He/she is perfectly on target with the comment that if we as taxpayers are expected to finance this, then this must be a provision.
While a few people have focused entirely on the government doing it, as I understand it, they want those signs to be visible where anyone is doing it, including businesses or individuals. I'm not convinced that copies should be made available to the general public regardless of who did the filming. I'd prefer that most of the video be controlled by businesses and individuals, not by the government.
There can be no argument that anything recorded by these cameras should not be available to the public and If these cameras are not, in fact, public cameras recording public actions in public places, freely available to any and all members of the public, then they simply should not exist.
That is complete nonsense.
Eventually, I think cameras can help with a lot of the problems we have today. The snipers in Maryland would have been caught faster if every person had a camera on their car. Someone in the area of a shooting would have had pictures of the snipers vehicle. Someone in the area of another shooting would have also had pictures. If, after a local shooting, people turned in the videos they had in that area, for that time period, it would have made it fairly simple for the cops to narrow down the one vehicle that was always in the area of a shooting. Then they know who to look for.
Similarly, many businesses use video survelance as security measures. In most cases, nobody is watching the video at all - it's just recording. You're $11 security guard isn't usually involved. Many camera's just loop their recordings, and only if there is a problem (a robbery, a mugging, etc) does anyone see it. Then they go swap tapes (or spool off a copy of the file to backup, in the case of digital) in order to try to identify the culprit.
If the local 7-11 has a video going, I don't think your wife should be able to request copies in order to find out if you were buying beer (or whatever.)
And most important, since I believe that this type of surveilance is going to continue one way or another, and that it can be quite beneficial, I want individual people and companies doing it - not the government. That way, the feds only get copies of things that individuals decide to give them.
I also believe that this can be considered a logical extension of an "eye witness". In order for a tape to be considered valid, someone has to put their own reputation on the line and say "Yes, that video came from my camera, and I beleive it to be accurate to the best of my knowledge." If they aren't willing to say that, then the video doesn't mean much - video's can be faked. (Believe it or not, not everything you see on TeeVee is completely true and accurate.)
I expect to see most cell phones with built in cameras, so lots of people will have cameras with them at all times. I believe you'll see more and more businesses using video surveillance. I believe more people will start using video to help protect their homes. The technology is there, and as you know, technology doesn't tend to just "go away" whether you like it or not. In addition, it can make most of us safer.
But I'm a fan of privacy, and while I recognize that it's going to happen, I want it controlled by the people who own the camera's - and I don't want the people owning the camera's to be the government. We can do a better job ourselves.
You're assuming the spammers can read source code.
Who do you think writes spamming software?
Programmers with no ethics. Some people will do anything for money. I've had one known spammer contact me about writing spamware. They didn't phrase it that way, but what they wanted written sounded fishy, and when I checked out the company, it turned out they were known as a spamhouse. I fed them a line for awhile, figuring I couldn't stop them, but I could waste some of their time. Eventually I guess they figured it out.
I don't believe that spammers write their own code. They hire someone to write it. I'm sure their are a few exceptions, but I suspect that the norm is to pay a geek to do the work for them. Unfortunatly, some geeks are just as immoral as the spammers.
You have just rendered Greylisting pretty useless by making it open source. Spammers are much smarter than you think and what you have basically done is shown them what they need to do in order to get around Greylisting.
Yes, he's shown them what they have to do. They have to use a legitimate email address, because when you bounce the message with a 451 error message, they have to be able to read that reply. If they don't give a real email address, they can't tell what kind of bounces they got.
I think you are correct, spammers could find a way around this. But I believe that few will try unless it is implemented on a wide basis, and even those that do attempt to circumvent will end up using more of their own resources, while also giving out more information about who they actually are.
According to Hatches plan, if someone else (friend, child, wife, or whoever) used my computer to download music, the computer would be destroyed. It wouldn't matter if it was my computer and I knew nothing about it.
So in what way does common sense say that Hatch should be exempt if he didn't know it was happening? He wouldn't give you or me a chance to defend ourselves - he would blow up our computer.
Fuck him. I'm tired of politicians thinking that the rules they create only apply to "the little people" and not them.
Second, if you were to take that site down, you would take down every senator's site, including the sites of some good senators. Its isn't right to do that just because of one dumbass senator.
