Re: Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?
On Fri, 1 Aug 2003, Earl Cooley wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
For this to be taken seriously one must be able to -define spam- as if it were a mathematical entity (eg a 'point'). It must be absolutely differentiable from -all- other speech.
You can't do that, nobody can.
Well, actually, SpamAssassin calculated that Carl's original post was spam. Here's the breakdown:
Content analysis details: (3.50 points, 3 required) MORTGAGE_BEST (2.6 points) BODY: Information on mortgages HTML_40_50 (0.7 points) BODY: Message is 40% to 50% HTML HTML_FONT_COLOR_RED (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is red HTML_WEB_BUGS (0.1 points) BODY: Image tag with an ID code to identify you HTML_MESSAGE (0.1 points) BODY: HTML included in message HTML_RELAYING_FRAME (0.5 points) BODY: Frame wanted to load outside URL HTML_FONT_BIG (0.1 points) BODY: FONT Size +2 and up or 3 and up HTML_FONT_COLOR_BLUE (0.1 points) BODY: HTML font color is blue KNOWN_MAILING_LIST (-0.9 points) Email came from some known mailing list software MIME_HTML_ONLY (0.1 points) Message only has text/html MIME parts
That's really useful, right? heh.
:) There is an old saying that one becomes what one hates. Personaly, I'm opposed to any legislative responce. Nada, none, nil. I don't agree that whatever the cost at the personal level it will be less than the increase in taxes to pay for the additional officers, legal support staff, etc. In particular I don't like the aspect of making it a crime. There is no way you're going to convince me that irrespective of the level, it's worth sending black clad stormtroopers into peoples lives. Especially when that includes the potentail for people dying. No, sorry. Ain't gonna happen. It violates both speech and press aspects of the first. And to be clear 'press' in the Constitution isn't the news agencies. Thomas Jefferson made that perfectly clear. It's the right of people to share their activities with others. People have a right to speak their mind, and they have a right to share it with others. To base that right on content is an abrogation of the fundamental ethos of this nation. There is of course the concepts of harassment and trespass. Of which we have sufficient laws on the book already. What we do need is a good case and a couple of supporting court rulings. In particular people have a right to ring your doorbell or drop a note on their porch, or ring their doorbell to talk to the residents. When they do it in a confrontational manner, by say ringing your doorbell over and over. This of course is one reason I am completely opposed to blacklists as well. Not only is there no technical or legal backing with respect to speech, but their probing of my system after I tell them to stay away is a form of trespass. Let's not even get into the aspect that this is one of the primary channels of Open Relay machines around. They do all the work and then sell the list, to who? Your ISP and spammers. If they didn't exist each spammer would have to scan the net for relays IP by IP. But no, for some reason people think it's a good idea. People have the right to the pursuit of happines, not the attainment or retention of it. It's simply not the governments job to protect what you have from simple market alteration. Stability in that respect is a bad thing. It denies others pursuit of happiness with the goal of the individual. There are some things that aren't a question of majority view. Sometimes that only means all the idiots are on one side. It has no moral or ethic weight. Get over it and move on to something more important. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
* Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-01 21:54]:
Personaly, I'm opposed to any legislative responce. Nada, none, nil.
I don't agree that whatever the cost at the personal level it will be less than the increase in taxes to pay for the additional officers, legal support staff, etc. In particular I don't like the aspect of making it a crime. There is no way you're going to convince me that irrespective of the level, it's worth sending black clad stormtroopers into peoples lives. Especially when that includes the potentail for people dying.
No, sorry. Ain't gonna happen.
I somewhat agree here.. but probably on different grounds. Such an effort may be taxes well spent under the right circumstances, but if the same people who would enforce spam who are also enforcing the current telemarketing laws, it would be money wasted, because these people are unmotivated.
It violates both speech and press aspects of the first. And to be clear 'press' in the Constitution isn't the news agencies. Thomas Jefferson made that perfectly clear. It's the right of people to share their activities with others.
I can't quite agree here. I'm 100% for free speech, and if a spammer wants to print a newspaper, I have no objection. But if the spammer wants to deliver this newspaper by walking into my home and dump a stack of newspapers on my keyboard, we have problems. There's a classic test to determine whether supressing an act is a supression of free speech. The test is to remove the speech, and determine whether the aggrivated party still has a claim. So in the example above, would I still have a claim if someone broke into my home and set a stack of blank paper on my keyboard? I think so. And if the spam email had a space in place of each character, I believe I would still have a claim because of the bandwidth and space consumed, and my ability to sort through my inbox for legitimate mail would still be hindered.
