Slashdot Mirror
Alan Ralsky Gripes About Can Spam Act
fdiskne1 writes "The New York Times has an interview with Alan Ralsky, commonly known as the world's worst spammer. CNet News.com is running the same interview. Ralsky admits using open relays and virus-infected PCs and not honoring unsubscribe lists. He complains about having to comply with the new CAN-SPAM law will cost him an additional $3000 in costs to set up a genuine opt-out list. Anyone here feel sorry for him? Okay, I'm biased, but I can't wait until we see him in prison."
"The law was not written for a commercial e-mailer," he said. "I don't think what they are doing is fair."
I think that's the point, Mr. Ralsky..
Trolling is a art,
Well, ok maybe he doesn't deserve death. But he definitely deserves a very hefty fine and prison cell with Bubba.
I can honestly say I've seen a slow down of spam over the last week. It was nice, too bad it won't last.
Hmm, looks like we need to set up a open hunting season on spammers. Too bad they don't taste too good, never was fond of SPAM myself.
FuckTheFuckingFuckers.com - Post your th
We could all show our appreciation for his fine "work".
Or,
"I personally hate clubbing old ladies over the head so I can snatch their purses. It's rough. But you do what you got to do."
I hope somebody clubs Al Ralsky over the head in a dark alley... Jerk.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Call some one who gives a shit Alan Ralsky.
"I bow to no man" - Riddick
I'd like to interview him too. KGB-style...
So called 'Legitimate' web advertising annoys me more then Spam.
Not being able to access sites because I'm apparantly a 'bandwidth theif' for blocking annoying popup ads is far more annoying then say, pressing the delete button a few times.
I can't wait to see him wresting bread crusts from sea gulls in a K Mart parking lot. He's an excellent example of a selfish individual and capitalism at its worst.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Now who was it that had originally noted that the death penalty was unconstitutional for spamming?? Perhaps we can get it ammended by popular consent!
"He calls the law unfair, but adds, "You would have to be stupid" to try to violate it." You would have to be stupid to call the law unfair. What you are doing is unfair to the millions of people you send SPAM to.
>> "I create jobs. But the media has made e-mail out to be some sort of terrorist plot."
Goes back the argument (and please don't get on my case for quoting this) that guns dont kill people. People kill people.
I run a few niche sites in Hong Kong and have found that people are more than willing to open newsletters if they're filled with content (we fill ours with events calendars, reviews of restaurants etc) AND targetted special offers. Emails are working and they're working very well.
I wish I had an opportunity to tell Brendan Battles this... perhaps I should hit reply on one of the many viagra emails I get every hour.
Spammers are stupid
+
Ralsky is a pammer
=
Ralsky is stupid
Ralsky is stupid
+
Ralsky says "it would be stupid to violate" [the law]
=
Ralsky will violate the law
But I'll bet you'd figured that out anyway.
"I may be synthetic, but I'm not stupid." -- Bishop 341-B
They should give him community service equivalent to the sum of all the time wasted by people either deleting or replying to his spam.
Not that I think for one second that Ralsky will actually abide by the law, but at least assuming that he does, it certainly warms my heart to know that finally, finally, a spammer is actually having to pay some out-of-pocket expenses for the privilege of making Mozilla Thunderbird do some work for me.
Wasn't CAN-SPAM meant to help spammers? I mean, it had loopholes large enough to fly a 747 through, for Christ's sakes.... so why is he complaining?
#define DRM chmod 000
There's a perfectly reasonable convention of prefixing adverts with [ADV] in the subject line so people who dont want to read them dont have to.
If they aren't going to play fair then i dont see why we should. We need to make sure that the financial penalties outweigh the potential profits to be made. If it's a small penalty per email sent, then it'd take a while to whittle away ralskys fortunes.
We need to make an example of people breaking these laws to act as a deterrent. Perhaps a 3 emails and your up for life in prison....
and the locals he's a goddamn thief and infidel. Chances are he'll never spam again.
Say you have a common alias, at a large domain name. The time spent blocking, fighting, dragging, deleting email (even with training filters) adds up. It adds up quickly. Particularly if you rely on email for fast communication and every SPAM that gets through is one less cycle on something more important. SPAM senders are bandwidth, CPU, and brain cycle theives.
www.voiceofthehive.com - Beekeeping and Honeybees for those who don't.
allowing people to opt-out of burglery, robbery, extortion and murder are killing me. I'm just trying to make a living. Do the law makers even realize that I have to let people go when they pass laws like this? It's costing jobs during an economic downturn. It doesn't make any sense.
On the other hand, the price controls on recreational drugs and prostitution are a partial compensation, but the state monopoly on gambling really put a crimp in my style.
What's the world coming to.
Well, at least I'm not a scum sucking spammer.
KFG
What the hell does anyone think some low life e-tard in Nigeria or South America care about American laws and spam, nada. Zilch zip nada. The law is a farce and being that its coming close to election, I'm wondering if it was solely sent through for whoring purposes...
MoFscker
Why would a criminal openly come out and say that the law is going put him in jail? It's highly unlikely "can spam" is going to adversely affect his so-called business. We don't know if him crying out is supposed to be a distraction or sympathy ploy, but we should be keeping both eyes on these creeps.
Send the excess ones over to Korea, Spam with KimChee is eaten there often.
"He has done business in two dozen countries, and has never visited any of them. He buys mailing lists from people in Sweden and India. And these days, he says, he sends his mail from computers in China and three other countries."
Won't all spammers who don't already email from other countries do so to get around the law? What can legally be done to stop or punish the spammers from doing this?
He says he's worried but I don't think he is at all. I think he's just playing to the press.
- tokengeekgrrl
"He's an excellent example of a selfish individual and capitalism at its worst."
Sounds like the ideal candidate for President...
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
...because we all know prison rape is fucking hilarious. I hate spammers as much as the next person, but calling for the brutal anal rape of Ralsky is disgusting, uncivilized, pointless, and, frankly, disturbing.
Note to M1-ers: a curt but otherwise insightful message is not "Flamebait" or "Troll".
Ralsky admits using open relays and virus-infected PCs and not honoring unsubscribe lists
Well, if he admits to doing this after Jan 1, 2004, then it's off to jail with him.
I'd gladly donate a few bucks to a "Kill Spammers" foundation, anyone here agree?
Alan M. Ralsky
6747 Minnow Pond Dr.
West Bloomfield, MI 48322-2663
248-926-0688
amr777@comcast.net
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
Wouldn't it almost be worth allowing ralksy to send his bulk e-mails to you and setting a filter to auto-delete anything with his details on?
That we he'd have to pay to send the e-mail (if a large multiple of people did this) - and it wouldn't cost anyone using a flat-fee isp.
If we can ruin his rates of return and success we can make spamming less worthwhile for him.
So what kinda opt-out list is being used now? The one that basically just ads your email back into the spam pile, i guess... that's really lame. Of COURSE you should have to use REAL opt-out! That's like car makers complaining that they should have to use "REAL" brakes, or that cigarette makers should have to use "REAL" package labeling.
stuff |
Why isn't this guy in jail? There's tons of evidence of him violating all sorts of laws. The FBI should pick him up now. It's a stain on the face of law enforcement that losers like this can go around bragging about committing crimes.
luckily, with republicans in office, my spamming is assured to continue because the laws that are written are for my corporation's benefit! we don't need anyone telling us how to run our business.
you guys need to wake up and understand who runs the show -- if you're receiving a paycheck from a corporation, you're a member of the working class.
those of us who write your checks realize the extreme importance of marketing, and we will stop at nothing to achieve it.
He didn't say anything about prison rape.
I read this in my deadtree NYT this morning. In one part, he pats himself on the back for being an ethical spammer, and allowing his targets to opt out. He even went so far as to say, if you dont want my stuff, I dont want to send it to you.
Then, just a few column-inches later, there he is whining about the cost of setting up an opt-out mechanism now that he is being forced to do so. Sounds to me like a clear and blatant lie, and the reported didnt point bother to point it out.
Did publish it, though...
Why is Alan Ralsky still alive?
:)
It's a good thing that he lives so far away, because HE would be DEAD, and I would (probably) be in PRISON!
It would STILL be worth it though!
I dunno what it is, but I've gone from 300 spams per day, to 400 pieces in the last week or so. Spammers trying to beat Jan 1st? Or a sudden increase in the number of relays that they've been able to use?
My question is whether the FTC is actually going to have the money to enforce anything. I guess we'll see, starting next week.
Hypocrisy.
Now I no spam fan (is anyone?) but the man is doing what he has to do in his eyes. This goes in line with the earlier thread about commercial skipping. Many, many posts stated that its too bad so sad for the TV networks that they can skip commercials. The technology exists so commercial skipping is both legally and morally acceptable in those poster's opinions.
I don't see a difference. This guy is just doing what is technologically possible. By the same reason, you can't be mad at him for that. Think of this little piece of what he does as spam block skipping. Same thing, the shoe is just on the other foot. And its two sizes too small. And has a 4" heel.
What does it all mean? Watch for both sides to go toe-to-toe on the technology until everyone's rights on both sides are all f'ed up. Then the government will step in further and both sides will like the outcome even less. But hey, if both sides has used reason in the first place, see a few ads, get some stuff for free, maybe we wouldn't even be talking about any of this: spam, TV, pop-ups, anything. Noone will win now.
Here is a list of the Attorney Generals around the country and the world. Everyone should contact their AG and demand that they prosecute these crimes. Until the public puts pressure on the authorities to enforce the crimes these spammers commit, nothing is going to change.
since we have a debate on our hands about legalizing drugs[marijuana, coke..], how about we legalize spam , companies can register,float public offerings. From the pro's side, it would make companies accountable for illegal access of other computers to send spam. This still doesn't mean that there wouldn't be rogue spammers. But if there is more money to be made and acceptance, big fishes will choose to register - may be charge these companies per packet basis, like the old days.
Security by law sits right next to security by obscurity on the list of things that help a bit, but by no means make a complete solution. Making spamming illegal isn't going to stop spammers, because sending spam by a virus-infected computer is already illegal since virus writing is illegal too... those laws haven't allowed us to stop running anti-virus programs, have they?
The bottom line is that SMTP has got to go. We need to get wide adoption of an e-mail protocol with authentication that the "from" address being claimed belongs to the sender of the message. That's the only way to make sure that spammers lose their ability to send e-mail without reprocussions. The face-value "from" address has to be much more relaiable than the current system lets it be.
okay, for the last time... Ceren isn't hot. She's average. Very very average. There are much hotter BSD babes out there -- you only need to look!
The NY Times article said spammers had to identify themselves. How does a spam message have to identify itself? Can't we simply hit them with Bayesian filters more accurately?
If you're having problems with that, use a different popup blocker. Some tools can be configured to still load popups and blocked images, but not display them on your end. To the server, there is no way to tell the difference.
From that description it sounds like he's a pretty damn good spammer. The world's worst spammer is probably some guy trying to send spam through his AOL account.
- New e-mail
- Paste address
- Paste body
- Send e-mail
- Dismiss popup ad
- New e-mail
- etc etc
- Profit!
No, I think ol' Alan is good at what he does. Of course that's like arguing who was the best serial killer...From an older /. article:
:)
ALAN M RALSKY
6747 MINNOW POND DR
WEST BLOOMFIELD, MI 48322
Dunno if this is accurate. But the address is only 8 miles from the town mentioned in the NYT article. Plausible.
Have a productive night
I can see it now:
V.ote for me.... your V ia gra can.didate ___________________________________ xzpoasd
click here to unsubscribe. (fake link on purpose)
Spam sucks, that is a given. To me though, the asshats running the black lists are just as bad if not worse. It does not take much to get on those lists, and it is very difficult to get off. All it takes is a few complaints, whether they are legit or not does not seem to matter. One email to your ISP or web host and they will drop your account in a hurry, especially if you are on a shared server. They cannot afford to have systems blacklisted, period. It is easier to just drop the offender and get off of the black list than it is to investigate and see if a real infraction occurred. You try running a business online, and you will see for yourself how you cringe everytime you send a newsletter out, whether opt-in or not.
Is how this guy is making money out of this at all. Who reads this stuff? No-one! The amount of emails sent that actually arrive, are read and then acted on has to be approaching zero. Or is he just charging advertisers $500 per million for email that no-one reads? $500 that the brain-dead advertisers keep blithely paying simply because he sends them an invoice every month?
Hell yeah, I know Bill Brasky! He's a big fella, goes about 6'4", 280. He loves his Scotch!
