bench," which followed him about England hearing cases & appeals . . .

hawk, esq.