PS: I expect she is bringing some sort of charges against him. The article did not mention this but if she is that pissed off then clearly she is going to do something.
If she doesn't file charges with him, then in court, Yahoo is likely to point it out, saying "She isn't worried about her reputation, or she would be charging the boyfriend that posted the pictures, impersonated her, and could do so again. She isn't worried about her reputation, she's just trying to get rich off of us."
Also, it's quite possible that the "ex-boyfriend" is simply an accomplice in their scam.
Yes, if she wants to be taken seriously, the ex-boyfriend needs to be charged. If she won't file against him, she doesn't have a case.
I had someone try to hire me to write some spam software once. They contacted me via email, but it was a personalized msg, clearly to me, not part of a mass mailing. And at first, they didn't tell me what they wanted - they wanted to hire a programmer for a do-it-at-home project.
But once they started explaining what they wanted, I could see the part they weren't coming out and saying. And then when I started checking, I figured out who it was.
I couldn't find any good way to do anything about it though, so I just fed them a few stories about "I'm really busy this week - but I can get to it next week" for a bit, until they quit bothering me. I figured stringing them along would at least waste some of their time.
Another time, we deduced that someone else had signed up the person in question (the person's last name was recorded in the database as "Assface").
You were spamming. These people hadn't opted in. Someone may have given you their email address, but the addresses on your list could have come from anyone - as you just illustrated. If you used a confirmation email to verify that the people on your list really wanted to be on your list, the vast majority of the problems you describe would have gone away.
If we dumb it down to "There's an ickky virus going around which sill hurt your PC!" then it's no use to us geeks with a clue. Just leave the real explination and put "Install this to fix the problem" at the bottom of the page for the idiots.
This doesn't work. Currently, people (especially those who already have various spyware and such on their machine) get messages saying "You may have spyware or viruses on your machine. Click here to download SuperSpywareCleanerPro for Free!". And as soon as they click the button, they've added yet more spyware on their system.
He deserves far worse than that. He's done a lot more damage than that to others, out of his greed and contempt for everyone else. Screw him - lock him in a prison cell for 30 days and be done with it. (No food, no water.)
Like it or not, he makes more money than most reading slashdot.
Yes. So do Colombian drug dealers. Thieves and crooks can make a lot of money. That doesn't change the fact that he's a sleazebag, or the fact that he just got punched hard.
Soon enough American students will not be exposed to scientific methodologies and theory because of the complains of Christian fundamentalists.
It's already happening. This article is about a new law in Florida which has been passed by committee. That law, if put into effect, would allow students in Florida universities sue their professors if their professors teach things that the student doesn't believe in.
This quote from the article quotes Representative Baxley, the sponsor of the bill.
"Some professors say, 'Evolution is a fact. I dont want to hear about Intelligent Design (a creationist theory), and if you dont like it, theres the door,'" Baxley said, citing one example when he thought a student should sue.
Other select quotes :
Rep. Dan Gelber, D-Miami Beach, warned of lawsuits from students enrolled in Holocaust history courses who believe the Holocaust never happened.
Similar suits could be filed by students who dont believe astronauts landed on the moon, who believe teaching birth control is a sin or even by Shands medical students who refuse to perform blood transfusions and believe prayer is the only way to heal the body, Gelber added.
The way things seem to be going, religious nutcases will be the end of the US, one way or another.
Mumma didn't act in good faith, and refused to provide his email address, but rather provide a list from www.optoutbydomain.com and said his email address was on that list.
That may be the case, but I can't find any information about it. Where do you come across this info?
In a frontierless world such as the internet, laws such as this are only effective if every nation has and enforces them.
According to the 99.2% stat you show, if *one* country (the US, where most spam originates) were to go after spammers, it would have a huge effect. Instead, we've passed the Can-Spam act to legalize the crap. (...sigh...)
But you have just answered the question -- less than 50% is still not most. Also, you will notice the parent argued, or at least insinuated that 99% of people have done illegal drugs.
No, he didn't. He said "The war on drugs analogy doesnt work as it essentially targets 99% of the population at one time or the other.".