Good Lord above... What about the millions of private E-mail boxes, privately-owned servers, and God only knows how many other computing resources, belonging to other people, that Ralsky and his spamming butt-buddies have already abused, and CONTINUE to abuse in some cases?
I would be very interested in hearing how "fair" the owners of all those resources think the new law is. Oh, granted, said law is far from perfect. However, if it helps to force criminals like Ralsky out of business for good, I will be the first to give it a round of applause.
Ralsky's misguided belief that he has any right at all to abuse property that does not belong to him is typical of the spammer mindset. The sooner he, Scotty 'Snotty' Richter, Eddy Marin, and all their spamming ilk get shut down permanently, the better off the Internet will be.
Bruce Lane, KC7GR,
Blue Feather Technologies
It's not hipocrisy. When I skip a television ad, that's my right. You may argue that the only reason that the television program I'm watching even exists is because of advertising revenue. Know what? That's not my problem. I have NO contract with any advertisers, and no obligation to watch their drivel. I have no contract with any broadcasters, and no obligation to hold up their end of a bargain with said advertisers.
Broadcasters sell commercial spots on the basis that the advertising will be broadcast with the show, and offer the advertiser some sort of assurance that a certain demographic will be OFFERED that advertisement for viewing. However, I never said I'd watch it. Neither did you.
Now, spammers such as the dipshit in question here are literally STEALING bandwidth and cpu cycles from servers worldwide. They are INFECTING systems and using them as zombies to mail their crap. There is a world of difference between commercial skipping and theft.
As an aside here, Ralsky also says that we have no clue what he's mailing? Maybe I can't pinpoint mail-for-mail the ones that dipshit sends, but spam is spam and very recognizable no matter who it's from, whether it's a legit business, or a single spamming schmuck.
...write a nifty little program that will check my spam folder and then simulate a click thru to the websites that are being pitched? Seems that if we all did this, those servers would be bombarded with hits thus killing the viability of spam as an advertising method.
no, it doesn't say that at all. at least, not in the article. In fact, it says just the opposite.
This is a man who came up with a way to make a living for himself doing nothing wrong. There is nothing wrong at all with trying to support yourself as a spammer. The if people don't like it they will try and stop you by vilifing you, and doing anything they can to disrupt the distribution of your product. Look at Big Tabacco for example there have been some regulations but for the most part, its been a smear campaigns, public opinion and education working most strongly against them. The only difference is the spammers don't have multibillion dollar war chests to lobby with and protect them from crap laws. Letting Uncle Sam regulate much of anything is a generally a bad idea. He does not understand what he is doing because all the career politicians that make him up need a good smack with the clue bat, I don't care what party they belong too, I am not aware of anyone in Washington who has not either been there too long or should never have been eleceted at all. Remember slashbots these are mostly the same folks who brought you great ideas like DMCA, Campain Finance reforme, Orange Alerts, the Patriot act, ignored an offer to have Bin Ladden turned over to us, etc, etc. Turst me these are not they guys you want to encorage to play in the tech-sector.
If you don't want some spamers crap flowing over your network do something for yourself for a change, drop a few packets, install a filter.
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
...he's just a symptom. Imprison him and someone else will pick up his lost business contacts and opportunities. U.S. laws will simply mean his revenue taxes will go to some other country.
What we need is to get rid of the "demand" end of this issue. Tighten up email so it requires at least some level of authorization to send to someone else, even if it's just by having a certificate of trust or something.
Mr. Ralsky said that he was uncomfortable about this deception, but that he had no choice. "Is putting bogus information in your registrations the right way to do business?" he asked. "No. But the Internet world has forced me to do that."
Why do people still think this is a valid excuse. I am sorry I killed my husband but he didn't use a coaster. I am sorry i killed my child but she kept crying. I am sorry I killed one million people, but they were in the way.
No one makes you do something. You make a choice. You make a choice to go to school or not. You make a choice to go to work or not. You make a choice to live an honest life or not. You make the choice, and you should be man or woman enough to stand by them and take responsibility. Not be yet another sorry excuse for a human and say "I don't recall" or "I didn't know" or "I was ordered to".
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
http://www.wonker.com/spamking.asp -- this was covered here before though. Couldn't find the /. article...
"Ralsky admits using open relays and virus-infected PCs and not honoring unsubscribe lists."
:).
Unless we're reading different articles (I read both of the ones linked) he only admits to using open relays and he specifically states that he does honor unsubscribe requests.
As for virus-infected PC's the closest he comes to anything even remotely resembling that is this quote:
"I have changed the way we mail totally," he said. The spam fighters, he added, "have no idea what I'm mailing. They could never pinpoint it and say this is from Al Ralsky."
So WTF...?
(Not to say I wouldn't like to see him burn in hell though
I am beginning to think Ralsky doesn't even exist. He is just a made up entity for us to laugh at. Kinda like SCO.
It's all Politics
Wow, I thought one couldn't steal things that don't exist in physical form. If one can't steal things that aren't real, how could there be a theft? *Chink* What was that sound? The armor of slashbot think again.
Shoes on the other foot, shoes on the other foot...
Someone please tell me why this person is not in prison for spreading viruses? He should share a cell with the kid who modified the MSBlaster worm to steal info.
Remember, Slashdot does not have a -1 disagree moderation, and no, troll, flamebait, and overrated are not substitutes.
But I feel sorry for him. I feel sorry for anyone who hasn't murdered someone who is targeted by the state.
The idea that the government can save us from everything we dislike is an absolute obscenity.
I understand there are reports of cannibalism coming out of that part of the world. So we send them not spam, save that for the Hawaiians, but the spammers. We should ship them over intact when possible to facilitate simpler inspection by the north koreans taking possetion of the livestock, and free us from the odious task of having to butcher them.
One secret BBC camera crew later, and there's a pretty significant disincentive to spamming. And yes I would watch a spammer going through meat processing for an hour. Tell me I have a small penis and need bigger breasts will they....
Guess you were wrong ;)
But seriously, you could replace 'stealing' with hijacking, trespassing, fraud... let's see what else? BAH... you know what I mean!
What else would Ralsky say about this new "tough" spam law? Did anyone else ever tell their parents after a spanking, "Didn't hurt, didn't hurt!"? What was the result? After getting a harder spanking that did indeed hurt, children quickly learn to pretend to feel pain to avoid a worse punishment.
I think Ralsky is openly complaining about the slight inconveniences this law has caused in order to affirm this law as effective, hoping to avoid tougher legislation that would actually hinder his "business" practices.
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
It was an interesting read but after offering to settle twice with the lawyer for Sound Ford in WA State, where he did *nothing* I was forced to sue them.
"I have never once been ashamed of what I do," he said. "I feel this is a business that has afforded me and my customers a better way of life."
That's an astonishing line coming from him. Millions of people would love to kick him in the nads, and he's not ashamed of that? 50 million people in the USA stand up and say "We don't want telemarketing calls", and he's still not ashamed?
Oooookay. I'm glad I have a soul.
"Derp de derp."
I dunno, I think this chick looks much hotter! Dunno why though.
Hmm ... so someone transfering an electronic balance isn't stealing? What's your bank account number?
--just call me. My number is 1-800-EAT-SHIT (extension AND-DIE).
In general i'm not too bother about regular dead tree advertising. In general it's *fairly* well targetted and a good enough source of things like pizza coupons.
If spam was targetted to me and *clearly* marked so it didn't interfere with my regular emailling, and allowed me to easily unsubscribe - i dont think i'd mind too much.
I have no need for penis enlargement pills, but don't objected to what are technically unsolicited adverts from my local computer store. Even if I wanted to take advantage of 90% of spam I couldn't because i dont live in the US.... that's just wasteful.
The difference is, when you "steal" by copying an mp3, the original is still there, you haven't taken anything away. When you "steal" bandwidth, cpu, etc, you are depriving the legit owners of their access to it.
In every interview with Ralsky that I've read, I've seen him mention that he had to use open proxies, open relays, etc, etc. He doesn't seem to ever admit to having any systems that do the actual mail sending, instead he has always stated that he hijacks other systems to send out his garbage. There are many computer tresspass laws on the books here in the US already, and Ralsky is in the US. With his public statements, why hasn't the FBI picked him up for computer tresspassing charges?
With all he has done, it would not surprise me in the least if the examination of his computer network revealed the source for at least a few of the worms/viruses used to turn an Outlook Express user's computer into a spam sending drone. Again, there are laws on the books already that cover these sorts of illegal activities in the US.
Another thought that popped into my head, is why the IRS hasn't come after him for tax evasion? With all of his wealth, and his admitted morals, you know he hasn't claimed all of his income on his 1040's. A nice tax audit in the face of an FBI investigation would likely reveal all of those companies that are paying him to break the law and send their garbage out through these (essentially) hacked systems. They could also be brought up on charges as accomplices in any computer tresspass actions.
I guess the biggest problem is that there would need to be damages shown. Well, having run a regional ISP's mail servers for the last 10 years I can tell you, there are a lot of damages to be accounted for that are the direct cause of spam. The countless hours writing and implementing anti-spam filters, the angry customer phone calls, and all of the emails we get accusing us of selling our customer lists to spammers, etc. Not to mention the lost revenue from people switching providers because they were getting too much spam. The damages to our company over the last few years alone amounts to tens of thousands of dollars if not more. The AOL's, Verizon Online's, etc. have lost a lot more.
Its next to impossible to quantify in exact dollar amounts though. The process goes like this, "our mail servers need to be upgraded because the volume of mail is higher". Can it be attributed directly to spam, or to a growing customer base? Things may get easier after January 1st for us, but I'm certainly not holding my breath.
So if anyone out there sees this, and has a cousin or friend that works for the FBI or the IRS, you may want to turn them on to Ralsky and crew. Make him an example and others may (but probably won't) be deterred from entering the same line of (ahem) "work".
The geek way to stop spam:
Step 1: Create a mod for a popular first person shooter game involving a list of prolific spammer and relistic weapons.
Step 2: Distribute said game to those "evil teenagers that plays too much video games and get influenced and shoot up their classmates".
Step 3: Wait for problem to take care of itself.
That way loosers who shoot their classmates and random people are *educated* to shoot the actual varmints of this society instead of random innocent people. And for the rest of us who can learn to differentiate a game from real life, it does sound like a fun game...
Somebody asked for his address, I supplied it (from Spamhaus/ROKSO), and that counts as flamebait?? Sheesh....
Q: What does the "B." in Benoit B. Mandelbrot stand for? A: Benoit B. Mandelbrot
He makes it sound like he's the victim because people block his emails.
Maybe he should figure out that those are not his networks he is sending the emails over.
And the "if you don't like it unsubscribe..." bit is funny. How about, if I want it I'll subscribe?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
"the new CAN-SPAM law will cost him an additional $3000 in costs to set up a genuine opt-out list. Anyone here feel sorry for him?"
Yes, I do, sort of. It's not $3,000 to set it up, it's $3,000 per month. I hate spam, I think even less of spammers, I want them shut down. But I think the only way this is going to happen is if they can work legitimately. Strange, eh? Well, if they're working legitimately, it means I can easily say "NO LEAVE ME ALONE" and they'll have to respect that to stay in business. That solves my problem. But if it's too hard/expesnive to operate legitimately, then what will it do to the SPAM market besidse move it's base to a place where US law doesn't reach? I'll still get spam and he's out of a job. (Sorry, I don't have enough anger in me to wish him homeless.)
Eh, maybe I don't feel all that sorry for him, maybe I just feel it's futile. I dunno. To be honest, I don't think he's the right guy to blame. He's providing a service and making decent money out of it. It's the companies providing the demand for that service who are the real problem.
"Derp de derp."
But he definitely deserves a very hefty fine and prison cell with Bubba.
This is one aspect of American culture that really disgusts me (and I'm American). So many of us believe that if you go to jail, then you deserve to be raped. It's such a common belief now that it's as if the punishment for crime were rape instead of prison, and prison is just the place where the punishment (rape) is carried out.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
he will comply with the law!
...WHO?
Well that's good-enough for
I find CAN-SPAM to be far to lenient. I propose flogging and, possibly, death if they continue to insult my penis size.
Oh, and before you say "cruel and unusual punishment": THE PUNISHMENT DOES FIT THE CRIME, DAMMIT
---
Never criticize religion on Slashdot. You will be modded down for "Troll" no matter how factual it is.
He's an excellent example of a selfish individual
Everyone is a selfish individual. There is no way to avoid it. Selfishness is an amoral concept.
and capitalism at its worst.
Fraud and looting, both of which are intrinsically part of spamming, are the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism is about exchanging value for value freely, not about taking others' property or using lies to make money.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
[OT]
Here's a new line on "theft". Stealing potential value.
