Re:Why not apply spam filters on outgoing messages
on
Spammers Choose GMail
·
· Score: 1
There's a big difference between filtering incoming spam and filtering outgoing spam. When spam comes in, it doesn't get blocked, it just gets put into your spam folder, which you should check periodically to make sure it hasn't collected any real mail by accident.
There is not, however, any protocol by which an outbound server can place spam in your spam folder, they would have to block it outright. This means that certain, totally acceptable emails will be blocked, not a good thing. Moreover, most spam filters, including Google's, have a very important feature by which you can set particular senders as "not spam," this would also be impossible for an outbound server to allow you to do.
Moral of the story, if you don't like having your mail randomly blocked, and you expect to ever get legitimate emails from someone using gmail, having gmail filter outgoing mail is a bad idea.
I always thought that this was what was really intended to be prevented by the 8th Amendment. How harsh to punish people who commit a given crime is really a fact-based judgment call and the legislature should be allowed to play around with it until they get the right balance.
Allowing the government to selectively prosecute people for doing something that everyone does, or to impose harsh punishments on certain people while giving others a slap on the wrist is just asking for trouble. When you allow the government this much discretion, you risk something along the lines of Bush deciding to charge Obama with a felony for having a screenname in order to help McCain become president. (the people are just picked to illustrate the point, not b/c I think Bush is particularly likely to do this).
That morality gets a little tenuous with things like Atari and NES games, where you probably couldn't buy it if you wanted to, and even if you could, it would be second hand and therefore of nominal benefit to the creator.
There's a much easier rule of thumb:
Published before Mickey Mouse - Public Domain
Published after Mickey Mouse (including Mickey Mouse) - Copyrighted for all eternity.
Turning the lights red isn't quite as useful, as it leaves open the possibility that the emergency vehicle will get stuck behind the vehicles at the red light.
Not a problem. If your company policy is that you don't save IMs, that's fine, you don't have to. All these rules really say is that if you do save your IMs, you can't go and dump them all because you think you're about to get sued.
It's the jurisdiction of the federal government because these are the discovery rules in federal court. Unless you are in federal court, there is absolutely no penalty for failing to "comply" with these rules, since they do not affect you.
IAWTC
I am the only lawyer in my (small) firm that actually has any computer background (the next most competent lawyer didn't even know what firefox was when I asked to install it on my computer). As such, when the new e-discovery rules came down, I was put in charge of figuring out what to tell our clients.
After reading through all of the new changes as well as a couple law review articles, my answer was that these rules didn't actually change anything. All that they did was explicitly state that a print out of your excel spreadsheet is not the same thing as the file containing the excel spreadsheet. Prior to the the enaction of these rules, any judge with the least common sense would have already known this and required you to turn over the electronic version of the file anyway. There is a little bit more about not having to search through backup files if they aren't easily accessible and its not clear that they have anything useful.
It was always the rule that if you destroyed evidence when you anticipate litigation. It still is.
Of course since most people don't have computer knowledge or legal knowledge, let alone both, everyone is running around like a chicken with their heads cut off and unnecessarily paying wheelbarrows full of money to back up their entire network. And of course lawyers who are either assholes or idiots are trying to subpoena the entire contents of opposing party's computer networks, along with their network schematics, for simple slip and fall cases. This of course doesn't mean any of these people are actually right.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a big difference between filtering incoming spam and filtering outgoing spam. When spam comes in, it doesn't get blocked, it just gets put into your spam folder, which you should check periodically to make sure it hasn't collected any real mail by accident. There is not, however, any protocol by which an outbound server can place spam in your spam folder, they would have to block it outright. This means that certain, totally acceptable emails will be blocked, not a good thing. Moreover, most spam filters, including Google's, have a very important feature by which you can set particular senders as "not spam," this would also be impossible for an outbound server to allow you to do. Moral of the story, if you don't like having your mail randomly blocked, and you expect to ever get legitimate emails from someone using gmail, having gmail filter outgoing mail is a bad idea.
I always thought that this was what was really intended to be prevented by the 8th Amendment. How harsh to punish people who commit a given crime is really a fact-based judgment call and the legislature should be allowed to play around with it until they get the right balance. Allowing the government to selectively prosecute people for doing something that everyone does, or to impose harsh punishments on certain people while giving others a slap on the wrist is just asking for trouble. When you allow the government this much discretion, you risk something along the lines of Bush deciding to charge Obama with a felony for having a screenname in order to help McCain become president. (the people are just picked to illustrate the point, not b/c I think Bush is particularly likely to do this).
That morality gets a little tenuous with things like Atari and NES games, where you probably couldn't buy it if you wanted to, and even if you could, it would be second hand and therefore of nominal benefit to the creator.
There's a much easier rule of thumb: Published before Mickey Mouse - Public Domain Published after Mickey Mouse (including Mickey Mouse) - Copyrighted for all eternity.
My other option was to do work.
Probably because "site:wikipedia.org" is almost 5 times as long as "wiki" and just typing "wiki" accomplishes about the same thing.
Turning the lights red isn't quite as useful, as it leaves open the possibility that the emergency vehicle will get stuck behind the vehicles at the red light.
Sure, but you can't really complain about the overreaching federal government if all it is doing is serving as a model for the states.
Not a problem. If your company policy is that you don't save IMs, that's fine, you don't have to. All these rules really say is that if you do save your IMs, you can't go and dump them all because you think you're about to get sued.
It's the jurisdiction of the federal government because these are the discovery rules in federal court. Unless you are in federal court, there is absolutely no penalty for failing to "comply" with these rules, since they do not affect you.
IAWTC I am the only lawyer in my (small) firm that actually has any computer background (the next most competent lawyer didn't even know what firefox was when I asked to install it on my computer). As such, when the new e-discovery rules came down, I was put in charge of figuring out what to tell our clients. After reading through all of the new changes as well as a couple law review articles, my answer was that these rules didn't actually change anything. All that they did was explicitly state that a print out of your excel spreadsheet is not the same thing as the file containing the excel spreadsheet. Prior to the the enaction of these rules, any judge with the least common sense would have already known this and required you to turn over the electronic version of the file anyway. There is a little bit more about not having to search through backup files if they aren't easily accessible and its not clear that they have anything useful. It was always the rule that if you destroyed evidence when you anticipate litigation. It still is. Of course since most people don't have computer knowledge or legal knowledge, let alone both, everyone is running around like a chicken with their heads cut off and unnecessarily paying wheelbarrows full of money to back up their entire network. And of course lawyers who are either assholes or idiots are trying to subpoena the entire contents of opposing party's computer networks, along with their network schematics, for simple slip and fall cases. This of course doesn't mean any of these people are actually right.