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?"

7 of 386 comments (clear)

  1. Home/Business by st0rmcold · · Score: 5, Insightful


    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.
    1. Re:Home/Business by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If he runs a questionable business from his home, he can't expect to have any kind of protection

      From unwanted catalogs? You are absolutely correct. From threatening phone calls and harassment? You are incorrect. Additionally, this is not a questionable business - it is perfectly legitamate. Maybe you don't approve of it, but your approval or disapproval does not make something legal, illegal, or "questionable".

  2. reverse situation by selderrr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  3. Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right by TrollBridge · · Score: 5, Insightful
    As tempting as such delicious retribution may be, you can't believe that returning his violation of your privacy (the spam) with a violation of his (death threats, etc.) will have any positive results beyond a temporary feeling of satisfaction.

    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.
  4. Actually, it wouldn't help much. by zackbar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  5. Note to self: remove own head before speaking. by plover · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Strangely enough, you're wrong on both points.

    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
  6. Re:Privacy protection? by Malor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.