The "I wasn't going to pay for it anyways but since I got it for free I'll use it now" line of thinking is highly hypocritical.
If you're going to use it [song, movie, application, media of sorts] then it's obviously of value to you. If you didn't create it then you're not entitled to it [unless the author gives permission]. Therefore you have stolen the value of the media from the author.
So yes, you can steal an "mp3". For example, if an author sells tracks for 0.99$ and you listen to it then the mp3 is worth 0.99$ to you. Just because you haven't paid for it yet doesn't mean it has no value.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Ralsky is using technology to impose his view on the many unwilling, and their personal space.
With commercial skipping, the many are using their technology in their personal space in a way contrary to the will of media companies.
The media companies bought no one's individual time. They bought a slice of opportunity to vie for many people's time and attention. If they use that fleeting opportunity to be combative with people who's attention they want, a poor choice. But remember those great commercials? Mean Joe Green takes a kids coke and give him his Jearsy? The Bugle Boy adds where the had 39 seconds of hot nearly naked wet women in slow motion followed by a second of their product? The hot 7up girl? Cindy Crawford's pepsi spot? Joe Isuzu? The F'ing Rainer beer commercials? Or any of the others either funny, or titilating, but that made you want to spend the next half minute seeing what they had to say?! Hell super bowl commercials are almost as big as the super bowl, and depending on the year bigger!
In short. Forcing your personal will on the unwilling market == EVIL, and you should be tortured to death by the most disturbing and painful methods available for as long as the body can hold out. Accepting the will of the market, that's what it is all about.
This guy is just doing what is technologically possible.
Riiiiight. So, if you're doing something that's technologically possible, that means it can't be immoral? You know, it's technologically possible for me to find out exactly who you are, "Mike Hawk," and what services you use (email, IM, IRC, etc) and constantly crapflood every service you avail yourself of with penis pill spam. Say, I could constantly spam any email account you have, and send you those windows messenger pop-ups (if you use Windows), and if you use an IM client, find out your screen name and spam you over and over and over again. Now, you can set up a firewall to block the windows messenger popups, and email filters and everything else, but I can still find a way. I can disguise my identity, and the content of the messenges, or maybe I could find a root kit for whatever OS you use, and hijack your entire computer and turn it into one giant, penis-pill advertisement.
Now, I no spam fan [sic] (is anyone?) but I'm just doing what I have to do in my eyes. I'm just doing what is technologically possible, so you can't be mad at me for that.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
I think spam is one of those things that require a mulit-pronged attack to fix. Here are some suggestions:
- Jail/Fine spammers
- Fix mailing protocols so the sender must be authenticated, and force all mailers to have no open relays.
- Enforcement at the ISP level, both the sender and recipient.
- Opt-in/opt-out lists.
- Boycott companies that use spam. There probably aren't too many legitimate companies that use spam, but according to the article, Omaha Steaks used to use it.
However, if it helps to force criminals like Ralsky out of business for good, I will be the first to give it a round of applause.
The problem with wanting to round up "criminals" is that "crime" is arbitrarily defined by the state. Remember when everyone who drank alcohol was a "criminal" in the USA?
Instead of throwing around the state-sanctioned "criminal" label, let's peg Alan for what he really is: he's a fraud and a thief. He steals other's bandwidth, service, and time. He uses fraud to hock his products. Both of these (defrauding and theft) run contrary to humans functioning in society as free and moral individuals.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
is just another SPAMmers new mailing list.
This is all driven by money.
Wouldn't it be nice if companies that use SPAM as a form of advertising had to indictate that on their website (i.e. target audience has an easy way to check).
Then people could vote with their $$$s and people could refuse to deal with these companies.
If people seem to be getting SPAM for these companies then it would need to be investigated - either the company is lying (big fine) or someone is commiting fraud (trying to use the company's name without the company's permission).
After enough voting with their $$$s the correct situation would finally be obtained.
Maybe you can try an experiment and steal some electricity. By your way of thinking it doesn't exist in physical form either so you should be just fine.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
Could you rephrase?
What if the mp3 is only worth $0.25 to me, but the author won't sell it for $0.25?
The author thinks it's worth $0.99. I don't.
There are many things I download off the Internet (music, video games, software, etc) that have essentially zero value to me beyond the time I spend acquiring them. If it came down to a choice between "pay $50 for this video game or don't have it at all" I would choose "don't have it all." So I have no problem downloading it for free instead.
There is nothing wrong at all with trying to support yourself as a spammer.
As long as you ignore the "theft" part of it.
Look at Big Tabacco for example
Stop trying to change the subject.
Letting Uncle Sam regulate much of anything is a generally a bad idea.
Allowing the state to enforce laws which prevent individuals from depriving other individuals of life, liberty, or property is a valid function of the state.
If you don't want some spamers crap flowing over your network do something for yourself for a change, drop a few packets, install a filter.
In other words, if someone steals your service, you should defend yourself but leave the thief unscathed so that he may contine his evil work.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
He even went so far as to say, if you dont want my stuff, I dont want to send it to you.
Every spammer says this, but remember the first rule of dealing with spammers: Spammers lie.
Spammers say they don't want to send spam to people who don't want it, then come up with ways to subvert spam filters. If the really didn't want to send spam to people who didn't want it, then why subvert a spam filter? Someone using a filter obviously doesn't want spam (by definition), yet spammers keep bitching about filters, and how they're making their line of work difficult.
The Spam King's many faces.
...just ban 172.*.*.* || *@aol.com from your mail server =P
I do not have a spam problem.
/dev/null that sucker. Keep one address just for friends and compadres and you'll never have a spam problem..You'll also know who you can't trust cause it shows up right in the To: line....Sure, one or two might show up once in a while because they guessed it but I have had the same address for almost a year now and I get 0 in my inbox while my Spam box gets /dev/nulled with the full confidence of nothing getting lost.
1. Buy yourself a domain and setup a default alias that you check...
2. For each website you goto that needs an email, give them their own.
yahoo.com gets yahoo@yourdomain.com
cheaptickets.com gets cheaptickets@yourdomain.com
monkeysex.com gets monkeysex@yourdomain.com
and so on. If one happens to sell/use your address, big deal,
If religous zealots don't believe in Evolution, then why are they so worried about bird flu?
This guy is just doing what is technologically possible. By the same reason, you can't be mad at him for that.
Well, it's technically possible to stab you in the gut with a rusty knife. So if someone did that to you, your own logic prevents you from being mad at them, right?
Moron.
He said he was sending 70 Million emails a day with a target of $500 profit per Million. That is a cool $35,000 A DAY. I personally don't like spam any more than you do but it certainly looks like Ralsky isn't an idiot by any means. I'm sure he has bent more than a few laws in the mean time but at $35k a day he is only pulling in about $12M a year. I'm sure there are more than a few people out there willing to bend a few laws to make over $12M in a year.
Just My $0.02
Of course he is stupid
"He calls the law unfair, but adds, "You would have to be stupid" to try to violate it."
Despite his claims, he is still spamming and violating laws. Don't be surprised if he keeps it up well past deadline to go "legit." Then again, what else do you expect from a spammer?
There is nothing else new in this article, just the same old ego boosting PR speak, spammer lies, justifying his criminal activities, his shady deals, disregard for the law, etc. He shouldn't have opened his trap, hopefully the good thing to come out of this is helping Alan get some much deserved attention from the government and law inforcement. Even more so with his fellow spammers being investigated for similar activities.
I heard that some ISP's were hit so hard with spam that they had to spend money to get extra bandwidth. Does he feel bad that his business is directly affecting that of others, especially the business of people he depends on.
"E-mail is not working any more," said Brendan Battles, a longtime marketer who has sold CD-ROMs containing long lists of e-mail addresses. "More people are mailing and you get less and less response." Battles says he has virtually given up the business. "E-mail marketing is a good thing," Battles said. "I create jobs. But the media has made e-mail out to be some sort of terrorist plot."
You may be missing the point here. At least with commercials you are getting something in return. In exchange for the presence of the commercials--whether watched or not--you get to watch Tales of the Rich and Confused, or whatever.
With spam, all you get is the opportunity to sit there and hit "select all," "delete."
Hic iacet Arthurus, rex quondam rexque futurus.
That's just it. It isn't upto you how much it's worth. The fact that it has any worth at all means that you're cheating the system [and ultimately theft is just cheating in capitalism].
My point was to debunk the argument "I wasn't going to buy it anyways". Then it has no value to you which means you shouldn't be downloading it.
And you don't generally download something unless it has some value. Even if the value to you personally is minute it's more than worthless [otherwise you waste bandwidth and really ought todo something else with your time...]
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Good for you, but not so good for others
In other words, you send out over fifty thousand "challenge" emails a month, most all of which will be to innocent third parties who were unfortunate enough to be joe-jobbed. Not only are you bombarding others' inboxes with crap they never asked for, you are effectively doubling your own bandwidth consumed by spam. TMDA not only doesn't solve the spam problem, it actively makes the situation worse.
My next sig will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush
If Ralsky actually admits the use of hijacked computers, doesn't this put him in jeopardy of other laws besides CAN-SPAM?
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
i'm not sure what universe you're living in but alan ralsky's version of capitalism is much closer to what we have here in this country than your version.
capitalist enterprises seek to take without rewarding or exchanging to maximize profits.
if you can get an inch for free why not take a mile and claim it's just an inch and beg for forgiveness if you get caught?
that's the capitalist way. it's alan ralsky's way.
and the can-spam act is a bunch of bull. it was written by spammers, the dma, to protect their fiefdom and profits at the expense of the consumer.
the only move left for consumers is to walk away from this type of marketplace.
legislators will not protect us. the courts will not protect us.
only we can protect us by refusing to do business with any person or company that does not abide by our standards of living.
Capitalism is about exchanging value for value freely, not about taking others' property or using lies to make money.
It's really unfortunately that neither Capitalism nor Communism have ever been tried.
I mean that literally. Communism isn't about dictatorship, torturing and executing one's political enemies. In supposedly Communist countries, Communism was just a name put on a brutal dictatorship.
In America, Capitalism is just a name placed on the worship and priveledge placed on weathy people - no matter how they got that way. Every large fortunte comes as a result of a crime, or someone found a way to game the system - like this Alan Ralsky.
Once you have money, it is easy to maintain wealth because of the "heads I win, tails you loose" laws put in place to protect large fortunes.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
So it'll be okay if I run up your phone bill? After all, it doesn't exist in physical form.
One line blog. I hear that they're called Twitters now.
We block approximately a quarter million inbound spam messages a day, not counting the millions of messages that we don't ever see because the source IP address is on RBL+, PDL, etc.
For server operators, a major criteria for the effectiveness (cost-effective, etc) of any anti-spam approach is the amount of resources (bandwidth, CPU, disk, hours of human effort) are required.
By that standard, putting ADV on the subject line and telling users "just hit delete" is a failure.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
In prison. Too bad too. One mail problem deserves another.
His bombs were uncommonly cunning, and typically would maim as opposed to kill. I think one airline executive got what appeared to be a book with a note that ready something to the effect of, 'I thought you might like to read this.'
For Ralsky we could have Ol' Ted mix in a little irony too, like an exploding penis pump from Swedish Erotica (modified to explode, I don't think they come that way.)
You're making a logical error. Value != money. Today I played some Age of Mythology. It's a decent game. I downloaded it for free, and I enjoyed it, but it's not worth the $34.95 they want for it at Wal-Mart. Does it have value to me? Sure. It was worth the bandwidth. Wasn't worth much more, though.
If I couldn't have downloaded it for free...I simply wouldn't have played it.
Tresspassing and Theft for unlawful use of other people's property. Especially for the use of hacked PCs.
This is why we need honeypots to be legal tools to end users. I can understand them not making sense for ISPs if they're capturing and logging everyone's legit traffic, but I should be able to monitor anything that passes through my machine that I didn't invite.
I used to get over 400+ spams every 2 weeks in my hotmail account. This has dropped to 70 a week very recently. I wonder if that drop has a direct correlation to Alan stopping his spam . Amazing if so. One person responsible for over %80 of my spam.
-Nuke the moon
Typically what's the funniest major taboo?
Necrophilia, Rape, Child Molestation, or Cannibalism?
Okay, I'm biased, but I can't wait until we see him in prison
You cant be serious. You want this person jailed? While i admit spam is obnoxious, I wouldnt suggest it an offence to warrant incarceration.
Unsolicited commercial messages are streamed at you constantly, billboards, tv, radio etc etc. I dont want to get in a debate about how terrible spam is (uses resources 'we' pay for yadda) but really, is it *that* different? To warrant JAIL TIME? Really now, I think this crowd needs a little perspective.
