how many people really believe that the government is out to get them?
That depends: How many people are seriously inconveniencing or annoying the people in power?
The idea of the census is to judge where government should be gearing resources and focusing attention.
No, it's to allocate representative districts so that they correspond reasonably well to the voting population. The rest is just cruft grafted on to the system.
I think everyone needs to realize there are legitimate emailers and spammers.
Legitimate emailers do not send bulk mail unless they have a confirmed subscription from each recipient. Spammers send bulk mail without confirmed subscriptions. It's that simple.
it's going to be really hard to prove that the filter was evaded intentionally
Oh, puh-leeze. Munging obvious "spammy" words or adding random junk to obfuscate checksum comparison against spam received at dummy addresses pretty much speaks for itself.
Yeah, somebody might be able to convolute an innocent explanation, just as somebody might be able to convolute an innocent explanation for sticking a slim jim into somebody else's car window. In both cases, tell your "innocent explanation" to the judge and see if he'll buy it.
Re:does this really require a readme.txt??
on
How to Become A Spammer
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
You must have quite a few clients willing to pay you for your "services".
This shows that an anti-spamming law would, in fact, be a lot easier to enforce than one might imagine. Troll the "spammer support" boards, answer an ad, and then:
"OK, so we're agreed -- $299 to send out the 'Hot Dirty Teen Lezzie Sluts' message to your ten million addresses?"
"Yep; just sign here...."
[pulls out badge] "POLICE! Stand up slowly and put your hands behind your head...."
(And, no, it would not be "entrapment" if the police had evidence that the perp was offering spam services before the sting was set up -- that's one of reasons for the initial ad-trolling step.)
If you're implying some denial of service attack, I don't really think you're any better than they are.
I do not find your moral equivalence between an unprovoked attack on innocent bystanders (what the spammers are doing) and a retaliation/deterrent attack on perps (what a DoS on a spammer-support site would be) to be at all convincing.
it seems to me that you'd have trouble showing that someone intentionally bypassed your mail filters, the exact forms of which are presumably not public
I don't see that this would be any trouble at all. Maybe a spammer can offer some innocent explanation of why he uses a special program to insert dummy HTML tags into certain words and throw lines of random gibberish into each message. And maybe a young hoodlum can offer some innocent explanation of why he stuck a slim jim into a car window that was open a crack. In both cases, they can tell it to the judge.
Is there a way to define the willful circumvention of anti-spam filters (e.g. by throwing in random junk to disguise "spammy" words or make each message appear to be different) as "unauthorized access" without opening some can of worms that needs to be kept closed?
If so, then the legal tools are already available to make some serious examples.
None of the phone numbers listed in the spams he is alleged to have sent are listed in his name. One was in his mother's name. Another in the name of his mentally handicapped brother who lived in a nearby assisted-living home.
I think what we need are technical solutions backed by force of law (e.g. deliberately bypassing anti-spam filters should be treated just like deliberately bypassing any other form of computer security).
I dunno. A 12-guage shotgun blast to the face would stop one pretty good.
I honestly don't know why this hasn't happened. When you routinely piss off millions of people, you're bound to catch a few cases of six-sigma-below-mu on the anger management scale.
4. Attempts to circumvent anti-spam filters are treated as a form of computer cracking. For example, throwing random junk into spam messages to avoid having the messages recognized as identical or to obfuscate terms commonly found in anti-spam filters would carry the same penalties as throwing a dictionary at a password prompt or exploiting a backdoor.
After all, both activities are aimed at precisely the same result: gaining unauthorized access to someone else's computer in violation of the owner's express prohibition.
Now I know your retort will be "well! The law code is so hard that the average person can't understand it and can't afford a lawyer to double check the legality of every action! WAAAAAAAA!"
This would be a legitimate argument if this guy were accused of violating some obscure regulation that says his advertising sign is three inches too long, or something. However, it is a matter of common knowledge and common sense that making automated calls to people in the predawn hours is a public nuisance, so ignorance of the exact point of illegality is neither a defense nor a cause for sympathy.
The government can, and should, mandate whatever they need for their own operations.
I thought it was obvious from context that I was referring to the government's own operations. Private businesses should be free to use what they like (unless there is some special circumstance that justifies requiring them to make certain data publicly available, in which case that mandate should include an open-format requirement).
Governments should not mandate the use of a specific tool, but should mandate that the documents and files created are stored in an open (fully documented and non-proprietary) form so that legacy data cannot be held hostage and can be accessed by citizens regardless of their software preferences.
