You haven't given anyone advance notice not to solicit you; notice that they can reasonably be aware of when they go to email you.
Nope. Anyone can do a simple Google search and find ample evidence that I do not want spam. Ergo, the spammer is a tresspasser, and the law should permit me to shoot him dead without further ado.
The problem with your argument is that you have effectively consented to receive spam, because you are absolutely not discriminating as to what sort of content can be sent to you and which you are willing to receive.
The problem with your argument is that you have effectively consented to be raped, because you have gone out onto the streets without wearing a chastity belt.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic. That means that certain issues are simply removed from the whim of the majority. For example, no, the DMA does not get any say about the use of my property.
A year and a half without a terrorist act. Either the Patriot Act works or the terrorists have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.
There are no giant squids within a thousand miles of here. Either my anti-squid paperweight works or the squids have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.
A better mechanism would seek to apply anti-cracking laws rather than IP laws.
The law should treat any attempt to circumvent an anti-spam filter exactly as it treats any attempt to circumvent any other attempt to keep an unauthorized user out of a computer system.
The world doesn't hate us because we have freedom.
Not per se. However, it is absurd to deny that the Wahabi extremists hate the West in general and America in particular because they fear that their hard-shell version of Islam will end up being relegated to a few Amish-style islands in a sea of Westernization.
MacDonald's argument for permitting the government to conduct broad fishing expeditions is similar to school administrators' arguments for "zero tolerance" policies. In both cases, the people in charge don't want to exert the effort and take the heat associated with identifying and acting against the real threats. By treating everyone like a criminal, they avoid a lot of bother, and too bad if the target of the fight is treated just like the perpetrator or an octagenerian Medal of Honor recipient is treated just like a recent arrival from a Jihadistan terrorist training camp.
Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a Schwarzenegger-type character in the "movie world" (i.e. the movies the people in the movie watch) who gets stuck in the "real world" where the rules are more realistic, providing all sorts of send-ups of action movie chiches.
Parent has already been deservedly modded down to "-1, Troll" (though this is one of those cases that calls for options such as "-1, Moron" or "-1, Sleazebag", depending on whether he is defending spamming because he doesn't know any better or because he does it himself).
However, the author has dropped several other equally deserving trolls onto this thread, and has not yet recieved his due for those from the moderators....
A lot of spam can load a server and cost money, but unfortunately no single E-mail has a cost that is worthy of notice, at least in the USA. With fax you can point to a fax and say, "This fax cost me 2 cents to print, and while it was coming in, my fax line was blocked for 2 minutes."
Unfortunately you can't do that with an e-mail. You can only say, "the ISP got a million spams and they finally had to buy more bandwidth."
Which can't be used to make a law that bans single spams the way the junk fax law bans single junk faxes.
The precedent of anti-littering laws (the costs imposed on others in general, much less on any other individual in particular, of throwing one lousy gum wrapper on the street is nanoscopic -- and yet there are still laws on the books that say they can fine you for it for it if they catch you, and sometimes they do) indicates otherwise.
Nope. In an illegal drug transaction, neither the buyer nor the seller wants official attention, so the authorities have to go to great lengths to detect, much less suppress, the activity. In spamming, the recipient wants the cops to catch the perpetrator (and maybe bend the Eighth Amendment just a wee bit), so the evidence will be readily available to anybody making a credible attempt to crack down on spam theft.
Re:Surrender? How? I can't read english!
on
Strike on Iraq
·
· Score: 1
all our leaflets are in english AND arabic
They should probably drop some with those speaker chips they put in greeting cards, to cover folks who can't read whether it's English, Arabic, or Swahili.
Spammers aren't a complete waste of skin. I know this is hard to believe. We just need to remember that when we strap their heads into the kill-device, that the bolt-gun sends the bolt crashing through their head, pulping their brains.
I can accept that with the proviso that the rejection may occur at any point (i.e. an ISP may decide as a matter of policy to discard non-opt-in bulk email without further ado -- if you want to be spammed, sign up with a different ISP).
I have a right to a lawyer, but that doesn't mean that anyone who is not my lawyer is violating my rights.... Most anti-spam laws I have seen deny people that right, or make it difficult to exercise (by forcing solicitation).
Sillier and sillier. If you want a lawyer, you have to ask for one (either call your private attorney or tell the authorities you need a court-appointed defender). This does not deny your right or make it unreasonably "difficult to excersize".