He admits in the article to "honoring unsubscribe requests." However, the article states that there is no way to prove that he is, or that the emails are actually from him.
I don't see a difference. This guy is just doing what is technologically possible....
;)
This is the most insightful post I've read in a while, and pretty much all the replies so far have been from nit-wits who didn't get it. Prepare to be modded into oblivion
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
So yes, you can steal an "mp3". For example, if an author sells tracks for 0.99$ and you listen to it then the mp3 is worth 0.99$ to you. Just because you haven't paid for it yet doesn't mean it has no value.
No, you flunk econ 101, if it sells for $0.99 and you aren't willing to pay that and instead steal it, it is certainly not worth $0.99$ to you.
I've been skipping commercials since the first time I recorded a TV show on my VCR in the 80's.
Skipping commercials on a recording you've made has always been possible; modern devices are simply improving on the fast-forward button because of customer demand. The idea is "I've recorded a television show, and I'd like to view it in the manner of my choosing". The price you pay is giving up real-time viewing.
Advertisements aired during television programs are a deal between the networks and the advertisers, not between the networks and the viewers. The ad slots will be worth less if it is shown that less people watch the ads because of 'skip' features. Perhaps the quality of the programming will decrease because of this; the networks might have to seek alternate funding, such as subscriptions, pay-per-view, and such. That is the risk they take when their business is based on voluntary advertisement-viewing; they are not innately due any payment simply because they created and aired a show for public viewing.
Unsolicited email, however, is both a public and private nuisance at others' expense. The telecoms and ISPs whose resources are being abused to deliver an obnoxious amount of unwanted data to their paying customers are not being compensated as the television networks are. They didn't request to be spammed. Their customers don't appreciate it either.
The spammers started pissing in the pool because it didn't have a No Pissing sign. Open SMTP relays were misused as gratis advertisement delivery devices. So we locked down the relays. We blacklisted networks of known spammers. We created elaborate swimsuits with more or less effective piss filters, and they kept floating around with grins, urinating gleefully all over everyone in warm yellow delight, using various questionable methods to whiz upon humanity.
People are tired of getting pissed on. Nobody wants to wear a raincoat all the time, so maybe some anti-pissing legislation is in order.
The TV networks, on the other hand, draw their customer base via public broadcast of free entertainment, which is viewed on a voluntary basis. They pay their bills by blending in paid content with the goal of getting the customer to pay attention to it. If the customer is choosing to ignore the paid content, their delivery method is ineffective and they need to find another way to do business. Bossing the people around who voluntarily pay their salaries shows lack of creativity and will only serve to generate animosity in the long term.
To sum up, ignoring commercials is not stealing and is typical human behavior; spamming is unjustified and could be construed as stealing.
Of course this is all in my verbose opinion.
Wow, you missed the point by a mile. I didn't say I believed that, only that some slashbots did.
Not necessarily, suppose it is on but noone is using it...
One has then taken nothing, only borrowed what is not in use.
Um no. That doesn't follow.
For instance, I steal a 100$ cpu from a local store then proceed to sell it to a "friend". How much do I charge him?
And besides that, that's not the point. The point is it has at least *SOME* value to you. Therefore you're stealing.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I can't wait until all spammers are processed just like the canned meat.
Fast machines, powerfull AI, impulsive invention,... All I lack is a good espresso machine!
I can't help but wonder if he's been paid by AOL and MSFT to give a reverse testomonial *for* the Can Spam bill. Reader reads "Spammer doesn't like Can Spam bill"; reader thinks "Hmmm...that bill must be pretty good.
Yes, I am joking, but feel free to don the tinfoil.
All one has to do is hit the right keys at the right time and the instrument plays itself. - Johann Sebastian Bach
Again that's not the point. The fact that the game has worth/value to you [e.g. playability factor, time spent downloading, whatever] and you didn't pay for it shows that you stole it.
What else do you call acquiring things of value that you didn't pay for?
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
According to the article, Ralsky admitted to "hijacking" other people's computers to send his spam. I could be wrong, but isn't this sort of thing illegal now ? Or is it only illegal when 12-year-old kids do it ? If American anti-hacking laws are truly fair and effective, shouldn't Mr. Ralsky be in jail by now ?
>|<*:=
Why don't we make him read this /. story as punishment? Maybe reading what all of us have to say might make him see the light.
I did pay for it. I paid what it was worth. Bandwidth, and a little time. But not cash.
about the money he *IS GOING TO HAVE TO* spend to set up an unsubscribe process.
Making it clear he doesnt currently have one.
He lied.
One way to relax is taking a drive in the country. Get in some fresh air. Enjoy the scenery.
Now - I paid for the car and fuel. And my taxes pay for the road. But what about the scenery? Am I stealing from the land owners? By your example, are they not somehow entitled to something since they are providing some form of value?
Hopefully there is a provision in CAN-SPAM to keep him from selling his opt-out list to other spammers.
The problem with an opt-out list is all a spammer has to do is "re-invent" his business every so often and then send to the list of known good e-mail addresses he has accumulated from various spam opt-out lists. Something like OptInRealBig.com goes out of business and OptInReallyReallyBig.com buys the assets and starts spamming again generally with a holding company that controls both making sure everything happens the way its supposed to behind the scenes. It just means a spammer has to split his profits with a corporate lawyer who makes sure that all the legalities are correctly followed.
I run my own mail server so it will be easy enough to set up a short-lived e-mail account and submit it to Ralsky's opt-out list, then delete the account and see how many spam bounces show up in my sendmail log. Since the account won't exist when the spam hits, my only cost other than time and effort will be the MTA connection being refused for a non-existent account. This could be fun.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
That's like paying for fenced goods.
That's still theft [both you and your ISP]. Only since your ISP is probably a common carrier [or whatever local law has] only you and the source are liable.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Looks like meat's back on them menu boys!!! (that is for the /.'er who referenced eating his flesh)
6747 Minnow Pond Rd
West Bloomfield, MI
48322
His home phone# is 248-926-0057
His work phone# is 248-926-0668
He also has two celluar phones which I traced back as AT&T Wireless numbers. Not sure if both still in service - give a call, don't forget to block your numbers!!!
248-766-5996
and
248-766-6362
Send SMS Here
I suggest we all gather our junk mail/coupons/fliers and start mailing it to his house, and all start making collect calls to his house/work and cell's. We pay for OUR internet access - and he uses our time/money/bandwidth without consent, its only fair that we return the favor.
If anyone has any viagra (I'm sure someone does) - pleaes mail him some - with a lovely note attached on how to enlarge his penis. Maybe his boyfriend will thank you...
Cheers,
Anon
Except there in that case you are protected by your rights. You have a right to be there. [And as we know you can't restrict your rights with civil law, e.g. I can't sue you to stop breathing or something]
You're not legally entitled to that mp3 in any sense. So your argument is not even close to similar.
Similar would be if you were on private property. Then yes, you are enjoying the value of the property without paying for it so that is theft.
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
They are still depriving the owner of it in the event that the owner decided to try to use it while they are clogging it with junk. Just because I'm not in my car, doesn't mean taking it for a joy ride and bringing it back with a full tank of gas before I notice isn't stealing it...
For some reason these are not appearing in the craptacular search at the bottom of the page.
1 1/22/165825 6&tid=111
5 54227.shtm l?tid=133
The Original:
http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/
Slashdot's Revenge:
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/12/06/1
If Rawlsky follows the rules, not only will he be paying more to send spam but filters will be infinitly more effective.
The rules force spammers to reveal themselves. While spammers could avoid the rules without legal reprocusions they could circumvent filters that depended on those rules for effectiveness. Now that they have to follow the rules, filters will do their job much better.
For example, I've never gotten a spam that followed the rule of putting ADV: in the subject.
Yes spam is legal so more spam will be sent. But filtering out legal spam (hey wow, a federal distinction finally) will be child's play.
Sure you'll still have to put up with foreign crap but spam is like litter. Every little bit helps.
I can't believe how many people fell for the spammers' lies that this law would be good for them. Now that it's show time, the lie is falling apart.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Wouldn't it be nice if companies that use SPAM as a form of advertising had to indictate that on their website (i.e. target audience has an easy way to check).
So where *IS* the database of companies that have used SPAM in an attempt to sell products?
Where is the web page that lists each and every company's infractions?
ProE spammed the FreeBSD lists. (They make CAD software. They had no explaination as to why a Windows product would have any interest for FreeBSD users other than to suggest that FreeBSD users might wish to upgrade to Windows)
Broadfax spammed advertising their fax product.
Where is the list of all of these various infractions so a buyer could check said list and tell the company - nope not buying from you...you have used SPAM as a marketing method.
????
Just because some other posters didn't get it, and you did, doesn't make the post insightful. It just means that both you and 'Mike Hawk' don't understand that Slashdot isn't an entity with a single opinion.
Slashdot is an entity that only mods up accepted opinions.
Ever since I've started filtering based on URLs that spams link to (text in a src or href can't be obfuscated or it won't work), the amount of spam I get is amost none.
However that still wastes a bit of bandwidth. It guarentees at least a 50% savings since the spam only makes it in and not out which isn't bad.
It'll still be nice to be able to reasonably expect that the header information is accurate so I can block that and save even more bandwidth.
Time to find a new job Rawlsky. Or move to China.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
He wouldn't have a job if companies wouldn't pay him for his services. I wouldn't download 300+ spam messages a day unless someone out there was clicking on them. All falls back on the un-educated computer user. I would imagine they would also have bad credit, problems keeping it up, and an overwhelming curiosity to see a naked Paris Hilton.
*DrugCheese rants*
Holy good GOD, someone mod this up.
I'm sick of seeing Usonians make uneducated claims like "Communism is evil" and "Capitalism is God's way". If I made it my company policy to torture a poorly-performing worker every Thursday and called it micromanagement, these same people would claim micromanagement was to blame for all the suffering and high employee turnover.
Yah, $500 per mil (or $35k/day) might be his target. That doesn't mean he's actually achieving it. One can always hope.
C|N>K
I can't believe the stupidity of the slashdoters who think pirating music is ok, but receiving spam email is some terrible criminal offense. Can't wait to see some guy end up in jail for sending emails? Ridiculous!
If you want an open internet then you take the good with the bad. But you don't want an open interent. You want an internet where daddy can make the bad spam go bye-bye. You want an end to the arms race that pushes innovation because you are a tired, tired bitch.
I, for one, DELETE THE SPAM! Oh my god, how horrifying this work is, how terrible, how back breaking, how I scream at night: SPAM SPAM SPAM!!
No. Get real -- It's easy!
And if one of my addresses becomes unusuable, I'll get another! Wow, that costs me an arm and a leg. That's like murdering my soul! How terrible and criminal those spammers are!
Uhhhhhhh... Get a life!
You whiners are just like the people who want to lock down the internet because some kid might use it to download porn, or because some people download music and music, or because you might learn how to make a methlab! You are the same, the same, the same. You suck, you suck, you suck.
I can't wait until YOU go to prison!
I think he's doing a PR spin. This law is actually good news for spammers.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
Actually, I mentioned many posters, not all. Did I say all? Even once? No, but the slashbot POV is that if it is possible using technology it is ok. That is to what I reply. Check the other thread for yourself...
Mr. Ralsky is Ferengi and spam is dealt with under the Rules of Acquisition. When Ralsky receives the death penalty his remains will be sold...wait for it...in cans of spam
"Academicians are more likely to share each other's toothbrush than each other's nomenclature."
Cohen
During the past few weeks i've seen a reduction in the amount of garbage in my hotmail inbox, I thought Microsoft implemented a new spam filter - maybe not.
From the article:
But he has not sent a single message over the Internet in the last few weeks.
Maybe the reduction in spam was due to this guy taking a break.
-ted
Bastiat, the ~1870s French economist, was probably not the first person to explain this fallacy, but he's the best-known. Sure, successful spammers create some jobs, but they also destroy other jobs, as well as wasting everybody's time and annoying everyone.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
are you going to church on sundays? technology enables me to go up to the entrance with a powerful speaker and advise the parish about this great new strip club in town, and that in the middle of the sermon
The e-mail adddress is valid
The message slipped thru the filters
And the e-mail owner reads their e-mail
Does anyone really belive that Ralsky dislikes this law? Sure, he'll need to stop hacking, but this legitimizes his operation. All he needs to do is comply with a few regulations and he 'CAN-SPAM' to his hearts content. More honorable industries suffer far more regulations.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I'm more laughing at the idea that he would actually create and follow an opt-out list.
