However, if a message properly formated (with a truthful header, and no destructive code of any kind) and it gets past your rule set, that's your fault.
I would extend this to a general "no features designed to defeat anti-spam filtering".
This isn't as hard to define as it might seem, given ordinary criteria based on context, etc. For example, generating random strings of characters is legal in and of itself, but if you feed them to a password prompt on somebody else's system or attach them to spam messages, you're clearly up to something. (In each case, the "something" you're up to is unauthorized computer access, and the same laws ought to apply to each.)
you're saying that people who send bulk email should be treated the same as suicide bombers or people who fly planes into buildings?
Obviously, you shouldn't treat a suicide bomber or a person who flies planes into buildings the same way you should treat a spammer. Being staked to a red ant hill under a desert sun would have no real effect on (the remaining itty bitty pieces of) the former.
all the "the spammers will get round it" defeatism
The key legal reform needed to supplement technical solutions is to make it illegal for the spammers to get round it, by simply applying the existing computer-cracking laws to attacks on this particular species of computer security.
although the threat of legal action will be a big deterrent there's always going to be spam unless we can come up with a technological solution to stop it
True, but not particularly relevant. A convincing demonstation that spamming is likely to result in 2-5 years of testing the effectiveness of your cellmate's herbal Viagra and penile enhancement, won't deter everybody, but it will deter enough people to keep the bandwidth theft level down to something manageable.
If lawyers profit by shutting down the spammers, then so be it.
If lawyers, bounty hunters, or the Orkin Man profit from shutting down spammers, good for them.
The relevant issue is how to draft a law that prohibits spammers' theft of services (owned by both the end recipient and by various third parties) without infringing on legitimate free speech rights.
My suggestion is to clarify the computer cracking laws so that an anti-spam filter has the same standing as any other computer anti-intrusion system.
Oh my god!!!! Junior saw a tit, he is sure to grow up being a serial killer/rapist/laywer/president (ordered in the amount of tit observed)
We are talking about the sort of filth commonly blasted by spammer vermin (pardon the redundancy), not prefectly nice pics of nekkid wimmin. If I caught somebody showing this stuff to any kid I was responsible for, I'd beat him into gelatin, and no jury would convict me for it.
The people sending it are not actively trying to circumvent your blocking mechanism.
Obviously, you have this backwards -- spammers are actively trying to circumvent your blocking mechanism. (IMO, the most sensible anti-spam reform would be to clearly recognize an anti-spam filter as the legal equivalent of any other computer security system, and apply the usual penalties for computer cracking when someone deliberately circumvents it.)
So far as enforcing the laws already on the books, only 28 or 29 states have laws against spamming.
Every state in the US, and just about every nation on the globe for that matter, has laws against fraud, misrepresentation, distribution of pornography to minors, etc. The number of spammers who don't break any of those laws can be counted on the fingers of one hand, even if there's an unfortunate chainsaw-juggling incident in your past.
Or, to put it another way (and I know this will be unpopular), why SHOULD the public get the works? The public are not OWED the works at all.
One view is that copyright is a natural property right. Another view is that copyright is a creation of the state for a public purpose.
The latter is the one written into the US Constitution. If you think the former is a better basis for American law, fine; get cracking on obtaining the agreement of 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states.
The system has to be maintained, and it should be maintained by its users, not by money taken from others.
Sorry, but if you want to own land, you pay for the surveyor to tell you and everybody else exactly where your land begins and ends. The same principle applies here.
People who do want the product will seek it out on their own and buy it whether or not telemarketers exist. People who don't want the product and are resistant to hard-sell tactics and won't buy it whether or not telemarketers exist. Thus, the only effect of telemarketing is selling to people who don't really want the product, but are susceptible to psychological pressure tactics.
why does your phone company sell your phone number, why do your credit card companies sell your telephone number
Because they've been allowed to get away with stealing it. This does not imply that condoning theft is part of the free market system, but rather that the government has neglected its responsibility as night watchman.
Yeah, and if your house is burgled, then it's your fault because your door lock was "an inherently flawed system".
Under a free market system, enforcement of private property rights is not improper government interference in the system -- it is perfectly proper government maintenance of the system.
But that would, sadly, create an enormous incentive for people to make false and misleading accusations against telemarketers in order to get the fine money
By your reasoning, judgments in personal injury cases should go to the state instead of to the victim, because giving the money to the victim creates an incentive to file bogus lawsuits.
He boasted that in 24 hours he could crack sophisticated software filters designed to block spam.
The problem here is that the computer-cracking laws either don't cover this particular type of unauthorized access and theft of computer resources, or that they are not being enforced. The DMCA has no relevance.
Re:A stupid analogy
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
P2P networking is a technique which may be used legitimately or illegitimately. Spamming is, in and of itself, a violation of property rights, and thus has no legitimate use.
Re:In the tradition of Gonzo Journalism
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
He said he got that many responses. "Open up your computer and piss into the power supply" is a response.