No, the correct solution is strict opt-in -- you get to blast bulk mail only to people who have requested it. You may not assume that anyone who has not specifically told you "no" is "willing", any more than you can assume that anyone who has specifically told you not to pick their pockets is fair game for your prestidigitory skill.
Slashdot Mirror
Nope. Anyone can do a simple Google search and find ample evidence that I do not want spam. Ergo, the spammer is a tresspasser, and the law should permit me to shoot him dead without further ado.
The problem with your argument is that you have effectively consented to be raped, because you have gone out onto the streets without wearing a chastity belt.
Begone, troll.
The United States is a Constitutional Republic. That means that certain issues are simply removed from the whim of the majority. For example, no, the DMA does not get any say about the use of my property.
The key thing is that worthwhile legislation must also apply to US persons or corporations who use spam, whether or not they send it themselves.
Oh, your magic anti-tiger keychain is working, too?
*sigh* Do we have to shoot down this stupid argument again?
Oh, all right....
I have a magic anti-tiger keychain. I know it works because I haven't seen a single tiger since I started wearing it.
There are no giant squids within a thousand miles of here. Either my anti-squid paperweight works or the squids have been in a good mood lately. My guess is the former.
The law should treat any attempt to circumvent an anti-spam filter exactly as it treats any attempt to circumvent any other attempt to keep an unauthorized user out of a computer system.
Not per se. However, it is absurd to deny that the Wahabi extremists hate the West in general and America in particular because they fear that their hard-shell version of Islam will end up being relegated to a few Amish-style islands in a sea of Westernization.
MacDonald's argument for permitting the government to conduct broad fishing expeditions is similar to school administrators' arguments for "zero tolerance" policies. In both cases, the people in charge don't want to exert the effort and take the heat associated with identifying and acting against the real threats. By treating everyone like a criminal, they avoid a lot of bother, and too bad if the target of the fight is treated just like the perpetrator or an octagenerian Medal of Honor recipient is treated just like a recent arrival from a Jihadistan terrorist training camp.
Oh, puh-leeze. Anybody back in late February who wasn't expecting this war was simply not paying attention.
Arnold Schwarzenegger plays a Schwarzenegger-type character in the "movie world" (i.e. the movies the people in the movie watch) who gets stuck in the "real world" where the rules are more realistic, providing all sorts of send-ups of action movie chiches.
That's a feature that the G3 really needs
Especially if you're using it to shoot your own pr0n.
Well, now, if you can't find anything interesting to photograph, whose fault is that?
However, the author has dropped several other equally deserving trolls onto this thread, and has not yet recieved his due for those from the moderators....
Unfortunately you can't do that with an e-mail. You can only say, "the ISP got a million spams and they finally had to buy more bandwidth."
Which can't be used to make a law that bans single spams the way the junk fax law bans single junk faxes.
The precedent of anti-littering laws (the costs imposed on others in general, much less on any other individual in particular, of throwing one lousy gum wrapper on the street is nanoscopic -- and yet there are still laws on the books that say they can fine you for it for it if they catch you, and sometimes they do) indicates otherwise.
Nope. In an illegal drug transaction, neither the buyer nor the seller wants official attention, so the authorities have to go to great lengths to detect, much less suppress, the activity. In spamming, the recipient wants the cops to catch the perpetrator (and maybe bend the Eighth Amendment just a wee bit), so the evidence will be readily available to anybody making a credible attempt to crack down on spam theft.
They should probably drop some with those speaker chips they put in greeting cards, to cover folks who can't read whether it's English, Arabic, or Swahili.
You'd need a precision aiming system.
Methinks that the reporter has been spammed as much, and appreciated it as little, as the rest of us....
I can accept that with the proviso that the rejection may occur at any point (i.e. an ISP may decide as a matter of policy to discard non-opt-in bulk email without further ado -- if you want to be spammed, sign up with a different ISP).
Simple:
Duh.Wink, wink, nudge, nudge....
Sillier and sillier. If you want a lawyer, you have to ask for one (either call your private attorney or tell the authorities you need a court-appointed defender). This does not deny your right or make it unreasonably "difficult to excersize".
No, the correct solution is strict opt-in -- you get to blast bulk mail only to people who have requested it. You may not assume that anyone who has not specifically told you "no" is "willing", any more than you can assume that anyone who has specifically told you not to pick their pockets is fair game for your prestidigitory skill.
There is no such right. If there were, then everyone who did not send you spam would be violating your rights, which is absurd on its face.