The RIAA wants to be feared, and if they are not feared, they at least want to become so annoying that your average kid sez, "My parents are hassling me, my school is hassling me... y'know what, it just ain't worth it. I'll go to iTunes (or wherever) to download music." It is clearly no accident that the real pogroms have begun only after a certain critical mass of legal download music sources have been established.
I don't believe for one moment that the RIAA expects, or wishes, such a careful distinction to be made between legal and illegal download sources. They'd be happier to keep their business model completely insulated from competition, no matter how legitimate.
acording to the NZ herald that published an article a few weeks ago on the NZ spammer that had his name and telephone number published on an on-line forum (maybee just like this one...) he received death threats and telephone abuse that even his young daughter received
Not "acording to the NZ herald" -- according to the spammer, who happened to be quoted in that publication. Remember the rules:
1. Spammers lie.
2. If you think a spammer is telling the truth, see Rule 1.
What I'm concerned about is that I can't audit the computer system without a paper trail.
A trustworthy system needs to be based on these criteria:
1. The selections entered by the voter (electronically, manually, telepathically, whatever) are immediately printed out and displayed (behind a window so the voter can't remove or alter them). If approved, they go to a lock box; if disapproved, they are marked VOID and dropped to a reject box (again, with visual verification for the voter).
2. If there is a dispute, the results of counting the printout ballots prevail over the electronic count.
SCO's McBride claims that IBM is stage-managing all the attacks and bad press
I haven't heard such an embarassing display of public paranoia since Ross Perot dropped out of the Presidential race because the Republicans were going to ruin his daughter's wedding.
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - Several Internet worms that have besieged computers for over a week played havoc again on Wednesday, including one called Sobig.F whose aim was to turn PCs into spam machines and was believed to be the fastest growing virus ever, experts said.
Sobig.F drops software onto infected Windows computers that open them to be used later for distributing Internet spam -- unwanted e-mails and product promotions, experts said. It also represents a new trend in converging e-mail spamming and virus software writing, they said.
It's long overdue for law enforcement to prosecute spammers for cracking (evasion of antispam filters, relay-raping, disseminating viruses to create zombie spamboxes, etc). Many of the people that do get prosecuted for cracking do less damage and target fewer victims (by several orders of magnitude) than the typical spammer.
Palestine is not recognized as a self-ruling nation, put is viewed as an occupied state. The RIAA/MPAA have no legal recourse, but then again no one would likely say boo if they unleash mercenary hackers to take BS5 out of commission.
I daresay that the Arab press would cite is as evidence that Hollywood is run by the Joooos.
If I were Darl McBride, I'd be out there buying a second house and generating a phony paper trail to disguise its ownership, so that I'd have a place to live when I got out of jail.
Perhaps they're hoping they can gain a legal claim in truth over the things they're only saying they control, so that IBM doesn't devour them and add its technolgical distinctivenes to its own.
And who has gotten "tons of spam" from the Dean campaign, or any other political organization?
Nobody yet, because we maintain the hard-line position that "spammer" == "scum". Waver in that basic principle, and prepare to be inundated from every dog-catcher election in the country.
Placing your number on the National Do Not Call Registry will stop most telemarketing calls, but not all. Some types of calls are exempt. Political organizations, charities, telephone surveyors, and the business of insurance, to the extent that it is regulated by state law, are permitted to call you.
My recommended response to these calls is to repeatedly complain that you are on the Do Not Call list, and maintain a shield of invincible ignorance if the caller attempts to explain the loophole he's using. Make the loopholes useless to them.
As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online
Yeah, OK, so why can't we break into spammers' systems?
The two legal reforms that I can think of that would put a dent in spamming are:
1. Treat any attempt to bypass spam filtering as a form of cracking, just like an attempt to bypass a password or any other system designed to keep unauthorized persons out of your computer.
2. Define spammers as "outlaws" in the classic sense of the term (i.e. outside the protection of the law -- if you can prove that the victim was a spammer, you can crack his box, beat him up, whatever).
What if I change the email each time I send it so it's unique to you?
If you are referring to the filter-evasion technique of inserting some trivial difference into each message in a spam run, then you should go to jail under the existing laws against cracking a security system in an attempt to gain unauthorized access to the target computer.
They reverse engineer every anti-spam protection out there in an attempt to get around it.
This is why a real anti-spam legal reform would clearly equate circumvention of an anti-spam filter with circumvention of a password prompt. Both are attempts to crack into someone else's computer without permission -- indeed, against an express prohibition -- and the former ought to carry the same penalties as the latter.