Wait... he's never bothered to properly follow opt-out protcol before, what makes you think that he'll start now?
Spammers, by their very nature, are not law-abiding critters...
his home/cell phone numbers ARE listed below in the thread, but were modded to hell.... someone plz mod it up so it can be seen by the masses!!!
Women are like internet domains. All the ones I like are taken, but I can still get one from a strange country.
Y'know, as a straight guy, I'd actually consider paying to download a picture of Ralsky's asshole getting raped in jail. That would make me feel like there's some justice in the universe.
I thought that was "trespassing".
The $3000 fee for a working opt-out list is a small expense. (not to mention a one-time expense).
What is going to be the real cost to him is reduced "email deliverability". By having to NOT falsify headers and provide a contact phone number and a link to his opt-out system, filtering/blocking his emails will be trivial. That means many less people will get the emails and he will less return for the dollar.
-Jackson
P.S. visit myemma.com for email marketing done the right way.
Here
Women are like internet domains. All the ones I like are taken, but I can still get one from a strange country.
Okay, I'm biased, but I can't wait until we see him in prison.
I'm also biased. I'd like to see him strung up by the balls and used as a pinata.
I guess that's why I'm not a Judge in a criminal court. Oh well. Might be fun though...
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
catches Ralsky in the act of lying
I liken his use of open relays to trespassing in someone else's warehouse and setting up a meth lab. Sure, he'd like to just run the lab out of his basement, but the gosh-darn neighbors might complain. You gotta do what you gotta do.
Anonymous Luddite: "What do you think of the dehumanizing effects of the Internet?"
Andy Grove: "Not Much."
You know, tom, I read /. a lot, I see you around, and now I know why people call you a manham canner. I can't keep making the same argument over and over again, as you're not getting it. You simply don't have a logical bone in your body, do you? Well, enjoy your canned manham.
... read "Anal Raslky ...?"
I rub my forefinger and thumb greasily together....
"This is the World's Smallest Violin playing My Heart Pumps Purple Piss For You."
>>Alan Ralsky, commonly known as the world's worst spammer.
Ralsky's not the world's worst. That dubious honor goes to Eddy Marin of Boca Raton FL, convicted coke dealer, and generally believed to be the main impetus behind the SLAPP suit against the "nanae nine." Google around for 'rokso marin'.
The reason for Ralsky's supposed contriteness in the NYT interview is not any sense of having seen the error of his ways; the reason he's running scared is the recent lawsuit against fellow spambag Scott Richter of Denver CO.
All three of them need to be dressed up in frilly lingerie and dropped into Bubba's cell along with a bucket of chilled champagne.
In supposedly Communist countries, Communism was just a name putIn supposedly Communist countries, Communism was just a name put on a brutal dictatorship. on a brutal dictatorship.
Where do the tenets of communism state that the actions carried out by the brutal dictatorships were unjustified? How do the tenets of communism prevent a brutal dictatorship from arising?
In America, Capitalism is just a name placed on the worship and priveledge placed on weathy people - no matter how they got that way.
In America I don't see the poor amassing to hold worship ceremonies for the priveledged wealthy. In fact, I see the opposite.
Every large fortunte comes as a result of a crime, or someone found a way to game the system - like this Alan Ralsky.
The tenets of communism define that wealth is obtained through crime. Under communism, it is axiomatic.
Once you have money, it is easy to maintain wealth because of the "heads I win, tails you loose" laws put in place to protect large fortunes.
It is also easy because you could bury money in your backyard. That would be a very, very easy way to maintain wealth (actually lose it, considering market lending rates) that involves no laws at all. Those pesky laws, by the way, are the ones that protect individual property rights. You know as well as I that individual property rights are abolished under communism. They're *evil*, remember?
That reminds me: how do you feel about China moving to enshrine individual property rights in their constitution?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
Or you should 'steal' some cable television programming. It doesn't exist in physical form, either, so you should be just fine.
Oh, wait. We're in favor of that sort of 'clever hack.'
A Good Intro to NetBS
It's obvious from his capitalism-uber-alles attitude and his insistence on his right to make money however he wants that he's an American.
Sorry. You can't 'equate' Capitalism and Communism.
Capitalism is just a label applied after-the-fact to a set of practices and a way that people interact commercially. 'Communism' is an ideology spun whole-cloth out of theory by a dude sitting in the Britsh Library who inherited his wealth.
Capitalism is something that evolved. 'Communism' is something that a bunch of ideologues in the 19th century said 'was the next evolutionary step' but which didn't happen.
See the difference?
A Good Intro to NetBS
The law is too hard. Now if you happen to report that you paid him $XX,XXX to the IRS and they audit, he will end up in jail.
Actually no it isn't. Trespassing is being where you are not wanted [among private property].
In Canada for instance, you can go and camp on someones front lawn. Until the minute they post a sign visible from public property or tell you otherwise you are not breaking a law.
I'd say you are steal from the owner though since you are using the land [even if you're only sleeping on it] which is obviously of value to you.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I sit in the smallest room in my house with Ralsky's statement of complaint before me. In a moment, it will be behind me.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
IMHO...
The only way to deal with jagoffs like this is to install fear into them. They have been terrorizing ISP's and users mailboxes for years, so hit them back. Laws wont do crapola. Operations will move off-shore, deception will become stronger and more wide spread. I think that you put the fear of god into this pricks. If they think that someone might come up to his house, light a flaming bag of crap. When he tries to put it out, someone hits him with a baseball bat.
That would be effective. Not necessarily moral, but sometimes when someone annoys you, and they cant take a hint, you have to take alterior action. Either that or be a door mat.
He still should be tied to a treee and fed Ex-Lax for a month.
More fun than the death penalty.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
You post is somewhat true. However, the law only applies to unsolicited bulk email. I'm sure there will be a million ways to "accidentally" solicit email in the near future.
Engineering and the Ultimate
By his own admission, he once produced more than 70 million messages a day from domains registered with fake names, largely by way of foreign countries--or sometimes even by way of hijacked computers ...
Does this make him liable for criminal charges if anyone can find one of those hijacked computers? IANAL, but even admitting to a crime without any evidence should still have a prosecutor sniffing around, shouldn't it?
To celebrate the occasion of my 1000th post, I will post no more forever on Slashdot. Goodbye.
i'm not sure what universe you're living in but alan ralsky's version of capitalism is much closer to what we have here in this country than your version.
I'm saying what capitalism is. Whether or not others choose to follow it is their perogative. You seem to have your own definition of captialism, and I believe you equate it axiomatically with evil.
capitalist enterprises seek to take without rewarding or exchanging to maximize profits.
Your philosophy has little to do with rewarding merit and much to do with fulfilling need. It colors everything you say as much as my opposite philosophy colors what I say.
if you can get an inch for free why not take a mile and claim it's just an inch and beg for forgiveness if you get caught?
If you define captialism as evil, then you believe that earning as well as taking is "taking".
that's the capitalist way. it's alan ralsky's way.
It's much easier to attack your enemy than it is to attack his philosphy, isn't it? If you attack the philosophy you run the danger of entertaining its ideas. I am very familiar with your philosophy and I think most every bit of it stinks to high hell.
and the can-spam act is a bunch of bull. it was written by spammers, the dma, to protect their fiefdom and profits at the expense of the consumer.
"It was written by evil people to do more of their evil." Uh-huh, uh-huh, uh-huh.
he only move left for consumers is to walk away from this type of marketplace.
One of the many cool things about capitalism is that it does not prevent you from making this choice. In fact, I invite you to walk away from the marketplace. You don't improve it, and your presense will not be missed.
legislators will not protect us. the courts will not protect us.
My ass your legislators won't "protect" you. What do you think every social program is except looting under duress of one group and giving the plunder to a poorer group where votes are exchanged for the service?
only we can protect us by refusing to do business with any person or company that does not abide by our standards of living.
Strangely enough, I agree with you here, but not in the way that I think you want me to agree with you. I also choose not to do business with companies that are unethical. It's unfortunate that we don't have infallible, benevolent angels here to police human behavior. Instead, all we have are other humans with their own motivations and philosophies that irritatingly don't always match our own.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
"Watch for both sides to go toe-to-toe on the technology until everyone's rights on both sides are all f'ed up. Then the government will step in further and both sides will like the outcome even less. But hey, if both sides has used reason in the first place, see a few ads, get some stuff for free, maybe we wouldn't even be talking about any of this: spam, TV, pop-ups, anything. Noone will win now"
If both sides had used reason...
Seems to me that I ( and billions like me ) are one of those "sides". What "reason" could I use? What am I supposed to do?
There is one "side" that controls how much of this unneeded wastefull crap is sent out, and brother, it aint me ( if it was, none would EVER get sent ).
So, all that said, I do buy the argument that spammers, by going so far in what they do, have ruined it ( to the extent that it is ruined ) *For Themselves*. And I say good riddance.
Also, this argument falls apart. I chose to watch television knowing that the way that the programs are subsidized is thru advertisement. So, I can either watch the program or not, or go buy a DVD and see it without advertisement ( in theory, anyway... ). With email, I have already purchased everything that I need to use this facility, and none of this is subsidized by advertisement. The advertisement is coming to me even though I do not want it, and regardless of steps I may have taken to keep it from coming.
Are you a spammer? STOP!
And yes, I can be mad at him. He/she/it wastes my time and money in ways that I have not allowed.
emt 377 emt 4
Does that mean that even with the act in place people still CAN SPAM?
Snowden and Manning are heroes.
Visit project web form flooder at http://formflood.sourceforge.com and you can hit back the spammers that annoy you. Or check out Unsolicited Commando at http://www.astrobastards.net/uc and hit back spammers in general. Or do both, but for cripes sake, do something other than reelect representatives that think that CAN-SPAM is going to help at all!
Thank you for going completely off-topic and missing the point.
I don't want knowledge. I want certainty. - Law, David Bowie
real prison and not the "country club" one....
hell....prison in iraq or afghanistan would be good too.....it'll have an added affect of helping the iraqi economy since there will be job openings for prison "guards."
of course, allowing everyone in the US give this guy a paper cut and then dunk him in a vat of lemon juice is also satisfying.
If you're going to use it [song, movie, application, media of sorts] then it's obviously of value to you.
True.
If you didn't create it then you're not entitled to it [unless the author gives permission].
False. Unless you're going to claim that playing a CD for a friend is "theft". And there's the whole matter of fair use.
For example, if an author sells tracks for 0.99$ and you listen to it then the mp3 is worth 0.99$ to you.
That doesn't follow; all you can claim is that it's worth more to me than 0. It may be that I valued it at 7 cents, and due to transaction costs it could never be offered for sale at that price. In that case, there is no "potential value" being "stolen".
Intellectual property just isn't the same as physical property, and simplistic analogies almost always fail.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Alan Ralsky dies and re-incorporates in Hell. Startled, Ralsky asks "What am I doing here? I never killed or raped anybody." A bureaucratic looking demon in wireframe glasses sat him down at at a battered desk overflowing with paper and said "Look you're not here permanently. You just have to atone for your sins and you can go...well..to the other place."
"Oh! But what did I do?" asked Ralsky.
"You've sent a multitude of unwanted emails. You couldn't take no for an answer several billion times over. Look at this desk. Do you think that is all paperwork?" Ralsky pulled nervously at his collar as he noticed that some of the papers did indeed promise the demon a larger penis or fantastic real estate deals. "So what do I have to do?"
"Well", said the demon getting up from his chair and leading Ralsky out of the room. "You have clean up the spam." He led Ralsky to a vast warehouse stacked floor to ceiling with herbal viagra ads and other such 'valuable' offers. "How am I supposed to clean this up?!?!" fretted Ralsky.
The demon grinned maliciously as he wadded up a breast enlargement ad and said "Turn around and drop your pants."
Yep, Ralsky's complaints are nothing but a head-fake. Off with his head.
Remain calm! All is well!
Fairuse is limited to viewing though. I invite a friend over to listen to my new CD they can't replay the CD whenever and never buy the CD.
So sharing an mp3 with a friend is not fairuse [though I'd argue making an mp3 copy of your own copy of a CD is fair use].
The idea is that you are consuming something, you're not legally entitled to it, it's of value [to you and them], that's theft. Plain and simple.
Sure you're not depriving people of a physical object but that's not the strictest definition of theft. For example, stocks are not physical yet you can steal that too right?
And in the end the argument "it's not worth X dollars to me" doesn't pan out. The owner wants to sell/license/rent/whatever the property for X dollars, you pay X dollars or do without.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
Wow, I didn't know that the arts of transmitting data through hyperspace (rather than copper wires or antennae) and storing it in alternate dimensions (rather than on hard drive platters) had been reduced to practice.
