Yeah, but in many cases the business/etc doesn't have direct knowledge that the spammer is spamming. And just because someone is running a business, that doesn't make them not a private citizen. I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that drug laws don't work because getting thrown in jail is not as bad as facing bankruptcy?
Okay, lets say I own a private road, now, I have poeple coming through my road, with big 18-wheelers, advertising to the community on the other side, without thier consent, or mine, now, that road needs to be maintained, I may have to add additional lanes to handle the traffic, the traffic might get so heavy I need to hire guards to patrol the road to ensure the level of traffic is kept down. That is direct damage, its taking money out of my pocket, in order to maintain the same level of service for the poeple who pay to use the road.
Yes. You're correct. I never said anything about driving down roads with 18-wheelers. I thought we were talking about spam.
Paying for programmers to filter spam is not a direct damage.
I don't know about you, but I can spot a spam email a mile a way and delete it without every opening it.
Me too, but it's still annoying to delete it without even opening it.
And you can setup simple enough filtering rules on your client to get rid of most of the spam for you.
I've done this too, but it's still annoying.
Its like seperating your snail mail everyday, only difference is at least you get to mail their reply cards back to them so it costs them money.
Well, the other difference is that I know when my snail mail is going to come, and therefore I only check it once a day. Email on the other hand tends to get checked more often, so it's more annoying.
In any case, the annoyance of getting spam far outweighs the $0.000000001 in bandwidth costs. That's my point.
First of all let me say the only thing I see wrong with spam is that it chews up huge amounts of bandwidth and in appropriate material finds its way into the email boxes of minors.
Really? I think you missed the biggest problem with spam. It's annoying to separate from the legitimate email.
It's just as easy to abuse, and (more importantly) you're still paying for it (yes, you do pay for all the spam you filter, whether you like to admit it or not.)
One is a direct consumption demand, people seek out pot, alcohol, etc., for themselves, because they want it. Spam on the other hand is unsolicited, thats the key.
You've never been to Washington Square Park in Manhattan, have you? Not all drug sales are solicited.
Also, is robbery a more serious offense?
Generally, yes.
If I steal a couple CD's from my local media play, is that more serious than someone whos hundreds of thousands of emails have clogged servers, cost companies money for bandwidth, programmers to filter the spam, overtime to techs to fix stuff?
I'm not sure what a "local media play" is. But assuming you're talking about physical theft, yes, that is more serious. I don't think you can count the costs from programmers to filter the spam, because it is not a direct damage. And I don't think overtime to techs to fix stuff is going to be an actual cost of spam, because spam generally doesn't break stuff.
The only likely outcome of anti-spam legislation is that spammers will use foreign servers for their e-mail and websites.
That'd be fine with me. I'd happily move to my spam folder all e-mail coming from outside the United States which isn't from someone on my whitelist (which as of now would consist of no one), and wouldn't check my spam folder unless I was specifically expecting an email which I hadn't yet received (signed up for a foreign website or something).
affirm a mail system owner's right to decide what gets delivered
What exactly does that mean? If I send an email to an old college roomate seeing what he's up to can he sue me if he didn't want that email? What if I accidently send the email to someone else with the same name?
Spamming needs to be treated like trespassing. Unless there is some sort of "no trespassing" sign which you are intentionally ignoring you can only be sued for actual damages (in other words, something like $0.000001 per email).
Now, if most private citizens were spamming, it might be not effective (see RIAA: filesharing). I have enough faith in humanity that is just a few evils causing most of the spam.
That's an interesting question. I was under the impression that it was mostly private citizens spamming. If it's really just a few bad apples, why haven't we been able to stop them yet? Just catch the individuals, and publish their identities to the ISPs. Any ISPs which serve them anyway get blacklisted as well.
It seems to me that's the whole reason that spam is so big. It's not just a few big corporations doing it. It's any bozo with a half-assed business idea and a poorly developed conscience.
Well no, you see, drinking, pot smoking, etc. Those things exist due to marketplace demand, whereas spam is the opposite, its a bit like comparing pulling, to pushing.
Obviously there is marketplace demand for spam if someone is buying the products being spamvertised.
Robbery and such exist despite laws against them, however you cannot seriously suggest we stop prosecuting the offenders.
True, however robbery is a much more serious offense than spam.
Spammers and the companies that utilize them need to be held accountable for damages they incur.
For direct damages, they already are, under tort laws. Unfortunately, direct damages amount to something like $0.000001 per spam.
Especially in the case of spam, where there is no real barrier to entering. If you get a miniscule response, you can make a huge return on a limited investment.
I think you underestimate the barriers to entering the spam business. Where are the ISPs which are going to allow one to send spam from their networks? We're talking about a significant investment to actually have a chance of making money before you get shut down.
Spam is a social problem, not a technological one. Social problems can only be solved by social contracts or laws. Technological solutions fail.
