Slashdot Mirror
Spammers, Privacy, Anti-Spam, and Lawsuits
Digital Eco Freak writes "The Washington Post is running a story about a spammer suing to keep his address and personal info private. George Allen Moore Jr. of Linthicum, MD has sued Francis Uy for posting his contact information on the web. He has gotten threatening phone calls and messages, as well as an over-abundance of unsolicited catalgs and packages as a result of Uy's actions. The spammer is getting a taste of his own medicine, but the guy's business address turns out to be the same as his home address, so there may be real safety concerns. Should spammers get some privacy protection too?"
What are you talking about? Spammers should be exposed on stalls to have rotten eggs and tomatoes thrown at them. Privacy protection, riiiiight...
Daniel
Carpe Diem
This is the risk you run by running a business out of your home, privacy for him and his family are due, but not for his business that offends many people.
If he runs a questionable business from his home, he can't expect to have any kind of protection. The spam business sure dosen't deserve any. He should of known better.
Posting useless rant since 2003.
Bets are now open!
-- Sib
firstly, whatever you feel about spamming, using your home as a business address in this kind of endeavor is just stupid. it's hard to feel sorry for him on that point.
secondly, i believe that *any* business that doesn't want/hasn't had real person (not voicemail, answering machine, po box) contact info published should be investigated for fraud.
e
Spamming must be one of the few businessess where the business doesn't want anyone to know where they are. I really can't believe a company could have legal backing to hide from those people who it impacts. I don't think the spammer has any right to privacy from people expressing displeasure at his 'service'.
I do security
You can't apply a double standard anywhere or the whole system breaks down.
But what law says that your business address and phone number should be absolutely private? Just because it is also your home address and phone number should have no impact. Either way, freedom of speech trumps freedom of privacy. It is mentioned specifically in the Constitution wheras privacy is only hinted at.
no.
let the courts settle it - and if in fact the courts rule that he deserves anonymity - he can stay spamming, otherwise if he doesn't like receiving things he didn't ask for, maybe he'll stop sending things people didn't ask for.
spammers should be quarantined and only allowed to send spam to other spammers...
granted if the information given in the Whois directory (a.k.a all information relating to the registration of his domain) is correct, isnt this information freely available on the web anyway?
or are spammers considered guilty until proven innoccent (or lynched, whichever comes first)?
--
enterfornone - logging in for a change
It should not surprise anybody that, in absence of meaningful government action, some clever people are taking the law into their own hands and attacking spammers with any means at their disposal. Rock on, I say. There is a threshold of offense to society at large which has been crossed long ago by these bastards.
I run a small business from home too, and until recently, my kids used the same computer for games as I did for my mail. The amount of obscene spam i receive from guys like him made my buy an extra iMac for the kids.
If he doesn't respect my privacy, i honestly can't sympathise with him either. As harsh as it may sound, I often have the impression that spammers are like kids : you can talk & explain all you want, but unless you send them to their rooms to cry out loud for a while, they won't stop being naughty.
When will I end this grieving ? When will my future begin ?
Should spammers get some privacy protection too?
No. Definitely not.
Spammers should have the same privacy protection as everyone else.
Rights apply equally to scumbags too.
But that won't stop me from giggeling with glee of course.
How do you like them unsolicited calls, dead trees, emails and sms messages now mr Spammer sir?
"First lesson," Jon said. "Stick them with the pointy end."
If he's foolish enough to list his home address as his business address, of course he runs the risk of exposure. Is it not his fault for using personal information?
They can, and they should, but everyone who has gotten spam from him should counter-sue for taking their personal information as well.
The Anti-Blog
His journal can be found here
The Journal also has the address of Moore.. enjoy..
> but the guy's business address turns out to be the same as his home address, so there may be real safety concerns. Should spammers get some privacy protection too?"
Spammers don't deserve any privacy protection. They make money collecting and using personal addresses without any consent from the legit owner. I would expect at least to see them paid with the same money. Fsck 'em all!
from http://news.spamcop.net/pipermail/spamcop-social/2 003-January/021018.html
George Moore Jr.
300 Twin Oaks Road
Linthicum, Md. 21090.
How about someone going out to his house with some wire cutters and taking care of his internet access. Should save the web a few million spams a day
slashdot, news for crazed liberal socialist zealots
spammers do not deserve privacy . Once they decided to take our contact information and contact us without our concent they have given up any sense of privacy for the receiver of the spam and people need to be able to contact these spammers to : a) give them a peice of there mind b) ask to be removed from the spamming list (wont work) c) sue them and get them to stop sending spam
I read that question and I thought "WTF? Spammers to get privacy? No way!!".
The Internet is, before anything else, a system based on sharing and cooperation. Which is what makes it so interesting: people who know what they talk about post interesting information on all kind of subjects, and enrich a global discourse.
Linux/Open Source systems are the best example of this: they were made possible -- and became a force in the computing world -- through sharing and cooperatino. For instance NetBSD added "Net" to "BSD" to reflect its root in the cooperation made possible by the Internet.
On the other hand, spammers do nothing but abuse the resources of the system and inundate people with messages that are othing more than complete scams.
Abusing the cooperation and the good will of the global Internet, and using its resources in an unlawful way (it's a scam, remember?), is IMHO, enough to forfeit all the protections that should be enjoyed by all on the Internet.
Would you protect the privacy of a live-and-still-at-large criminal? I think not. Would you protect the "privacy" of a con artist, knowing full well that he may rip off another person behind your back? I think not.
Remember this: spammers are swindlers. Period. No privay for the wicked, says I.
Besides, sending thousands of email messages per day, on a network known for it lack of security and authentication is just asking for trouble... (Proof enough that they are stupid as well as dishonest!)
Also interesting: go to Cryptome, and read all about two scam artists of a different kind: these two do not spam, but they swindled the public by offering snake-oil security products. Very, very interesting and recommended reading...
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Graphic images appearing unbidden on PCs by way of e-mail in-boxes could qualify as evidence of a "hostile work environment," something that's prohibited by federal employment law.
Porn spam--legal minefield for employers
"Just as an employer has a duty to protect from patrons and other people--like the (delivery) guy who fondles a secretary--there's a good theory saying a company has a duty to filter (offensive e-mail) even if the employees are being harassed entirely from far outside the company walls," Volokh said. "If the employer is reasonably capable of filtering the material, and if it doesn't do that, it would be held liable."
Wow, interesting how spam could be the basis for a hostile work enviromnet lawsuit.
later,
"Im drowning here, and you're describing the water!"
Will he have to sue Google now?
42 - So long and thanks for all the fish.
Remember what we learned in kindergarten: two wrongs don't make a right. I'd say spamming is an acceptable (and decidedly amusing) way of getting your message to him, but when it puts him and his family at risk, you've gone too far.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
In what parallel universe is it either ethical or moral to post somebody's personal information in public like that? Anybody who whines about privacy and then turns around and posts people's full home addresses and telephone numbers on Usenet is a worthless hypocrite.
