I think you just insinuated that the source of all messages sent should be verifiable by court order
No, I was just stating the current law - for every ISP I have worked with (investigating SPAM), they will not give one single detail about the user unless unless they have a court order. This is a very strong protection, which I have no problem with. I had no intention of insinuating anything with that statement.
What I am saying is that having Internet access shouldn't give you the right to do whatever the hell you want without fear of repercussion. I have been involved in investigations of e-mails (both valid and SPAM) ranging from harassment, to threatening, to some sick SOB who tried to bounce child pornography off of our relay. There are occassions where the TOS for any service provider can and should be bypassed.
I could debate more but my time at work is over... no hard feelings, but I do disagree...
I maintain a constantly growing list of 1,000 or so blocked addresses for one of my systems. There are a number of pay and free sites that host extremely comprehensive downloadable lists of known spammers/dialup servers/open relays etc... It's actually one of the better ways to prevent spam from entering your system...(?)
First off, fraud laws do not already apply. Your insinuation of this only demonstrates your lack of knowledge on this subject.
Secondly, there are already anonymous forums - including your e-mail address. Assuming you have done nothing illegal, an ISP (or at least everyone I've worked with on SPAM investigations) are bound by their TOS to not reveal any of your personal information. That works up and to the point where they receive a subpeona/warrant to release this information.
Your baseless FUD that anti-spam laws will somehow hinder one's rights to free speech are unfounded and idiotic.
Have you seen the licensing agreements for MAPS ? It sure as hell isn't cheap. I'm so sick of this "more legislation is NOT the answer" argument bull$hit - some things simply should be illegal. It's just idiotic to think that the ability to forge e-mail headers is somehow a 'god-given' or 'constitutionally protected' right... that's such crap!?
Hmmm... so what would happen if we got them all listed with one of those SPAM outfits that really just won't quit sending mail (you know the ones I'm talking about)?
I wonder how long it would take for legislation to get passed then(!?)
explained (again) that all that does is confirm to the spammer that he has a live address
That isn't necessarily a truism. Just as there are different types of religions in the world, there are differnt types of a$$holes in the world of SPAM. Some 'spammers', like the kind your user apparently ran into, have bought lists of addresses and legitimately (through what particular delusion I don't know) think this is a lsit of users that wants to buy his/her product/service/whatever. This of course doesn't apply to the jacka$$es that forge headers and use open relays, but it does apply to at least some section of the spammer population.
Now, don't get me wrong, this crap pisses me of as much, if not much more, than the next Messaging SA. I just wanted to point out that some unsubscribe links are valid...
BTW, interesting info on the Utah law. It's always nice to see creepy religious conservatism working towards the common good. I think this might be the second time of heard of that happening... wait... never mind... this is the first:)
It's not that difficult to do! All you would have to do (assuming this all takes place within U.S. jurisdiction) is examine the message headers, lookup the originating ISP in ARIN, file a complaint which will get a subpeona for the ISP, which will then turn over their logs and subscriber contact information. You then have a defendant and proof that they sent the e-mail in question.
To survive as a U.S. spammer under this model, you would have to break the law (by using stolen accounts or hacked zombie systems) just to send SPAM in the first place - which is much more dangerous under current legislation than getting busted for SPAM.
For some of the spammers I have had to deal with, a sentance to Attica on a false kiddie-raper charge seems more appropriate than $100/message... but that's just me, and these people REALLY piss me (and my customers) off.
On any e-mail, it's a simple enough process to track it back to the originating ISP just by examining the message headers and looking up the first IP address at ARIN. You can never really trust the From: address - just look at how easily KLEZ.H screwed everyone up...
Also, if legal action is pending, ISPs will no longer honor their TOS Privacy Policies - which makes this a pretty simple process.
First off, forging e-mail headers should constitue fraud, not free speech. Secondly, why is it your right to tie up my system resources at will, while I have no recourse (other than purchasing expensive filtering software) to make you quit.
