No, but I got this one in our spam complaints this week.
From; Miss Rita Umu,
Address: Beloved Church of Jesus Christ,
Rue de R.T.I. Avenue 914
914 bp cocody Abidjan 15.
Tell. 00225-07-84-56-90.
Dearest One,
Thanks for your prompt reply to my mail and your
committed zeal to help me out in my situation,
really I do appreciate you and beckon you to help me
as much as you are inspired and God will really bless you and you'll really reap for your labour,we have decided to give you 20% of the total sum as your commission for helping me and my little brother. I wish to tell you that, my address is above and we have no account or bank account , also there is nothing like id number here in Africa, you can make your enquires and get back to me.
As it stands at the moment, this fund is deposited
with a private security firm here by our late Father
as family precious valuables as the officilas of the
firm do not know that the consignment contains money, I really wants you to help us so that this
consignment could be retrieved and most importantly be transferred to your country for prospective and
lucrative investment for our future and then
continuation our education in your country.
I feel the best option is to look for someone here,An Attorney that will assist us affect this transfer since we are still in the refeguee process .
Remember that the security company did not know that
the content of the consignment is money rather they
know it as ARTWORK FOR EXPORT so we have to clear it
as it was registered by our late Father.
We want to trust you in this business, and I hope
and pray that you will not betray the confidence we
are about to establish with you. Try to keep this
business very confidential. I want you to call me
immediately on telephone today, After that we will
arrange for the best way to transfer the money into
your nominated bank account. I will want you to give
me in your next mail,Your private tell/fax numbers
and any other information your may think that is
necessary for our easy comminication . Your are the
next person we have in this world as I have lost all
our beloved ones.
My warm regards to all your friends.
Call me on my telephone number
00225-07-84-56-90.
I look up to your fast response to this message.
Wishing you the best in our Lord's name.... Amen
Yours Sincerely,
Rita Umu.
My analysis is very simple. I am not going to put in all of the legalize because you do not need it. If you want legalize, read the
opinion. You should focus on the dissent that begins on page 17. Sometimes, the dissent is the correct interpretation of the law. I believe this is one of those times.
What this case turns on is the correct analysis of what is a stored communication verses realtime ephemeral communication. And, what is interception. Congress has decided that real time communications such as a telephone call or a communication between point A and point B happening contemporaneously, should have better privacy protection than stored communications which can sit in a location for a long period of time.
Unfortunately, the definition of electronic communications in the Federal statutes is very broad and does not help with this specific issue.
Most Internet communications (including e-mail) are electronic communications. (Oops, I put in legalize, sorry but I have to here.)
18 U.S.C. 2510(12) defines "electronic communication" as
any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature, transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include
(A) any wire or oral communication;
(B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device;
(C) any communication from a tracking device . . . ; or
(D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds;
Crap, I should have known! Now that I have calmed down and started reviewing the material closely, I understand the majority's opinion. Damn! Okay, both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The problem is that Congress did not understand the inner workings of email. As the dissent suggests, Congress intended to protect "voice mail" as a form of real time communication. However, email is stored along the same lines as voice mail. I do not mean technically, I mean in spirit. Hmmm.. Congress screwed up. I was wrong. I really hate that.
For anyone interested as to why I was so shocked regarding the opinion and now why I understand that I was wrong, let me explain. I am bound by very strict rules regarding the investigation of emails. It has been reinforced over and over again that all email that has not been read by the recipient will be considered as an interception by our investigators therefore putting it in the same light as a real time communication. As a matter of fact the 9th circuit defined "intercept" as: entail[ing] actually acquiring the contents of a communication, whereas the word 'access' merely involves being in a position to acquire the contents of a communication.
Now, I see the flaw in these arguments. Cringe....
I hope that Congress looks at these ambiguities and fixes them.
Heck, out of my embarrassment for being called a name I messed up again and wrote fews instead of few. Ugh! It happens. I will use Word Perfect (which I am working on right now) for my analysis of the case so please do not be alarmed!:/
I do not understand why I get such angry responses for calling an opinion stupid? Do you really want it to be an accurate interpretation of the law? I would hope not.
Of course I made a mistake. Sometimes it happens on message boards when a person is in a hurry and not spell checking or proof reading before they post. I was in a hurry to get off a fews posts before I left for the day. Why? Because I was shocked at the opinion I was reading.
I am an attorney. I also graduated top of my class as an undergraduate. If you do not want to believe it that is fine with me but calling names shows a lack of intelligence and is not very productive in a discussion.
It is not trolling to call an opinion of a court stupid! Is it? I am attorney that prosecutes computer crimes and am very shocked at this court's interpretation of the law.
Like I said in another reply, I am at work and do not have time to "write" a reasonable opinion accept for what I have already written. When I get home this evening, I will write a response.
