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.
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?
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
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.
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.
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
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.