Just because I have your cell phone number, does that give me the right to call you 20 times a day?
If the recipient is in Utah, then the law technically applies. If the offender is in another state and refuses to hear the lawsuite, I believe the court could still try the case. The real question is what happens when the defendant, from another state, simply refuses to pay?
The majority of the really vicious SPAM offenders I have been up against lately are using dial-ups in the European, Asia-Pacific, and Russian regions, so we are basically shifting this problem to offshore sources. Until we also start going after the sites/companies that hire these a$$holes and start addressing this problem on an international basis, we really won't see any change... although Federal legislation (still "pending" in Congress after all these years), would be a great place for us to start(!?)
Is it just me, or does the stapler from the movie look more like the the durable stapler than the new Swingline Red Stapler ? Maybe spray paint is still the best way to get a Milton stapler - ignoring the 100% markup for red paint...(?)
I honestly don't understand why everyone is so ready to give Microsoft the benefit of a doubt(?)
This is a company that has consistently demonstrated that they will use any and every means available (illegal/inethical - doesn't matter) to gain market power.
Based off of their existing track record, it's more reasonable to assume that they will do something *sinister* if they have the chance than to listen to Bill when he says "just trust us..."
Microsoft publishes a *standard* for what is and isn't a *secure* site. At first this will be relatively simple standard that can easily be satisfied by webmasters running any web platform. Once everyone is used to the secure/insecure standard, Microsoft will be able to a.) make arbitrary changes to the standards to make webmasters of non-IIS sites pull their hair out trying to satisfy the updated standard or b.) introduce (either intentionally or through negligence of platform compatability testing) *issues* that make IE incorrectly state the security status of a site.
Just wanted to contribute my own conspiracy theory...
First off, taking a chunk of Microsoft's $40 Billion+ cash reserves and putting it back into circulation would be good for the economy.
Secondly, your assertion that the stock markets determine the health of the economy as a whole proves only that don't know a damn thing about economics.
The $40 was directly linked to the District Court's Findings of Fact
"A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 -- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."
Yes the consumer is an indirect purchaser of the product and indirect purchasers cannot sue for damages under federal antitrust laws. The difference in this case is that under Iowa state law, they can sue...
Based on the few Business Law and numerous Economics courses I took, I believe the following to be true...
A monopoly is not, in and of itself, illegal. Gaining a monopoly is not, in and of itself, illegal. Gaining a monopoly through illegal means is, of course, illegal - as is using illegal means to maintain a monopoly and/or misusing monopoly power in one market to gain market share in different market.
In this case, the allegation is that "Microsoft unlawfully and willfully maintained a monopoly that artificially drove up the price of Windows 98", not the fact that they had a monopoly...
This case is not about Microsoft giving price breaks for bulk purchases. The District Court's Findings of Fact speak better than I could about Microsoft's Windows 98 pricing behavior...
as it relates to OEMs:
"In a competitive market, one would expect the price of an older operating system to stay the same or decrease upon the release of a newer, more attractive version. Microsoft, however, was only concerned with inducing OEMs to ship Windows 98 in favor of the older version. It is unlikely that Microsoft would have imposed this price increase if it were genuinely concerned that OEMs might shift their business to another vendor of operating systems or hasten the development of viable alternatives to Windows."
as it directly relates to consumers:
"A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 -- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."
This behavior has nothing to do with bulk purchase discounts, but it has everything to do with misuse of monopoly power. That is why the court demonstrated that both resellers and consumer purchasers were harmed by Microsoft's behavior.
From the U.S. District Court's findings of fact http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm# iiih
"A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 -- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."
Slashdot Mirror
I think you just insinuated that the source of all messages sent should be verifiable by court order
No, I was just stating the current law - for every ISP I have worked with (investigating SPAM), they will not give one single detail about the user unless unless they have a court order. This is a very strong protection, which I have no problem with. I had no intention of insinuating anything with that statement.