/. If the government wants us to respect the law, it should set a better example.
This has come up on another /. article about spam, and I happened to copy it down in case I need to use a "fake" address for "valuable products and offers."
Fairuse is limited to viewing though. I invite a friend over to listen to my new CD they can't replay the CD whenever and never buy the CD.
Doesn't matter. If I let my friend listen to the CD, he's getting value from it. The law allows this, thereby rejecting your theory that obtaining value without paying is theft.
Sure you're not depriving people of a physical object but that's not the strictest definition of theft. For example, stocks are not physical yet you can steal that too right?
The difference is not whether the object is physical, but whether it's rivalrous. If I "steal" your stock, you don't have it anymore. If I "steal" a digital file you're offering for sale, you do.
The owner wants to sell/license/rent/whatever the property for X dollars, you pay X dollars or do without.
Yes, that's the law. But it doesn't mean that the author suffers a loss of X if I illegally copy it.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Who said I was "equating" the two?
.
Despite their origins, they are both labels for economic ideologies. I *often* hear people citing "that's the way capitalism is supposed to work" to justify
If capitalism is simply a label applied after the fact, then how can it be used to justify government policy?
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
That should say "to justify whatever". I had some puctuation to emphasize the word. That's what I get for not using the preview feature.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
I don't see a difference.
The difference that you're not seeing is that when I skip a commercial, I'm not pushing any expense onto that advertiser.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
'Freedom' justifies many of the things that people label as 'capitalism' when arguing about government policy.
Freedom isn't an economic ideology. Perhaps people should stop mis-using the term 'capitalism.' I certainly wouldn't mind a lot more self-proclaimed 'anti-capitalists' having to admit they're really anti-freedom.
A Good Intro to NetBS
That sounds like a great idea! Make sure you record reactions with a video camera!
It's my personal opinion that the post was insightful. Then I remarked that many of the people who replied didn't seem to understand the point that was made. I never made the argument that you are suggesting.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
I'd rather see him dead.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
I'm not anti-capitalism or anti-freedom, but I can see how being pro-freedom could be used to argue both sides of an issue.
As an example, let's talk about media consolidation. Recently the FCC lifted some regulations on how many TV and Radio stations that a single entity (like a corporation or a person) can own.
Some people would argue that having those regulations in place infringes on the freedom of a person to buy all the TV stations they want.
Others argue that allowing all of the media outlets to fall into the hands of a very small group infringes on the freedom of the the majority of people to have the public airways used to broadcast a wide variety of perspectives.
If you really think about it, the first argument (the pro-capitalist argument) is kind of like saying that the bill of rights infringes on the freedom of the King of England to have his every whim obeyed. In other words, it just proves you can twist things around and have some really fucked up perspectives on things.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Because it's not a violent crime. For a repeat offender, you _might_ have a point. But at that point the spammer himself (by virtue of his clear contempt for law) is a danger to society. Up until that point, it's simply not worth societies resources to jail this person. I'd much rather have a convicted murderer or rapist in our over crowded prison system than some shmuck trying to make a living and get rich.
Here's a much better way to put all this nonsense in perspective: Think about all the awful things done in the name of capitalism every day. The 16 hour a day sweat shops where they make you take drugs to work harder and faster, the Dow Chemical/ Union Carbide disaster and cover up, the crap going on with Dick Cheney's old company over Iraq reconstuction contracts(Haliburton is it?), or my personal favorite: the sweat shop making Bart Simpson merchandise that burned down with the employees locked inside so they wouldn't be distracted and maybe work a little less. Sure spammers are scum, but compared to most capitalists, they're practically saints.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
For instance, I steal a 100$ cpu from a local store then proceed to sell it to a "friend". How much do I charge him?
That store is then down one physical, very real CPU which they then cannot even recoup the unit cost of because it's fucking GONE.
That is theft. Copyright infringement is not the same thing, no matter how much you try to merge the two in your own little world.
-1, retarded, cliched analogy
That's actually false. In Canada, if you trespass where there is no warning sign, you are still in violation of the law.
All the sign is for is to give the landowner the right to use physical violence (non-lethal) to remove trespassers from his or her property. Without it and provided you don't threaten them or cause damage to property, they can only ask you to leave and call the police to have you removed.
Doesn't matter. If I let my friend listen to the CD, he's getting value from it. The law allows this, thereby rejecting your theory that obtaining value without paying is theft.
His logical flaws get worse. In Canuckistan, it's entirely legal to make a copy for your own personal use of a CD that's lent to you by a friend. Not only can you listen to a borrowed disc, you can make yourself a copy of it, all fully legal.
He'll need a bottle of mangoo to wash it down with.
Where are my mod points when I need them?! Mod parent through the roof!
-=- 4ntifa -=-
Fraud and looting, both of which are intrinsically part of spamming, are the antithesis of capitalism. Capitalism is about exchanging value for value freely, not about taking others' property or using lies to make money.
Try looking up the definition of capitalism:
capitalism - n : an economic system based on private ownership of capital
There's nothing about honesty or providing a fair exchange in the definition of capitalism. It's all about acquisition. Capitalism is about getting as much money as possible through whatever means achieve it. Lies, deception, and fraud are what happens when capitalism is not sufficiently regulated by the government.
How many millions has this guy made, and hes upset over having to spend 3grand?
Geezh.
Id willingly give up that sort of cash to stay in a business with so much profit.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
What else do you call acquiring things of value that you didn't pay for?
Civil disobedience. The law is an ass and I have absolutely no problem ignoring it. If you think it's reasonable that M$ should be paid $35,000,000,000 per year for ten programs it mostly wrote more than a decade ago you need your head examined. Note that this payment is solely because of broken law and an opportunistic company. The "natural" state would be no law, no copyright and everybody copying as they please. See also this item.
---
It's wrong that an intellectual property creator should not be rewarded for their work.
It's equally wrong that an IP creator should be rewarded too many times for the one piece of work, for exactly the same reasons.
Reform IP law and stop the M$/RIAA abuse.
Theft is about taking something and depriving the original owner.
It is not about taking something and depriving the original owner of potential gains.
For example if I steal $500 from you, do you think a criminal court will charge me for having stolen $1000 from you or $1000000 from you because you could've used that $500 to buy a lotto ticket which may have been a winning ticket? If I steal your car and you can't get to work, will I be charged with two counts of grand theft; one from the auto and another from stealing your potential work wages?
The reason taking $500 from you is theft is because you no longer have $500. You have been deprived of that. Same with your car.
Now lets say I download for free a track being offered for sale for $0.99. Does the person selling the audio track still have it? Yes. Did I steal a dollar from them? No, they have just as much money as before. In order for it to be theft they had to have been deprived of something they already had.
Even using your argument it's ridiculous. Let's assume that depriving someone of potential gains is theft (which it most certainly is not). Let's say one store is selling the track for $0.99 and another is selling it for $5.00. If I download it for free, how much did I steal $0.99 or $5.00?
Furthermore because we're innocent until proven guilty (at least in the US and most western countries) you'd have to prove that I would've otherwise paid for it in the first place. Let's say I testify and say I would never have bought that track. Doesn't matter if I made purchases from the store before or made purchases from other stores before. If I say would never have bought that particular track, how do you plan to prove that I deprived them of a potential sale?
Finally as other's have pointed out. How does it follow that a track that is being sold for $0.99 is worth $0.99 to me if I download it for free? Maybe I value it as much as I value the results of my morning crap. After all I spend a lot more time making that then I do downloading an mp3. I also spend more than $0.99 making it (unless it's ramen noodles or something). Frankly you really don't know how much I value it. You only know how much the store values it (i.e. $0.99). However that's fine because they still have it.
After getting a harder spanking that did indeed hurt, children quickly learn to pretend to feel pain to avoid a worse punishment.
No, they threaten to shop their parents to the social services if they even think about doing something like that. Welcome to the 21st Century.
"Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
Your concept of "regulation" is unAmerican. People will always lie and cheat. Free people make laws to punish liars and cheats. Liers and cheats make regulations that screw everyone else. Thomas Jefferson contrasted the condition of Native Americans, who he thought had too few laws, with the condition of French nationals, who he though had too many laws and decided that the Indians were better off.
Anne Rynd did a nice job of Americanizing the concept of "capitalism", a British term from 1877. Her greatest fear was "altruism" defined as you and me helping ourselves to someone else's wealth on behalf of ourselves, others, or some larger social good. "Regulations" frequently have this goal.
In any case, there's nothing wrong with either your or the previous poster's aversion to fraud. You suggesting that fraud is compatible with freedom, however, is misguided. When you feel like bowing to someone else, ask yourself who's gaurding the gaurds.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
What I'm waiting for is the 'Do Not Spam' list so the spammers can complain that people who desperatly want their products might not get the spam they need.
Get the big black guy from Mississippi Burning to do a number on him.
In 1992, he served 50 days in jail on a charge related to failing to deliver documents to a group of investors. Two years later he was convicted of falsifying documents that defrauded banks and was ordered to pay $74,000 in restitution.
"I was in a bad business with bad partners," he said.
But now that's all changed, right?
Man... some people just don't deserve to live...
Reading this article on Alan Ralsky leads me to believe that he lives a "sheltered" life away from his victims. He has a criminal record and apparently has trouble recognizing right from wrong. What's worse, he doesn't see the logic behind the laws, filters and rights of others to keep spam from thier inboxes.
I think it would be great to have a well publicized and open debate between this spammer and one of his victims. Furthermore, it would be even more interesting to allow viewer call-ins and people in the audience to ask questions. To be fair we would also have to have a non-spammer who likes to receive spam on stage as a third opinion (that might be extremely difficult to obtain).
On second thought, it sounds like an episode of Jerry Springer...
*CRASH - the chair splinters into pieces as the victim hits Al Ralsky with it*
Seppuku: Your solution to my problems!
I'm giving up my mod points to respond to this...
As a frequent vendor at trade shows, I can tell you that what johnnyb's company is doing is 100% legitimate. As a vendor, you are often entitled to the mailing list of the participants. Registration by an attendee is with the understanding that your information will be made available to the vendors for just this purpose. This information is (should be) usually displayed on the registration form. As a safe-guard against making sure that you don't get the bejesus spammed out of you, a lot of conference promoters limit a vendor's use of the mailing list to a single mailing.
His use is legitimate and, as described, he is not a spammer.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
>>The magazine company, the snail mail spammer, and the personal contacts ALL PAY FOR END TO END DELIVERY OF THE MAIL THEY SEND
Actually, this is not entirely true. The US Postal Service is subsidized by the federal goverment. Taxes are not paid to support its "routine" operations, but instead go to continue to support its monopoly on non-priority mailings. Bulk mail is delivered at a reduced rate. Ergo, it is actually your tax dollars that are paying for some of the delivery costs.
Ryosen
One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
To amplify your point by analogy, spammers more or less subvert the network satelite feed to broadcast their commercial over the commercial free premium channels.
In addition, they tend to be a much lower class of business than the usual advertisers. MOST advertisers WANT you to know exactly where they are located and how to get in touch with them.
MOST advertisers of 'adult products' make every possible effort to avoid advertising to children.
What we need to do is pass a new law that says it is illegal to buy a product from an email solicitation unless the buyer can demonstrate that they opted in to the mailing list. In addition, require all email solicitations to quote this law, and mention the $500.00 fine associated with buying via spam.
Then we have the government send out some phoney spam which we know nobody opted in for, and voila! a bunch of $500.00 fines. When every internet user knows someone who has been hit by this fine, most of them will stop replying to spam, making it unprofitable for the spammers and the problem will go away.
Fastmail.fm gives you something similar. You can link any number of aliases of the type yahoo@yourname.fastmail.fm or cheaptickets@yourname.fastmail.fm to your account. Then use the filter to delete out spam..
...companies that make use of spammers?
I've never seen (personally) spam from Omaha Steaks, but now that I know they use spammers I will NEVER buy a product from them again unless I see a published apology from them.
I'd like to avoid other products as well. So, is there a website that lists the more well known companies that abuse e-mail in this manner?
Loading...
Every large fortunte comes as a result of a crime, or someone found a way to game the system
I'm assuming that by "game", you mean "cheat" here. In which case, I call bullsh*t. Proof by counterexample: lottery winners.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
Try looking up the definition of capitalism:
Maybe you should try looking at the definition again. It's pretty short, isn't it? Everyone creates their own understandings for what capitalism implies. I choose to create a moral version of captialism that rejects making money off of force or fraud. You choose to create an immoral version of capitalism where force and fraud are rewarded. It is this immoral view of capitalism that you use to smear all of capitalism.