Thems ma random thoughts on this.
No!
ahem...speaking as an 'Anonymous Coward'.
I feel that Uy (who seems a bit self-righteous in the first place) has definitely crossed a line with this. While junk email is surely annoying, it's also purely electronic, a simple press of the delete key and it's gone, you can continue with your work unencumbered. With this guy giving out his home address, though, Moore is, as the article states, receiving packages, piles of junk mail, threatening phone calls, the works. Email can't blow up in your face; unmarked brown packages can. His personal (and his family's) safety has been compromised, willingly and knowingly (now) by Uy.
The fact that his business address is the same as his home address does cast some doubt on this, as Uy may not have intended to give out Moore's home address, but from what I gather, he knows now, and has still refused to take down the information, so it's not so much of a point anymore.
Just because you don't like someone or what they do, they still have rights. Uy is walking a dangerous line, it would seem, his fate is in the hands of the masses right now. If harm befalls Mr. Moore, Uy's going to be in a spot of trouble.
Seems like everybody is saying this guy has no rights because he a spammer(the lowest life form).
What if this guy spoke harshly about the government, would you feel the same?
If he was an abortion doctor would he feel the same?
If he was a communist would you feel the same?
I find it almost humorous the people who rail for rights until they disagree.
The question is can you do to anyone what was done to the spammer. Not whether or not he was a spammer.
One side or the other folks, no sitting in the middle.
Mr. Moore thought he'd seen a big backlash from activists from a website posting. I wonder if he's ready now that he's been slashdotted....
The best way to get the sociopaths to understand the concequences of their actions is to strip them of their anonymity and watch in awe as the Internet community acts to punish the thieves.
I'm all for vigilante actions, if the laws can't protect us.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. Remember to shoot knees first, so that they can't run away while you slowly torture them to death.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
No. Why should they? not like they are running an honest business. If they *are* in fact so legit and honest, I don't see why they should have to worry about privacy protection. Thousands of addresses are out there on the net, I don't see those people whining. People don't go about harassing someone for "fun" (unless you are a criminal I suppose but spammers aren't complaining due to criminals attacking them). The only reason people hate and go against spammers is because the business of spam is interfering with their day to day life and they are pissed off. To those who think spam is not annoying and should "just be deleted", you are morons. By the same logic, 10 pop-ups coming up on EVERY site should "just be closed" too. Do you think thats justified too? If you do, chances are, you are one of these low-life spammers and your address should be up on the web too.
Disclaimer: My opinions are my own and do not, in any way, reflect the opinions of my employer or university.
As the details of this lawsuit are revealed in court, Mr. Moore may find himself the target of other problems. If it's revealed in court that he committed a criminal act, such as criminal conspiracy or being an accessory to fraud like what the FTC is chasing down these days, the judge could very well refer the case to a DA for criminal charges. Even in the article, Symantec accuses him of advertising warez. Mr. Uy, the anti-spammer, would do himself well in his counter-defense to bring up any such activities.
Make no mistake, the entertainment value of this case could have far-reaching implications. Mr. Moore will also find out quickly that dissemnation of publically-accessible information is protected free speech. The golden rule rides again...
I still like the idea of anonymous email, although with the high level of spam it's likely to go the way of the passenger pigeon before long.
The reason is that anonymous expression of ideas is a helpful way of tearing down any kind of repressive political regime that relies upon controlling free expression and feeding people its own version of reality.
Too many places in the world still suffer from suppression of alternative points of view. For that reason anonymity is worth preserving, even if spammers can hide behind it.
That said, since spammers want to connect you up to a particular sales transaction, there's no reason why any individual shouldn't be free to dig down to find out who the spammer is and to publish that information.
So I'm in favor of anonymous email, but don't mind if a spammer is found out by the spam that he sends.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Yeah, if spammers don't provide a way to contact them by email, then any other means will do. People should sue the spammers for endangerment of their families if they run a high risk business like spamming from their own homes. So, I won't have to waste so many trees getting my point across (and other businesses legit catalogs), spammers should provide a legit reply-to (ie, when Hell freezes over). The spammed can fight dirty too. :-)
SPAM solution made easy: 1 spammer, 5 cords of rope, 5 hourses, and fireworks. Be creative.
Send him back al our junk mail. I heard a neat idea long ago about junk mail. If they are pre-stamped just send them back with false information. HahahahhHHah
"You have agreed to have your personal contact information made public either by me or one of my marketing partners."
Regardless of what, he got a right to maintain "anonymous".
Spammer? perhaps, yet that dosnt give some other guy the right to publish his HOME address.
I would had been able to understand if he subscribed his email address to some spam central,
but publishing his home address is crossing the line.
Everyone got a right to maintain anonymous if they so wish. (they cowardly, yet still a right)
A few cents from me.
- Don't do what I do, it's probably not healthy nor safe. -
Mr Douche Bag makes money by harrassing people at work and at home. Makes his money by sending fraud and probably porn to your mom and your 12 year old kid.
Who the hell cares if people know where he lives. He has it coming. 100% has it coming. Unless he is going to be charged for all that harrassment, he's getting off easy. Because it's the rest of us that have to pay for all of his harrassment of us.
I think this strategy is excellent for dealing with domestic spammers until legislation is put in place to put these guys behind bars.
I want them to have rights too. All they have to do is stop spamming us all to death, and presto! no one wants them harm anymore! I think it's a pretty good deal. In fact, I think I'll send some spam about it. "Tired of being hated just because you're a spammer? Here's the solution..."
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals let the The Nuremburg Files website stay online, which depicts pictures of aborted fetuses and had a "hit list" of abortion doctors. Even though at least one doctor on the list had been murdered, and his name was crossed out on the list, the Court still saw that this was free speech. If that could stand, surely this website is well within the bounds of the law
Spammers don't deserve any privacy protection. They make money collecting and using personal addresses without any consent from the legit owner. I would expect at least to see them paid with the same money. Fsck 'em all!
In the same spirit, lets limit the right of free speech to things that I agree with.
People that say things I find objectionable obviously misuse their right of free speech and don't deserve it.
Sounds good?
I thought business addresses are a matter of public record? If he is incorporated I KNOW it is a matter of public record.
Unless he plans on having laws rewritten, his business address will afford no such special protection. I have no clue about private addresses.
Even if spammers received absolutely no sales via spam, there would still be people paying spammers to send out solicitations.
Many spammers make money not by selling to the email targets, but by selling spamming services.
And then there are the companies that view it as cheap advertising. Even if they make no sales, the fact that they get their name out is good in their eyes. They don't quite understand yet that they are generating badwill because even a bad commercial is good as long as you remember the name.
