Yes, its annoying, yes it takes time away from real things, but is it really so bad that you'd actually want to flog someone publicly?
Yes, for the same reason animal abusers need to be flogged publicly -- the behavior is a strong indicator that the perpetrator is a sociopath who will move on to bigger and worse crimes unless it is stamped into his brain that society has its eye on him and will whomp the tar out of him unless he at least acts like a decent civilized human being.
Now, all the law needs to to import the "sexually explicit material" standard applied to paper mail (i.e. a Jehovah's Witnesses' pamphlet is "sexually explicit material" if the recipient says so).
It may be illegal under pornography statues as well, if you can prove that it was sent to minors (which shouldn't be hard)
If you distribute porn, failing to take sufficient (by our old friend the "reasonable and prudent person" standard) precautions to avoid putting it in the hands of minors will put you on the wrong side of the law. Prosecuting porn spammers on this basis would be a slam-dunk case.
Frankly, I don't see why some prosecutor who want to grow up to be a real politician hasn't already done something of this sort to get his name in the papers.
The DMCA is irrelevant -- however, existing computer-cracking laws could be applied (spam filter circumvention is a deliberate attempt to gain access to a computer against the owner's express prohibition) if the government can be prodded to get off its butt and do it.
Of course, one of the biggest impediments to a lot of this stuff is that congress and the president will never fully fund any of these efforts, so there will be no enforcement.
It can be made self-supporting by fines. (If the spammer doesn't have any assets, no problem; the Thriteenth Amendment has an exemption for criminal convicts.)
I personally hope that some crazed person gets too much SPAM one day and goes on a hunting expedition to knock off the top 50 SPAMmers that are on your favorite list.
Duh. The difference is that your employer owns/rents the building where you work, and therefore has a right to set conditions for setting foot there.
(No, the "public roads" argument doesn't apply, unless the device has an override switch that allows you to ignore it when driving on private property.)
Ignition interlocks require a breath test, which takes 30 seconds to complete
19 Feb 2011: Former State Rep. Ken Martinez was assaulted by A. Venger at his home. According to police reports, Mr. Venger rang Martizez's door, and repeatedly struck him with a baseball bat when he answerd.
Venger allegedly shouted that he was acting for his sister. A police source speculated off that the suspect's motivation is related to a recent case in which the victim attempted to escape her assailant, reached her car, but was unable to drive away before being dragged into a nearby alley and raped.
All it takes is to bust a few of them under existing laws, and make sure the other inmates find out "he's in here for showing dirty pictures to little girls".
Remember - it's not the actual callers who are the scumbags, but the companies who employ them.
I vuz chust vollowink orderz!
(No, I am not implying that telepests are as bad as Nazi war criminals. I am pointing out that the same principle of inalienable personal responsibility applies to both cases.)
Why do I need my government to step in and babysit this problem, rather than letting the providers and consumers duke it out?
Because civilized societies have found that it works better to have the police enforce private property rights than to have everybody duke it out when somebody takes it into his head to steal or trespass.
If you get the call live, you can press nine to talk to a human who will take your credit card number, but I don't know of any way to weasel the company name out of them.
Hmmmm... how difficult would it be for the Feds and the credit card companies to set up a batch of "honeypot" credit card numbers that could be used to establish a paper trail on this sort of thing?
(To forestall one objection, no, it isn't "entrapment" if the crook initiated the illegal activity without being specifically prompted in that direction.)
The people making the calls are just poor shlubs who are doing the only thing they can to survive -- they are no more detestable than a prostitute or a beggar working a street corner.
That's an unfair comparison -- a prostitute is selling something people want.
The problem is that the government used the wrong legal justification -- basing the law on property rights (you don't get to use my phone against my express prohibition) would support a universal DNC block.
Of course, that wouldn't leave a loophole for junk political calls....
Anyone who is at all familiar with the issue will recognize the obvious parody of the "free speach" [sic] sigline used by a type of spamware that was in common use a few years back.
Of course,/. does not require one to be at all familiar with any issue before sounding off about it.
