The implicit assumption here is that each channel has a significant number of subscribers who value it highly. I just don't find it credible that this is the case for about half the channels on my local cable bundle.
You forgot the most compelling argument of all: the existence of the Eighteenth Amendment. The Constitition as written clearly did not include any authorization to impose a federal drug prohibition, or else there would have been no need to amend the Constitition to grant such a power (and for the special case of one drug identified by name, no less).
You would probably need a constitutional ammendment to make the war on drugs legal, but you would also need a constitutional amendment to eliminate copyright.
Strictly speaking, this is not the case -- Congress is authorized by the Constitution to grant temporary exclusive rights, but not required to do so. If for some reason they decided that abolition of copyright would be good public policy, they could do it by simply repealing the copyright laws.
i'm just saying that asshead jack valenti shouldn't get to write california state law just because he's the head of the largest trade association in the state
Hollywood is above the law even when it comes to matters of life and death.
(I disagree with California gun control laws, but as long as they're on the books, Hollywood should be required to obey them. And, no, it's not a "legitimate need" exemption -- they don't need real working slugthrowing guns to film cop shows any more than they need real working ray guns to film science fiction shows.)
If you're running an SMTP server open to receive mail, you probably want people to send mail to you
If you are running a spam filter, you obviously do not want people to send spam to you. If someone sends you spam anyway, and does so in a manner that proves beyond reasonable doubt an intent to circumvent spam filtering (e.g. forged headers, alteration of filter-trigger words, misleading subject lines), he's trespassing.
I'm perfectly willing to allow someone to send spam, provided that it includes no features that can be identified as deliberate attempts to evade filtering. (As I said in the first message, the gray area of that criterion, like the unavoidable gray areas in many other laws, can be thrashed out in court on a case-by-case basis.) With that property-rights protection in place, it becomes a matter of free speech for the spammer and for the (few) people who would actually receive his spewings.
We don't need new laws - we need better technology.
We need both, just as we need both locks and police to secure physical property.
I'd be happy if they passed a law that said they aren't allow to misspell
Actually, what is needed is a clarification of existing computer-cracking law to the effect that any identifiable attempt to circumvent spam filtering is an illegal intrusion just like any other attempt to get into somebody else's computer without permission. The existing penalties for cracking are high enough to serve as a deterrent once a few high-profile scalps have been collected.
The spammer claims that "v1agr4" is just an innocent typo and not an attempt to get through filters? Tell it to the judge and see if he buys it.
If you don't see the difference between sending mail that people actually asked for and sending mail with forged headers about penis enlargement
The obvious difference is that the latter, and only the latter, needs to be sent out under other people's names.
Scam the Scammer, Rob the Crook
on
Paid To Spam
·
· Score: 1
Is there any way end users can fight back against people like this?
Sure; you just need to figure out a way to sign up and get the money without actually spamming. Scammers are not entitled to honest dealings, and thieves are not entitled to respect for their property.
With the volume of spam, how does a covert agent know he is getting a hidden message from his source?
1. Set up a short list of words, one of which will appear in the subject line of each hidden message. (They need not be "spammy" words; random anti-filter(?) junk has been showing up in spam subject lines as well as the message body.)
2. Brute-force the process by running all incoming mail through your stegonography program.
Wrapping hidden messages in spam is an obvious method of defeating traffic analysis (the gathering and use of information about who is talking to whom, without necessarily being able to read the content of the messages). I would be very surpised if terrorist organizations haven't been doing this ever since spam became voluminous enough to serve as an adequate noise background.
Really, the Feds ought to be hauling in spammers (for violations of all sorts of existing laws pertaining to fraud, computer cracking, etc) and anal-probing them for customer records, instead of wasting time on nonsense.
Libertarians should also consider the fact that freedoms can collide - what about the freedom to walk through a park at night without fear of being raped?
This is a false dilemma, since it fallaciously exclused other means to that end (e.g. suppression of crime by armed citizens and law enforcement).
You can't blame the attorney general when he devotes resources to battling clear violations.
Sure I can. If you are in charge of a law enforcement agency, the setting of priorities and the allocation of resources are a fundamental part of your job. Setting aside all questions about the merits of the porn laws, nobody in his right mind can assert that enforcing them is anywhere near as important as defending civilization against terrorist savages.
No, art does not "compel" you, or anyone else. You have a mind of your own, no matter how convenient it may be to deny that fact when faced with the concept of personal responsibility.
(I almost ended that with a question mark, but a period is the correct punctuation. You haven't left yourself any wiggle room for any answer other than "yes, absolutely".)
We used to have photo radar devices, which snap a picture of a speeding car's licence plate and mail it to the registered address with a ticket to be paid. Part of the public outcry against these involved the privacy aspect - the driver and front passenger were typically visible in the photo, so what if it catches a picture of you with someone else in the car, and you're not the one who opens the envelope?