Unfortunately, it's gonna get much worse before it gets better. Companies have only recently discovered the use of email as advertising instead of merely selling.
1. Round up a posse.
2. Get some pitch forks
3. Get an old PC.
4. Go to spammers house
5. Burn PC on front lawn.
6. Chant some rediculous mumbo jumbo.
Where should the line be drawn when the spammer uses peoples email addresses for profit, and annoys the user, then turns around and sues for their protection. If the spammer can sue why can't the user do the same thing with their email address? I know people who have threatened to sue using the DMCA as their weapon because their domains use their copyrights company names.
As for their address, I'm sorry to say but thats the risk you take when you have a home office. If any regular person has a home office and they pissed off a customer, they would have the same security concerns as well. Why should these guys be treated any different because they are paid to piss off/annoy the general public.
Linthicum...
I was thinking about this...
I get somewhere on the order of 400 spam emails a day between eight email addresses coming to my registered domains and the aliases for different jobs. My spamassassin filters snag about 80%-90% leaving 20-40 messages per day. Not a whole lot, but these messages require a few minutes a day to process. Because the ones that do make it past spamassassin appear legitimate, I need to check them in case they are potential customer requests. If it takes me two minutes a day to check this spam (and that's conservative), over a year it will cost me over 12 hours. If I multply that by my hourly rate then that's a good amount of money.
Contrast this to regular, *regulated* snail mail spam:
1) The sender pays for the advertisting.
2) There are no advertisements for, among other things, enlarging my penis, growing my hair, fixing my septic tank, or teenage blondes willing to do anything on Spring Break.
Point 1 is the important thing, IMO. Why should it cost me in time and resources for someone to advertise products in which I have absolutely no interest, and in fact, many of which I find repulsive? Freedom of speech? Bullshit. This is not a free speech issue. Advertisers can't break into my house and paper my walls with flyers and child porn. They are not allowed to call me at all hours of the day. They are not allowed to pretend to be legitimate persons in order to sell something.
I will defend a person or organization's right to publish materials on whatever topic they see fit. This does not mean that they can attempt to force their thoughts or their advertisements on me.
My work address is my home address, too. Does that mean I can sue him for sending me spam on safety grounds?
If you run an extortion business, expect to have people with guns hanging around. Deal. If you run a drug dealing business, expect to have crazy drug addicts knocking on your door. Deal. If you fence stolen goods, expect to have theives around you often. Deal.
If you are going to send spam, don't complain when you get it back. Deal. Sorry, I've got no sympathy.
--GrouchoMarx
Card-carrying member of the EFF, FSF, and ACLU. Are you?
"Should spammers get some privacy protection too?"
NO.
If these swines are resorting to fake subject/title lines, fake sender/return addresses and so forth, to send me crap I don't want and keep clogging up my e-mail account every few *days* (I don't download/delete when I view it on my daily work hard-drive, I only download/delete when I get my e-mail with my "archive" hard-drive/personality (I use removable HDs, which gives my machine multiple "personalities")), if they have to hide to send all sorts of junk out, they deserve to be exposed.
This might be the only way to discourage them from effectively killing internet e-mail, because that's what they're doing.
Something is very wrong when you get ~ 100 e-mails in one day and not a single one of them is legit. Even with a spam filter, do people realize how much time is wasted dealing with this crap?
Gosh, I feel so bad about what is happening to this spammer. Perhaps I will send him a box of chocolates to make him feel better.
C.O.D.
www.eFax.com are spammers
the firing line is now open to the public.
The World's Worst Webcomic!
... can we then at least post the address of the judge who thinks that privacy rights of spammers are to be valued over those of their victims?
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
We can't actually be saying that once a person has been arrested (not convicted) of disrespecting the rights of others, that he has to then forfeit those rights himself?
As much as everybody hates spam, we can't post personal information about somebody who hasn't even been convicted of a crime and hold ourselves blameless if anything happens to them or their families.
We don't post the home address of those accused of Murder, Rape, or Kidnapping... in what universe is Spam worse than those?
Grow up kids.
I receive so much spam to one e-mail address that it effectively makes that address useless.
Yet, I have to spend everyday sifting through the spam to make sure that an important e-mail wasn't sent to that address.
I would love to have a place to e-mail these spams to that could handle it, at this point it should be considered legally harassment considering the fact that I have spent 30+ min a day going through it all.
As well, I receive what I can only call virus starters from one person all the time. Someone trying to mask their address sends me their new e-mail virus every few days. Too bad it's useless since I am using Linux.
The Baynesian filter on Mozilla helps a bit, but I still have to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.
If anyone knows of a way to get back/stop them or a place I could send these e-mail and they can just automatically handle them. It would be appreciated. I used to use spamcop, but I just don't have the time to go through that web page for every single one, and there is no way I am going to pay for it considering it hasn't lessened the amount of spam I receive.
I am getting desperate to do something since I am received 100+ a day (yesterday I got 167 spams alone, and that's a Sunday.) Yet, I cannot do anything about it. If anyone can help in anyway, please let me know.
~ kjrose
That they didn't post his email address :-(
*sniff*
If so, there is no case, how can one be sued for posting information in the public domain and anyone could get if they wanted too, via phone book or 'who is'..
True it sux to be harassed ( all this 'get what he deserves' stuff aside ), but if he's not smart enough to have at least a PO Box for his 'company', then he's a fool.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Both the instinctive answer ("he's a spammer, he deserves whatever he gets") and the apparently rational answer ("two wrongs don't make a right") fall short of the actual issue.
And it's so simple.
See, here's a guy who is - as a business, no less - doing exactly that to other people that he doesn't want done to himself.
Simple answer: "Come back when you've stopped violation others privacy, then we'll hear your case."
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
He is spamming for the sales of illegally copied software and used his home address in the registration of his domain name. This guy would make a nice poster boy for the BSA guys and for once I would have to agree with them. As far as I am concerned this is the reason the public availability of registration info should be and mostly is requirement, to hold idiots like this guy responsible for their intrusions.
Well I dont want to defend spammers they should be burnt alive, but remember that some people are alive because it is illegal to murder them, they are bastards, losers, and earn money by making others suffer, but just remember they are still humans, who have kids, and a family to feed, maybe they spam because they are such lazy losers and couldnt come up with a better way to make money.
He has gotten threatening phone calls and messages ... The spammer is getting a taste of his own medicine
/. editors should get privacy protection. What kind of one sided flamebait is this?
/. discussions.
Threatening phone calls is a 'taste of his own medicine'? Telemarketers and spam annoy me, but they never threaten me bodily harm over the phone (or 'net)
Should spammers get some privacy protection too?"
No, only people who agree with the opinions of
If his home and business addresses are the same, that was stupid of him. I'm sure he'll correct that, and get a PO box and seperate phone line for the business.