What I am saying is that having Internet access shouldn't give you the right to do whatever the hell you want without fear of repercussion. I have been involved in investigations of e-mails (both valid and SPAM) ranging from harassment, to threatening, to some sick SOB who tried to bounce child pornography off of our relay. There are occassions where the TOS for any service provider can and should be bypassed.
I could debate more but my time at work is over... no hard feelings, but I do disagree...
I maintain a constantly growing list of 1,000 or so blocked addresses for one of my systems. There are a number of pay and free sites that host extremely comprehensive downloadable lists of known spammers/dialup servers/open relays etc... It's actually one of the better ways to prevent spam from entering your system...(?)
That's how I do it at least(?)
First off, fraud laws do not already apply. Your insinuation of this only demonstrates your lack of knowledge on this subject.
Secondly, there are already anonymous forums - including your e-mail address. Assuming you have done nothing illegal, an ISP (or at least everyone I've worked with on SPAM investigations) are bound by their TOS to not reveal any of your personal information. That works up and to the point where they receive a subpeona/warrant to release this information.
Your baseless FUD that anti-spam laws will somehow hinder one's rights to free speech are unfounded and idiotic.
Have you seen the licensing agreements for MAPS ? It sure as hell isn't cheap. I'm so sick of this "more legislation is NOT the answer" argument bull$hit - some things simply should be illegal. It's just idiotic to think that the ability to forge e-mail headers is somehow a 'god-given' or 'constitutionally protected' right... that's such crap!?
So what happens if you reply to them and then have your messaging SA block their IP address range?
Hmmm... so what would happen if we got them all listed with one of those SPAM outfits that really just won't quit sending mail (you know the ones I'm talking about)?
I wonder how long it would take for legislation to get passed then(!?)
But USPS gets paid for every piece of junk mail that gets delivered. Do you think they are complaining? Hell, they can't even cover their a$$ as is...
explained (again) that all that does is confirm to the spammer that he has a live address
:)
That isn't necessarily a truism. Just as there are different types of religions in the world, there are differnt types of a$$holes in the world of SPAM. Some 'spammers', like the kind your user apparently ran into, have bought lists of addresses and legitimately (through what particular delusion I don't know) think this is a lsit of users that wants to buy his/her product/service/whatever. This of course doesn't apply to the jacka$$es that forge headers and use open relays, but it does apply to at least some section of the spammer population.
Now, don't get me wrong, this crap pisses me of as much, if not much more, than the next Messaging SA. I just wanted to point out that some unsubscribe links are valid...
BTW, interesting info on the Utah law. It's always nice to see creepy religious conservatism working towards the common good. I think this might be the second time of heard of that happening... wait... never mind... this is the first
It's not that difficult to do! All you would have to do (assuming this all takes place within U.S. jurisdiction) is examine the message headers, lookup the originating ISP in ARIN, file a complaint which will get a subpeona for the ISP, which will then turn over their logs and subscriber contact information. You then have a defendant and proof that they sent the e-mail in question.
To survive as a U.S. spammer under this model, you would have to break the law (by using stolen accounts or hacked zombie systems) just to send SPAM in the first place - which is much more dangerous under current legislation than getting busted for SPAM.
Very well said!!!
For some of the spammers I have had to deal with, a sentance to Attica on a false kiddie-raper charge seems more appropriate than $100/message... but that's just me, and these people REALLY piss me (and my customers) off.
On any e-mail, it's a simple enough process to track it back to the originating ISP just by examining the message headers and looking up the first IP address at ARIN. You can never really trust the From: address - just look at how easily KLEZ.H screwed everyone up...
Also, if legal action is pending, ISPs will no longer honor their TOS Privacy Policies - which makes this a pretty simple process.
But it would fall under the jurisdiction of the Small Claims court which means you don't have to pay for a lawyer...
First off, forging e-mail headers should constitue fraud, not free speech. Secondly, why is it your right to tie up my system resources at will, while I have no recourse (other than purchasing expensive filtering software) to make you quit.
Just because I have your cell phone number, does that give me the right to call you 20 times a day?
