jim bell allegedly said:
No, you're taking the issue to ridiculous extremes. That's why we have doors, and locks, etc. And, for that matter, "No trespassing" signs.
But having an address, and a walkway, and a doorbell is generally considered if not explicit permission, but at least toleration of the idea that somebody can walk up and knock on the door, etc.
But if someone leans on my doorbell for 4 hours solid, I can call the police and have them carted away. Carried to extremes, it's criminal trespass.
Having a telephone with a number that anyone can dial is going to result in some level of intrusion. Having a fax machine is a similar issue, unless technology provides a way to block unwanted faxes.
I certainly don't claim that we shouldn't try to do anything about these limitations! Quite the opposite, technology should be employed to protect privacy. But faxes are not fundamentally different than telephones, doorbells, and walkways: They facilitate interaction, even potentially undesirable interaction.
And, just as in the case with my doorbell, when the undesirable interaction gets past some reasonable limit, legal action can be taken.
Nope. Sure I realize that they _can_, but that doesn't make it right, and it doesn't make it legal.
"Legal" is an arbirary concept; the opposite, "illegal," is merely what some bunch of brainless legislators get together and disapprove.
Arbitrary or not, it has real world consequences. But then most things with real world consequences are arbitrary, unlike libertarian fantasies, which enjoy the luxury of unreality. -- Kent Crispin "No reason to get excited", kent@songbird.com,kc@llnl.gov the thief he kindly spoke... PGP fingerprint: 5A 16 DA 04 31 33 40 1E 87 DA 29 02 97 A3 46 2F