People have a right to speak their mind, and they have a right to share it with others. To base that right on content is an abrogation of the fundamental ethos of this nation.
Absolutely.
There is of course the concepts of harassment and trespass. Of which we have sufficient laws on the book already. What we do need is a good case and a couple of supporting court rulings. In particular people have a right to ring your doorbell or drop a note on their porch, or ring their doorbell to talk to the residents. When they do it in a confrontational manner, by say ringing your doorbell over and over.
We need more law. Example- I sue telemarketers on a regular basis using the tort law written in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This is practically a hobby for me now. I have won every case, and I've been well compensated for my troubles. This is a great law, because consumers who are motivated enough to play watchdog can be compensated for their troubles. The law is so beneficial, that I have not added myself to the FCC's DNC list. Also, I don't think it will be as difficult to define spam as people on this list have suggested. I have had no trouble showing the court that the calls I received are "telemarketing" calls. At the same time, I think I would have difficulty showing that a call from a friend, or family member, or enemy, was a telemarketing call, because the TCPA states that intent must show intent to sell a product or service, and to go with it there is a list of exclusions, like calls from entities where you have an established relationship with (ie. an account or previous transaction). Legally defining spam would be an excersize that woud pay off. Even if such a definition left a grey area, spammers would be forced to compose their messages to get into the grey area, and that would either deter them completely, or make it easier for the user to mechanize the sorting of the junk, because they would be more constrained on how to write their messages. I can't sue spammers though, because there is no tort law. I can really only sue for damages, which I would have to prove, and even then it would be a grey area. However, with the tort law written for telemarketing, I don't need to show that there were any damages.. I can automatically make a claim for $500 per violation.
This of course is one reason I am completely opposed to blacklists as well. Not only is there no technical or legal backing with respect to speech, but their probing of my system after I tell them to stay away is a form of trespass. Let's not even get into the aspect that this is one of the primary channels of Open Relay machines around. They do all the work and then sell the list, to who? Your ISP and spammers. If they didn't exist each spammer would have to scan the net for relays IP by IP. But no, for some reason people think it's a good idea.
I agree.. but again, for other reasons. My personal email to friends and family is blocked because these AOL idiots using a blacklist have decided to blacklist all dynamic IP addresses. I've never sent spam in my life, and my legitimate mail is getting blocked by these morons. My strongest motivation is to sue MAPS, AOL, Sourceforge, and all other not so bright ISPs who are blocking my speech, which is not and never was spam. I would join forces with spammers to sue these people, because they're more damaging than spammers.
People have the right to the pursuit of happines, not the attainment or retention of it. It's simply not the governments job to protect what you have from simple market alteration. Stability in that respect is a bad thing. It denies others pursuit of happiness with the goal of the individual.
I don't follow you here. What are you saying? The role of the government is to protect peoples rights, in which the ultimate vision is happiness... but every law works in favor of some peoples happiness and not others, so it's always a trade off. But I see corporations and companies as machines, not people, so in the interest of the peoples persuit of happiness, the government needs to control these machines. My overall stance is the the government needs to put a tort law in place so I can eagerly persue the happiness of suing spammers (but only after suing the antispammers for blocking my legitimate mail).
There are some things that aren't a question of majority view. Sometimes that only means all the idiots are on one side. It has no moral or ethic weight.
Sure it does. If a majority of the population decides that spam is immoral, then it only makes sense to align laws in persuit of the happiness of the majority. Isn't this the idea behind democracy?
Get over it and move on to something more important.
No no no.. this is still a problem. We don't "move on" until the problem is resolved. The technicians have tried and failed to stop spam. Time for the lawyers to take a crack at it. I'm not a lawyer, but I'm definately motivated to sue some spammers. I'm only asking that the government arm me with the tools I need.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
I somewhat agree here.. but probably on different grounds. Such an effort may be taxes well spent under the right circumstances, but if the same people who would enforce spam who are also enforcing the current telemarketing laws, it would be money wasted, because these people are unmotivated.
You seem to miss the fundamental point of what 'law' is for in a democracy.