If the recipient is in Utah, then the law technically applies. If the offender is in another state and refuses to hear the lawsuite, I believe the court could still try the case. The real question is what happens when the defendant, from another state, simply refuses to pay?
The majority of the really vicious SPAM offenders I have been up against lately are using dial-ups in the European, Asia-Pacific, and Russian regions, so we are basically shifting this problem to offshore sources. Until we also start going after the sites/companies that hire these a$$holes and start addressing this problem on an international basis, we really won't see any change... although Federal legislation (still "pending" in Congress after all these years), would be a great place for us to start(!?)
Is it just me, or does the stapler from the movie look more like the the durable stapler than the new Swingline Red Stapler ? Maybe spray paint is still the best way to get a Milton stapler - ignoring the 100% markup for red paint...(?)
The first has an undeniable aspect of coersion
;)
What about school uniforms?
I honestly don't understand why everyone is so ready to give Microsoft the benefit of a doubt(?)
This is a company that has consistently demonstrated that they will use any and every means available (illegal/inethical - doesn't matter) to gain market power.
Based off of their existing track record, it's more reasonable to assume that they will do something *sinister* if they have the chance than to listen to Bill when he says "just trust us..."
How about this for a scenario...?
Microsoft publishes a *standard* for what is and isn't a *secure* site. At first this will be relatively simple standard that can easily be satisfied by webmasters running any web platform. Once everyone is used to the secure/insecure standard, Microsoft will be able to a.) make arbitrary changes to the standards to make webmasters of non-IIS sites pull their hair out trying to satisfy the updated standard or b.) introduce (either intentionally or through negligence of platform compatability testing) *issues* that make IE incorrectly state the security status of a site.
Just wanted to contribute my own conspiracy theory...
First off, taking a chunk of Microsoft's $40 Billion+ cash reserves and putting it back into circulation would be good for the economy.
Secondly, your assertion that the stock markets determine the health of the economy as a whole proves only that don't know a damn thing about economics.
Damn, those pesky gremlins have done it again...
The $40 was directly linked to the District Court's Findings of Fact
"A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 -- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."
Yes the consumer is an indirect purchaser of the product and indirect purchasers cannot sue for damages under federal antitrust laws. The difference in this case is that under Iowa state law, they can sue...
Based on the few Business Law and numerous Economics courses I took, I believe the following to be true...
A monopoly is not, in and of itself, illegal. Gaining a monopoly is not, in and of itself, illegal. Gaining a monopoly through illegal means is, of course, illegal - as is using illegal means to maintain a monopoly and/or misusing monopoly power in one market to gain market share in different market.
In this case, the allegation is that "Microsoft unlawfully and willfully maintained a monopoly that artificially drove up the price of Windows 98", not the fact that they had a monopoly...
This case is not about Microsoft giving price breaks for bulk purchases. The District Court's Findings of Fact speak better than I could about Microsoft's Windows 98 pricing behavior...
as it relates to OEMs: "In a competitive market, one would expect the price of an older operating system to stay the same or decrease upon the release of a newer, more attractive version. Microsoft, however, was only concerned with inducing OEMs to ship Windows 98 in favor of the older version. It is unlikely that Microsoft would have imposed this price increase if it were genuinely concerned that OEMs might shift their business to another vendor of operating systems or hasten the development of viable alternatives to Windows."
as it directly relates to consumers: "A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 -- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."
This behavior has nothing to do with bulk purchase discounts, but it has everything to do with misuse of monopoly power. That is why the court demonstrated that both resellers and consumer purchasers were harmed by Microsoft's behavior.
From the U.S. District Court's findings of fact http://www.usdoj.gov/atr/cases/f3800/msjudgex.htm# iiih
"A Microsoft study from November 1997 reveals that the company could have charged $49 for an upgrade to Windows 98 -- there is no reason to believe that the $49 price would have been unprofitable -- but the study identifies $89 as the revenue-maximizing price. Microsoft thus opted for the higher price."