What really makes you think you're justified to threaten and harass someone because they sent you junk ads in email? Yeah, it's annoying. So are people who drive 5 mph under the limit in the passing lane. But you cant threaten or assault them.
What a stupid article. Equal protection under the law. You're no more entitled to his home address than you are to any AC who crapfloods
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
Spammers should be treated like criminals. In fact they should treat them like sex offenders. If you published a list of the addresses of all the spammers, you'd know if one lived near you. So when you get spam you could at least go yell at your local spammer.
He's suing to keep his contact info private, but his contact info is clearly not private anymore.
Might as well try to unburn a match.
-- Fratz, human
Don't waste your time calling the guy at home and threatening him--that's harassment plain and simple.
Use more enlightened methods. Like tipping off the BSA that the spammer is using unlicensed software. According to the article, he's selling pirated copies of Norton Antivirus, so I'm sure the BSA will have lots of fun with him. At the very least, the audit will keep him busy for a while.
If he runs a questionable business from his home, he can't expect to have any kind of protection. The spam business sure dosen't deserve any. He should of known better.
Agreement, somewhat. In fits of anger and frustration I've felt like, if the spammer was my neighbor I'd go over and give him a knuckle sandwich. Not the best way for me to handle the situation, but by the same token, he should respect my right to privacy and my wishes not to have ads sent to me via forged addresses.
That the spammer conducts a questionable business is general and yet an understatement. If it's a business they conduct until they make enough money to pay their rent, or some other short-term expense then it could hardly be classified as a business, more a simple enterprise. Probably your 'questionable' view is derived from the very dubious products most of these people are selling. Phony pharmacuticals, useless money making schemes, or actual criminal intent to gather personal/financial information.
Here's the thing. Their privacy can only be so well guarded, since you need to contact them, or the person who used their services, to make any transaction. Therefore they need to expose a phone number or a web site. The more clever ones use offshore sites and stolen cell phones. (Ever notice fraud related spam peaks Friday-Sunday, when it's most difficult to contact an ISP/law enforcement? I've been through this a couple times, I know.)
Stupid spammers give out their home phone numbers or a website, which can easily be tracked with a who is lookup. I have one targeted, and he will receive a lot of junk mail, soon. Thanks to his spamming me. I don't feel any remorse about such a practice of harrassment, other than the amount of wastepaper it generates. With most spam it's been a one-way street, they harrass you, you can't even communicate back to them, despite laws on the books or coming soon.
If I could, I would:
DoS attack spammers websites.
Sue those I can track down, for my time and resources in dealing with their garbage.
Find out who Bulkers Warehouse is and shut them down. They spammed, several times, from offshore forging my email address.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Mock us, do we not cry?
Slashdot us, do we not fail?
Tickle us, do we not laugh?
Spam us, do we not RETALIATE?
....and call him for support.
* it's not threatening
* the politicians have made it legal to raise funds via telemarketing. It's either legal or not and either way one annoyance is eliminated.
It's now pretty much a public secret (try reading Time or Newsweek) that the neoconservative pro-Israel elements in the government have long had this pipe dream of bringing democracy to the Middle East even if it means crushing the arab states militarily. I say pipe dream because their plan is just about as good as the underpant gnomes' plan in South Park.
1. Bomb the cities, bring down the dictators and do a dance about democracy and friendship.
2. ??? 3. Democracy!!!
If GWB wins the 2004 elections you can bet that dictatorial but nevertheless sovereign countries like Syria and Iran will be on US military's to-do list.
And that guy really believes he is doing something good...
BOO! TERRO
People form businesses as legal entities because they want certain benefits not available to individuals, such as separation of their financial responsibilities and liabilities from their private lives. They are getting protection individuals do not have, enforced by the government.
Seriously, sit back and think about it. If business licenses did not exist, businesses could continue to run; this guy could spam just as easily as a private citizen. He does not need to do it as a business. Why, then, has he gone to the trouble of getting a business license, paying accountants and lawyers for that license?
Because the government gives him protections, isolates his business from his personal property.
As far as I am concerned, part of the price someone pays for setting up a business and getting protection enforced by the government is that the business must be publically visible. If you have to sue a business instead of the owner, because that owner has bought protection by the government, then the business must be publically visible.
Infuriate left and right
here
Well, last month I ate two pounds of cheese a day, and didn't crap at all. This month, I've been eating nothing but fiber, greasy food, and hot chicken wings. I still haven't dumped for another two weeks, and I think things are ready to go.
So if someone could just drive me to his house, I think I can manage the job for you.
-Looking for a job as a materials chemist or multivariat
"If you wish your address to be removed from this adress list send a reply with the word REMOVE in the subject line and your mailing address in the body to...."
:-)
Yeah, that should do the trick.
"Enjoy what you're doing! If it becomes drudgery, you're doing it wrong!" - Jim Butterfield
I wonder if Linthicum's zoning board allows bulk mail business to operate out of a residential zoned area?
I thought I was the only one getting these SPAM messages about fixing my septic tank!
It actually made me worry: Who would know I need help with my septic tank? What kind of dietary changes would I need to make?
Especially since I don't have a septic tank, to the best of my knowledge. (Soon to follow-"We will help you determine if you have a septic tank!!")
Now, my suitemate in college, I bet HE needs some septic tank SPAM...
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
While junk email is surely annoying, it's also purely electronic, a simple press of the delete key and it's gone, you can continue with your work unencumbered.
This line suggests that you're not yet a victim of spam. We'll talk when you'll be getting a hundred of flashy, htmlized porn/penis enlargement/nigerian scam/cable descrambler/make$1000000@home crappy messages a day over a dialup line.
Just because you don't like someone or what they do, they still have rights.
Look, if someone deliberately pisses off millons of people worldwide by abusing their public addresses, and then complains about violation of his privacy - tough luck.
Spammers 'cross the line' everyday, and I am happy that at least one of them is forced to eat his own sh^Wdogfood. Kudos to Uy.
Lisp is the Tengwar of programming languages.
Day 5: Profit!!!!
Sorry, just getting it out of my system... :)
I wonder if this is such a concern (and the court hasn't thrown it out already) because this person's "place of business" happens to be his home. I mean, would there be an issue here if all the spam, junk mail and boxes were being received at an office somewhere else?
Disregarding that question, I definitely have a hard time sympathizing with his case, least of all because he's a spammer. There's a lot of noise about "right to privacy" in many circles, the most notable being celebrity status and what constitutes "public information" about private citizens on the net. But what right to privacy of your home information do you expect if you're listing it in TLD registration information? If I allow my phone number to be published in a phone book (and nowadays, that I don't put it in a "do not call" registry), do I have a reasonable expectation that I will never receive calls selling vacuum cleaners and low low interest rates on home equity loans?
