Americans think they don't like telemarketing calls, but they're wrong. Americans believe they want to be on a do-not-call list, but their past actions -- namely their purchases -- betray their true feelings.
This assertion is based on fraudulent statistics cooked up by lumping together the sales from customer-initiated incoming calls and telepest-initiated outgoing calls.
The BS gets even thicker a few paragraphs later:
If the millions of people who do in fact buy from telemarketers decide to put their numbers on the do-not-call list, the effect on the country's ailing economy will not be good. Billions of dollars of economic activity will not take place
This argument assumes that if telepests are prevented from fast-talking Aunt Tillie into spending $X on their dubious wares, then the money will be buried in a tomato can, stolen by space aliens and taken to their home planet, or otherwise completely removed from the economy. In reality, of course, the money will simply be spent or invested in some other way.
when there's something wrong with the spam -- it's fraudulent, it's incomplete, it's sent in a trespassing manner
"Sent in a trespassing manner" includes any attempt whatsoever to circumvent a spam filter. Criminalize that just as we criminalize any other attempt to trespass through circumvention of computer security, and the spam problem goes away -- spammers who obey the law (both of them) are trivially blocked at the ISP level; spammers who break the law learn firsthand how well the penis enlargment and herbal viagra worked for Bubba.
(n.b. permission is implicitly given until explicitly revoked, though)
Again, you are taking the absurd position that it's OK for street ranters to grab and hold bystanders until each bystander tells them to go away.
A sufficiently prominent place given the architecture of Internet e-mail is an exercise I leave up to the reader
Simple. One statement on Usenet, ever, that is still in the Google archive and 1)says you don't want spam and 2)has your address (munged addresses count -- the spammers have proven that they can unmunge them to send their swill, so they can damned well unmunge them to avoid the fines and jail time for electronic trespassing).
I think that this law would actually be good for the telemarketing industry, because they wouldn't be spending money calling people who'd say "I'm not interested. Now f*ck off."
The dirty secret of telemarketing is that the entire business model depends on pressuring mentally or emotionally vulnerable targets.
People who actually want the product will find it and buy it without telepests. People who don't want the product and have no problem with saying so will reject it in spite of telepests. The only case in which telepests actually make a difference is when they use the immediacy of phone contact against people who lack the self-assertion or mental competence to stand their ground.
In truth, email accounts, by their very existence, are an implicit invitation for people to mail to them.
Defending spammers on this basis is equivalent to asserting that porches, by their very existence, are an implicit invitation for people to deposit flaming bags of dog doo on them.
Regulation can require that once the implicit permission to spam is explicitly revoked -- either en masse or specifically as to a particular spammer -- by the provision of notice that spammers are reasonably likely to be aware of
The spammers were able to steal e-mail addresses en masse despite attempts to conceal them. The exact same standard should be used for anti-spam notice (e.g. because spammers have proven themselves capable of de-munging e-mail addresses, the posting of a no-spam notice with a similarly munged address must be accepted as sufficient).
Some spam is worth legislating against, but that isn't because it's spam, it's because it's fraudulent, or sent by hackers, or in violation of explicit requests to stop.
So, your position is that once someone has placed a public announcement that spamming to his address is unacceptable, he can send Mr. Policeman to deal with people who violate this explicit request. Works for me.
(No, I do not mean one announcement per spammer. I mean one announcement, period, binding upon all and sundry unless and until it is explicitly rescinded. Failure to find the announcement is not a defense, any more than failure to read a physical NO TRESPASSING sign is.)
This is not a soapbox preacher that you can just walk away from
Sure you can. You can delete it, or filter it
Well, then, I take it that you agree with me that disguising spam to look like legitimate messages in order to avoid deletion and filtering is equivalent to a soapbox preacher grabbing people who try to walk away (and should be equally illegal).
Intel simply failed to convince the court that Hamidi had tresspassed on their computer system.
Inasmuch as spam is inherently a trespass on the recipient's computer system, the Hamidi case is, as you note, irrelevant.
Actually, the most effective anti-spam legal reform would be to clearly recognize anti-spam filters as a form of computer security, and to treat attempts to bypass such filtering just like any other form of unauthorized cracking.
I consider it an unlocked arena with no KEEP OUT signs.
Irrelevant. Trespassing is still illegal even if there is no specific KEEP OUT sign, so long as there is some clear indication that the place is somebody else's private property. In this case, an e-mail address (other than one's own) is somebody else's private property on its face.