I can't quite agree here. I'm 100% for free speech, and if a spammer wants to print a newspaper, I have no objection. But if the spammer wants to deliver this newspaper by walking into my home and dump a stack of newspapers on my keyboard, we have problems.
What if all he's doing it dumping them on your front porch? Your comparison of your email inbox and your living room being equivalent is flawed on several layers. The first is the concept of 'privacy', you have it in your living room because you have a door and locks. You don't have any of that in an electronic mailbox. An electronic mailbox is like ones front porch, inherently a place with -public- access.
We need more law.
No, we don't. All law will do is make life more complicated and reduce the concept of individual choice. What you propose is to let others decide and it is clear that they will decide based on their desires and wants and not yours. There are no angels among men.
Example- I sue telemarketers on a regular basis using the tort law written in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This is practically a hobby for me now. I have won every case, and I've been well compensated for my troubles.
You just shot yourself in the foot and in the process demonstrated your lack of understanding of what a democracy is about. <sigh> Democracy (and the USA) is dead. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
* Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 17:00]:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
I somewhat agree here.. but probably on different grounds. Such an effort may be taxes well spent under the right circumstances, but if the same people who would enforce spam who are also enforcing the current telemarketing laws, it would be money wasted, because these people are unmotivated.
You seem to miss the fundamental point of what 'law' is for in a democracy.
Please explain.
I can't quite agree here. I'm 100% for free speech, and if a spammer wants to print a newspaper, I have no objection. But if the spammer wants to deliver this newspaper by walking into my home and dump a stack of newspapers on my keyboard, we have problems.
What if all he's doing it dumping them on your front porch?
That's no good either. If he's tresspassing in order to put obsticles in front of my front door to trip over, expect me to take actions. I don't care what's printed.. It could be blank paper for all I care, but I don't want it on my property. It's litter that I have to deal with.
Your comparison of your email inbox and your living room being equivalent is flawed on several layers. The first is the concept of 'privacy', you have it in your living room because you have a door and locks. You don't have any of that in an electronic mailbox. An electronic mailbox is like ones front porch, inherently a place with -public- access.
My arguement was that you can't expect free speech to have absolute protection. There are many rights that are on the same level with free speech, and if someone is going to use the free speech protection in order to violate someone elses right, you're greatly misunderstanding the purpose of free speech. You need to study where free speech came from and why. People ideas should not be blocked. No one objects to the speech or expression that spammers create. They can write all the spam they want. It's the *delivery* of that speech that we are objecting to. If they deliver it in a nasty way, that violates other rights, then that should be actionable. The first amendment doesn't say anything about the way in which you can deliver your speech. Go stand on a street corner for all I care, but don't enter my home and put it in my face.. that kind of act should not be protected. Your disagreement with this puts you in the minority.
We need more law.
No, we don't. All law will do is make life more complicated and reduce the concept of individual choice. What you propose is to let others decide and it is clear that they will decide based on their desires and wants and not yours.
Spammers have the choice to make whatever speech they want, and I don't intend to take that choice away from them. But I will take whatever actions necessary to ensure that they deliver it in a way that is not intrusive.
Example- I sue telemarketers on a regular basis using the tort law written in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act. This is practically a hobby for me now. I have won every case, and I've been well compensated for my troubles.
You just shot yourself in the foot and in the process demonstrated your lack of understanding of what a democracy is about.
<sigh> Democracy (and the USA) is dead.
This arguement boils down to an ad hominem, and it's empty with no intellectual content. Please explain what you mean here. Give us an academic argument with merit.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
Please explain.
Read Zamyatin's "We".
That's no good either.
Actually it's a perfect comparison. Anyone can put stuff on your front porch. They can't take it away or read it, that is using personal property without permission. Hence, people have a -right- to send you mail. They don't have a right to read your mail without permission.
If he's tresspassing in order to put obsticles
Sorry, your front porch isn't considerd 'trespassable' unless -you- take explicit and particular steps.
don't care what's printed.. It could be blank paper for all I care, but I don't want it on my property. It's litter that I have to deal with.
Then you must put up a sign, does your mailbox have such a sign? In fact your position backs up mine that the current trespass and harassment laws are sufficient to handle this problem. In other words, you shot yourself in your own foot with regard to 'new' law. We don't need it. What we need is the courts to recognize that if we tell somebody to stay away and they don't then an actionable event has taken place. So, we actually agree but you don't see it, yet. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
Things got pretty twisted there in your response- let me unravel this: * Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 18:04]:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
Please explain.