There's also a more fundamental problem with automated enforcement: it weakens the economic and societal checks against bad laws (i.e. high police costs, routine disobedience, disrespect for authority). The abuse of DRM to expand copyright privilege is a classic example -- it simply wouldn't fly if the **AA had to individually investigate each case.
it might even advocate illegal services or products
Almost all spam contains some sort of fraudulent or otherwise illegal solicitation. It's long overdue for the Feds to send enough of them to PMITA prison for a few years to put the fear into the rest.
Slashdot Mirror
The implicit assumption here is that each channel has a significant number of subscribers who value it highly. I just don't find it credible that this is the case for about half the channels on my local cable bundle.
have you considered that some of the set "deaf people" might overlap with the set "assholes"?
Obviously -- even if this were not the case before, it would certainly be the case after the proposal was implemented.
You forgot the most compelling argument of all: the existence of the Eighteenth Amendment. The Constitition as written clearly did not include any authorization to impose a federal drug prohibition, or else there would have been no need to amend the Constitition to grant such a power (and for the special case of one drug identified by name, no less).
Strictly speaking, this is not the case -- Congress is authorized by the Constitution to grant temporary exclusive rights, but not required to do so. If for some reason they decided that abolition of copyright would be good public policy, they could do it by simply repealing the copyright laws.
Hollywood is above the law even when it comes to matters of life and death.
(I disagree with California gun control laws, but as long as they're on the books, Hollywood should be required to obey them. And, no, it's not a "legitimate need" exemption -- they don't need real working slugthrowing guns to film cop shows any more than they need real working ray guns to film science fiction shows.)
If you are running a spam filter, you obviously do not want people to send spam to you. If someone sends you spam anyway, and does so in a manner that proves beyond reasonable doubt an intent to circumvent spam filtering (e.g. forged headers, alteration of filter-trigger words, misleading subject lines), he's trespassing.
I'm perfectly willing to allow someone to send spam, provided that it includes no features that can be identified as deliberate attempts to evade filtering. (As I said in the first message, the gray area of that criterion, like the unavoidable gray areas in many other laws, can be thrashed out in court on a case-by-case basis.) With that property-rights protection in place, it becomes a matter of free speech for the spammer and for the (few) people who would actually receive his spewings.
We don't need new laws - we need better technology.
We need both, just as we need both locks and police to secure physical property.
Actually, what is needed is a clarification of existing computer-cracking law to the effect that any identifiable attempt to circumvent spam filtering is an illegal intrusion just like any other attempt to get into somebody else's computer without permission. The existing penalties for cracking are high enough to serve as a deterrent once a few high-profile scalps have been collected.
The spammer claims that "v1agr4" is just an innocent typo and not an attempt to get through filters? Tell it to the judge and see if he buys it.
No. We want the existing legitimate government controls (i.e. "Don't steal services. If you do we will throw you in jail.") to be enforced.
The obvious difference is that the latter, and only the latter, needs to be sent out under other people's names.
Sure; you just need to figure out a way to sign up and get the money without actually spamming. Scammers are not entitled to honest dealings, and thieves are not entitled to respect for their property.
Preferably advertising for a laxative, in the form of direct proof of its effectiveness.
That's nice. However, it has no relevance to the marksmanship award T-shirt in this case.
Nonsense. If you start yammering on a cell phone in a movie, for instance, the management has every right to throw you out.
1. Set up a short list of words, one of which will appear in the subject line of each hidden message. (They need not be "spammy" words; random anti-filter(?) junk has been showing up in spam subject lines as well as the message body.)
2. Brute-force the process by running all incoming mail through your stegonography program.
Really, the Feds ought to be hauling in spammers (for violations of all sorts of existing laws pertaining to fraud, computer cracking, etc) and anal-probing them for customer records, instead of wasting time on nonsense.
This is a false dilemma, since it fallaciously exclused other means to that end (e.g. suppression of crime by armed citizens and law enforcement).
Sure I can. If you are in charge of a law enforcement agency, the setting of priorities and the allocation of resources are a fundamental part of your job. Setting aside all questions about the merits of the porn laws, nobody in his right mind can assert that enforcing them is anywhere near as important as defending civilization against terrorist savages.
Here, I think we strike the crux of the problem.
No, art does not "compel" you, or anyone else. You have a mind of your own, no matter how convenient it may be to deny that fact when faced with the concept of personal responsibility.
So, you support the burning of all copies of The Birth of a Nation , then.
(I almost ended that with a question mark, but a period is the correct punctuation. You haven't left yourself any wiggle room for any answer other than "yes, absolutely".)
There's also a more fundamental problem with automated enforcement: it weakens the economic and societal checks against bad laws (i.e. high police costs, routine disobedience, disrespect for authority). The abuse of DRM to expand copyright privilege is a classic example -- it simply wouldn't fly if the **AA had to individually investigate each case.
Unless computers have started sending spam of their own accord, it is a social problem.
If somebody violates such a treaty or law, what are you going to do about it -- shoot down the offending weapons?
Psi Corps is my friend -- they'll protect me from that.
Before you buy a ticket, make sure you have enough money to have the slime scrubbed off the upholstry.
Almost all spam contains some sort of fraudulent or otherwise illegal solicitation. It's long overdue for the Feds to send enough of them to PMITA prison for a few years to put the fear into the rest.