Someone else brought up the issue of the Nuremberg files, specifically how courts have found that simply listing this information incites people to commit actions against them. And while people who make threats and perform other illegal actions should definitely be prosecuted, I don't see how someone can be compelled to not display public information that is available elsewhere.
Spammers often use the defense that people who don't want their "offers" shouldn't put their addresses in the public domain (where the public domain means almost anywhere in public that spammers can conceivably connect to and harvest), and certainly that's the common wisdom today, not just among spammers but anyone looking to control their inbox. But if spammers are going to play by these rules, they must also be prepared to live by them, and if someone can get their contact information off a publicly connectable system, they must be ready to deal with the results. They certainly need no warning that making a living as a spammer is one of the more unpopular positions one can make for oneself.
Frankly, this whole thing reeks of someone exercising their right to free speech and then complaining when they find their views to be wildly unpopular with their audience. One has the right to spam, but one does not have the right to be free of, and immune from, the reaction of the spammed.
B
"I'm payin' taxes, but what am I buyin'?" -- James Brown
Legally, this guy is in the clear, I think, as I do not believe he advocated violence in any way aginst the person.
However, to take a longer-ish tangent, I think what this comes down to is the respect, or at least the lack of respect that is becoming all too aparent to actual freedoms.
In a society that is obsessed with freedom from the government, freedom from their neighbours seems to non-existant, or at least hated. Both the poster of the address, and the spammer show a distinct lack of respect for the freedom for the other individual(s). Now coming to a head, look through the message boards and public occurances of people who encouraging the silencing of anybody who is against the current war. It is sad to look at, and is a dangerous portent.
Freedom from the government means nothing in a government where the people do not respect what freedom really means.
perhaps the slashdot team could do like an opposing viewpoints kind of interview with both of these guys. ask the same question to both people. questions like "How do you value your contact privacy?" .. because it woudl seem that even though the spammer doesn't value others rights to privacy .. he would like his respected
I'm surprised to read so many comments advocating what amounts to a complete lack of personal privacy for this guy, when personal privacy is fiercely defended by the same people when it concerns them.
On the other hand, the guy is obviously a scum bag and deserves all he gets, so I say lets get him!
-= This is a self-referential sig =-
2) Does Moore actually have to prove the connection between Francis' web page and the sudden flood of magazines, etc, or what?
I say rule in his favor and protect his privacy! What goes around comes around -- if this guy's privacy is violated then no one will fight on behalf of anyone else's privacy. On the other hand, this is just the legal precedent the world needs to fight back against spam. If this case is ruled in the favor of privacy, future cases relating to spam will be able to reference a solid legal ruling about personal demographics and information.
Guess what buddy - You should have known that being a Spammer would get thousands of anti-spam activists PO'd at you. You sould have known that your info would be found eventually. So you should have known not to spam from home. But you weren't thinking, were you?
You just wanted to try and make money at the expense of everyone you spammed. No Sympathy!
Let me see, spammers take all the emails they can get and send millions of spam messages a day to all of those email addresses. Now that people are finding out who they are, they are mad because THEIR information is now public. If they are not wanting stuff like this to happen, they should STOP SPAMMING the rest of us. I think it was an excellent idea by Francis Ui to post this guys information.
So, where can we find the website with this guys info?
Regards,
jlk
First, the "personal information" is actually the spammer's listed business address. Businesses have no specific right to privacy. Because Mr. Moore has chosen to run his business from his home is nobody's fault but his own. Assuming he has a Chapter S corporation, he filed the documents himself, listing his own home address on those very publicly filed pieces of paper. He also typed his own address when purchasing his domain names, and that all instantly becomes a matter of record on the domain name server. Nobody dug up anything secret here -- it's all public.
Second, a criminal accusation is very much a matter of public record. If you are arrested, your name is right there in court documents, and there is nothing you can do about it. Just because they're stuck in a filing cabinet in city hall doesn't mean that they're any less public than Mr. Uy posting them on the web. Less noticed and by fewer people, probably, but no less public. Granted, as far as I know Mr. Moore hasn't yet been criminally charged with pirating stolen software, nor has Symantec filed a civil suit against him yet. But the posting of his address is still legitimate on the first point anyway.
John
As reported herea g=fd_l ede1_hed
http://news.com.com/2100-1032-995658.html?t
spam could start to become a problem in the workplace, to the point where you will be unable to use a company's email system for anything non work-related.
If the chances of being sued by a disgruntled worker (who could sign himself up for the junk in the first place) exists, some people will sue, and the only way to prevent this is to make accepting such email against compamy policy.
No company can guarantee no spam will pass spam filters, so what's the chances that spam is really going to harm our day-to-day lives?
Nice to see journos getting there facts straight again. Not. It seems that the article writer
thinks that email in 1994 was in some sort of different form. Umm what form exactly? Ok it
was unlikely but not impossible to get HTML mail and attachments back then but I can't think of
anything else. Or maybe the jorno means that 1994 was before an AOLuser CD dropped through his letterbox.
People who send spam mail aren't exactly the smartest people to begin with. They practice deceit at every opportunity. First, they take advantage of the email system to hide their address and change it so you can't block them by it or respond to them. Second, when you ask to be removed and never contacted again, they take this as an indication that you want more spam mail so they sell your address as an active account. In fact, they will probably use a spam email to try and sell your email address. Third, they use deceitful methods to subvert your spam filter. That last one is what really gets me. They are tricking you into having to spend time and possibly money reading their advertisement which you obviously do not want since you tried to filter it out. This would be like you getting a telemarketing call and their response to you saying "I am not interested and please take me off your list" would be to change their phone number and company name, sell your number to other companies to increase your volume of calls, AND pretend to be one of your customers or one of your relatives to trick you into picking up the phone and listening to their first few sentences of blather. What kind of moron tries to run a business by blatantly misleading potential customers. What is the thought process: "Hmm maybe if I trick them into reading my stuff I can get them so mad that they will want to buy my questionable product"? Do you think people would put up with that kind of telemarketing? No, so why should we have to put up with email spam? This type of advertising would not be legitimate in any other form.
Visit http://www.freestandingentertainment.com
Squeal pig, SQUEAL!
I have no need to refianance my house, I don't need a longer,thicker penis, I don't want to see that web site you were talking to me about the other night, no I won't be taking delivery of 5 million in gold, because I won't help you, I don't need viagra, I don't need norton anti-virus and I have no interst in any business oppurtunity.
There I just opted out of 85% of the spam I get. What?? You say that won't work, your going to keep spamming anyway? What was your address again.
cluge
"Science is about ego as much as it is about discovery and truth " - I said it, so sue me.
Ha! Remember the last scene of 'Braveheart'? That should be the penalty for spammers.
After spending the past 5 hours going through our corporate email getting bombarded by the thousands of users who are unable to do their business now. The answer is no.