For that matter, virtually all spam incorporates some attempt to bypass anti-spam filtering. This is ironclad proof that the spammer knew that he was trespassing, and should be punished under the existing computer-cracking laws.
If your local grocery store offered unlimited free apples do you have any delusions that people would take just one and then go home?
According to this inane argument, if someone gave away free apples (an ISP offering standard e-mail accounts), it would be OK for the local sociopath (a spammer) to grab as many as he wanted and throw them at people's (law-abiding users') heads.
I'm not your legal council, go ask them. Postage due junk mail is absolutely illegal.
Yep; it falls under the same "abuse of the mails" statute that sometimes gets invoked against the wise guys who tape pavement bricks to postage-paid reply cards.
This is a stupid statement, even for an old spam apologist like you. Obviously, you have no right whatsoever to recieve spam, any more than you have a right to receive a copy of the missing reel of The Magnificent Ambersons, since such a supposed "right" implies that someone must provide it whether or not he is willing or able to do so.
guns can't really do anything useful other than kill and main
I'd say that it's pretty damn useful to "kill and maim" someone who intends to kill or maim you, and will certainly succeed in doing so if it's a simple contest of muscles.
Technology is still the best hope for killing spam.
Technology needs support from the law. For example, a typical locked door won't keep out someone who can throw as much time and muscle into it as he likes -- but it usually is effective against people who know that they have to do their breaking and entering discreetly and quickly, because it a crime is in and of itself.
The same principle should be applied here. If the law treated circumvention of an anti-spam filter the same way it treats circumvention of a password prompt, spammers would be forced to choose between irrelevance and serious criminal liability.
Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another.
is clearly equally applicable to written letters, email, verbal communication, or Indian smoke signals.
You have every right to install spam blockers, just as they have every right to trick their way through them.
Nope. A spam filter is a "NO TRESPASSING" sign, and the law needs to clarify (really, I think it already supports this interpretation if prosecutors would just get off their butts and do it) that slipping past a spam filter is the same crime as slipping past a password prompt.
Oh, puh-leeze. Spam is "free speech" the way burglary and fencing are "free enterprise" and having one's way with a woman zonked out on Rohypnol is "free love".
Given that we've got these sledgehammer anti-hacking laws on the books, we might as well put them to a good use.
I've come to the conclusion that the best anti-spam legal reform would be to clarify the computer crime laws so that circumvention of a spam filter is treated just like any other form of unauthorized access.
Throwing someone into a place reserved for killers and rapists
Nonsense. I would allow killers and rapists to have (limited and monitored) net access in prison. Spammers, since they are trying to destroy that medium for the rest of us, should be forbidden any use of it whatsoever.
Besides, most people have not "stated wishes" to not be spammed
Nice computer you've got there... and, by golly, I can't find the specific statement "I, anthony_dipierro, do not want somebody to steal my computer" anywhere, so by your logic it would be OK for me to do just that.
Slashdot Mirror
This assertion is based on fraudulent statistics cooked up by lumping together the sales from customer-initiated incoming calls and telepest-initiated outgoing calls.
The BS gets even thicker a few paragraphs later:
This argument assumes that if telepests are prevented from fast-talking Aunt Tillie into spending $X on their dubious wares, then the money will be buried in a tomato can, stolen by space aliens and taken to their home planet, or otherwise completely removed from the economy. In reality, of course, the money will simply be spent or invested in some other way."Sent in a trespassing manner" includes any attempt whatsoever to circumvent a spam filter. Criminalize that just as we criminalize any other attempt to trespass through circumvention of computer security, and the spam problem goes away -- spammers who obey the law (both of them) are trivially blocked at the ISP level; spammers who break the law learn firsthand how well the penis enlargment and herbal viagra worked for Bubba.
(n.b. permission is implicitly given until explicitly revoked, though)
Again, you are taking the absurd position that it's OK for street ranters to grab and hold bystanders until each bystander tells them to go away.
Simple. One statement on Usenet, ever, that is still in the Google archive and 1)says you don't want spam and 2)has your address (munged addresses count -- the spammers have proven that they can unmunge them to send their swill, so they can damned well unmunge them to avoid the fines and jail time for electronic trespassing).
The dirty secret of telemarketing is that the entire business model depends on pressuring mentally or emotionally vulnerable targets.