Trademarks will lose their power if violations are not pursued. Trade secrets become public domain when revealed, there is no way to unring a bell. SCO are clearly hoping that the "IP" term confusion will work to their advantage, and that readers (especially decision makers) will be unaware of that patents and trademarks have very different legal protection and that their statement about previous non-enforcement is vacuous.
Well, yes, it's rather obvious that their entire strategy depends on gambling that they won't come in front of a clueful judge (who would tell their attorney to have SCO's upper management show up in the morning with either 1)a complete listing of the allegedly infringing bits of code, or 2)their toothbrushes).
Unless we explicitly revoke that permission, anyway, which you're free to do.
Again, thank you for expressing complete agreement with my position (once one makes explicit the obvious truth that the placement of a spam filter constitutes a global revocation of any possible consent to send spam to that user or ISP).
Simple hash comparison against the spam received at a dummy account would end the problem once and for all at the ISP level, once it is clearly established that throwing in random junk to fraudulently disguise spam messages as unique messages is equivalent to throwing random junk at a password prompt in order to gain access without having authorized knowledge of the password.
If a spam that wasn't otherwise disguised read 'advertisment' or 'a.d.v.e.r.t.i.s.e.m.e.n.t' it's still clear what it is. But if it gets past your filters, it just means you have crappy filters.
If this argument carried any weight, most crackers would beat the rap by arguing that their victims had chosen weak passwords, failed to patch known bugs, etc.
Again, there's no reason why circumvention of spam filters should be treated differently than circumvention of passwords, etc -- "the lock was really easy to pick, so it shouldn't count" is simply not a valid defense.
I AM NOT defending the right of spammers to send spam that contains fraudulent claims, including fraudulent headers, subject lines, or 'opt-out' addresses, etc.
I'm glad that you agree with me that all forms of filter-circumvention cracks should be prohibited.
Really, spammer apologists get tiresome, but the BS does need to be cleaned up:
Assuming that it isn't fraudulent, i.e. disguised as something it is not so as to circumvent the filter
By definition, filter cracking disguises spam in order to give the false impression that it is not spam. Simply punish filter cracking the same way we punish password cracking (and for the same reason -- both are methods of electronic breaking and entering in order to access someone else's computer system against the owner's wishes), and the spam problem goes away -- spammers are either trivially filtered out (unless someone actually wants to read their crap) or in jail.
Spam filters are basically just an extension of one's own decisions as to what is appealing or not.
No, spam filters are a locked door restricting access to the user's private property. Picking the lock to invade private property is known as "breaking and entering".
Filters aren't the same as a clear sign.
Nonsense. An anti-spam filter is an unambiguous sign that behind the filter lies bandwidth and storage space owned by someone who has posted a "NO TRESPASSING" sign against spammers. Those who ignore "NO TRESPASSING" signs are quite properly subject to legal sanctions in the physical world, and there is no reason not to apply the same principle here.
if you have a white picket fence around your house, with a gate, a solicitor, barring proper notice, is allowed to open the gate to come talk to you
Irrelevant. Filter circumvention is (I repeat) equivalent to breaking through a locked gate in order to invade private property without the permission of the owner.
OTOH it is okay for street ranters to follow someone and continue talking at them until told to go away. And frankly, as it's on the street which is public to all, I doubt telling them to go away has any weight behind it.
Look up "harassment" in a legal dictionary, or even in an ordinary dictionary, and correct your ignorance on this point.
Spammers are NOT doing anything analagous to "grabbing and holding" people.
They do precisely that when the circumvent anti-spam filters (just as grabbing and holding circumvents the act of walking away).
Be more discriminating is my advice.
And when someone attempts to override your discriminations via filter circumvention, send them off to jail just as you would if they had made any other unauthorized attempt to override the security on your computer.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't believe for one moment that the RIAA expects, or wishes, such a careful distinction to be made between legal and illegal download sources. They'd be happier to keep their business model completely insulated from competition, no matter how legitimate.
You're not sure what FOX has to gain from making the commie pinko liberal Hollyweird crowd look bad?
Not "acording to the NZ herald" -- according to the spammer, who happened to be quoted in that publication. Remember the rules:
A trustworthy system needs to be based on these criteria:
You have your lawyer prove that:
I haven't heard such an embarassing display of public paranoia since Ross Perot dropped out of the Presidential race because the Republicans were going to ruin his daughter's wedding.
You don't need to wonder -- just read the news:
It's long overdue for law enforcement to prosecute spammers for cracking (evasion of antispam filters, relay-raping, disseminating viruses to create zombie spamboxes, etc). Many of the people that do get prosecuted for cracking do less damage and target fewer victims (by several orders of magnitude) than the typical spammer.Which ultimately takes its toll on the quality of your work, just like any other increase in the pressure level.
