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?"
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.
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
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 ?
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."
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.
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.
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.
ACTUALLY, it is still VERY much a point. IF Moore had since changed his legitimate business address, fine.
(I say legitimate in the context of it being a real address where his business receives correspondence and not legitimate in reference to his business, which after RTA suggests it is far from legit)
Unfortunately, Moore is the one using his family as a shield. Much like the Iraq leadership. (Stand in the middle of a bunch of civilians and fire at US Troops. Blame US when civilians are injured/worse)
So, IF Moore changes his Business address and actually gets his other business mail there and its not just a fake PO box to dump junk mail to, that should be the address that is published on the web and references to his current address should be removed.
---"What did I say that sounded like 'Tell me about your day?'"---
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
Mock us, do we not cry?
Slashdot us, do we not fail?
Tickle us, do we not laugh?
Spam us, do we not RETALIATE?
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?
Nice try, but that's not a valid analogy. Which of those three groups you mentioned makes money by violating my privacy rights?
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
I feel that Uy (who seems a bit self-righteous in the first place) has definitely crossed a line with this.
Oh really? And exactly what line did he cross? As far as I can tell he took publicly available information and posted it on the web.
With this guy giving out his home address, though
Yeah, and I can open a phonebook, grab some random name, and post it on the web. So what?
Email can't blow up in your face; unmarked brown packages can.
Well if Francis Uy sends a package that explodes then I'd agree that he has definitely crossed a line. If he tells someone to send a package that explodes then he has definitely crossed a line. As far as I know he has done neither of these things.
Just because you don't like someone or what they do, they still have rights.
Yep, and as far as I know Francis Uy has not violated anyone's rights.
If harm befalls Mr. Moore, Uy's going to be in a spot of trouble.
If Uy harms Mr. Moore, or tells someone to harm Mr. Moore then I'd agree with you.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
What if this guy spoke harshly about the government, would you feel the same?
If he stood on my front lawn and yelled with a bullhorn through my window, yes.
If he was an abortion doctor would he feel the same?
If he performed abortions on women who didn't want them, yes.
If he was a communist would you feel the same?
If he forced me to be a communist, yes.
People hate spammers precisely because they inflict their views and solicitations upon others and use subversive means to do so, not because they hate people who sell their kind of products. Also, their actions increase the cost of my internet service. Would you still stand up for the rights of an abortion doctor if his services significantly increased the cost of your health insurance, whether you used his services or not?
This space intentionally left blank.
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.
Seems like everybody is saying this guy has no rights because he a spammer(the lowest life form).
Not that he has no rights, but this guy is infringing on my personal property (by actively causing me to spend money to read his advertisements). Therefore, he is a criminal, and criminals shouldn't have the same freedoms as others because they have demonstrated a lack of responsibility. Freedom and responsibility go hand-in-hand, and that's especially true on the Internet. Some people have chosen to restrict this spammer's freedom by spamming him back, directly or indirectly. While not claiming the moral high ground, this technique at least attempts to demonstrate the proverb "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen".
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?
None of these people are costing me money. The First Amendment gives you the right to stand on a street corner and blather away about whatever the hell you want. It doesn't give you the right to waltz into my house and blather, at my expense, which is essentially what spam is. Spammers don't usually understand this fine point, which is why they always claim "First Amendment rights" that they don't have.
Good for Uy, and "Shame On You" to everyone who called this poor loser's house or threatened him physically. You might think it's OK to break a law or two to enforce Justice, but you're gonna end up in a world of hurt if you try.
This post expresses my opinion, not that of my employer. And yes, IAAL.
Seems like everybody is saying this guy has no rights because he a spammer
I'll take your word for it that some idiots have said something to that effect, but I sure don't see everyone saying that.
The question is can you do to anyone what was done to the spammer.
Yes, at least as far as Francis Uy's actions are concerned. All Uy did was say what Moore's address is and what his profession is. Both of these pieces of information are public record.
It isn't a case of it being ok to violate a spammer's rights, it's a case of Uy not having violated the spammer's rights.
-
- - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
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.
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
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.
I'm going to leave aside the argument about whether or not privacy is a right (there are good arguments both pro- and con-).
I do want to point out something a bit more fundamental, though. Rights aren't any good if they can be casually taken away.
When everyone in the world despises you, when the government *hates* you and wants you *dead*.... that's when you need rights.
If you only have them when you are popular, you don't have them.
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).
Yeah. I've gotten spams for warezed Symantec and Norton products from George Alan Moore's operation, too.
So where the fuck has the BSA been for the past year and a half? Where the fuck have Symantec's lawyers been for the past year and a half?
Why is it that when I hear about the FTC shutting down a spammer, or the BSA thuggin' an office building, it's usually some two-bit podunk operation that I've never heard of. Why can't they target the bigger fish and actually make a dent in our spamloads?
Now I'm the first one to admit that "making a dent in our spamloads" isn't part of the FTC's - or BSA's - mandate. But it would sure as hell help their PR image. Imagine being able to issue a press release, three or four "big fish" down the road, saying "Our spamtraps were getting 400 spams a day before we started Operation Big Fish, and are now down to 100", and having everyone else reading the press release seeing a similar reduction, as one by one, the Spam Kings fall.
I want to see spam eliminated. The only way to do that is to eliminate it at the source - the spammers who run the spamhausen and sell spamming services to the warez d00dz, prescription meds "consultants", pr0n hawkers, MMFools, coral calcium / cancer quacks and other assorted dirtballs.
As long I'm ranting here, if that means a few ISPs have to go down on Federal racketeering charges for aiding-and-abetting (ignoring abuse reports, listwashing, and otherwise knowingly continuing to provide services to people breaking the law), so much the better. Yes, Rackspace, that means you.
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.
In all fairness, though, if you do leave your "stuff" there, then you should leave a note underneath it, saying, "If you don't want this sent to you anymore, then please send an email to [insert his own address here] with 'remove' in the subject line.". You could still keep leaving "stuff" there, but @ least leave the note.
testing out my trending skills