People who actually want the product will find it and buy it without telepests. People who don't want the product and have no problem with saying so will reject it in spite of telepests. The only case in which telepests actually make a difference is when they use the immediacy of phone contact against people who lack the self-assertion or mental competence to stand their ground.
Selling crack to people who actually want to buy crack is a more respectable line of work than being a telepest.
Defending spammers on this basis is equivalent to asserting that porches, by their very existence, are an implicit invitation for people to deposit flaming bags of dog doo on them.
The spammers were able to steal e-mail addresses en masse despite attempts to conceal them. The exact same standard should be used for anti-spam notice (e.g. because spammers have proven themselves capable of de-munging e-mail addresses, the posting of a no-spam notice with a similarly munged address must be accepted as sufficient).
So, your position is that once someone has placed a public announcement that spamming to his address is unacceptable, he can send Mr. Policeman to deal with people who violate this explicit request. Works for me.
(No, I do not mean one announcement per spammer. I mean one announcement, period, binding upon all and sundry unless and until it is explicitly rescinded. Failure to find the announcement is not a defense, any more than failure to read a physical NO TRESPASSING sign is.)
Sure you can. You can delete it, or filter it
Well, then, I take it that you agree with me that disguising spam to look like legitimate messages in order to avoid deletion and filtering is equivalent to a soapbox preacher grabbing people who try to walk away (and should be equally illegal).
Inasmuch as spam is inherently a trespass on the recipient's computer system, the Hamidi case is, as you note, irrelevant.
Actually, the most effective anti-spam legal reform would be to clearly recognize anti-spam filters as a form of computer security, and to treat attempts to bypass such filtering just like any other form of unauthorized cracking.
Because they failed to keep their end of the contract. Read the article -- hell, read the freaking summary.
Because if you get an e-mail address by cracking into an ISP instead of paying for it, you will be charged with (among other things) theft. Duh.
Irrelevant. Trespassing is still illegal even if there is no specific KEEP OUT sign, so long as there is some clear indication that the place is somebody else's private property. In this case, an e-mail address (other than one's own) is somebody else's private property on its face.
For that matter, virtually all spam incorporates some attempt to bypass anti-spam filtering. This is ironclad proof that the spammer knew that he was trespassing, and should be punished under the existing computer-cracking laws.
No. That's why all your arguments are worthless.
According to this inane argument, if someone gave away free apples (an ISP offering standard e-mail accounts), it would be OK for the local sociopath (a spammer) to grab as many as he wanted and throw them at people's (law-abiding users') heads.
Yep; it falls under the same "abuse of the mails" statute that sometimes gets invoked against the wise guys who tape pavement bricks to postage-paid reply cards.
This is a stupid statement, even for an old spam apologist like you. Obviously, you have no right whatsoever to recieve spam, any more than you have a right to receive a copy of the missing reel of The Magnificent Ambersons, since such a supposed "right" implies that someone must provide it whether or not he is willing or able to do so.
I'd say that it's pretty damn useful to "kill and maim" someone who intends to kill or maim you, and will certainly succeed in doing so if it's a simple contest of muscles.
Technology needs support from the law. For example, a typical locked door won't keep out someone who can throw as much time and muscle into it as he likes -- but it usually is effective against people who know that they have to do their breaking and entering discreetly and quickly, because it a crime is in and of itself.
The same principle should be applied here. If the law treated circumvention of an anti-spam filter the same way it treats circumvention of a password prompt, spammers would be forced to choose between irrelevance and serious criminal liability.
Nope. A spam filter is a "NO TRESPASSING" sign, and the law needs to clarify (really, I think it already supports this interpretation if prosecutors would just get off their butts and do it) that slipping past a spam filter is the same crime as slipping past a password prompt.
Oh, puh-leeze. Spam is "free speech" the way burglary and fencing are "free enterprise" and having one's way with a woman zonked out on Rohypnol is "free love".
I've come to the conclusion that the best anti-spam legal reform would be to clarify the computer crime laws so that circumvention of a spam filter is treated just like any other form of unauthorized access.
Nonsense. I would allow killers and rapists to have (limited and monitored) net access in prison. Spammers, since they are trying to destroy that medium for the rest of us, should be forbidden any use of it whatsoever.
Nice computer you've got there... and, by golly, I can't find the specific statement "I, anthony_dipierro, do not want somebody to steal my computer" anywhere, so by your logic it would be OK for me to do just that.