That's entirely your decision to make, for your own children. Other parents might want to make other choices for theirs. In either case, it's absolutely 100% wrong for a spammer to make the decision and send their "lesson" unsolicited to children.
If someone (whether adult or child) intentionally goes looking for something (whether innocent or illicit) online, they'll probably find it. But I think a parent has a right to expect that wildly inappropriate content will not push itself on minors (aka anyone whose age was not explicitly verified) if neither the parent nor the child want it.
Yes, the Duke jokes are (mildly) funny. But the key factor you're ignoring: Enron was not just hyping a product before it was ready. EBS was claiming to have metered streaming capabilities, and selling this service to customers, when they did not actually have it. The lies ought to stop before the money changes hands.
force people to replace thier cars which lack airbags
Bad analogy. Airbags protect the occupant of the car. Security patches protect everyone that your computer can connect to (i.e. the entire internet). It's more like requiring cars to have brakes that work... and guess what? They are required.
JPEG is designed to exploit known limitations of the human eye, notably the fact that small color changes are perceived less accurately than small changes in brightness.
I cold call other business people, usually at there place of work
Well, your best option is to RTFM, but the short answer is that DoNotCall only applies to "consumers", aka residential phones. B2B calls should be open game.
If each police state in Asia would just execute 10% of their spammers and confiscate the computers, there would be plenty of addresses for the next decade at least.
convenient to use a unit (the Foot) that divides easily into subunits that are multiples of both 3 and 4
And that is why I think we would be much better off by converting all human beings to 6 fingers per hand, and switching to base 12 metric. 10 is a relatively stupid number to use as a mathematical base (excluding odd numbers which would require 3+ hands). 12 is abundant.
Re:forging sender address
on
I, Spammer
·
· Score: 1
Spam with modified headers is like somebody calling you up and saying their in Oregon when they're really in Nevada. That's not illegal, nor should it be.
Forging headers to pretend to be someone else could be (and should be) illegal. Setting headers to claim the mail came from an existing domain (such as Yahoo) is defamatory to the actual owner of that domain. Joe-Jobbing a real email address other than your own is identity theft.
/. folks are so against spam, yet they're all for anonymity
There is a big difference between honest anonymity and deceptive forgery.
they'll still threaten to sue those who use black lists
Not if it meant revealing yourself to federal charges.
We need three factors to solve the spam problem:
good technology
effective legislation
public shunning of spammers
Blocklists, Challenge/Response, etc, are almost good enough to satisfy part 1. Most of the industrial world dislikes spam, but not quite enough for part 3 yet. Having part 2 would make it clear that spam is not a legitimate business practice, and lead to the completion of the other parts in short order.
future browser releases will include disabling of JS window resizing
Umm...sure, I suppose you could go back to the future. The functionality was implemented by 2001 if not earlier, and the Preference UI was added in early 2002.
You don't risk losing your business/hobby/own money because you, as a non-lawyer, `think` you are `unlikely` to lose.
Umm... That's exactly what I did. Techdirt's case would have been even stronger, since they merely provided a discussion forum and a 3rd party posted the information.
RTFA. Techdirt specifically said the threat had nothing to do with their decision, since it was unlikely to happen and even less likely to succeed. They pulled the information out of respect for privacy.
Personally, I disagree. In general, a business has little or no right to privacy; their address is required by law to be public knowledge. IMHO, a business that intentionally intrudes on people's lives deserves none at all. But more importantly, contact information for Alyxsandra Sachs is public, not private:
Furthermore: from the NYT article: "These antispammers should get a life," she said. "Do their fingers hurt too much from pressing the delete key? How much time does that really take from their day?"
Between downloading it from our mail server, sorting it into a local folder, skimming the preview, and pressing delete, my office spends a couple thousand dollars a year in salaried employee time. Does that answer your question, Alyx?
thousands of innocent people being blocked when a spammer forwards through a mail server on the same subnet
Full stop. I was talking about blocking of individual IPs. That's entirely doable and practical except for DHCP groups, which should not send their own mail anyways. They should connect to a dedicated server.
Subnet blocking is a separate debate. I agree that it's a shame for all the more-or-less innocent neighbors who lose some connectivity. It's happened to me (and the other few thousand users at JHU) more than once. But experience has shown that wide blocklists get the spam shut down much more quickly than a narrowly tailored one. Squeaky wheel.
No. Anyone who gets infected by a Spam Trojan deserves to be blocked, until they clean up their PC. You are a threat to your fellow internet users, in much the same way that people infected with SARS should be quarantined.
Slashdot Mirror
And that key word (want) makes all the difference. Kids should never receive adult content (porn, tobacco, etc) unwanted.
That's entirely your decision to make, for your own children. Other parents might want to make other choices for theirs. In either case, it's absolutely 100% wrong for a spammer to make the decision and send their "lesson" unsolicited to children.