You're right and you're wrong. Yes, spam is a social problem, and the solutions to social problems need to have a legal aspect to them. But they also need to have a technological aspect to them. Email is essentially a peer-to-peer technology. Just look at how much trouble the RIAA is having stopping P2P filesharing. Sure, enforcement of the law seems to be having a bit of an impact, but that enforcement is also very expensive and is IMO never going to stop much of the filesharing.
Legislate Now. Not big brother, not slippery-slope BS about john ashcroft in your inbox - just reasonable, progressive legislation to eliminate the spam epidemic.
Unfortunately I don't think that's currently possible. For legislation and enforcement against spam to work would necessarily involve a big brother solution.
You agree that the current bills are inadequate, yet you urge us to legislate now. What legislation are you urging us to pass? What is this mystery legislative solution which you propose exists?
I worked for 8 months from Germany, but my legal address was a Mailboxes Etc. box in Berkeley, CA. This is a better option than a US PO Box because your address will look "real" -- mine was "1536 Solano Ave. #248" -- 1536 Solano Ave. being the location of the Mailboxes Etc. and 248 being the box number.
Unfortunately, thanks to a bunch of paranoid freaks worried about identity theft, that's not allowed any more. According to a rule passed March 25, 1999, you have to use PMB in your address in order to receive mail to a Mailboxes Etc. box.
The document says nothing about national security. It is about managing and predicting needed services for homeless, veterans, runaways and battered women.
And that's exactly the problem. It's not the federal governments job to manage and predict needed services for homeless, veterans, runaways and battered women.
I also find it hard to believe we need to worry about homeless as threats to national security, but, as with any database administered by the gov't, insert paranoia as needed.
As long as this database is accessable to the masses, is this a big brother issue?
The database isn't going to be accessable to the masses. And regardless of whether or not you want to call it a big brother issue, it is an abuse of government power.
Any why not try to attack the "problem" of homelessness on a national level?
Because the local communities are better able to attack the problem, and because the local communities more accurately reflect the will of the people. If a problem can be solved without the federal government getting involved, then it should be solved without the federal government getting involved. That is an essential principle of our federalist system.
Yes, its behavior modification, but so is school.
The federal government shouldn't get involved in schools either.
I don't see the social harm in doing this.
The harm is that information is power, and power corrupts. Whenever a government spends taxpayer money to obtain information for its own uses we should scrutinize the plans quite carefully. Unless such information is essential to the functioning of the government, it shouldn't be obtained.
Would the government benefit from such information? Maybe a little. There will be a healthier population, but the government need not force health upon people. If people want to voluntarily be tracked to enhance their health, that's different. If we want to track fugitives, there are already mechanisms to do that, in the form of search warrants. As for tracking the progress of helping the homeless, again we should let the homeless who want such benefits sign up to be tracked voluntarily.
None of this should be the federal government's concern. It's a local problem, and there should be a local solution.
Should we (as a society) help people who can't help themselves? Sure, I think we should. Providing people with food and shelter isn't the same as supporting their habits. But that doesn't necessitate the federal government tracking these people.
I fully support a person's right to privacy and their desire to not participate in society, however, getting government handouts and not participating in society are mutually exclusive.
Aren't most if not all homeless shelters and soup kitchens private organizations? Even those that are government I'd assume are local government. What right does the federal government have demanding information from private organizations or local governments?
If they really want to live "off the grid" and not participate in society, screw 'em. They shouldn't get any gov't supplied and organized benefits from my taxes.
This program will probably cost taxpayers more than all the federal homeless programs combined. The national security benefits are not enough to justify the cost, in my opinion.
as for the SS number issue, I am sure some fall through the cracks here and there but every adult has one because when a child is found not to have one they are issued one.
Found by whom? Issued by whom? You're only issued a social security number if you apply for one. No one can force you to get one.
yes...and if they are born in the US, they are issued a SS# at birth. if they did not get one at birth, then at what ever point in life they came in contact with the system, they are assigned one.
First you say everyone is issued an SSN at birth. Then you say "if they did not get one at birth..." Which one is it, does everyone get an SSN at birth, or only most people?
I did not say you needed one to be a citizen, but all citizens have one.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, but in many cases the business/etc doesn't have direct knowledge that the spammer is spamming. And just because someone is running a business, that doesn't make them not a private citizen. I'm not sure of your point. Are you saying that drug laws don't work because getting thrown in jail is not as bad as facing bankruptcy?
Okay, lets say I own a private road, now, I have poeple coming through my road, with big 18-wheelers, advertising to the community on the other side, without thier consent, or mine, now, that road needs to be maintained, I may have to add additional lanes to handle the traffic, the traffic might get so heavy I need to hire guards to patrol the road to ensure the level of traffic is kept down. That is direct damage, its taking money out of my pocket, in order to maintain the same level of service for the poeple who pay to use the road.