There are no good senators. Honest people can't be successful in politics, so they get real jobs. Every politician will screw the rest of us over for a couple of bucks. Some politicians will screw us over just for the hell of it.
Your entire argument seems to be that since not everyone dislikes spam, it is not unpopular. Your theory seems to be that in order for something to be popular, everyone must like it. And for it to be unpopular, everyone must dislike it. As I said before, I'd suggest you look up what that term means. Goodbye. Thanks for trolling.
You never clarify to whom it is unpopular, to you? to your grandmother? to your neighborhood pedafile?
Since you seem to be arguing that spam is popular, I'd suggest you look up what that term means. In the meantime, I'm not willing to waste time arguing with a troll.
If, on the other hand, you are speaking specifically regarding SPAM and not society as a whole...
We were discussing spam (not SPAM), so yes, I was specifically talking about spam.
Quit acting like a troll, and I'll discuss the issue, if you wish. If you're going to argue that spam is popular because a few people do it
then you aren't worth the time.
You also say that if it isn't popular we shouldn't worry about it. Rape isn't popular. Some people still do it. We should worry about it.
1) An accused rapist should be able to refute public accusations. Does accusation immediately condemn them? I thought we used courts for that.
So let him post his refutation on his own website.
2) This does not address statements of fact. If the rapist is convicted, stating so would not be arguable.
Not true. Anyone who is "criticized" would have right of reply, regardless of the truth/fact.
3) Your private website is not covered by this law, only professional on-line media.
El-wrongo. You didn't read the article, did you?
Bold text below is a direct clip from the article.
The all-but-final proposal draft says that Internet news organizations, individual Web sites, moderated mailing lists and even Web logs (or "blogs"), must offer a "right of reply" to those who have been criticized by a person or organization.
If the company wants to respond, they can do so on their website. They shouldn't be able to control what I post on mine, any more than I should have a right to decide what they post on theirs.
This is designed to keep your average joe from being able to post what he believes.
If a newspaper, TV station, or radio station say something about a company/individual that that individual doesn't like, he can't force them to print/broadcast his side of the story. The rest of us shouldn't be forced to do it either.
Free speech isn't free speech if someone else gets to decide what you must post.
You can make something illegal, but you can't make it unpopular.
Spam is already unpopular. But there are plenty of low-lifes who don't mind forcing their crap on millions of people, as long as they make a few dollars.
Laws will never put an end to spam. But they will help to keep it to a managable level. Both the legal system and technology must be used to fight it, or email will cease to be useful.
Personally, I think technology will have a bigger long term effect than laws. Much of the spam that is sent is already for cons and frauds. The spammers are generally scam artists who already know they are breaking the law.
Their goal isn't to stop spammers. It's to stop fraud.
I'm not convinced that they need any additional powers. They can already arrest people for fraud. On the other hand, maybe they have too much red tape to do so effectively.
Another article on the subject (with better info, IMO) is at
ZDNet.
There is no law that I know of against calling your number and offering to sell you a subscription to Juggs magazine (or any other "adult" magazine you can think of). And I can do it through a prerecorded message that plays when the phone is answered. So even if a 10 year old answers the phone, my message will play, and I will not be accountable by law (because it is safe to assume that you must be 18 to have a phone line).
Your message is already illegal under the TCPA. It is illegal to cold call using a recorded message or automated system. For a cold call to be legal, it must have a person there, not a machine. You are already breaking the law.
Your argument that it isn't your fault if a child answers the phone when your computer makes your illegal phone call is similar to saying "I was just shooting - I didn't know he would be standing there."
There's nothing wrong with losing the ability to write in cursive. It is difficult to read and the only reasons later in life to use it is for taking notes, writing checks, and signing your name. I have to think for a minute when writing checks but I don't consider this a bad thing.
You don't have to use cursive to take notes - you can print. You don't have to use cursive to write checks - you can print. I haven't written in cursive for most of my life - I just print.
The *only* thing that I write in cursive is my signature, and that's illegible (like most peoples.)
One word: exams. If you're still writing individual letters separately by the time you sit written exams, you'll write at about half the speed of someone with good joined-up handwriting. In essay subjects it really helps to churn out long answers as fast as possible, and even in subjects with short answers it doesn't hurt.
I graduated high school in 1979. I'm pretty sure that I had already quit writing in cursive by that time, and I know for sure that I haven't done it in years. If I write something, I print it.