Well, think about it. Why do you think the dissenting opinion is 30 some pages long and the majority opinion is only 16? I will tell you why. And no, it is not because they were better writers. It is because the majority did not want to interpret the law, instead they wanted to get rid of it and blame congress for it. So, what did they do? They came up with one of the oddest interpretations of the wiretap law that I have ever seen.
I am at work and do not have the time to give you my full reasoning at the moment. But I will when I get home.
BTW, in my business, I would love for the majority opinion to be upheld. Hell, it would give my investigators blanket license to go to ISP's and start snooping through your emails. However, I for one enjoy my privacy and would not wish that on anyone.
You are wrong. I read the opinion and I do not agree with their interpretation. If a higher court takes on this issue, this opinion will be struck down.
However, it never hurts to write your congressperson.
The Wiretap Act's purpose was, and continues to be, to protect the privacy of communications. We believe that the language of the statute makes clear that Congress meant to give
lesser protection to electronic communications than wire and oral communications. Moreover, at this juncture, much of the protection may have been eviscerated by the realities of modern technology. We observe, as most courts have, that the language may be out of
step with the technological realities of computer crimes. However, it is not the province of this court to graft meaning onto the statute where Congress has spoken.
As a lawyer, I am too amazed and shocked to comment on the stupidity of this opinion. I will have to come back to it later.
However, you guys should read the dissenting opinion that is included in the pdf. It makes more sense. Sheesh!
Finally! Going through all of these posts had me worried that/. er's only read porn type paper magazines. I am happy that is not the case. I was envisioning a rather disgusting type of picture in my mind. Oh nevermind.
I love Smithsonian too. I also subscribe to Discover and Fitness.
I ended up prosecuting a guy who kept sending out the $5 pyramid scheme emails. He pissed too many people off with his spam. Needless to say, he has quit this profession.
BTW, he did not make very much money off of it.
Yeah I know, DUMB CROOK. Those are the only ones we catch.
Okay, I really hate to sound stupid, but, I do not believe this act really exists. I have searched for the last hour on Thomas and have not found it. I have found other copyright bills but not this one. Heck, what do I know? I am just an attorney.
I wanted to find the bill to see which senators are sponsoring it so that I could post their numbers and addresses. People need to call them. You can always track a bill and see who the sponsors are. Unfortunately, I can not find it on Thomas.
They are suggesting a fall conference with private industry regarding better identifiers in emails. Personally, I think that if there was a way to close down all open and proxy relays and educate dumb computer users than we might have a chance. Otherwise, I do not see what private industry can do. But then, I am not a computer expert.
The FCCis in the process of making rules to protect consumers regarding cell phones and spam.
On another related note: The American Teleservices Association filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the National Do Not Call Registry. If the Court takes the case, I do not believe that they will over turn the 10th Circuit's decision.
Sorry, I am still not done. You should read this HREF="http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/muris/040520spam emailtest.pdf">testimony from Tim Muris. Law enforcement do know the inherent problems with enforcing any spam laws. This testimony gives a good example of things that are being done and the issues that are understood by many of us.
If you guys have any suggestions in fighting spam other than what is in this paper, let us know.
There is a task force made up of Federal and state law enforcement agencies addressing many of the concerns or problems that slashdotters have brought up today. I believe one of the most important aspects of this task force is not the prosecution of spammers, but rather the educational efforts by these agencies for consumers and businesses.
On another note: The American Teleservices Association filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the National Do Not Call Registry. It the Court takes the case, I do not believe that they will over turn the 10th Circuit's decision.
I tried NoDoz when I was a kid. A long, long time ago. It upsets the stomach. BTW, it helps people with migraines. It has the same ingredients (caffeine). My 20 year old hacker took it for a while. I tried to explain to him why he should not take it..... It is not a pleasant experience if you depend on it.
I was joking earlier but there are times when a person needs to be serious. Nodoz sucks. It will hurt your stomach and make you nervous and the WORST>>>> make you think you are smart. Well, you are not! I know.
42 year old mom.......
Mod this however you want. It should be funny but you guys (GUYS) tend to mod down---non computer geeks. Damn, elitists.....
Is Jolt still around? You are showing your age. Isn't the Red...something or other popular now? It is an herbal thingy. Yuck. Red.... what is it? Damn, I am losing my brain cells. Is it the Mt. Dew?
Starbucks will not get any of my money. No sireee!! I do not like coffee. I do not care how much caffeine it has....
I start my day with Diet Mt. Dew a day.
Slashdot Mirror
Out of habit and ignorance, I have used IE for years. I think it is time to make the change to Firefox. Thanks for the article.
