"Legislating one's right to communicate freely goes against everything this country was founded upon, and anti-spam legislation is just another example of an overly powerful government taking away the rights of its citizens. I, for one will not support any such law, or any lawmaker who supports such a law."
As a citizen of this country, I have a right to choose not to listen to your "free" speech. Especially when I am the one paying for your medium of choice.
It goes to small claims court and is usually resolved in about 10 minutes. $100 per message is BS... should be more like $500, especially after you participated in the spammers "OPT-OUT" procedures.
No harm is done except they (the SPAMMERS) steal my time and my money by sending me crap I don't want or need.
The way I understand it is.. to do business in a state a person (or entity) has to agree to that states Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Colorados anti-spam law is tied into its UCC. Under Colorado law: 4-1-105 - Territorial application of title - parties' power to choose applicable law "(1) Except as provided hereafter in this section, when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation, the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties. Failing such agreement, this title applies to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to this state." I assume other states are similiar.
Unfortunately our law limits the damages to $10 + court costs (includes costs of serving papers?)per email, so its kind of like going up against a tank armed with only a 22.
If I ask 20 people to give a me a quick description of what a piston does in an internal combustion engine will I get 20 unique answers?
By providing a narrow focus (pistons in an internal combustion engine) and limiting the depth of response (quick), would I not be generating alot of false positives using turnitin.
Turnitin could be a useful tool, but it alone cannot determine plagiarism.
I am an editor, and I submitted a chapter of a highly suspect book I was working on to Turnitin...
and from the usage policy:
This web site is for your personal and noncommercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from this web site. A user may not market, rent, lease, or re-license the licensed programs or services, or use the licensed programs or services for third party commercial use, commercial timesharing, or service bureau use.
Crackdowns on spam have been largely unsuccessful, partly because they pit concerns about privacy against free-speech issues.
Why would free-speech issues apply to the email spammer? They do not not own the medium (my computer, my ISPs computers/network) that they are using to air their message, and neither does the national government. Any laws enacted by the government would only put the power back into the hands of people who own the medium to decide what they want or don't want to hear, see or read about.
According to this rationale, I could bust into a local television station, air my message and then hide behind my First Ammendment Rights of free-speech to avoid any cost (jail time or financial) on my part.
In addition, although many states have adopted anti-spam measures, spammers have argued that there is usually no way for them to know an e-mail recipient lives in a certain state where some types of junk e-mail are illegal.
They should buy a better mailing lists, complete with addresses. Or do a little research. Ignorance shouldn't be bliss, it should be painful.
Slashdot Mirror
"Legislating one's right to communicate freely goes against everything this country was founded upon, and anti-spam legislation is just another example of an overly powerful government taking away the rights of its citizens. I, for one will not support any such law, or any lawmaker who supports such a law."
As a citizen of this country, I have a right to choose not to listen to your "free" speech. Especially when I am the one paying for your medium of choice.
It goes to small claims court and is usually resolved in about 10 minutes. $100 per message is BS... should be more like $500, especially after you participated in the spammers "OPT-OUT" procedures.
No harm is done except they (the SPAMMERS) steal my time and my money by sending me crap I don't want or need.
The way I understand it is.. to do business in a state a person (or entity) has to agree to that states Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Colorados anti-spam law is tied into its UCC. Under Colorado law: 4-1-105 - Territorial application of title - parties' power to choose applicable law "(1) Except as provided hereafter in this section, when a transaction bears a reasonable relation to this state and also to another state or nation, the parties may agree that the law either of this state or of such other state or nation shall govern their rights and duties. Failing such agreement, this title applies to transactions bearing an appropriate relation to this state." I assume other states are similiar.
Unfortunately our law limits the damages to $10 + court costs (includes costs of serving papers?)per email, so its kind of like going up against a tank armed with only a 22.
Yeah, let me pull a server out of my ass... ...that trick never works.
"...I am a rival for the affections of Natalie Portman." You too!
If I ask 20 people to give a me a quick description of what a piston does in an internal combustion engine will I get 20 unique answers?
By providing a narrow focus (pistons in an internal combustion engine) and limiting the depth of response (quick), would I not be generating alot of false positives using turnitin.
Turnitin could be a useful tool, but it alone cannot determine plagiarism.
I am an editor, and I submitted a chapter of a highly suspect book I was working on to Turnitin...
and from the usage policy:This web site is for your personal and noncommercial use. You may not modify, copy, distribute, transmit, display, perform, reproduce, publish, license, create derivative works from, transfer, or sell any information, software, products or services obtained from this web site. A user may not market, rent, lease, or re-license the licensed programs or services, or use the licensed programs or services for third party commercial use, commercial timesharing, or service bureau use.
Crackdowns on spam have been largely unsuccessful, partly because they pit concerns about privacy against free-speech issues.
Why would free-speech issues apply to the email spammer? They do not not own the medium (my computer, my ISPs computers/network) that they are using to air their message, and neither does the national government. Any laws enacted by the government would only put the power back into the hands of people who own the medium to decide what they want or don't want to hear, see or read about. According to this rationale, I could bust into a local television station, air my message and then hide behind my First Ammendment Rights of free-speech to avoid any cost (jail time or financial) on my part.In addition, although many states have adopted anti-spam measures, spammers have argued that there is usually no way for them to know an e-mail recipient lives in a certain state where some types of junk e-mail are illegal.
They should buy a better mailing lists, complete with addresses. Or do a little research. Ignorance shouldn't be bliss, it should be painful.