Kids who take prescription drugs to school are targetted, even though it's a legal drug and they have a prescription. Anyone buying prescription drugs outside of the system is targeted. Completely innocent people are targetted by crooked cops who want an easy drug bust and plant a joint on someone. Parents have lost their vehicles because the cops kept it after arresting the teenager who was driving it, claiming (true or not) that they had drugs in the car, so those parents were targetted even if they've never done illegal drugs.
I believe that over 50% of the people in America have used illegal drugs at one point or another. Most don't do it on a regular basis, and don't talk about the one or two times they tried it 20 years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that they've done it. And the war on drugs targets many people in addition to those.
While I don't mean to be a prick, I have to disagree with you on the issue of most people having done drugs. Out of my peers, none of us have done illegal drugs once.
Are you sure? It's not like everyone who tries an illegal drug tells everyone else about it. Especially if you are the bible thumper you sound like. (No offense intended. But you did mention living in "a religiously conservative area", and you seem convinced that only inner-city hoods do drugs, so I think I'm making a logical leap.)
If you have been through school and in the workforce for at least a year or two, the chances that you have *never* been around anyone who has so much as smoked pot once is extremely low. The last two US presidents have both used drugs.
Also, many "legal" drugs are only legal if you pay a Dr. for the prescription and buy them via the government mandated system. I've had strong allergy problems all my life. I could buy Allegra legally if I would pay a Dr (every time I needed a fresh Rx) and buy it at the pharmacy. I have a couple of sources, none of which work that way. Most of it comes in from Mexico. I suspect that means I'm breaking the law, since I'm taking a prescription drug without going through the system.
One major difference in the "war on drugs" and any comparisons to spam are that a very large number of people want drugs, and almost everyone except the spammers themselves detest spam.
And the funny thing is, that it is incidents like this that cause people like me to not want to register with sites like the Times, precisely to prevent accidental disclosure of any information.
That, from wowbagger (69688).
I agree that you should be careful where you register. The NYTimes has never abused my information, just as/. has never abused my information. Those of you that hate the NYTimes because they require a free registration look a little odd to me when you post under an account registered at Slashdot.
You sound like one. In your own words, if someone gets spammed, it's their own fault. You say that spammers shouldn't be in jail. You backtracked on it - but previously you posted that your company ocassionally sends spam. Yes, you sound like a spammer to me.
If you've never given it out then you can't get spammed by definition.
This is not correct. I have a domain, and anything that doesn't go to an address I have set up gets dumped into an email box. I receive spam every day to addresses I've never used. Spammers sometimes try to guess addresses, so I get mail to sales@ and similar. Some of the addresses look like a spammers database got screwed up somehow. Some may have been someone who didn't want to give out their address putting in garbage into a form online.
It's all easy to filter, of course, so it isn't much of a problem, but it shows that you don't have to give out an address to receive spam to that address.
I haven't had it happen to me, but I've also heard of dictionary attacks, where spammers start trying aaaaaaa@domain, then aaaaaab@domain, then aaaaaaac@domain, etc.
No, it doesn't. Just as you can't legally spray paint your advertisement on a car or building and claim "free speech", spam isn't free speech. You can't start broadcasing radio messages without complying with the law and claim it's free speech. You can't take a bullhorn, stand outside my window yelling at me and claim free speech.
Courts have ruled on this. And I've pointed this out to you before - but you are so set on justifying spam that you pretend it's all fine and dandy. If your "People are allowed to say anything they want, any way they want, and you can't stop them" theory were true, the junk-fax laws would have been overturned years ago, and the laws about telemarketing would never have been passed.
You'll ignore it again, but once again, quotes from the courts:
U.S. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin: "[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands."
Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court: "Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
It's sad that you've managed to pass the bar with such a sad understanding of free speech.
This lead to the most baffling support calls of people that really could literally not believe that they'd just seen what they'd seen, and of course we never let the support guys in on the joke...
Is there any legal problem with stating something bad that is true about a company?
None at all - unless you count the money and time you'll spend defending yourself if they sue.
I have a webpage at http://www.whitis.com/mailwiper.htm about MailWiper, who were selling supposed anti-spam software and advertising by sending spam. They then moved into the spyware business, loading spyware onto machines, and selling SpyWiper, a tool purported to get rid of spyware. They've since been tied to Spamford Wallace, and driven out of business by the FTC who filed charges on them.