It's just a fact of life that certain things are cheaper to provide in the big city (e.g. comm infrastructure) and other things are cheaper to provide in the boonies (e.g. land). People make their choices accordingly.
Slashdot Mirror
Ultra Personal? What, does it have a teledildonic interface built in?
Yes, for the same reason animal abusers need to be flogged publicly -- the behavior is a strong indicator that the perpetrator is a sociopath who will move on to bigger and worse crimes unless it is stamped into his brain that society has its eye on him and will whomp the tar out of him unless he at least acts like a decent civilized human being.
Hoping to whatever God he believes in that his cell mate didn't use the real p3n1s enhancer or the real h3rb@l v1a&ra.
Now, all the law needs to to import the "sexually explicit material" standard applied to paper mail (i.e. a Jehovah's Witnesses' pamphlet is "sexually explicit material" if the recipient says so).
If you distribute porn, failing to take sufficient (by our old friend the "reasonable and prudent person" standard) precautions to avoid putting it in the hands of minors will put you on the wrong side of the law. Prosecuting porn spammers on this basis would be a slam-dunk case.
Frankly, I don't see why some prosecutor who want to grow up to be a real politician hasn't already done something of this sort to get his name in the papers.
The DMCA is irrelevant -- however, existing computer-cracking laws could be applied (spam filter circumvention is a deliberate attempt to gain access to a computer against the owner's express prohibition) if the government can be prodded to get off its butt and do it.
It can be made self-supporting by fines. (If the spammer doesn't have any assets, no problem; the Thriteenth Amendment has an exemption for criminal convicts.)
If so, I hope the jury is fully informed.
Reporting a Commie Mutant Traitor expressing seditious doubts of the Computer's benevolence!
Well, that removes the problem of asthmatics being unsure whether or not they'll be able to start their cars. They'll know up front that it's "not".
Fat lot of good that would do if the 30-second delay prevents her from escaping a murderer or rapist.
(No, the "public roads" argument doesn't apply, unless the device has an override switch that allows you to ignore it when driving on private property.)
No -- that is being detected on the floor of the New Mexico Legislature ("yes" vote = "stupid").
19 Feb 2011: Former State Rep. Ken Martinez was assaulted by A. Venger at his home. According to police reports, Mr. Venger rang Martizez's door, and repeatedly struck him with a baseball bat when he answerd.
Venger allegedly shouted that he was acting for his sister. A police source speculated off that the suspect's motivation is related to a recent case in which the victim attempted to escape her assailant, reached her car, but was unable to drive away before being dragged into a nearby alley and raped.
All spammers are bandwidth thieves and should go to jail like any other thieves.
All it takes is to bust a few of them under existing laws, and make sure the other inmates find out "he's in here for showing dirty pictures to little girls".
If you want privacy from salesdrones ringing your phone, post a "DO NOT CALL" notification on the list.
The two are precisely equivalent, and equally deserving of police enforcement against people who violate your property rights by disregarding them.
I vuz chust vollowink orderz!
(No, I am not implying that telepests are as bad as Nazi war criminals. I am pointing out that the same principle of inalienable personal responsibility applies to both cases.)
Because civilized societies have found that it works better to have the police enforce private property rights than to have everybody duke it out when somebody takes it into his head to steal or trespass.
Hmmmm... how difficult would it be for the Feds and the credit card companies to set up a batch of "honeypot" credit card numbers that could be used to establish a paper trail on this sort of thing?
(To forestall one objection, no, it isn't "entrapment" if the crook initiated the illegal activity without being specifically prompted in that direction.)
That's an unfair comparison -- a prostitute is selling something people want.
Maybe this "lawsuit" thing wasn't such a bright idea....
Of course, that wouldn't leave a loophole for junk political calls....
Of course, /. does not require one to be at all familiar with any issue before sounding off about it.
It's just a fact of life that certain things are cheaper to provide in the big city (e.g. comm infrastructure) and other things are cheaper to provide in the boonies (e.g. land). People make their choices accordingly.