No, but I got this one in our spam complaints this week. From; Miss Rita Umu, Address: Beloved Church of Jesus Christ, Rue de R.T.I. Avenue 914 914 bp cocody Abidjan 15. Tell. 00225-07-84-56-90. Dearest One, Thanks for your prompt reply to my mail and your committed zeal to help me out in my situation, really I do appreciate you and beckon you to help me as much as you are inspired and God will really bless you and you'll really reap for your labour,we have decided to give you 20% of the total sum as your commission for helping me and my little brother. I wish to tell you that, my address is above and we have no account or bank account , also there is nothing like id number here in Africa, you can make your enquires and get back to me. As it stands at the moment, this fund is deposited with a private security firm here by our late Father as family precious valuables as the officilas of the firm do not know that the consignment contains money, I really wants you to help us so that this consignment could be retrieved and most importantly be transferred to your country for prospective and lucrative investment for our future and then continuation our education in your country. I feel the best option is to look for someone here ,An Attorney that will assist us affect this transfer since we are still in the refeguee process .
Remember that the security company did not know that
the content of the consignment is money rather they
know it as ARTWORK FOR EXPORT so we have to clear it
as it was registered by our late Father.
We want to trust you in this business, and I hope
and pray that you will not betray the confidence we
are about to establish with you. Try to keep this
business very confidential. I want you to call me
immediately on telephone today, After that we will
arrange for the best way to transfer the money into
your nominated bank account. I will want you to give
me in your next mail ,Your private tell/fax numbers
and any other information your may think that is
necessary for our easy comminication . Your are the
next person we have in this world as I have lost all
our beloved ones.
My warm regards to all your friends.
Call me on my telephone number
00225-07-84-56-90.
I look up to your fast response to this message.
Wishing you the best in our Lord's name.... Amen
Yours Sincerely,
Rita Umu.
It is not only slow, it does not have me! I am going back to google.
Here.
My analysis is very simple. I am not going to put in all of the legalize because you do not need it. If you want legalize, read the opinion. You should focus on the dissent that begins on page 17. Sometimes, the dissent is the correct interpretation of the law. I believe this is one of those times. What this case turns on is the correct analysis of what is a stored communication verses realtime ephemeral communication. And, what is interception. Congress has decided that real time communications such as a telephone call or a communication between point A and point B happening contemporaneously, should have better privacy protection than stored communications which can sit in a location for a long period of time. Unfortunately, the definition of electronic communications in the Federal statutes is very broad and does not help with this specific issue. Most Internet communications (including e-mail) are electronic communications. (Oops, I put in legalize, sorry but I have to here.) 18 U.S.C. 2510(12) defines "electronic communication" as any transfer of signs, signals, writing, images, sounds, data, or intelligence of any nature, transmitted in whole or in part by a wire, radio, electromagnetic, photoelectronic or photooptical system that affects interstate or foreign commerce, but does not include (A) any wire or oral communication; (B) any communication made through a tone-only paging device; (C) any communication from a tracking device . . . ; or (D) electronic funds transfer information stored by a financial institution in a communications system used for the electronic storage and transfer of funds; Crap, I should have known! Now that I have calmed down and started reviewing the material closely, I understand the majority's opinion. Damn! Okay, both sides are right and both sides are wrong. The problem is that Congress did not understand the inner workings of email. As the dissent suggests, Congress intended to protect "voice mail" as a form of real time communication. However, email is stored along the same lines as voice mail. I do not mean technically, I mean in spirit. Hmmm.. Congress screwed up. I was wrong. I really hate that. For anyone interested as to why I was so shocked regarding the opinion and now why I understand that I was wrong, let me explain. I am bound by very strict rules regarding the investigation of emails. It has been reinforced over and over again that all email that has not been read by the recipient will be considered as an interception by our investigators therefore putting it in the same light as a real time communication. As a matter of fact the 9th circuit defined "intercept" as: entail[ing] actually acquiring the contents of a communication, whereas the word 'access' merely involves being in a position to acquire the contents of a communication. Now, I see the flaw in these arguments. Cringe.... I hope that Congress looks at these ambiguities and fixes them.
Heck, out of my embarrassment for being called a name I messed up again and wrote fews instead of few. Ugh! It happens. I will use Word Perfect (which I am working on right now) for my analysis of the case so please do not be alarmed! :/
I do not understand why I get such angry responses for calling an opinion stupid? Do you really want it to be an accurate interpretation of the law? I would hope not. Of course I made a mistake. Sometimes it happens on message boards when a person is in a hurry and not spell checking or proof reading before they post. I was in a hurry to get off a fews posts before I left for the day. Why? Because I was shocked at the opinion I was reading. I am an attorney. I also graduated top of my class as an undergraduate. If you do not want to believe it that is fine with me but calling names shows a lack of intelligence and is not very productive in a discussion.
It is not trolling to call an opinion of a court stupid! Is it? I am attorney that prosecutes computer crimes and am very shocked at this court's interpretation of the law. Like I said in another reply, I am at work and do not have time to "write" a reasonable opinion accept for what I have already written. When I get home this evening, I will write a response.