Yes. You're correct. I never said anything about driving down roads with 18-wheelers. I thought we were talking about spam.
Paying for programmers to filter spam is not a direct damage.
I don't know about you, but I can spot a spam email a mile a way and delete it without every opening it.
Me too, but it's still annoying to delete it without even opening it.
And you can setup simple enough filtering rules on your client to get rid of most of the spam for you.
I've done this too, but it's still annoying.
Its like seperating your snail mail everyday, only difference is at least you get to mail their reply cards back to them so it costs them money.
Well, the other difference is that I know when my snail mail is going to come, and therefore I only check it once a day. Email on the other hand tends to get checked more often, so it's more annoying.
In any case, the annoyance of getting spam far outweighs the $0.000000001 in bandwidth costs. That's my point.
First of all let me say the only thing I see wrong with spam is that it chews up huge amounts of bandwidth and in appropriate material finds its way into the email boxes of minors.
Really? I think you missed the biggest problem with spam. It's annoying to separate from the legitimate email.
It's just as easy to abuse, and (more importantly) you're still paying for it (yes, you do pay for all the spam you filter, whether you like to admit it or not.)
I don't.
One is a direct consumption demand, people seek out pot, alcohol, etc., for themselves, because they want it. Spam on the other hand is unsolicited, thats the key.
You've never been to Washington Square Park in Manhattan, have you? Not all drug sales are solicited.
Also, is robbery a more serious offense?
Generally, yes.
If I steal a couple CD's from my local media play, is that more serious than someone whos hundreds of thousands of emails have clogged servers, cost companies money for bandwidth, programmers to filter the spam, overtime to techs to fix stuff?
I'm not sure what a "local media play" is. But assuming you're talking about physical theft, yes, that is more serious. I don't think you can count the costs from programmers to filter the spam, because it is not a direct damage. And I don't think overtime to techs to fix stuff is going to be an actual cost of spam, because spam generally doesn't break stuff.
The only likely outcome of anti-spam legislation is that spammers will use foreign servers for their e-mail and websites.
That'd be fine with me. I'd happily move to my spam folder all e-mail coming from outside the United States which isn't from someone on my whitelist (which as of now would consist of no one), and wouldn't check my spam folder unless I was specifically expecting an email which I hadn't yet received (signed up for a foreign website or something).
affirm a mail system owner's right to decide what gets delivered
What exactly does that mean? If I send an email to an old college roomate seeing what he's up to can he sue me if he didn't want that email? What if I accidently send the email to someone else with the same name?
Spamming needs to be treated like trespassing. Unless there is some sort of "no trespassing" sign which you are intentionally ignoring you can only be sued for actual damages (in other words, something like $0.000001 per email).
Now, if most private citizens were spamming, it might be not effective (see RIAA: filesharing). I have enough faith in humanity that is just a few evils causing most of the spam.
That's an interesting question. I was under the impression that it was mostly private citizens spamming. If it's really just a few bad apples, why haven't we been able to stop them yet? Just catch the individuals, and publish their identities to the ISPs. Any ISPs which serve them anyway get blacklisted as well.
It seems to me that's the whole reason that spam is so big. It's not just a few big corporations doing it. It's any bozo with a half-assed business idea and a poorly developed conscience.
Well no, you see, drinking, pot smoking, etc. Those things exist due to marketplace demand, whereas spam is the opposite, its a bit like comparing pulling, to pushing.
Obviously there is marketplace demand for spam if someone is buying the products being spamvertised.
Robbery and such exist despite laws against them, however you cannot seriously suggest we stop prosecuting the offenders.
True, however robbery is a much more serious offense than spam.
Spammers and the companies that utilize them need to be held accountable for damages they incur.
For direct damages, they already are, under tort laws. Unfortunately, direct damages amount to something like $0.000001 per spam.
If a spam law stopped just a small percentage of spam it would still save shedloads of money worldwide that is now wasted dealing with spam.
The problem is that in order for a spam law to stop just a small percentage of spam you would have to spend shedloads of money enforcing the law.
Especially in the case of spam, where there is no real barrier to entering. If you get a miniscule response, you can make a huge return on a limited investment.
I think you underestimate the barriers to entering the spam business. Where are the ISPs which are going to allow one to send spam from their networks? We're talking about a significant investment to actually have a chance of making money before you get shut down.
Spam is a social problem, not a technological one. Social problems can only be solved by social contracts or laws. Technological solutions fail.
You're right and you're wrong. Yes, spam is a social problem, and the solutions to social problems need to have a legal aspect to them. But they also need to have a technological aspect to them. Email is essentially a peer-to-peer technology. Just look at how much trouble the RIAA is having stopping P2P filesharing. Sure, enforcement of the law seems to be having a bit of an impact, but that enforcement is also very expensive and is IMO never going to stop much of the filesharing.