I hate it when someone hands me a handwritten note that I can't read. If they print, I can always read it. And in my case, I have always been able to print faster than write, so I get both a speed advantage, and it's easier to read.
I think kids need to know how to print, but it's not at all important if they can write in cursive. It never was all that important, and with computers, it's becoming much less important.
They have a lot of nerve to complain about Spam. Yeah, I know they claim to have nothing to do with the spammers selling their products, but if they don't why do they refuse to do anything about it, to the point of refusing complaints? Other companies in that spot take action, Symantec ignores it at best.
I'm convinced that it's intentional. I believe they are hiring spammers, so that they can pretend that they aren't involved and still sell their product. For awhile, I tried reporting spam which mentioned them, and never got a response. At one point, I went back and looked, and the spamvertised URL's were still up and live - well after I had reported them to Symantec. If they were bogus, selling pirated software, then Symantec would have taken action. But if they were simply Symantec resellers, there would be no action.
I could be wrong, but I believe Symantec is hiring spammers, selling "anti-spam" software, and hoping they don't get caught.
Actually, signing up for an email address is signing up for anyone to send you anything at any time. An email address is an open invatation for anyone to send you email. It is not a "white-list" service (unless you make it one using filters on your end). Email is set up to take any mail from anyone, with any subject. Signing up for an email account is the same as signing up for every piece of email you receive. Unless the way email works is changed, having an email address is an open invation to send you mail.
That is exactly the argument that spammers use. "If you don't want our ads, get rid of your email account."
But it's a nonsense argument. I have a phone, but if you harass me by calling it, I have legal recourse. Similarly, there are limits on telemarketing. A fax machine? The TCPA outlaws unsolicited faxes.
But you need to keep spouting the nonsense or your spamming business will go all to hell.
People like you can't understand that I pay for my email account so that I can use it for my purposes - not yours. Keep your porn/MMF/Mortgage crap to yourself. And don't force your advertising costs on other people.
I'm not very worried about micropayments. Mostly because I don't think they will become very common.
Basically, in order for a micropayment system to work, you have to have some kind of authenticated system that lets you tell who sent the email. Otherwise, you don't know who to bill. Once the
mail is authenticated, blacklisting sources of spam gets fairly easy, and the micropayments aren't necessary.
Also, most proposed micropayment systems don't actually charge per email for every email. They charge for every email over the first 1000 per month, or they charge only for emails that the recipient decides "They should have known not to send me that, and I'm going to make them pay for it". From what I've read, most average users aren't going to end up paying, even assuming micropayments become popular.
I dont think they will. Once the technology is there which makes them possible, they really aren't going to be needed. And unless all ISP's are using the same micropayment system, the system won't work anyway.
The term "double opt in" is spammer-speak. You aren't "doubly" doing anything. Spammers like to make it sound like it's difficult, too much trouble, etc, so they call it double opt in. Everyone else calls it confirmed opt-in, or verified opt-in.
Similarly, most of the laws being proposed at a federal level are proclaimed "anti spam" laws, but in fact all they do is legislate opt out and tell the spammers that they can do whatever they want until we beg them to quit.
Spammers plan to win the war by using spammer-speak. That won't work as long as the rest of us pay attention.
Slashdot Mirror
Martians are throwing rocks at us? We don't have to put up with that crap...
Any day now - as soon as you send in one more payment....
Correction. One persons direct marketing is several million peoples spam.
And that email was sent to an opt in list, not to a bunch of harvested email addresses. So despite your claims of irony, it wasn't spam.
That would be bellings (137948)
He/she is perfectly on target with the comment that if we as taxpayers are expected to finance this, then this must be a provision.
While a few people have focused entirely on the government doing it, as I understand it, they want those signs to be visible where anyone is doing it, including businesses or individuals. I'm not convinced that copies should be made available to the general public regardless of who did the filming. I'd prefer that most of the video be controlled by businesses and individuals, not by the government.
That is complete nonsense.
Eventually, I think cameras can help with a lot of the problems we have today. The snipers in Maryland would have been caught faster if every person had a camera on their car. Someone in the area of a shooting would have had pictures of the snipers vehicle. Someone in the area of another shooting would have also had pictures. If, after a local shooting, people turned in the videos they had in that area, for that time period, it would have made it fairly simple for the cops to narrow down the one vehicle that was always in the area of a shooting. Then they know who to look for.