Ah, I see the problem -- you have incorrectly defined spam as "unsolicited commercial email". Using the correct definition of "unsolicited bulk email", a prohibition on spam is a textbook case of content-neutral time-place-and-manner restriction.
Slashdot Mirror
how many people really believe that the government is out to get them? That depends: How many people are seriously inconveniencing or annoying the people in power?
Well, then, the destruction of the ballots would be evidence that the exploit took place. That's yet another argument in favor of hard copy evidence.
What kind of information about its surroundings could the probe pick up from inside all that molten iron?
No, it's to allocate representative districts so that they correspond reasonably well to the voting population. The rest is just cruft grafted on to the system.
Legitimate emailers do not send bulk mail unless they have a confirmed subscription from each recipient. Spammers send bulk mail without confirmed subscriptions. It's that simple.
Oh, puh-leeze. Munging obvious "spammy" words or adding random junk to obfuscate checksum comparison against spam received at dummy addresses pretty much speaks for itself.
Yeah, somebody might be able to convolute an innocent explanation, just as somebody might be able to convolute an innocent explanation for sticking a slim jim into somebody else's car window. In both cases, tell your "innocent explanation" to the judge and see if he'll buy it.
This shows that an anti-spamming law would, in fact, be a lot easier to enforce than one might imagine. Troll the "spammer support" boards, answer an ad, and then:
(And, no, it would not be "entrapment" if the police had evidence that the perp was offering spam services before the sting was set up -- that's one of reasons for the initial ad-trolling step.)I do not find your moral equivalence between an unprovoked attack on innocent bystanders (what the spammers are doing) and a retaliation/deterrent attack on perps (what a DoS on a spammer-support site would be) to be at all convincing.
Nonsense. Spam gets in by filter evasion tactics, which should be prosecuted and punished as heavily as any other form of computer cracking.
Pretty much anything sharp enough, applied at the second knuckle of each of the spammer's fingers, will do the trick....
Fine, if the law treats my blocks just like it treats my locks (i.e. if you get caught deliberately trying to get past them, you go to jail).
I don't see that this would be any trouble at all. Maybe a spammer can offer some innocent explanation of why he uses a special program to insert dummy HTML tags into certain words and throw lines of random gibberish into each message. And maybe a young hoodlum can offer some innocent explanation of why he stuck a slim jim into a car window that was open a crack. In both cases, they can tell it to the judge.
If so, then the legal tools are already available to make some serious examples.
I think what we need are technical solutions backed by force of law (e.g. deliberately bypassing anti-spam filters should be treated just like deliberately bypassing any other form of computer security).
I honestly don't know why this hasn't happened. When you routinely piss off millions of people, you're bound to catch a few cases of six-sigma-below-mu on the anger management scale.
Well, we obviously need to beef up security, inasmuch as the existing system has clearly failed to keep out the Communists....
4. Attempts to circumvent anti-spam filters are treated as a form of computer cracking. For example, throwing random junk into spam messages to avoid having the messages recognized as identical or to obfuscate terms commonly found in anti-spam filters would carry the same penalties as throwing a dictionary at a password prompt or exploiting a backdoor.
After all, both activities are aimed at precisely the same result: gaining unauthorized access to someone else's computer in violation of the owner's express prohibition.
Are there no prisons? And the Union workhouses? Are they still in operation?
Did you leave out the 'E' at the end?
And the "H", the "O", the "L", and another "E".
This would be a legitimate argument if this guy were accused of violating some obscure regulation that says his advertising sign is three inches too long, or something. However, it is a matter of common knowledge and common sense that making automated calls to people in the predawn hours is a public nuisance, so ignorance of the exact point of illegality is neither a defense nor a cause for sympathy.
Legit business owners obey the law against using robo-telemarketers and calling in the wee hours of the morning.
I thought it was obvious from context that I was referring to the government's own operations. Private businesses should be free to use what they like (unless there is some special circumstance that justifies requiring them to make certain data publicly available, in which case that mandate should include an open-format requirement).
Governments should not mandate the use of a specific tool, but should mandate that the documents and files created are stored in an open (fully documented and non-proprietary) form so that legacy data cannot be held hostage and can be accessed by citizens regardless of their software preferences.
Ah, I see the problem -- you have incorrectly defined spam as "unsolicited commercial email". Using the correct definition of "unsolicited bulk email", a prohibition on spam is a textbook case of content-neutral time-place-and-manner restriction.