Well, think about it. Why do you think the dissenting opinion is 30 some pages long and the majority opinion is only 16? I will tell you why. And no, it is not because they were better writers. It is because the majority did not want to interpret the law, instead they wanted to get rid of it and blame congress for it. So, what did they do? They came up with one of the oddest interpretations of the wiretap law that I have ever seen. I am at work and do not have the time to give you my full reasoning at the moment. But I will when I get home. BTW, in my business, I would love for the majority opinion to be upheld. Hell, it would give my investigators blanket license to go to ISP's and start snooping through your emails. However, I for one enjoy my privacy and would not wish that on anyone.
You are wrong. I read the opinion and I do not agree with their interpretation. If a higher court takes on this issue, this opinion will be struck down. However, it never hurts to write your congressperson.
The Wiretap Act's purpose was, and continues to be, to protect the privacy of communications. We believe that the language of the statute makes clear that Congress meant to give lesser protection to electronic communications than wire and oral communications. Moreover, at this juncture, much of the protection may have been eviscerated by the realities of modern technology. We observe, as most courts have, that the language may be out of step with the technological realities of computer crimes. However, it is not the province of this court to graft meaning onto the statute where Congress has spoken. As a lawyer, I am too amazed and shocked to comment on the stupidity of this opinion. I will have to come back to it later. However, you guys should read the dissenting opinion that is included in the pdf. It makes more sense. Sheesh!
Finally! Going through all of these posts had me worried that /. er's only read porn type paper magazines. I am happy that is not the case. I was envisioning a rather disgusting type of picture in my mind. Oh nevermind.
I love Smithsonian too. I also subscribe to Discover and Fitness.
I ended up prosecuting a guy who kept sending out the $5 pyramid scheme emails. He pissed too many people off with his spam. Needless to say, he has quit this profession. BTW, he did not make very much money off of it. Yeah I know, DUMB CROOK. Those are the only ones we catch.
Okay, I really hate to sound stupid, but, I do not believe this act really exists. I have searched for the last hour on Thomas and have not found it. I have found other copyright bills but not this one. Heck, what do I know? I am just an attorney.
I wanted to find the bill to see which senators are sponsoring it so that I could post their numbers and addresses. People need to call them. You can always track a bill and see who the sponsors are. Unfortunately, I can not find it on Thomas.
They are suggesting a fall conference with private industry regarding better identifiers in emails. Personally, I think that if there was a way to close down all open and proxy relays and educate dumb computer users than we might have a chance. Otherwise, I do not see what private industry can do. But then, I am not a computer expert.
Yuck. That reminds me of the book Blood Music by Greg Bear. I had nightmares after reading that book.
The FCCis in the process of making rules to protect consumers regarding cell phones and spam. On another related note: The American Teleservices Association filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the National Do Not Call Registry. If the Court takes the case, I do not believe that they will over turn the 10th Circuit's decision.
I am linked challenged today. Sorry. http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/muris/040520spamemailt est.pdf
Sorry, I am still not done. You should read this HREF="http://www.ftc.gov/speeches/muris/040520spam emailtest.pdf">testimony from Tim Muris. Law enforcement do know the inherent problems with enforcing any spam laws. This testimony gives a good example of things that are being done and the issues that are understood by many of us.
If you guys have any suggestions in fighting spam other than what is in this paper, let us know.
There is a task force made up of Federal and state law enforcement agencies addressing many of the concerns or problems that slashdotters have brought up today. I believe one of the most important aspects of this task force is not the prosecution of spammers, but rather the educational efforts by these agencies for consumers and businesses. On another note: The American Teleservices Association filed a petition asking the U.S. Supreme Court to review the constitutionality of the National Do Not Call Registry. It the Court takes the case, I do not believe that they will over turn the 10th Circuit's decision.
I tried NoDoz when I was a kid. A long, long time ago. It upsets the stomach. BTW, it helps people with migraines. It has the same ingredients (caffeine). My 20 year old hacker took it for a while. I tried to explain to him why he should not take it..... It is not a pleasant experience if you depend on it. I was joking earlier but there are times when a person needs to be serious. Nodoz sucks. It will hurt your stomach and make you nervous and the WORST>>>> make you think you are smart. Well, you are not! I know. 42 year old mom....... Mod this however you want. It should be funny but you guys (GUYS) tend to mod down---non computer geeks. Damn, elitists.....
Is Jolt still around? You are showing your age. Isn't the Red...something or other popular now? It is an herbal thingy. Yuck. Red.... what is it? Damn, I am losing my brain cells. Is it the Mt. Dew?
Starbucks will not get any of my money. No sireee!! I do not like coffee. I do not care how much caffeine it has.... I start my day with Diet Mt. Dew a day.
It is probably this Arlington Texas guy . Complain to your state Attorney General. www.naag.org