Read Zamyatin's "We".
This is a cop out. Speak for yourself. For all we know, you didn't read this book. Even if the book says it better than you could, explain why you think I miss the purpose of law in a democracy. If you don't, your argument falls with it's own dead weight- one beauty of free speech: ideas without merit fall, good ideas are carried as far as they're worth.
That's no good either.
Actually it's a perfect comparison. Anyone can put stuff on your front porch. They can't take it away or read it, that is using personal property without permission. Hence, people have a -right- to send you mail. They don't have a right to read your mail without permission.
No one has this right. There is no inherent right to put stuff on someones front porch. And yes, to remove any doubt, I can put up a sign making it clear that such an act is trespassing. I don't know if people have a right to send me mail; but my argument is that reguardless of whether they have this right, I should have a private right of action to claim $500 per spam mail. If they do have such a right, then if anything it makes it even more necessary to have tort laws against spam.
If he's tresspassing in order to put obsticles
Sorry, your front porch isn't considerd 'trespassable' unless -you- take explicit and particular steps.
Exactly, and because I can take steps to make it clear that such an act is trespassing, you do not have an inherent *right* to put stuff on my porch.
don't care what's printed.. It could be blank paper for all I care, but I don't want it on my property. It's litter that I have to deal with.
Then you must put up a sign, does your mailbox have such a sign?
It doesn't, mainly because this isn't a problem.
In fact your position backs up mine that the current trespass and harassment laws are sufficient to handle this problem.
That's complete bullshit. Trespass and harassment laws are insufficient. The point I was making with trespassing is that because of trespassing law, you do not have a right to put things on my porch. Whether this law is effective is quite a different thing. If I go to the police station and say that someone is putting stuff on my front porch even though I have all the proper notices posted, I will get laughed out of the police station. It's illegal and enforceable, but that doesn't mean it will be enforced. A very similar thing happened to me when I first started taking actions against telemarketers. I went to my local white collar crimes unit to file a report against a telemarketer. I had proof as to who done it, what they did, and what laws were broken. This was criminal activity I was there to report, and they wouldn't even make a report. Because the laws are broken so regularly, the police dept. is only going to enforce the repeat offenders. IOW, when I get three calls from the same telemaketer, only then will they write a report. And even then, there's nothing to motivate them to act on the report. So the mere presence of a law doesn't mean you rest assured that it will do anything. Tort law, on the other hand, is effective. I'm suing telemarketers left and right, because I am empowered to take action. So no, my position does not back up yours. My position is that we need tort law, because trespassing law does not work. I know that if I post an appropriate use statement for my email box, and I get spammed anyway, I will get laughed out of the police station for trying to press trespassing charges.
In other words, you shot yourself in your own foot with regard to 'new' law. We don't need it. What we need is the courts to recognize that if we tell somebody to stay away and they don't then an actionable event has taken place.
We do need it, because I still get spam. The laws in place aren't working. I need tort law, and nothing I've said indicates otherwise.
So, we actually agree but you don't see it, yet.
Not even close. Until you support tort law, we will not agree on this. Ultimately, you could say my objective is to ask for more RIGHTS, not RESTRICTIONS. But rights also come in the form of law. I'm not asking for more restrictions on email. I'm just asking for the *right* to sue someone who sends spam. Spam is damaging, and costly. Let them send it (that way they can't complain about loss of free speech), but I should have a right to seek compensation. $500 per email. That's all I want.
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
Things got pretty twisted there in your response- let me unravel this:
* Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 18:04]:
On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
Please explain.
Read Zamyatin's "We".
This is a cop out.
No, you asked for an explanation. The book is an excellent one. Just another example of you wanting somebody else to do it for you.
Speak for yourself.
I never speak for others, that's their job.
For all we know, you didn't read this book.
Irrelevant. For all we know you can't read. You might be having somebody else read and write this text that supposedly comes from you. Not my problem or of any interest to me really. By the way your commentary is a ad hominim attack and tends to weaken your argument.
explain why you think I miss the purpose of law in a democracy.
Your commentary.
If you don't, your argument falls with it's own dead weight
If I don't what, explain my self? I did, I suggest that you read "We". My argument at no point requires 'We' and I've explained my views much better than you have.