There's nothing about honesty or providing a fair exchange in the definition of capitalism.
To me, capitalism assumes honesty and exchange of value-for-value that the consensual participants consider fair.
It's all about acquisition. Capitalism is about getting as much money as possible through whatever means achieve it. Lies, deception, and fraud are what happens
The definition you gave contains none of these. You imposed them.
Do you believe that individual property rights are good or bad?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
How to tell a hacker from a cracker:
When a hacker does something, everyone is impressed by the size of his balls.
When a cracker does something, everyone wants to cut them off.
Some people would argue that having those regulations in place infringes on the freedom of a person to buy all the TV stations they want.
And they would be right. Person A wants to buy something. Person B wants to sell this something to person A. Then the government steps in and says, "A, you do not have the right to buy this, and, B, you do not have the right to sell it."
Others argue that allowing all of the media outlets to fall into the hands of a very small group infringes on the freedom of the the majority of people to have the public airways used to broadcast a wide variety of perspectives.
I believe people have the rights to life, liberty, or property. Here, you add "the right to the the majority of the media not falling into a arbitrarily-small group of people". It just smacks of emotionalism.
If you really think about it, the first argument (the pro-capitalist argument) is kind of like saying that the bill of rights infringes on the freedom of the King of England to have his every whim obeyed.
Freedom can not imply that you are free to remove someone else's freedom (or life, or property).
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
About a year ago, I signed up for a swedish porn site. I used a special address (let's just say that it's something like anonymous.coward.acme_corp_wet_stars@...), which lets me know, when and which provider sold my address to spammers.
Coincidentally, not long after my membership expired, I started receiving e-mails to that address. YES, unwanted e-mails. YES, SPAM e-mails. They now bombard me with penis enlargement pills e-mails and occasionally a friendly nigerian guy (son of some king there) searches for business partners on the same address. I mean really(!) - why don't they just send me some quality porn.
Now I find out (from the article - and YES, I read it) that some swedish contacts sell e-mail addresses to this guy for spamming purposes.
This will be a lesson for life! Never sign up with your own address to any porn site - always use the addresses of your in-laws.
Dude, try and distinguish between Usenet (or /.) bravado and the reality.
When people say death to spammers, I don't think anyone, but the kookiest, really means that. It's more of an expression of the frustration felt by everyone who hates spam. It's the frustration towards spammers, law enforcement, legislators, ISPs, mainsleazers hiring spammers, spamware peddlers, and everyone else not doing their part to stop spam when they could.
You say punishment should fit the crime. I would tend to agree with that statement. However, the current situation, and it has been so ever since spammers started their criminal activities, is that there is NO punishment. The criminals get away with everything they do. Just look at the the interview with Alan Ralsky. The criminal being interviewed practically confesses to several serious cybercrimes, to spamming (illegally) and is unrepentant and wows to continue with new illegal ways to spam (stealth spam). What the hell are we supposed to think? That's when people start saying things like death to spammers, not because they really want them dead, but in the same way kids say "I hate you, I hope you're dead" when they get angry at someone.
And to conclude:
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers. The more painful and slower, the better.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
"Yes, that's the law. But it doesn't mean that the author suffers a loss of X if I illegally copy it."
Yes it does. Had you followed the rules you would have to pay X for the product. You decided to circumvent the authors distribution. In the end, you have something the author sells for X for free.
That's just like stealing a 1$ chocolate bar as a kid. You have to pay the store back 1$ not the 0.39$ they paid for it. Did you steal the 0.61$? Yes.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
How many falsehoods can you fit into a /. post?
The confontration at the FTC summit in DC was instigated by Mark Felstein, an attorney, who the New York Bar Association wouldn't accept into their ranks because of his past deeds, and who sued seven high-profile anti-spammers trying to silence their vocal dissaproval against the Florida spammers hiding behind him. He physically asasulted (pushed and shoved) the FTC commissioner when he was trying to separate him from anti-spammmers he was trying to bully in front of the cameras.
Talking about the wider issue of why people are increasing their hostility towards spammers...This is exactly what ALWAYS happens when the laws of the land are unjust. That's when vigilante justice has always historically arrived. It is clear to everyone, but spamming criminals, that the current laws do not protect Internet users from the illegal activities of the few. This is why some (not all, not most, some) of us feel like they're entirely entitled to take the law into their own hands, however (legally) wrong that might be.
Personally, if I knew I could get away with destroying some spammers infrastructure, be that his house, network connectivity, spamming data centers, his supply chain or whatever else the spammer needs for his spamming activity, without hurting anyone else in the process, I would do it right now. Furthermore, if someone actually did that and was caught, I would donate to his legal defense in a heartbeat.
Proletariat of the world, unite to kill spammers.
The more painful and slower, the better.
In Soviet Russia, I ruled you
It's a lot like the do-not-call list. If you've had a relationship with a company within 90 days, they can call you. Giving them your phone number counts. This isn't any different. The fact that you provided a legitimate opt-out mechanism (that you mentioned a couple of posts ago) strengthens your position.
Commercial email is not going to go away. Perhaps the best that we can hope for is responsible commercial email and you've provided several good examples of it. The fact that there are people out there who don't understand that spam is unsolicited commercial email shouldn't get you too lathered up
-h-
Nah, I don't want him dead or in prison. I just want the law amended so that for each spam message received, the spammer must bear the expense of transporting the spammee to their location so that the spammee can get one free kick into the spammers nuts. Call me crazy but even if it doesn't have an immediate impact on spam the longer term effects might be felt by seriously limiting the ability of spammers to procreate. (Still working on an amendment to the law for female spammers).
"The bigger the lie, the more they believe." - Det. Bunk
I get literally about 5,000 spam e-mail messages a month. And while Panther's Mail program has an excellent spam filter that catches over 95% of it, I still have to go through the Junk e-mail box by hand to make sure I am not deleting any real e-mail messages.
I think this cost is higher than the time required to delete them. It would be easy to just have the filter delete the spam, it would save me a ton of time, but if I miss those 5 or 10 e-mails a month that is huge.
False positives have especially been a problem for me recently for two reasons:
I just graduate from college and our e-mail addresses are going to expire, so a lot of my friends have hotmail accounts and such, and have been sending their contact info to lists of their friends so those get identified as spam. If I miss these e-mails I may not be able to contact some of my friends
Even worse is looking for a job. I am constantly sending out my resume and then getting responses back, some of which are auto responses, from unfamiliar e-mail addresses in response. If I miss these e-mails I could miss a great job offer.
Stupid @#$#$ spammers, I think Federal fuck you in the ass prison is definitely acceptable.
5016 Patrick Rd. West Bloomfield, MI 48322 Subscribe this guy for magazine subscriptions, abd bill him later. and to Alan Ralsky I would recommend to keep his blinds down at all times.
IDIOTS!
It's not the value to you... it's the MARKET VALUE:
The amount that a seller may expect to obtain for merchandise, services, or securities in the open market.
Again refer to the first line of this post.
Seeing as having to register and give ones credit and family history just to read a ******* story sucks, here it is:
Alan Ralsky, who has made a successful business of spamming, is on a hiatus, but says he will soon resume bulk e-mailing in compliance with a federal antispam law. He calls the law unfair, but adds, "You would have to be stupid" to try to violate it.
By SAUL HANSELL
Published: December 30, 2003
lan Ralsky, according to experts in the field, has long been one of the most prolific senders of junk e-mail messages in the world. But he has not sent a single message over the Internet in the last few weeks.
He stopped sending e-mail offers for everything from debt repayment schemes to time-share vacations even before President Bush, on Dec. 16, signed the new Can Spam Act, a law meant to crack down on marketers like Mr. Ralsky.
He plans to resume in January, he said, after he overcomes some computer problems, and only after he changes his practices to include in his messages a return address and other information required by the law, the title of which stands for Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing.
That is quite a switch for Mr. Ralsky, who has earned a reputation as a master of cyberdisguise. By his own admission, he once produced more than 70 million messages a day from domains registered with fake names, largely by way of foreign countries - or sometimes even by way of hijacked computers - so that the recipients could not trace the mail back to him.
Most experts in junk e-mail, known as spam, have dismissed the new federal law as largely ineffectual. And many high-volume e-mailers say the law may even improve the situation for them because it wipes away a handful of tougher state laws.
But Mr. Ralsky, who lives in a Detroit suburb, says the law's potential penalties - fines of up to $6 million and up to five years in jail - are making him rethink his business.
"Of course I'm worried about it," he said after the law was signed. "You would have to be stupid to try to violate this law."
No one is saying that e-mail in-boxes will be clean of spam any time soon. But the world is getting to be a much more hostile place for spammers, particularly those who send some of the most offensive messages. The biggest threat is not so much the new law, though it is expected to play a role in stepped-up enforcement, as the increased willingness of prosecutors to go after spammers.
In recent weeks, federal and state authorities have finally gotten the attention of spammers with a series of tough civil and criminal actions.
"These suits sent a shock wave through the spam world," said Steve Linford, the director of the Spamhaus Project, an organization that tracks bulk e-mailers and tries to thwart their moves. "Lots of spammers are asking, 'Are we next?' "
Some bulk e-mailers, like Scott Richter, who was a principal target of a civil suit filed last week by the New York attorney general, Eliot Spitzer, vow to continue. But Mr. Richter has lost some major clients, including mainstream companies like Omaha Steaks.
Still, in the week after the suit was filed, Mr. Richter's company, OptInRealBig.com, was actively sending e-mail messages promoting dozens of products, including laser guns, breast enlargement pills and Christian dating services.
Others say they have been beaten down by blacklists created by antispammers and filtering systems run by Internet service providers.
"E-mail is not working any more," said Brendan Battles, a longtime marketer who has sold CD-ROM's containing long lists of e-mail addresses. "More people are mailing and you get less and less response." Mr. Battles says he has virtually given up the business.
"E-mail marketing is a good thing," Mr. Battles said. "I create jobs. But the media has made e-mail out to be some sort of terrorist plot."
Not long ago, Mr. Ralsky, like many other bulk e-mailers, had high hopes that the new fe
The cost of the literally 5,000 spam e-mails I get per month is essentially making those e-mail address 100% useless. I can check my e-mail on my cell phone. It will even notify me if I get a message. But that feature is completely useless if I get a notification every 5 minutes. While we can discuss the philosophy of this later EVERYHING = NOTHING, if I get alerts constantly, then that's the same is getting no alert. Also, I couldn't afford to have to even scan through my inbox if I had to pay for the bandwidth of all the spam being sent to my phone. So there are many many implicity as well as explicit externalities of @#$@#$ SPAM
Hello,
The clearest parallel in the traditional world is the pollution of the environment. A hundred years ago anyone could dump anything into the air or water and claim that it was 'no one else's concern', 'the dump area belonged to no one', 'it was good for the economy', ect...
Now no one (outside bribed officials in the developing world) accepts those arguments and there are strong and often enforced laws against destroying public spaces.
The bandwidth of the internet is a public space (even if most or all of the ground fiber is owned by giant corporations). Grabbing huge chunks of it for marginal private gain is the same as the Mafia driving up and down the New Jersey Turnpike dumping hazardous waste out of the back of a truck.
Plus to fight spam on an individual PC basis we have to have programs that open and parse every e-mail message arriving at the machine, which defeats the privacy that any individual person-to-person mail (either e-mail or snail mail) legally implicitly owns.
Spammers should be shut down and shut down hard. When they go overseas and spam from the third world, the government should declare a temporary trade embargo on the country. They should give the ambassador the name and location of the spammer in their country, the evidence collected, and the assurance that the embargo will be lifted within an hour of the spammer being shut down.
This would work. I'm not sure what else would.
Thank you,
I have had my email address, one assigned to me by my ISP, for over 3 years and in that time I had posted it on newsgroups, forums, etc... with no problem. My question is how do you get so much SPAM I figured in 3 years I would have at least been harvested so many times.
Since last year I have switched to using through away accounts to sign up for websites, forums, and such (i.e. my hotmail account) but I only get about 3-4 SPAM emails a day on my other account. That is why I am trying to figure out is how do others get hundreds of SPAM a day?
Make me your friend. All my friends get +1 modifier and I need friends :)
We laughed, thinking "what's the point". It never occurred to us that this tiny tiny trickle of junk mail which caused us so much amusement would one day be a constant rain of spam.
There are people today who've never known a time without spam on the 'net, who may not even know that there was a time before spam!