Legislate Now. Not big brother, not slippery-slope BS about john ashcroft in your inbox - just reasonable, progressive legislation to eliminate the spam epidemic.
Unfortunately I don't think that's currently possible. For legislation and enforcement against spam to work would necessarily involve a big brother solution.
You agree that the current bills are inadequate, yet you urge us to legislate now. What legislation are you urging us to pass? What is this mystery legislative solution which you propose exists?
I worked for 8 months from Germany, but my legal address was a Mailboxes Etc. box in Berkeley, CA. This is a better option than a US PO Box because your address will look "real" -- mine was "1536 Solano Ave. #248" -- 1536 Solano Ave. being the location of the Mailboxes Etc. and 248 being the box number.
Unfortunately, thanks to a bunch of paranoid freaks worried about identity theft, that's not allowed any more. According to a rule passed March 25, 1999, you have to use PMB in your address in order to receive mail to a Mailboxes Etc. box.
The 14th Ammendment was not lawfully ratified.
Neither was the Declaration of Independence, since England didn't agree to it.
The 14th Amendment is the law de facto.
The document says nothing about national security. It is about managing and predicting needed services for homeless, veterans, runaways and battered women.
And that's exactly the problem. It's not the federal governments job to manage and predict needed services for homeless, veterans, runaways and battered women.
I also find it hard to believe we need to worry about homeless as threats to national security, but, as with any database administered by the gov't, insert paranoia as needed.
Wasn't the serial sniper homeless?
so when I say:
all citizens have a SSN, but you do not need one [an SSN] to be a citizen,
how then did you come to the conclusion that those were logically the same?
If all citizens have an SSN, then in order to be a citizen you have to have an SSN. It's just saying the same thing two different ways.
Aren't we tracked though?
Of course we are. Should we be? I'd say no.
As long as this database is accessable to the masses, is this a big brother issue?
The database isn't going to be accessable to the masses. And regardless of whether or not you want to call it a big brother issue, it is an abuse of government power.
Any why not try to attack the "problem" of homelessness on a national level?
Because the local communities are better able to attack the problem, and because the local communities more accurately reflect the will of the people. If a problem can be solved without the federal government getting involved, then it should be solved without the federal government getting involved. That is an essential principle of our federalist system.
Yes, its behavior modification, but so is school.
The federal government shouldn't get involved in schools either.
I don't see the social harm in doing this.
The harm is that information is power, and power corrupts. Whenever a government spends taxpayer money to obtain information for its own uses we should scrutinize the plans quite carefully. Unless such information is essential to the functioning of the government, it shouldn't be obtained.
Would the government benefit from such information? Maybe a little. There will be a healthier population, but the government need not force health upon people. If people want to voluntarily be tracked to enhance their health, that's different. If we want to track fugitives, there are already mechanisms to do that, in the form of search warrants. As for tracking the progress of helping the homeless, again we should let the homeless who want such benefits sign up to be tracked voluntarily.
And getting free money and food from the government is voluntary as well.
It is? Where can I get this free money and food from the government?
None of this should be the federal government's concern. It's a local problem, and there should be a local solution.
Should we (as a society) help people who can't help themselves? Sure, I think we should. Providing people with food and shelter isn't the same as supporting their habits. But that doesn't necessitate the federal government tracking these people.
I fully support a person's right to privacy and their desire to not participate in society, however, getting government handouts and not participating in society are mutually exclusive.
Aren't most if not all homeless shelters and soup kitchens private organizations? Even those that are government I'd assume are local government. What right does the federal government have demanding information from private organizations or local governments?
If they really want to live "off the grid" and not participate in society, screw 'em. They shouldn't get any gov't supplied and organized benefits from my taxes.
This program will probably cost taxpayers more than all the federal homeless programs combined. The national security benefits are not enough to justify the cost, in my opinion.
I never said we should support their habits.
all men are people....not all people are men
are those logically the same?
No.
as for the SS number issue, I am sure some fall through the cracks here and there but every adult has one because when a child is found not to have one they are issued one.
Found by whom? Issued by whom? You're only issued a social security number if you apply for one. No one can force you to get one.
yes...and if they are born in the US, they are issued a SS# at birth. if they did not get one at birth, then at what ever point in life they came in contact with the system, they are assigned one.
First you say everyone is issued an SSN at birth. Then you say "if they did not get one at birth..." Which one is it, does everyone get an SSN at birth, or only most people?
I did not say you needed one to be a citizen, but all citizens have one.
Those two statements are logically identical.
Most homeless who will get back into society are homeless for a short period of time.
You're still assuming that homeless people can't be part of society while they are homeless.
The chronic homeless usually have mental/drug problems and refuse to cooperate with treatment programs.
And that's their right.