If he's sending 240 million emails a day and getting 1-2 percent return, even if he only make a few dollars off each sale that's a profit in the order of billions a year.
The 1-2 percent figure is his claimed response rate. It doesn't say how many of the "responses" are some variation on "I'm going to beat your #^(!%& head in so far you'll have to open your fly to see where you're going, you @$$#*!#!"
Re:SPAMHAUS Record on Scelson
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Funny
there was a horrid sulfer / rotten egg smell blanketing the whole town
OK, that's eyewitness (nosewitness?) confirmation that Scelson does indeed live there.
Slashdot Mirror
I would extend this to a general "no features designed to defeat anti-spam filtering".
This isn't as hard to define as it might seem, given ordinary criteria based on context, etc. For example, generating random strings of characters is legal in and of itself, but if you feed them to a password prompt on somebody else's system or attach them to spam messages, you're clearly up to something. (In each case, the "something" you're up to is unauthorized computer access, and the same laws ought to apply to each.)
Obviously, you shouldn't treat a suicide bomber or a person who flies planes into buildings the same way you should treat a spammer. Being staked to a red ant hill under a desert sun would have no real effect on (the remaining itty bitty pieces of) the former.
The key legal reform needed to supplement technical solutions is to make it illegal for the spammers to get round it, by simply applying the existing computer-cracking laws to attacks on this particular species of computer security.
If that's the standard, then no document is binding on a spammer unless it's written in orange crayon using Dr. Seuss vocabulary.
True, but not particularly relevant. A convincing demonstation that spamming is likely to result in 2-5 years of testing the effectiveness of your cellmate's herbal Viagra and penile enhancement, won't deter everybody, but it will deter enough people to keep the bandwidth theft level down to something manageable.
If lawyers, bounty hunters, or the Orkin Man profit from shutting down spammers, good for them.
The relevant issue is how to draft a law that prohibits spammers' theft of services (owned by both the end recipient and by various third parties) without infringing on legitimate free speech rights.
My suggestion is to clarify the computer cracking laws so that an anti-spam filter has the same standing as any other computer anti-intrusion system.
We are talking about the sort of filth commonly blasted by spammer vermin (pardon the redundancy), not prefectly nice pics of nekkid wimmin. If I caught somebody showing this stuff to any kid I was responsible for, I'd beat him into gelatin, and no jury would convict me for it.
Obviously, you have this backwards -- spammers are actively trying to circumvent your blocking mechanism. (IMO, the most sensible anti-spam reform would be to clearly recognize an anti-spam filter as the legal equivalent of any other computer security system, and apply the usual penalties for computer cracking when someone deliberately circumvents it.)
Every state in the US, and just about every nation on the globe for that matter, has laws against fraud, misrepresentation, distribution of pornography to minors, etc. The number of spammers who don't break any of those laws can be counted on the fingers of one hand, even if there's an unfortunate chainsaw-juggling incident in your past.
Er, according to a law signed by Clinton himself, yes it was.
One view is that copyright is a natural property right. Another view is that copyright is a creation of the state for a public purpose.
The latter is the one written into the US Constitution. If you think the former is a better basis for American law, fine; get cracking on obtaining the agreement of 2/3 of each house of Congress and 3/4 of the states.
Sorry, but if you want to own land, you pay for the surveyor to tell you and everybody else exactly where your land begins and ends. The same principle applies here.
That's the dirty little secret of the industry.
Because they've been allowed to get away with stealing it. This does not imply that condoning theft is part of the free market system, but rather that the government has neglected its responsibility as night watchman.
Under a free market system, enforcement of private property rights is not improper government interference in the system -- it is perfectly proper government maintenance of the system.
By your reasoning, judgments in personal injury cases should go to the state instead of to the victim, because giving the money to the victim creates an incentive to file bogus lawsuits.
Deer are people, too!
Plus all the viruses, mislabeled files, and just plain crappy rips you can download, all for the same low low price!
Yes, Virginia, you can compete with "free" if what you're offering is actually worth money.
Avoiding war is SIMPLE and EASY dammit -- if some other country wants your land, just roll over and give it to them.
...Under Bill S.1618 TITLE III -assed by the 105th U.S. Congress this letter cannot be considered "s-am"...
He boasted that in 24 hours he could crack sophisticated software filters designed to block spam. The problem here is that the computer-cracking laws either don't cover this particular type of unauthorized access and theft of computer resources, or that they are not being enforced. The DMCA has no relevance.
P2P networking is a technique which may be used legitimately or illegitimately. Spamming is, in and of itself, a violation of property rights, and thus has no legitimate use.
He said he got that many responses. "Open up your computer and piss into the power supply" is a response.
The 1-2 percent figure is his claimed response rate. It doesn't say how many of the "responses" are some variation on "I'm going to beat your #^(!%& head in so far you'll have to open your fly to see where you're going, you @$$#*!#!"
OK, that's eyewitness (nosewitness?) confirmation that Scelson does indeed live there.