After spending an unbelievable amount of money on purchasing anti-spam protection devices, the answer is no.
Im sorry the guy has gotten a few hundred unsolicted catalogs. In the past two days the company that I work for has recieved over 5,000 unsolicited catalogs. Since he claims to be running a business, then maybe he should get a business address instead of a personal address. Personally I have no love for spammers. They waste my time, they waste my energy, and they waste my money. And yes it is my money when I think of how much I could have used that (insert cost of anti-spam device here). This includes SA which costs nothing but the hardware and the pipe.
All I could think of when I read this was an episode of Judge Mills Lane I saw a few years ago. I woman was suing a man because she said he would pay him for sex, but then refused to pay. Obviously, the case was thrown out of court because prostitution is illegal anyway.
If this guy had any sense, he would keep this out of the courts, and just move. He has no legal case here, except against those who perhaps threaten him themselves.
He STILL hasn't stopped spamming. He just ran whining to the courts.
I wish they'd agree to hear his complaint - but only after they sock him under anti-spam laws.
They reason that they get harassed because of all the millions of people they've pissed off, a small number will step over the line.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
Should spammers get some privacy protection too?
What do you mean by "too"? Nobody gets privacy protection.
... I'm curious why I got modded down as offtopic and troll. The first post was sarcasm.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=sarcasm
Regardless, the argument that freedom of speech trumps freedom of privacy I think is flawed. Freedom of speech doesn't cover exposing all the details of someone's life on the internet.
So, I could find your:
Address(es)
Phone Number
Name
Spouse's Name
Relatives
Etc... You wouldn't appreciate it either, trust me.
> It was April 12, 1994, before e-mail even existed
> in its current form.
What planet is this guy from?
Warning: this article may contain humor, sarcasm, parody, and perhaps even irony. Read at your own risk.
This was the case where they had abortion doctors pictured on the site as targets. The jury awarded the estate of one of the victims, but the appeals court said that the site did not tell people to go out and shoot the doctors.
Fight Spammers!
It's more of a secietal reaction to Big Brother that enforces any of this. From that standpoint, this guy has NO rights above and beyond ours. Which is in essence - no right to privacy.
That being said, and pardon my coarse language - FUCK HIM
As soon as spammers start respecting others, I'll respect them. Until that time, the gloves are off.
Computer Science is Applied Philosophy
Most, if not all, of that information is already freely available on the internet. All of that information is also available in a million other places for the asking. You could even look up how much I paid for my house in the tax records. Would it be any different if instead of posting the exact address he just said "the blue house on such-and-such street between avenue a and avenue b?"
I have a spammer attempting to protect the embedded form web address he sent by encoding the source in base64. Can someone point me to an online converter I can run it through? If not, I'm running OS X and have a newbie's basic understanding of the shell. Can I use my machine to convert? thanks for the help!
Should spammers get some privacy protection too?
Legally, yes. Ethically, no. The way things should work is that all spam and telemarketing should be a federal crime, and the official punishment for violators should be crucifiction (for both the slow-and-painful-death factor and the public humiliation factor).
Moderator hint: a comment is neither "Flamebait" nor "Troll" if it is true.
While this is on dangerous ground, there are some important differences between other kinds of vigilanteism: most of the harassment is as legal as the spam itself; spamming regulation, unlike "speaking harshly about the government", is being held up less by constitutional free-speech issues than by the lobbying influence of so-called "legitimate spammers" who don't want to be blocked along with the "septic tank" crew.
However, we all must be very careful about "borderline" civil rights cases, especially in today's anti-rights climate (at least in the US). Just as anti-terrorist laws can be then applied to other groups, it's easy to imagine cases where anti-spamming measures could be also be abused.
Since when?
In Texas, all you need is the person's name or address to get all kinds of info -- and free.
Wanna know how much property Michael Dell owns, its taxable value, etc?
Check out this link for info on his property within Travis County. The Williamson County link hasn't worked in awhile, otherwise you could see the property there as well.
Click on Appraisal Roll
Click Search Real Estate by Owner's name
Enter "Dell M" (no quotes)
Click on any of the Owner Ids and scroll down. You can even get a plat map, suitable for stalking.
Heck, Sandra Bullock's address is in there too.
I don't know about other states, but anyone can go to the county courthouse in any county in Texas and get the info for free.
Cruising the internet on my TI-99/4A @ a whopping 300 baud!
A 'sole proprietorship' wouldn't have such stipulations ( if in fact that is a rule across the country or just individual states.. I don't know personally. but I'm thinking in econ class we setup a fake corporation ( fake as in we never actually filed papers, it was just a class exersize ) using a PO box.. but that was 20 years ago too.... )
Plus there are plenty of places you can rent 'space' from, that are just a mail drop with a real address so they can receive packages.. some even come with a phone system attendant and conference rooms you can use..
They work like : 1234 Bla street, room 444... with the room really just being your box number..
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Maybe Moore can have the excuse of ignorance, but from this day on, no other spammer can claim this. If they want to spam while using their home as a business, they have to accept the risk of brown boxes coming to their home.
If someone does send them something that blows up, I would not blame Uy for that, since the information is actually public, anyway. Someone so intent on harming Moore as to send such a package could get the information anyway, such as by actually responding to spam and seeing where that leads. Such a person could do all that Uy did. If harm befalls Mr. Moore, it is Mr. Moore who is most to blame. Most people's home addresses are public info. Yes, a line was crossed, by that was done by Mr. Moore. Uy is just trying to push him back.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
What's the judge's e-mail address??? So we can subscribe him to lots of spam so he can start the trial with a properly unbiased mindset about spammers...
He was selling drugs in your neighbourhood... except the packaging made it very easy to trace back to him home "place of business"
He was writing you "if you want a bigger [insert genetalia of preference], contact me at xyz" - with tire treaders from a motorcycle in your front lawn
He spraypainted "For a good time... get a bigger [again, insert genetalia] Contact xxx at yyy" on the side of your house.
This is spam. It is an abuse. People who engage in fraudulant activities invite such things upon themselves. If all people were reasonable... then perhaps we could only expect an increase in deliveries of "fertilizer" to this guys house... as of yet no spammers have been injured to my knowledge - though many have been tracked down.
While there are legal ramifications for drug dealers, they are often hard to pin down and get away with it. Same with spammers. Would you feel sorry for the drug dealer if some angry citizens felt a need to contact him on his/her acvitivies?
How about the guy that tire-treads on your lawn? Or a graffiti artist? Feel sorry for them?
Spam is the pollution on our internet, the graffiti in our mailboxes. I feel no sorrow for spammers who are being harrassed, as so long as none actually get seriously harmed, I will not (even if they do, I might not, depending on the spammer).
Outing a spammer is simply part of re-establishing social norms. What they do is abhorrent to the majority of the internet community and they take advantage (free ride in economic terms) the social anonymity provided by the internet to do it.
