secretly videotaping a person in intimate situations without their consent
This would rule out most nanny cams. The issue would be where the camera is located and if the intent is to get intimate video. Now, if your baby sitter has sex on the sofa, after the baby is sleeping.....
The Loki story with the promised, delayed checks sounds like a guy I worked for.
Barry Lewis kept promising checks, but never paid. I heard from one person, that he used stock to pay the rent for his apartment. When I told him, he would get the source code for what I worked on, he then tried extortion and harassment. Not only did his extortion and harassment fail, but he was convicted of two counts last month. The district attorney handling the case wanted the judge to include anger management to his sentence because he had threatened the district attorney.
SPAMMERS are no better than thieves. They hide their identities because they know what they do is wrong! Many use stolen credit card numbers to set up drop email boxes and sites.
Maybe you think that if you rape a woman, it is ok because she can avoid you raping her another time by staying away from you.
The $50 is statutory damages. The law specifies this amount so that the court does not have to be bothered with determining the amount. But, it is not just the bandwith, but the cost of storage, processing, and reading.
Of course Intel argued in Intel v. Hamibi that there is also a cost in developing filters to prevent futher spam.
If they wanted to argue for more damages, they could, but then it would take testimony and expert witnesses.
I don't mean the autoreporting of spam, but protection from web beacons, bugs, or whatever they call it.
Some spammers put in an image tag that includes the email address, or encoded email address as part of the image request string so that they know it has been opened. That way, they can verify the address.
Even though it got too expensive, they backed down!
I'm not saying that it was right or wrong of them. I am saying that bullies like this only succeed when people don't fight. If you back down during a fight, it doesn't count when dealing with bullies!
I have the stones, I have been fighting SCUM. But, when Mattel was asked by a judge at a summary judgment motion hearing as to what was libelous, Mattel moved to dimiss.
It worked because people didn't stand up and fight.
New York has an anti-SLAPP statute. I wonder why this was not used to kick out the case.
Some of these fights have to be taken and some of these SLAPPERs have to be hit with large enough damages to make others think long and hard before bringing another SLAPP action.
I have automatically directed some SPAM to the FTC. I have an address on my website, for SPAMBOTS to grab. This address has an automitic forward to uce@ftc.gov. Some spammers might be smart enough to filter out.gov, but this avoids the filter.
There were a few federal courts that ruled lawsuits must be brought in state court, because the statute provides for action in state court. I read several decisions in the appeals courts that held decision to be just plain wrong.
I seriously doubt that an appeals court will uphold this ruling.
This is not not being done based on the content of the message, but being done based on the method.
Cities are allowed to restrict bill boards. Cities are allow to prevent one from painting advertising on street signs. The US Postal service is allowed to prevent me from putting advertising in mailboxes, without paying postage.
If you are telling employees to stand up for their rights (overtime, ADA, FMLA, etc.) you get protection for doing this.
Under Sumner v. US Postal (3rd or 9th circuit) an employee is protected in reasonable protests for their rights. In Payne v. McLemore picketing against racial discrimination was held to be protected. Is sending lots of email more intrusive than picketing?
The Supreme Court in Robison v. Shell Oil considers that protections extend to ex-employees.
My argument (and seems to be the AFL-CIO's) that this is a protected act, and did this cross the line or being overly intrusive.
Though Intel argues that it is tens of thousands of emails, it is not that many per person and only 450 requested removal.
Actually,
If the tresspasser is not there, usually the police can't do anything. They must witness the misdemenor (sp?) to be able to arrest. Anyways, they may not want to do the paperwork.
Usually a SPAMMER is trying to sell you something. Ken is telling people at Intell that Intel sucks and their employment practices and working conditions suck. This deserves more protection than the "Cheap Viagra" or "Send $5 to 5 people and make $16,400 in 14 days.".
Commercial speech deservces less protection than non-commercial speech. In addition, complaints about employment practices may come under protection by the ADA, FMLA, Title VII, and the NLRA.
But, this intersect with the rights of Intel to have control over their mail servers. Maybe the lawmakers should look at this case when drafting anti-spam statutes.
There are many examples of SPAM scams. There are instances where the FTC and SEC have gone after SPAMMERs.
The argument that SPAM creates more business because there are companies making money blocking spam is ludicrous. This is the same as saying herion is good because it creates business for rehab centers. Or drunk driving is good because it helps lawyers make money.
Because they will have to wait an hour for their mailbox to empty. Either that, or their copy of outlook would crash for the overload (I'm presuming the ones that are too stupid to want to stop spam would be stupid enough to run Outlook).