I pray that, somehow, one day, spam as we know it will largely cease to exist, and we'll all look back at the late nineties and early zeroes (!), and shake our head in wonder. We'll remember with anger how we let our governments fail to protect our privacy and freedom from unwanted emails, telephone calls, junk faxes, junk instant messages, junk messages on our mobile phones and so on.
Sadly it's taken far too long for things to change: the UK gov't are incompetent at understanding the message, the European Union councils are overloaded with beaurocracy, and the USA (despite the public pretension to freedom of the people) only protects the interests of big business.
I'm just amazed there haven't been more vigilante actions against spammers, scammers and rogue marketeers.
Sigh.
Everyone creates their own understandings for what capitalism implies.
And that's why we need regulation. You may choose to reject the idea of fraud, but the next guy won't. He's going to be interested in making as much money as possible selling ineffective penis enlargement pills, supposed "sea monkeys", and "miracle" baldness cures.
The definition you gave contains none of these. You imposed them.
And the definition contains nothing about "honesty and exchange of value for value." You imposed that on the definition. The difference is that we are surrounded by huge corporations who don't share your professed values.
Do you believe that individual property rights are good or bad?
They are very good. And what needs to be done is insure that someone else's desire for property doesn't end up harming others.
My god, tom, you're a fucking moron already. You keep making the same stupid, cliched arguments over and over and over again. Get this through your god damn manham canning mangoo bottling head: you cannot compare the theft of a physical object, or the theft of a non-reproduceable intangible object with the exact copying of a digital file. You keep making these stupid analogies, and every time somebody comes along and smacks you down, because it's illogical, and stupid. STOP IT ALREADY.
what's sick is this scumbag thinks it's acceptable for someone to be beaten, tortured, raped, stabbed, have his teeth beaten out with a pipe and mouth-fucked for hours on end, as long as the person can reasonably be expected to know that that's a possibility.
While all of this may be true, you're not doing your position any favors by calling him a scumbag or an idiot. Such invective only makes your opponent resistant to your ideas.
I find it more effective to ask direct questions so my opponent is compelled to reveal the reasoning behind his positions. You notice that he has yet to answer my question. We'll get to the bottom of his evil belief once he dares to do so.
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The solution for television advertisers? Make the ad worth watching. There were some Thermasilk ads out a couple years ago that I actually taped! Make a piece of art with your name on it that's so damn good that people will actually stop fast forwarding to watch it.
As for spam, it has nothing to do with paying for the internet, it's theft of bandwidth worth millions of dollars, and it's now using viruses to pry open people's machines. It's interesting that he mentions Romania. A lot of viruses are written there. The Blaster virus was most likely intended to set up proxies for spam generation, and is partly responsible for the computer problems that led to the big blackout in the northeast last summer.
People died because of that blackout.
This has got to stop.
Big if.
Sean
Exactly the sort of reply I knew mentioning "spanking" would evoke. Loving, in-control spanking is not child abuse. And yes, that could include a "harder spanking that did indeed hurt" (note that "hurt" is different than "bruise" or "injure").
If more parents would actually discipline their children (whether by spanking or otherwise), the 21st century would have more well mannored, polite, well-adjusted individuals. What's child abuse is to be the wishy-washy "yes, kid, you can do and have anything you want, here's a condom, go have fun" parents I encounter so often in this wonderful "21st Century".
I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous...
Or run him over... Whatever works.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 This is a test. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQE/8xTnDbkhGdObcF0RAnurAKCo+sAdhnTgRyEUqdpbKA BYKpTzgQCeIQyl
DrQQmF3MKcVsYzpzNtvUpUs=
=sTfR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
Why are they not the same? I think saying "they're not the same" is just a scape goat to legitimize the action.
To use your own logic against you, just because you keep saying "it's not theft" doesn't make your arguement any more reasonable or correct.
If you'd have to pay for the media and you have it without paying, that my friend, is theft. You're in possesion of something you didn't pay for that wasn't given to you legally.
I think the spirit of the law is much broader than the little pirates like you would like to think.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
I tried something similar. But, some of my friends use MS mailing products. (Hey, not everyone can be converted.) One friend got hit by an e-mail virus that sent itself to everyone in that person's address book (including me, but I don't use MS mailing software). Two days later, I received my first piece of spam at that address.
I think probably what happened is that my address got left in the e-mail header as the virus kept propagating itself. Eventually, the virus e-mail landed in the hands of a spammer - complete with a large list of valid e-mail addresses in the header. That's like a goldmine for a spammer. He knows that all the addresses are valid and current, because they're taken from the personal address books of other people in the header!
Why are they not the same?
Because as you've been told repeatedly, copying a digital file doesn't deprive the owner of it. I will end this discussion now, as it's clear that you're either impressively thick-headed, or a fairly skilled troll.
How to solve most of our problems: 1.Lots of nuclear plants. 2.Cure aging.
Most experts in junk e-mail, known as spam, have dismissed the new federal law as largely ineffectual.
Two sentences later:
"Of course I'm worried about it," he said after the law was signed. "You would have to be stupid to try to violate this law."
He wouldn't dare violate this law, but he was able to overlook the other ones about financial fraud, computer fraud, identity theft, etc.
------
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?" --George W. Bush, in Jan. 2000
Minor nit:
If you're thrown into custody long enough for something like that to happen "while passing through", it wasn't a minor infraction. Since I don't know Mississippi law, I would tend to act as straight-laced as possible while passing through. Maybe that's just me though.
So to bring this back on topic, let's talk about Mr. Alan Ralsky. He wants to spam people to advertise things for various customers. One could argue that he should not be free to do this because it deprives the general public of their freedom to use email as it was intended (i.e. without the nusance of spam).
Mr. Ralsky might argue that by outlawing spam, you are depriving him his right to use his computer (his property) in the manner in which he sees fit. Plus, you are destroying his right to earn a living and the right of people out there to hear about his wonderful (sic) products and purchase them.
I think this parallels the FCC regulation case that I cited above very closely. In both cases you have person A who wants to sell and person B who wants to buy and other parties (who you seem to be claiming are disinterested) not wanting the transaction to take place because the transaction occurs over a publicly owned medium (i.e. the internet or the public airwaves).
So, how do you feel about Ralsky? To be logically consistant with arguments you have previously made, you must be for spammers.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
Why is depriving people of a physical object the only way to define theft?
Intelectual theft doesn't involve physical objects. In fact you still have the idea in your head. So by your logic you can't commit IP theft.
I think theft is depriving people of something earned. I shelved a product and you stole it from my shop. I should have earned the retail price of the product but you deprived me of that.
I sell songs over the net for 0.99$ each and you copied them. You deprived me of the 0.99$ I should have earned.
See the problem is you guys keep repeating the same thing without really making a convincing argument. You say theft is only of tangible objects. I say why is that so. It's too limited. There are more ways to hurt people then buy stealing tangible objects.
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
If I were on the jury of someone accused of murdering a spammer, I'd vote to acquit. That is not a hyperbole or an exaggeration or a joke or a metaphor or innuendo or anything like that. Literally, there would be no possibility of conviction.
ok...someone needs to stop smoking bad stuff....
o yea....THIS is offtopic.
wait...isn't there some spam law that goes into effect tonight at midnight?
Oh..the countdown continues.
Why isn't this guy in jail?
Why? Because for way too long US law enforcement agencies have ignored Title 18 of the computer-crimes-act.
What does the CAN SPAM law do? It makes it "extra illegal" for spammers to violate Title 18 of the computer-crimes-act.
What will law enforcement do? Little to nothing. The US Congress passed the law, but gave no extra money to track down, take to court and imprison guys like Ralsky.
What else did the US Congress do? They did the DMA and AOL/MSN's bidding and took away the rights many states gave people to sue criminALs like Ralsky.
What's left to do? Well, in the 1800's vigilantes , a rope and a tree. In the 2000's? Who knows*.
AnonC
*but I welcome suggestions!
just think how much time spammers waste... if you add up all the seconds of all the people who have to deal with each piece of spam, it definitely adds up to more than a human lifetime. i have a lot of hate and not much to live for, mr ralsky. pray you never see my face.
Why is depriving people of a physical object the only way to define theft?
Because that IS the very definition of theft.
So by your logic you can't commit IP theft.
That's correct. What you call intellectual theft is not theft at all. It's called infringement on whichever IP law applies, if any. eg: copyright.
Why are they not the same? I think saying "they're not the same" is just a scape goat to legitimize the action.
The action is not legitimate, but neither is it the same thing as theft.
It's similar, but it's definitely not like stealing a $1 chocolate bar.
The $0.39 cost as well as the physical plant overhead (shelf space, refrigeration) of the chocolate bar prior to it being stolen is an unrecoverable unit expense that simply does not exist in the case of an illegally copied song.
Yes, it's people like you who warp and scar their children.
"Loving, in-control spanking" is something two consenting adults do, clad in leather, and brandishing whips (probably a behaviour they learn from the child abuse you advocate).
We have such a sick society that a whole generation of parents are hazing their children because, well, "I had to go through it."
You're the greatest walking example of why someone might think its a good idea to institute childrearing licenses.
You can take your sad children and your abusive family and stay the hell away from me and mine.
That's why we have a democracy. We elect leaders we trust and they appoint persons to serve the public interest.
How do you know that those doing the regulation will be moral people? You didn't answer this question. You just have faith that those in government will do what is good and right. As it turns out, government at all levels is rife with corruption. You've replaced one evil with a greater one.
You don't get to choose the actions of others. Enron, Martha Stewart, and Halliburton are all companies working withing a capitalist system.
Likewise, some people in labor unions are totally corrupt. Should I assume that the entire "union system" is evil becuase some of the people within it are immoral?
Furthermore, since you define capitalism as evil, you are using these facts of corporate immorality like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not for illumination.
So what is "fraud"?
This is a non-trivial question. It's why we have courts to help answer it. The courts are run by humans, so they are imperfect. It's the best we can do right now.
Does that mean that a police officer should not be able to impound the car of a drunk driver?
A drunk driver represents a threat to others' lives and deserves to be removed by force. This is a legitimate function of the state: protecting the lives of the citizenry from predators and the irresponsible.
Is depriving a child molester of liberty through forceful imprisonment immoral?
No. The abuse of the child is immoral. Someone who chooses to deprive a child of life in this way is a predator, and it is a legitimate function of the state to remove this predator from the citizenry.
Is it immoral to shoot someone who's holding a knife at your wife's throat, thus depriving them of life through force?
No. My relationship with my wife is my property (though it cannot be stolen like physical property, I would certainly feel loss and grieve if it were to be removed). If some predator tries to use force to deprive me of it, then it is moral for me to use force to protect it. It was the predator, not I, who chose the path of the animal. And those who choose to live like animals deserve to die like animals. They have no place in a civil society, and we cannot rely on the state to protect us from predators.
You do a good job of parroting patriotism in your words, but they are rather amorphous.
You have to ask specifics to understand how my philosphy works in practice. It seems like you have done a good job doing that here, though I don't think you expected me to have answers to your questions. You are, after all, a Lefist and thus defined as more "intelligent" than everyone else who doesn't accept your irrational, elitist philosophy.
My philosophy is logic-based and I could humiliate you in a public debate.
Then why not humiliate me here? We don't have to wait for a public debate. I invite you to challenge my philosophy at all of its levels, and I reserve the right to challenge yours at all its levels. If we are both rational people (and you claim to be one, though I don't believe you yet), then hopefully our dialoge will lead one of us to a greater understanding of what is ethical.
I notice that you have not denied that you define captialism as evil. I also notice that you didn't deny that the concept of "harming others" is vague. Should I assume that you agree with these statments since you made no effort to correct me?
I don't make the rules. I just make fun of them.
The law is aptly named... it means that you CAN SPAM all you want really, as long as you don't hide who you are. I work for a company that sends bulk advertising email and was asked by my boss to read the new law from end to end. Basically nothing has changed. Companies like us who clearly identify themselves, clearly mark the email as an ad, clearly state the subject and content, and always remove people who opt out will simply be easier to filter. The asshats who spoof IPs, provide false addresses and hack machines to blast Viagra ads to a million people will still be nearly impossible to track down or stop. The whole law is a sham in my opinion... doesn't change the way anyone does business except those who are legitimately trying to not be a pain in the rear. It's just there so lawmakers can claim that they're trying. In fact, it negates much more effective state regulations as well. Gotta love the government.
UNIbomber is done after one bombing. The unabomber, on the other hand might be able to help
Contrary to some people's assumptions, there is a science of combatting stenography... but it understandable demands more resources, particularly when stenography is combined with traditional cryptographic techniques that mask the organization of the message.