If someone (whether adult or child) intentionally goes looking for something (whether innocent or illicit) online, they'll probably find it. But I think a parent has a right to expect that wildly inappropriate content will not push itself on minors (aka anyone whose age was not explicitly verified) if neither the parent nor the child want it.
Yes, the Duke jokes are (mildly) funny. But the key factor you're ignoring: Enron was not just hyping a product before it was ready. EBS was claiming to have metered streaming capabilities, and selling this service to customers, when they did not actually have it. The lies ought to stop before the money changes hands.
Bad analogy. Airbags protect the occupant of the car. Security patches protect everyone that your computer can connect to (i.e. the entire internet). It's more like requiring cars to have brakes that work ... and guess what? They are required.
You could always RTFM:
See also the file format.Well, your best option is to RTFM , but the short answer is that DoNotCall only applies to "consumers", aka residential phones. B2B calls should be open game.
I interpreted this as implying that the universe was created in Base-13.
It would be so nice...
And that is why I think we would be much better off by converting all human beings to 6 fingers per hand, and switching to base 12 metric. 10 is a relatively stupid number to use as a mathematical base (excluding odd numbers which would require 3+ hands). 12 is abundant.
Nope, that sounds more like Ronald Reagan. Franklin thought metric was a great idea.
Obligatory Coffee Lawsuit Facts link. I wish people would stop bringing up this example incorrectly.
Forging headers to pretend to be someone else could be (and should be) illegal. Setting headers to claim the mail came from an existing domain (such as Yahoo) is defamatory to the actual owner of that domain. Joe-Jobbing a real email address other than your own is identity theft.
There is a big difference between honest anonymity and deceptive forgery.
Well... Tauzin is seriously corrupt. So there you go.
Good old America. We've got plutocracy and theocracy instead of democracy, but at least we aren't one of those nasty "-ism"s...Not if it meant revealing yourself to federal charges.
We need three factors to solve the spam problem:- good technology
- effective legislation
- public shunning of spammers
Blocklists, Challenge/Response, etc, are almost good enough to satisfy part 1. Most of the industrial world dislikes spam, but not quite enough for part 3 yet. Having part 2 would make it clear that spam is not a legitimate business practice, and lead to the completion of the other parts in short order.Some synopses:
- REDUCE: Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Professor Lawrence Lessig's plan to set a bounty for citizens catching spammers
- CAN-SPAM: Sen. Conrad Burns et al, requires valid headers and working opt-out, but doesn't allow private lawsuits
- Do-Not-Spam: Sen. Chuck Schumer's proposal covers everything from CAN-SPAM plus has a national do-not-email registry and bans address harvesting.
And there's lots of others.The USPTO is definitely a $2 whore, but they do demand some small amount of originality in patent applications. For example, this would be acceptable:
Add those three magic words, and the patent office will grant your wildest wishes.Ahh, but the iPod does run Linux! (You can also sync iPod to Linux, which is less cool but more useful)
Umm...sure, I suppose you could go back to the future. The functionality was implemented by 2001 if not earlier, and the Preference UI was added in early 2002.
How exactly did that comment get rated 5?Oh, but I received a much more appropriate banner, don't you think? Targeted advertising at its finest!
- Whitepages
- Infospace
- Switchboard
Richard Stewart is unfortunately a common name. There are at least 50 matches in Texas.Umm... That's exactly what I did . Techdirt's case would have been even stronger, since they merely provided a discussion forum and a 3rd party posted the information.
RTFA. Techdirt specifically said the threat had nothing to do with their decision, since it was unlikely to happen and even less likely to succeed. They pulled the information out of respect for privacy.
Personally, I disagree. In general, a business has little or no right to privacy; their address is required by law to be public knowledge. IMHO, a business that intentionally intrudes on people's lives deserves none at all. But more importantly, contact information for Alyxsandra Sachs is public, not private:
Furthermore: from the NYT article: "These antispammers should get a life," she said. "Do their fingers hurt too much from pressing the delete key? How much time does that really take from their day?"
Between downloading it from our mail server, sorting it into a local folder, skimming the preview, and pressing delete, my office spends a couple thousand dollars a year in salaried employee time. Does that answer your question, Alyx?
Full stop. I was talking about blocking of individual IPs. That's entirely doable and practical except for DHCP groups, which should not send their own mail anyways. They should connect to a dedicated server.
Subnet blocking is a separate debate. I agree that it's a shame for all the more-or-less innocent neighbors who lose some connectivity. It's happened to me (and the other few thousand users at JHU) more than once. But experience has shown that wide blocklists get the spam shut down much more quickly than a narrowly tailored one. Squeaky wheel.
No. Anyone who gets infected by a Spam Trojan deserves to be blocked, until they clean up their PC. You are a threat to your fellow internet users, in much the same way that people infected with SARS should be quarantined.