All I am saying, is make sure that before people SPAM, they are legally identifiable and financially able to pay for violations of the law. This is no more restrictive than requiring liability insurance on a car.
Slashdot Mirror
This would rule out most nanny cams. The issue would be where the camera is located and if the intent is to get intimate video. Now, if your baby sitter has sex on the sofa, after the baby is sleeping.....
SPAMMING uses my computing resources, disk space, and bandwidth.
If SPAMMING is legitimate, why don't spammers fully identify themselfs?
I worked at a place where my first paycheck bounced. 6 months later, one of the interview questions was, "so how much do they owe you?"
Barry Lewis kept promising checks, but never paid. I heard from one person, that he used stock to pay the rent for his apartment. When I told him, he would get the source code for what I worked on, he then tried extortion and harassment. Not only did his extortion and harassment fail, but he was convicted of two counts last month. The district attorney handling the case wanted the judge to include anger management to his sentence because he had threatened the district attorney.
SPAMMERS make illegal copies of my website to scrape for emails, though they were clearly instructed not to.
Should I be allowed to break into your home, then watch your TV, use your internet connection, and telephone?
SPAMMERS are no better than thieves. They hide their identities because they know what they do is wrong! Many use stolen credit card numbers to set up drop email boxes and sites.
Maybe you think that if you rape a woman, it is ok because she can avoid you raping her another time by staying away from you.
Of course Intel argued in Intel v. Hamibi that there is also a cost in developing filters to prevent futher spam.
If they wanted to argue for more damages, they could, but then it would take testimony and expert witnesses.
Some spammers put in an image tag that includes the email address, or encoded email address as part of the image request string so that they know it has been opened. That way, they can verify the address.
Of course it helps that they have morons for attorneys. Especially, where the attorneys walk right into traps that have been set.
I am outraged at this too.
I'm not saying that it was right or wrong of them. I am saying that bullies like this only succeed when people don't fight. If you back down during a fight, it doesn't count when dealing with bullies!
I have the stones, I have been fighting SCUM. But, when Mattel was asked by a judge at a summary judgment motion hearing as to what was libelous, Mattel moved to dimiss.
New York has an anti-SLAPP statute. I wonder why this was not used to kick out the case.
Some of these fights have to be taken and some of these SLAPPERs have to be hit with large enough damages to make others think long and hard before bringing another SLAPP action.
They ask for SPAM scams (I know redundant) to be sent to that address. I just automated the processes.
I have automatically directed some SPAM to the FTC. I have an address on my website, for SPAMBOTS to grab. This address has an automitic forward to uce@ftc.gov. Some spammers might be smart enough to filter out .gov, but this avoids the filter.
This is not not being done based on the content of the message, but being done based on the method.
Cities are allowed to restrict bill boards. Cities are allow to prevent one from painting advertising on street signs. The US Postal service is allowed to prevent me from putting advertising in mailboxes, without paying postage.
That way, it won't time out, but will instantly return a 404.
Please remove your TCP/IP software and re-install. If that does not work, please format your driver and re-install.
Under Sumner v. US Postal (3rd or 9th circuit) an employee is protected in reasonable protests for their rights. In Payne v. McLemore picketing against racial discrimination was held to be protected. Is sending lots of email more intrusive than picketing?
The Supreme Court in Robison v. Shell Oil considers that protections extend to ex-employees.
My argument (and seems to be the AFL-CIO's) that this is a protected act, and did this cross the line or being overly intrusive.
Though Intel argues that it is tens of thousands of emails, it is not that many per person and only 450 requested removal.
Actually,
If the tresspasser is not there, usually the police can't do anything. They must witness the misdemenor (sp?) to be able to arrest. Anyways, they may not want to do the paperwork.
Commercial speech deservces less protection than non-commercial speech. In addition, complaints about employment practices may come under protection by the ADA, FMLA, Title VII, and the NLRA.
But, this intersect with the rights of Intel to have control over their mail servers. Maybe the lawmakers should look at this case when drafting anti-spam statutes.
The argument that SPAM creates more business because there are companies making money blocking spam is ludicrous. This is the same as saying herion is good because it creates business for rehab centers. Or drunk driving is good because it helps lawyers make money.
Because they will have to wait an hour for their mailbox to empty. Either that, or their copy of outlook would crash for the overload (I'm presuming the ones that are too stupid to want to stop spam would be stupid enough to run Outlook).
This spammer uses phony physical address in California and has no voice number!