When you live in a small community, part of the "folksy niceness and safety" of small towns is due to the fact that the social network is so small that you can't act up too far outside of the social norms of the social network without immediate negative impact. For those who were part of the usenet community in the 1980s much of the academic/intellectual elan and espirit de corps was directly (exclusively?) due to this phenomena. The community was small enough that it was just one community and the social norms were quite clear (no advertising, value for ration discourse with healthy but respectful debate, mostly, etc.)
Similarly in the big city you have the opportunity to become anonymous since there are dozens to thousands of overlapped social networks to belong and/or escape to. People in cities act (and drive) like jerks because the probability their behavior getting back to their social network is very small and even if it did with resulting negative consequences, the current social network is, worst-case, abandonable with others available even locally. Consider usenet today or any part of the Internet for that matter.
Spamming represents an extreme in personal (virtual) space violation - akin in social intrusion to a fatal attraction stalker in some ways. Outting spammers by posting personal information is simply applying age-old social norming: if you mother, spouse, neighbor, church or other key personal social (support) network knew what you were doing, would you still do it? The fact that it makes spammers uncomfortable is direct proof that the desired social conditioning forces are kicking in. 90% of all social harmony involves forces like this.
JGSki
I was trying to find Francis's web page but Google wasn't being too helpful. ;]
I wanted to big him up for fighting the scum of the internet.
I want to put spammers in a public square and bombard them with projectiles until they cry.
OMG OMG LUNIX OMG
No.
If he runs a questionable business from his home, he can't expect to have any kind of protection.
Strange that he's complaining at all, especially since spammers always want to know if you'd like to WORK FROM HOME!
I guess not. =)
Weaselmancer
Weaselmancer
rediculous.
Did you even read the article? Or even very many of the posts? He gave his home address the contact information for his buisness. That means anyone who wants to communicate with him has every right to that information, and, in fact, that information is a matter of public record. Threatning phonecalls have nothing to do with this.
Why doesn't this spammer just "pull a Kramer" and cancel mail ?
"Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."--Benjamin Franklin
Should this guy have his privacy protected against being bombarded with unsolicited catalogs and faxes at home?
Not only "no", but "hell no".
I am positively rabid about not allowing my personal and private, non-business email address to be used for anything but personal, non-business email, and yet after a few years, every f**cking spammer on the planet seems to be using it anyway, it's getting a dozen spams a day, and there isn't any legitimate way they could have obtained it.
To make the spam go away, I have to virtually "move" by changing my email address, reducing my accessibility to that of a virtual drifter, and making it impossible for anyone to reach me who hasn't heard from me in a year or two. The same rules should apply to this piece of human waste calling himself a businessman. If he wants the spam to leave him alone, he can move somewhere else like the rest of us have to do.
The connection between Iraq and terrorism is tenuous. Yes, the man's a brutal asshole who deserves to be kicked out of Iraq. Unfortunately, he (like Bin Laden) is a monster of US making. I was watching a live press conference where someone asked Rumsfeld if he was aware of / involved in the Regan administration selling chemical/biological technology to Saddam.
I should add Panama's Noriega to the list of former US puppets being used as an excuse for invasion. If the US go9vernment would stop supporting brutal psychopaths just because they think that they're "on our side", then the world would have a good bit less to worry about, and a lot fewer dead bodies to deal with.BTW: Especially if you include the after-effects of the 1991 war, then yes -- we've killed many more Iraqi civilians than Saddamn(sic) did.
Then, of course, there's the fact that the second worst terrorist bombing in the us was the work of a blond-haired blue-eyed former US Marine...
OS Software is like love: The best way to make it grow is to give it away.
Opt out.
Want to Know How to Cheat the GPL? Read On!
The cat's out of the bag now. By filing suit, there's a public record of his name, the business name, addresses, etc. He must keep the defendant and the court informed of any and all changes to that contact information, too (or risk losing by default, including the defendant's counter-claims, if any). Sometimes it's better to not sue, just to keep things quiet. imho, this is one of them!
Should spammers get some privacy protection too?
Answer: Fuck No! They don't care about our privacy, why should we give a damn about theirs? I say post this guy's contact info on as many public sites as possible. If he has the right to stuff our inboxes with crap, we should have the right to do it to him, too.
Blog Prophyts - Right On, Man
http://www.lenny.com/spam/
http://www.lenny.com/spam/
"that's not encryption - it's a new perl script that I'm working on..." - from some Matrix parody
What our friend Francis Uy did was pretty evil. Got his hands on public information connected with a spammer, made it further public, and suddenly the spammer's house was bombarded with snail mail.
But consider the the other side of the picture, the plaintiff's end of things. Mr. Moore makes his information publically available (or it was otherwise there). He does something on the internet that is up there with making child pr0n available. And he has the cajones to think we will not do something nasty to him?
That, my friends, is what you call "chutzpah". (Pronounce it "khoot's paw", with the "kh" sound as if you were going to expectorate.)
This sig no verb.
It may be funny to list the asshole's name and address and phone numbers, but one of the phone numbers being listed is an 877 number. 877 numbers are toll free. Because they are toll free, the owner (in this case the asshole) gets an itemized bill that indicates the time of the call, the length of the call, the city and state of the call, and the telephone number of the caller.
If you place a harassing call to this asshole, all he has to do is to note the exact time of your call, then wait for the toll free number bill from the phone company. And if there is a police/legal issue involved, the phone company has corporate fraud divisions that investigate and provide the numbers immediately to the owner of the toll free line.
You have been warned. Be smart and don't give this asshole any satisfaction.
MIM PO BOX 19803 BALTIMORE MD 21225-0303 Carrier Route B006 if anyone needs it to add to their own bulk mail runs.
This sig no verb.
...as much as I love to sit and think of nasty, nasty things that I would like to see done to spammers, an international registry (i.e. web site) with spammers real names, and real address, and all known email and domain names would go a long way to serve justice. Hell, this one just might pass the U.N. Security Council without a single dissenting vote! For gawds sake, just don't let ICANN administrate it.
I arrived at the District Court in Glen Burnie a bit before 9am. My lawyer was there already. ( <plug> Jonathan Biedron, great guy, highly recommended if you need any family law or such in central Maryland </plug> ) We compared notes, made sure we had all our printouts, and went to Courtroom #4.
District Court is the first level of the civil judicial system, no serious crimes here. All the other cases on the docket were either family disputes or tenant evictions. Upon entering the room, George saw me and sent his lawyer (Cheryl Asensio, from Glen Burnie) to talk to Jon. George was kindly willing to drop the case if I took down my pages. Jon declined. When the judge got to ours he asked if we had settled; he saw that it was going to be long and bizarre, and was hoping to avoid it. No such luck, so he sent us back to wait and asked the judge next door to take our case while he finished up the usual pile of landlords.