Similarly, many businesses use video survelance as security measures. In most cases, nobody is watching the video at all - it's just recording. You're $11 security guard isn't usually involved. Many camera's just loop their recordings, and only if there is a problem (a robbery, a mugging, etc) does anyone see it. Then they go swap tapes (or spool off a copy of the file to backup, in the case of digital) in order to try to identify the culprit.
If the local 7-11 has a video going, I don't think your wife should be able to request copies in order to find out if you were buying beer (or whatever.)
And most important, since I believe that this type of surveilance is going to continue one way or another, and that it can be quite beneficial, I want individual people and companies doing it - not the government. That way, the feds only get copies of things that individuals decide to give them.
I also believe that this can be considered a logical extension of an "eye witness". In order for a tape to be considered valid, someone has to put their own reputation on the line and say "Yes, that video came from my camera, and I beleive it to be accurate to the best of my knowledge." If they aren't willing to say that, then the video doesn't mean much - video's can be faked. (Believe it or not, not everything you see on TeeVee is completely true and accurate.)
I expect to see most cell phones with built in cameras, so lots of people will have cameras with them at all times. I believe you'll see more and more businesses using video surveillance. I believe more people will start using video to help protect their homes. The technology is there, and as you know, technology doesn't tend to just "go away" whether you like it or not. In addition, it can make most of us safer.
But I'm a fan of privacy, and while I recognize that it's going to happen, I want it controlled by the people who own the camera's - and I don't want the people owning the camera's to be the government. We can do a better job ourselves.
Who do you think writes spamming software?
Programmers with no ethics. Some people will do anything for money. I've had one known spammer contact me about writing spamware. They didn't phrase it that way, but what they wanted written sounded fishy, and when I checked out the company, it turned out they were known as a spamhouse. I fed them a line for awhile, figuring I couldn't stop them, but I could waste some of their time. Eventually I guess they figured it out.
I don't believe that spammers write their own code. They hire someone to write it. I'm sure their are a few exceptions, but I suspect that the norm is to pay a geek to do the work for them. Unfortunatly, some geeks are just as immoral as the spammers.
Yes, he's shown them what they have to do. They have to use a legitimate email address, because when you bounce the message with a 451 error message, they have to be able to read that reply. If they don't give a real email address, they can't tell what kind of bounces they got.
I think you are correct, spammers could find a way around this. But I believe that few will try unless it is implemented on a wide basis, and even those that do attempt to circumvent will end up using more of their own resources, while also giving out more information about who they actually are.
So in what way does common sense say that Hatch should be exempt if he didn't know it was happening? He wouldn't give you or me a chance to defend ourselves - he would blow up our computer.
Fuck him. I'm tired of politicians thinking that the rules they create only apply to "the little people" and not them.
There are no good senators. Honest people can't be successful in politics, so they get real jobs. Every politician will screw the rest of us over for a couple of bucks. Some politicians will screw us over just for the hell of it.
Regardless, there are no good politicians.
You never clarify to whom it is unpopular, to you? to your grandmother? to your neighborhood pedafile?
Since you seem to be arguing that spam is popular, I'd suggest you look up what that term means. In the meantime, I'm not willing to waste time arguing with a troll.
If, on the other hand, you are speaking specifically regarding SPAM and not society as a whole...
We were discussing spam (not SPAM), so yes, I was specifically talking about spam.
Quit acting like a troll, and I'll discuss the issue, if you wish. If you're going to argue that spam is popular because a few people do it then you aren't worth the time.
You also say that if it isn't popular we shouldn't worry about it. Rape isn't popular. Some people still do it. We should worry about it.
So let him post his refutation on his own website.
2) This does not address statements of fact. If the rapist is convicted, stating so would not be arguable.
Not true. Anyone who is "criticized" would have right of reply, regardless of the truth/fact.
3) Your private website is not covered by this law, only professional on-line media.
El-wrongo. You didn't read the article, did you?
Bold text below is a direct clip from the article.
The all-but-final proposal draft says that Internet news organizations, individual Web sites, moderated mailing lists and even Web logs (or "blogs"), must offer a "right of reply" to those who have been criticized by a person or organization.
If the company wants to respond, they can do so on their website. They shouldn't be able to control what I post on mine, any more than I should have a right to decide what they post on theirs.