They sent me a cease and desist. And one to my upstream, and one to *his* upstream. I took the page offline for a few weeks while I sorted it out, then put it back up.
There is no possible way they could win a lawsuit - but if they filed it, I'd have no choice but to defend. And that takes time and money.
All of this is from a US perspective. I've heard that in Europe, truth is *not* a defense, but I can't say for sure.
Slashdot Mirror
If she doesn't file charges with him, then in court, Yahoo is likely to point it out, saying "She isn't worried about her reputation, or she would be charging the boyfriend that posted the pictures, impersonated her, and could do so again. She isn't worried about her reputation, she's just trying to get rich off of us."
Also, it's quite possible that the "ex-boyfriend" is simply an accomplice in their scam.
Yes, if she wants to be taken seriously, the ex-boyfriend needs to be charged. If she won't file against him, she doesn't have a case.
http://www.the-dma.org/
Yes, there is. The saying, however, is false.
I had someone try to hire me to write some spam software once. They contacted me via email, but it was a personalized msg, clearly to me, not part of a mass mailing. And at first, they didn't tell me what they wanted - they wanted to hire a programmer for a do-it-at-home project. But once they started explaining what they wanted, I could see the part they weren't coming out and saying. And then when I started checking, I figured out who it was. I couldn't find any good way to do anything about it though, so I just fed them a few stories about "I'm really busy this week - but I can get to it next week" for a bit, until they quit bothering me. I figured stringing them along would at least waste some of their time.
You were spamming. These people hadn't opted in. Someone may have given you their email address, but the addresses on your list could have come from anyone - as you just illustrated. If you used a confirmation email to verify that the people on your list really wanted to be on your list, the vast majority of the problems you describe would have gone away.
This doesn't work. Currently, people (especially those who already have various spyware and such on their machine) get messages saying "You may have spyware or viruses on your machine. Click here to download SuperSpywareCleanerPro for Free!". And as soon as they click the button, they've added yet more spyware on their system.
He deserves far worse than that. He's done a lot more damage than that to others, out of his greed and contempt for everyone else. Screw him - lock him in a prison cell for 30 days and be done with it. (No food, no water.)
Yes. So do Colombian drug dealers. Thieves and crooks can make a lot of money. That doesn't change the fact that he's a sleazebag, or the fact that he just got punched hard.
I dunno if you are clueless, trolling, or if I'm replying to a spammer. Regardless, you have no idea what you are talking about.
It's already happening. This article is about a new law in Florida which has been passed by committee. That law, if put into effect, would allow students in Florida universities sue their professors if their professors teach things that the student doesn't believe in.
This quote from the article quotes Representative Baxley, the sponsor of the bill.
Other select quotes :
The way things seem to be going, religious nutcases will be the end of the US, one way or another.
That's fairly important info, there.
That may be the case, but I can't find any information about it. Where do you come across this info?
According to the 99.2% stat you show, if *one* country (the US, where most spam originates) were to go after spammers, it would have a huge effect. Instead, we've passed the Can-Spam act to legalize the crap. (...sigh...)
No, he didn't. He said "The war on drugs analogy doesnt work as it essentially targets 99% of the population at one time or the other.".
Kids who take prescription drugs to school are targetted, even though it's a legal drug and they have a prescription. Anyone buying prescription drugs outside of the system is targeted. Completely innocent people are targetted by crooked cops who want an easy drug bust and plant a joint on someone. Parents have lost their vehicles because the cops kept it after arresting the teenager who was driving it, claiming (true or not) that they had drugs in the car, so those parents were targetted even if they've never done illegal drugs.
I believe that over 50% of the people in America have used illegal drugs at one point or another. Most don't do it on a regular basis, and don't talk about the one or two times they tried it 20 years ago, but that doesn't change the fact that they've done it. And the war on drugs targets many people in addition to those.
Are you sure? It's not like everyone who tries an illegal drug tells everyone else about it. Especially if you are the bible thumper you sound like. (No offense intended. But you did mention living in "a religiously conservative area", and you seem convinced that only inner-city hoods do drugs, so I think I'm making a logical leap.)