[drat, gotta go to IT staff meeting. time passes.]At 9:30 we were sent to Courtroom #3, Judge Robert Wilcox presiding. The plaintiff always goes first. We started out informally, and George narrated his side of the case. By 10:00 Judge Wilcox said that he hadn't heard anything to prove I was responsible for the harrassment. Jon and I are about to pack our bags when Asensio decides to go the whole nine yards with formal witness testimony. Groan.
Citizens have a constitutional right to a proper day in court (except for "material witnesses" and "unlawful combatants" but let's not go there), and that's what George wanted. Asensio examines Fatburn first, and introduces pages from Google Groups into evidence. She cited someone's signature file quoting Dave Barry advocating castration of spammers as an indication of the kind of horrible people that inhabit NANAE. (during cross examination George testified that he had never heard of Dave Barry).
Then she questioned me, apparently hoping that I would crack under pressure and confess to secretly organizing a cabal of Anti-Fatburn Terrorists. We got sidetracked for about 5 minutes in a discussion of how I contacted a guy who foolishly hired a spammer to advertise his hydraulic valves. Eventually she ran out of ways to try asking me "yes or no, are you going to stop harrassing my client?" and rested her case at 11:30.
District cases usually take between 30 seconds and 5 minutes, so everyone else in the room sighed with relief. The judge was still unconvinced and promptly ruled in my favor. I feel bad for the poor tree that I killed printing up my un-needed defense. Ah well, hopefully it will remain that way; any District ruling can be appealed to Circuit "de novo", meaning we start all over from scratch.
George tried to send me a message, and wanted to make an example of me. Instead I had a message for him: every time you try to mess with me, I will post it on the net, and more people will learn about you. I don't encourage harrassment against you, and I don't need to. The facts speak quite loudly enough. Your best option is to crawl back under a rock and suck it up, or move to some state other than the one I live in.
Don't they have any laws against running home based business in MD?? I say we picket him until the neigbours chase him out. You have a right to protest.
According to this (and its links), among civilized nations, the US may actually be one of the last to finally ban spam. So since it's a real shame to lag even behind the Europeans once again in terms of privacy law...
If you have information to the contrary, please furnish it to the proper authorities.
-T
In my country Spam is illegal... that makes him a criminal - a criminal shouldn't be surprised when their victims get...upset...
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
Obviously, the same/similar act(s) may be illegal irrespective of whom undertakes them, but the categorization would vary:
By government: search; seizure; arrest.
By person(s): sexual harassment; theft; kidnap.
The former chiefly regulated by the U.S. Constitution (stronger), the latter by statute (weaker).
Thus, the alleged crime or civil wrong relevant to the case against Mr Uy would be harassment, wouldn't it, rather than an infringment of Mr Moore's constitutional right to privacy?!
The liver is evil and must be punished.
Let's say I'm a business and I'm paying Mr Moore to play commercials on his home stereo so loud his neighbors can hear them. Then they built thicker walls and because Mr Moore is making good money on this he gets louder & louder speakers. Whose rights are being violated?
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
Oops. Seems to me that a legitimate business wouldn't mind if a customer was interested in finding out where it was located. Seems to me that a business that was truly providing a "wanted" service wouldn't get threatened by irate "customers". Seems to me that this gent is getting what he deserves.
"Insert witty Sig here..."
You cease to be a "private person" when you engage the public for your own benifit. This sleaze bag has made himself a public figure, so anyone can publish information about him. In order to sue someone for that you must prove that the information published was both incorrect and malicious. The public has a right to know about it's officials and other figures of public controversy.
The reason spam has grown to such an epidemic is that there are idiots out there who actually open the spam and then order the products or services that they are offering thus funding and encouraging the spammers to further spam.
Please don't blame the victim, it's so Microsoftish. There are three kinds of spammers in the world. Those that actually make money doing it, those who wish they could and those who seek only to harrass. Eliminating the first class would not remove the second and third. There's one born every minute applies equally well to the hoards of push brains out there who think they can make a buck off spam as it does to their victims. Greed, laziness and lack of respect for one's neighbors, these are the things any good con man looks for in his victim. The more you have these traits, the more suseptible you are.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
So what? you might ask those people are repulsive and ignorant they should be shut up. No they should not be. You don't have to listen to them and they are not responsible for violent actions commited without their knowledge. The mindset is dangerous and when some people can be shut up anyone can be shut up.
It should be chilling to hear that relious symbols are often forbiden in public schools today. Why is this so? Because it might create an intimidating atmosphere for minority religious members or atheists. Hmmph, instruments of terror indeed. Our children are being taught that it's best not to express yourself when anyone might be offened. The public school system has a way of being used to reduce our citizen's expectation of rights. If mearly indicating that you are a member of a religion is offensive enough to be banned, we have no first amendment rights.
The first amendment is simple, let me quote it:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Everyone who wishes to reproduce the spammer's personal info, and by all means do so, please be sure to list a phone number to an overloaded voicemail system in Pakistan that this loser can call to have himself removed from the list.
Spammer != Human ==> no privacy rights :-)
Please explain how performing abortions is violating the hypocratic oath, including but not limited to a treatise on whether or not a foetus is considered a patient, at what stage a foetus is considered a patient, and whether the pregnant woman or the foetus is to be considered the patient.
You are a right wing nut-case !.
Get some help !
The original Hippocratic oath contained the following paragraph:Modern physicians use heavily modified versions of the text.
As this guy uses so many ficticious Names and addresses which earnings does he report to the IRS ...............
John Smitherine, George Alan Moore, Alan Moore, John Milton, James Milton, George Moore Jr., Mark Monday, Larry Stevens, and on and on and on
Find out on (410) 224-8799
The judge disagreed, Uy said, ruling that Uy did not violate the state's harassment laws in part because he posted true information about Moore's business contact data on his site.
'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
"Moore complains that this is inciting people to call at 2:00 am and make death threats."
No. I think the spam he sends out is inciting people to call at 2:00 am and make death threats.
This guy uses his home address as a business address and as a person who owns a home buisness let me say thats the one thing you give up by running a business out of your home.
It's the only draw back.
The fact that the business contact information HAPPENDS to be his home address is not the fault of the targets of his advertising to get him to stop.
He gave away his right to privatcy but his targets didn't. They are on the receaving end of his bad buisness ethics.
They have every right to picket on his front lawn should they so chouse.
I don't actually exist.
Go Francis! I'm not really an anonymous coward... I'm Dan Balsam, of Santa Monica, and I'm happy to share with you, Dear Reader, that I have a lawsuit against Moore in L.A. County right now. The California anti-spam laws apply equally to in-state and out-of-state senders, so I'm forcing Moore to hire CA attorneys to attempt to prove that he's not a spammer. www.danbalsam.com/maryland