I daresay that the Arab press would cite is as evidence that Hollywood is run by the Joooos.
If I were Darl McBride, I'd be out there buying a second house and generating a phony paper trail to disguise its ownership, so that I'd have a place to live when I got out of jail.
Doesn't IBM already know how to file lawsuits?
At which point the bed would contain an entire horse.
Nobody yet, because we maintain the hard-line position that "spammer" == "scum". Waver in that basic principle, and prepare to be inundated from every dog-catcher election in the country.
It is spam. It's unsolicited bulk email. Its content is irrelevant.
My recommended response to these calls is to repeatedly complain that you are on the Do Not Call list, and maintain a shield of invincible ignorance if the caller attempts to explain the loophole he's using. Make the loopholes useless to them.
Yeah, OK, so why can't we break into spammers' systems?
The two legal reforms that I can think of that would put a dent in spamming are:
1. Treat any attempt to bypass spam filtering as a form of cracking, just like an attempt to bypass a password or any other system designed to keep unauthorized persons out of your computer.
2. Define spammers as "outlaws" in the classic sense of the term (i.e. outside the protection of the law -- if you can prove that the victim was a spammer, you can crack his box, beat him up, whatever).
If you are referring to the filter-evasion technique of inserting some trivial difference into each message in a spam run, then you should go to jail under the existing laws against cracking a security system in an attempt to gain unauthorized access to the target computer.
This is why a real anti-spam legal reform would clearly equate circumvention of an anti-spam filter with circumvention of a password prompt. Both are attempts to crack into someone else's computer without permission -- indeed, against an express prohibition -- and the former ought to carry the same penalties as the latter.
Well, yes, it's rather obvious that their entire strategy depends on gambling that they won't come in front of a clueful judge (who would tell their attorney to have SCO's upper management show up in the morning with either 1)a complete listing of the allegedly infringing bits of code, or 2)their toothbrushes).
TMI, dude....
Note that this is precisely the legal regime that applies to physical products -- you can either have a patent, or a trade secret, but not both.
Again, thank you for expressing complete agreement with my position (once one makes explicit the obvious truth that the placement of a spam filter constitutes a global revocation of any possible consent to send spam to that user or ISP).
Simple hash comparison against the spam received at a dummy account would end the problem once and for all at the ISP level, once it is clearly established that throwing in random junk to fraudulently disguise spam messages as unique messages is equivalent to throwing random junk at a password prompt in order to gain access without having authorized knowledge of the password.
If this argument carried any weight, most crackers would beat the rap by arguing that their victims had chosen weak passwords, failed to patch known bugs, etc.
Again, there's no reason why circumvention of spam filters should be treated differently than circumvention of passwords, etc -- "the lock was really easy to pick, so it shouldn't count" is simply not a valid defense.
I'm glad that you agree with me that all forms of filter-circumvention cracks should be prohibited.
Assuming that it isn't fraudulent, i.e. disguised as something it is not so as to circumvent the filter
By definition, filter cracking disguises spam in order to give the false impression that it is not spam. Simply punish filter cracking the same way we punish password cracking (and for the same reason -- both are methods of electronic breaking and entering in order to access someone else's computer system against the owner's wishes), and the spam problem goes away -- spammers are either trivially filtered out (unless someone actually wants to read their crap) or in jail.
Spam filters are basically just an extension of one's own decisions as to what is appealing or not.
No, spam filters are a locked door restricting access to the user's private property. Picking the lock to invade private property is known as "breaking and entering".
Filters aren't the same as a clear sign.
Nonsense. An anti-spam filter is an unambiguous sign that behind the filter lies bandwidth and storage space owned by someone who has posted a "NO TRESPASSING" sign against spammers. Those who ignore "NO TRESPASSING" signs are quite properly subject to legal sanctions in the physical world, and there is no reason not to apply the same principle here.
if you have a white picket fence around your house, with a gate, a solicitor, barring proper notice, is allowed to open the gate to come talk to you
Irrelevant. Filter circumvention is (I repeat) equivalent to breaking through a locked gate in order to invade private property without the permission of the owner.
OTOH it is okay for street ranters to follow someone and continue talking at them until told to go away. And frankly, as it's on the street which is public to all, I doubt telling them to go away has any weight behind it.
Look up "harassment" in a legal dictionary, or even in an ordinary dictionary, and correct your ignorance on this point.
Spammers are NOT doing anything analagous to "grabbing and holding" people.
They do precisely that when the circumvent anti-spam filters (just as grabbing and holding circumvents the act of walking away).
Be more discriminating is my advice.
And when someone attempts to override your discriminations via filter circumvention, send them off to jail just as you would if they had made any other unauthorized attempt to override the security on your computer.