- one beauty of free speech: ideas without merit fall,
That's a laughable one. How come religions like Christianity still hang around then? Peoples belief that gay marriage is a sin and will cause the collapse of western civilization? Or that government is 'good'?
good ideas are carried as far as they're worth.
Not hardly. If that were so then this discussion would have been resolved 200 years ago. It isn't, and it won't be 200 (or 2,000 for that matter) years from now. Your thesis is bogus.
Actually it's a perfect comparison. Anyone can put stuff on your front porch. They can't take it away or read it, that is using personal property without permission. Hence, people have a -right- to send you mail. They don't have a right to read your mail without permission.
No one has this right. There is no inherent right to put stuff on someones front porch.
Right to speak and press. People have a right to speak their mind and they have a right to use a press to spread it around. You better talk to a lawyer and do some deeper thinking. People have a right to contact you, you have the right to tell them to go away. You don't have the right to be hermit. Your views of 'individualism' are the exact sort that Hayek and others warn against. Individualism and Economic Order F.A. Hayek ISBN 0-226-32093-6 In particular the very first section, "Individualims: True or False".
And yes, to remove any doubt, I can put up a sign making it clear that such an act is trespassing.
That is correct, YOU are responsible for it. And even that is a perfect defence since there is still a public access to your property where it meets public property, an easment (ie the place where a sidewalk goes). In most cities it ranges from 3 to 4 ft. from the curb. That property is managed under imminent domain concepts even though you are responsible for its upkeep and such.
I don't know if people have a right to send me mail; but my argument is that reguardless of whether they have this right, I should have a private right of action to claim $500 per spam mail.
I have no problem with a 'private right', sue in civil court till the cows come home. That's not what you're talking about or promoting. You're talking about of both sides of your face. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Choate (2003-08-03 04:35Z) wrote:
By the way your commentary is a ad hominim attack and tends to weaken your argument.
ad homonym?
Right to speak and press. People have a right to speak their mind and they have a right to use a press to spread it around.
But do they have a right to use my property to queue up bulk ads that I'm stuck either reading or putting in the trash? And how unreasonable is it for each such medium to have an opt-in do-not-contact list? Should it be legal to dump stuff on my doorstep or in my mailbox even when I've clearly indicated I don't want any of it? Why do they have the right to assume, "maybe he didn't know what he was saying... maybe he wants *this* ad?" It's obvious where that line of reasoning goes with another more heinous crime. -- Freedom's untidy, and free people are free to make mistakes and commit crimes and do bad things. They're also free to live their lives and do wonderful things. --Rumsfeld, 2003-04-11
* Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 23:06]:
This is a cop out.
No, you asked for an explanation. The book is an excellent one. Just another example of you wanting somebody else to do it for you.
Right, the book may be an explanation of law and democracy- no one is arguing that, but you're statement is a cop out, because you're not willing to back your statements with a supporting arguement. "Go read a book" fails as a supporting argument because it lacks the connection you're trying to draw with your statement.
Speak for yourself.
I never speak for others, that's their job.
Then don't try to use someone elses book as your words.
For all we know, you didn't read this book.
Irrelevant.
This is relevent, because by not drawing connections necessary to support your argument, you're not offering any reason for your readers to believe that reading this book will add any support to your statements.
For all we know you can't read. You might be having somebody else read and write this text that supposedly comes from you. Not my problem or of any interest to me really.
Now this is irrelevant, because even if I couldn't read, my arguments would still stand. I could be blind, doesn't matter.
By the way your commentary is a ad hominim attack and tends to weaken your argument.
To point out an ad hominem attack is not an argument to begin with, so there's no argument to weaken here. It merely points out a fallacious argument, if anything to help you, because your reader already disposed of your ad hominem, and it already reflected poorly on you. Consider it "help", FYI, for future reference. There's no reason to hold back a netettiquite lesson when one is due. Everyone could smell the bullshit. All I did was identify what kind of bullshit it was and slapped a label on it for confirmation. You shouldn't consider ad hominems as a form of counter attack, or an arguement that is weak or strong, but rather just feedback that your argument in question failed to be effective. Making an ad hominem argument is just like making no argument at all. Some people in forums have developed a way to embed ad hominems in good intellectual content, but your ad hominems are coming out in a pure form. You should try to at least inject some intellect into your ad hominems so we can all get something from them. If you don't at least do this much, you'll end up getting filtered out in peoples procmail scripts.
explain why you think I miss the purpose of law in a democracy.