If you have been through school and in the workforce for at least a year or two, the chances that you have *never* been around anyone who has so much as smoked pot once is extremely low. The last two US presidents have both used drugs.
Also, many "legal" drugs are only legal if you pay a Dr. for the prescription and buy them via the government mandated system. I've had strong allergy problems all my life. I could buy Allegra legally if I would pay a Dr (every time I needed a fresh Rx) and buy it at the pharmacy. I have a couple of sources, none of which work that way. Most of it comes in from Mexico. I suspect that means I'm breaking the law, since I'm taking a prescription drug without going through the system.
One major difference in the "war on drugs" and any comparisons to spam are that a very large number of people want drugs, and almost everyone except the spammers themselves detest spam.
That, from wowbagger (69688).
I agree that you should be careful where you register. The NYTimes has never abused my information, just as /. has never abused my information. Those of you that hate the NYTimes because they require a free registration look a little odd to me when you post under an account registered at Slashdot.
You sound like one. In your own words, if someone gets spammed, it's their own fault. You say that spammers shouldn't be in jail. You backtracked on it - but previously you posted that your company ocassionally sends spam. Yes, you sound like a spammer to me.
This is not correct. I have a domain, and anything that doesn't go to an address I have set up gets dumped into an email box. I receive spam every day to addresses I've never used. Spammers sometimes try to guess addresses, so I get mail to sales@ and similar. Some of the addresses look like a spammers database got screwed up somehow. Some may have been someone who didn't want to give out their address putting in garbage into a form online.
It's all easy to filter, of course, so it isn't much of a problem, but it shows that you don't have to give out an address to receive spam to that address.
I haven't had it happen to me, but I've also heard of dictionary attacks, where spammers start trying aaaaaaa@domain, then aaaaaab@domain, then aaaaaaac@domain, etc.
No, it doesn't. Just as you can't legally spray paint your advertisement on a car or building and claim "free speech", spam isn't free speech. You can't start broadcasing radio messages without complying with the law and claim it's free speech. You can't take a bullhorn, stand outside my window yelling at me and claim free speech.
Courts have ruled on this. And I've pointed this out to you before - but you are so set on justifying spam that you pretend it's all fine and dandy. If your "People are allowed to say anything they want, any way they want, and you can't stop them" theory were true, the junk-fax laws would have been overturned years ago, and the laws about telemarketing would never have been passed.
You'll ignore it again, but once again, quotes from the courts :
U.S. Federal Judge Stanley Sporkin:
"[Spammers] have come to court not because their freedom of speech is threatened but because their profits are; to dress up their complaints in First Amendment garb demeans the principles for which the First Amendment stands."
Chief Justice Berger, U.S. Supreme Court:
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. We categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
It's sad that you've managed to pass the bar with such a sad understanding of free speech.
I think we can all safely assume that you have never owned or run a business.
I *really* like the way you think....
Your friend is a slimeball. He was breaking the law in order to make a few bucks.
None at all - unless you count the money and time you'll spend defending yourself if they sue.
I have a webpage at http://www.whitis.com/mailwiper.htm about MailWiper, who were selling supposed anti-spam software and advertising by sending spam. They then moved into the spyware business, loading spyware onto machines, and selling SpyWiper, a tool purported to get rid of spyware. They've since been tied to Spamford Wallace, and driven out of business by the FTC who filed charges on them.
They sent me a cease and desist. And one to my upstream, and one to *his* upstream. I took the page offline for a few weeks while I sorted it out, then put it back up.
There is no possible way they could win a lawsuit - but if they filed it, I'd have no choice but to defend. And that takes time and money.
All of this is from a US perspective. I've heard that in Europe, truth is *not* a defense, but I can't say for sure.
"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone."
$100's are legal tender, too. But many places won't accept them because they don't keep enough change available to break them.
I think anyone refusing to accept $2 bills is foolish - but I hardly see it as worth suing over, and I'm not convinced you would win.
I have several of the MS Natural ergnonomic keyboards. I'd been feeling carpal-type-pain before I tried them, and it's gone away.