This is designed to keep your average joe from being able to post what he believes.
If a newspaper, TV station, or radio station say something about a company/individual that that individual doesn't like, he can't force them to print/broadcast his side of the story. The rest of us shouldn't be forced to do it either.
Free speech isn't free speech if someone else gets to decide what you must post.
Spam is already unpopular. But there are plenty of low-lifes who don't mind forcing their crap on millions of people, as long as they make a few dollars.
Laws will never put an end to spam. But they will help to keep it to a managable level. Both the legal system and technology must be used to fight it, or email will cease to be useful.
Personally, I think technology will have a bigger long term effect than laws. Much of the spam that is sent is already for cons and frauds. The spammers are generally scam artists who already know they are breaking the law.
I'm not convinced that they need any additional powers. They can already arrest people for fraud. On the other hand, maybe they have too much red tape to do so effectively.
Another article on the subject (with better info, IMO) is at ZDNet.
Shoot, it probably already includes me.
Your message is already illegal under the TCPA. It is illegal to cold call using a recorded message or automated system. For a cold call to be legal, it must have a person there, not a machine. You are already breaking the law.
Your argument that it isn't your fault if a child answers the phone when your computer makes your illegal phone call is similar to saying "I was just shooting - I didn't know he would be standing there."
Geeks don't get laid? Speak for yourself - I'm doing just fine. :^)
You don't have to use cursive to take notes - you can print. You don't have to use cursive to write checks - you can print. I haven't written in cursive for most of my life - I just print.
The *only* thing that I write in cursive is my signature, and that's illegible (like most peoples.)
I graduated high school in 1979. I'm pretty sure that I had already quit writing in cursive by that time, and I know for sure that I haven't done it in years. If I write something, I print it.
I hate it when someone hands me a handwritten note that I can't read. If they print, I can always read it. And in my case, I have always been able to print faster than write, so I get both a speed advantage, and it's easier to read.
I think kids need to know how to print, but it's not at all important if they can write in cursive. It never was all that important, and with computers, it's becoming much less important.
I'm convinced that it's intentional. I believe they are hiring spammers, so that they can pretend that they aren't involved and still sell their product. For awhile, I tried reporting spam which mentioned them, and never got a response. At one point, I went back and looked, and the spamvertised URL's were still up and live - well after I had reported them to Symantec. If they were bogus, selling pirated software, then Symantec would have taken action. But if they were simply Symantec resellers, there would be no action.
I could be wrong, but I believe Symantec is hiring spammers, selling "anti-spam" software, and hoping they don't get caught.
That is exactly the argument that spammers use. "If you don't want our ads, get rid of your email account."
But it's a nonsense argument. I have a phone, but if you harass me by calling it, I have legal recourse. Similarly, there are limits on telemarketing. A fax machine? The TCPA outlaws unsolicited faxes.
But you need to keep spouting the nonsense or your spamming business will go all to hell.
People like you can't understand that I pay for my email account so that I can use it for my purposes - not yours. Keep your porn/MMF/Mortgage crap to yourself. And don't force your advertising costs on other people.
Basically, in order for a micropayment system to work, you have to have some kind of authenticated system that lets you tell who sent the email. Otherwise, you don't know who to bill. Once the mail is authenticated, blacklisting sources of spam gets fairly easy, and the micropayments aren't necessary.
Also, most proposed micropayment systems don't actually charge per email for every email. They charge for every email over the first 1000 per month, or they charge only for emails that the recipient decides "They should have known not to send me that, and I'm going to make them pay for it". From what I've read, most average users aren't going to end up paying, even assuming micropayments become popular.
I dont think they will. Once the technology is there which makes them possible, they really aren't going to be needed. And unless all ISP's are using the same micropayment system, the system won't work anyway.
The term "double opt in" is spammer-speak. You aren't "doubly" doing anything. Spammers like to make it sound like it's difficult, too much trouble, etc, so they call it double opt in. Everyone else calls it confirmed opt-in, or verified opt-in.
Similarly, most of the laws being proposed at a federal level are proclaimed "anti spam" laws, but in fact all they do is legislate opt out and tell the spammers that they can do whatever they want until we beg them to quit.
Spammers plan to win the war by using spammer-speak. That won't work as long as the rest of us pay attention.