Your commentary.
So you have nothing to add to this? An argument that goes unaddressed is also an argument lost, so if you leave this alone, it will fail to be effective, just as your ad hominem failed to be effective.
If you don't, your argument falls with it's own dead weight
If I don't what, explain my self? I did, I suggest that you read "We". My argument at no point requires 'We' and I've explained my views much better than you have.
Again, you haven't made any sort of philosophical connection between your unsupported comment and this book. Basically, you copped out of the argument.
- one beauty of free speech: ideas without merit fall,
That's a laughable one. How come religions like Christianity still hang around then? Peoples belief that gay marriage is a sin and will cause the collapse of western civilization? Or that government is 'good'?
No one said YOU had to agree with an idea for it to have merit.
good ideas are carried as far as they're worth.
Not hardly. If that were so then this discussion would have been resolved 200 years ago. It isn't, and it won't be 200 (or 2,000 for that matter) years from now. Your thesis is bogus.
The problem is that you're analyzing this from a bipolar perspective. It's actually a fallacy to argue that there are only two sides to something, and one must be the correct one. This is what you're implying by expecting a quick resolution. Multiple competing ideas often have merit. Just because one perspective is a good one, does not mean the competing ideas are worthless. Because the idea of absolute unequaled free speech is a good one, and ideas that limit free speech also have merit and support from the greatest thinkers of our time, you can't expect a quick resolution, despite the fact that you can only see one side to this as being one with any strength.
Actually it's a perfect comparison. Anyone can put stuff on your front porch. They can't take it away or read it, that is using personal property without permission. Hence, people have a -right- to send you mail. They don't have a right to read your mail without permission.
No one has this right. There is no inherent right to put stuff on someones front porch.
Right to speak and press. People have a right to speak their mind and they have a right to use a press to spread it around.
Yes, as long as it doesn't interfere with other rights. As soon as it does, you can't expect all rights can win protection.
You better talk to a lawyer and do some deeper thinking. People have a right to contact you, you have the right to tell them to go away. You don't have the right to be hermit.
They don't have a right to contact me in certain ways. ie. they don't have a right to break my door down to make contact with me. They may have a right to contact me if they use a form of contact that doesn't infringe on my rights. And, correct, I don't have an inherent right to be a hermit. Your point?
Your views of 'individualism' are the exact sort that Hayek and others warn against.
Why would they warn against this?
And yes, to remove any doubt, I can put up a sign making it clear that such an act is trespassing.
That is correct, YOU are responsible for it. And even that is a perfect defence since there is still a public access to your property where it meets public property, an easment (ie the place where a sidewalk goes). In most cities it ranges from 3 to 4 ft. from the curb. That property is managed under imminent domain concepts even though you are responsible for its upkeep and such.
What's your point here?
I don't know if people have a right to send me mail; but my argument is that reguardless of whether they have this right, I should have a private right of action to claim $500 per spam mail.
I have no problem with a 'private right', sue in civil court till the cows come home. That's not what you're talking about or promoting.
This is *exactly* what I'm advocating. I want to have a private right action against spammers, and I want that to be a protected right via tort law.
You're talking about of both sides of your face.
Lost ya there.
While at the same time quoting from a book doesn't mean anything either. It shows that a) you can quote from a book, and b) you have no ideas of your own. If you have something valuable to say, say it. Otherwise, let's not waste time over who can read a book, who has read a specific book, or who can quote from a book. BTW: Incase you haven't been clued, arguing with Jim Choate is like arguing with a broken clock. It always returns 12:30, which twice a day is the right time, but there's no real intelligence there. Just an automaton from a realm called Choate', where physics don't follow the same laws as here, everyone uses Plan9, people earn money based on their needs, not their ability, logic is based on whatever Choate says it is, and so on. Most people, myself included have set bits emminating from that realm to find their way to the bit bucket. As for your points of view, my take is this: There ought to be a law to stop people who say "there ought to be a law." Making laws is the job of congress. Cypherpunks (supposedly) write code. Want to push laws? Email, fax, mail, or otherwise spam (oh the irony!) your congresscritter, not "us." ("Us" is in quotes because cypherpunks have no official party line, "we" don't speak for each other. It's just a mailing list, and it's "members" hold varying ideals, but a general trend of consensus is that more laws are evil, and that freedom to use strong crypto is generally a good thing. This is only my view of what cypherpunks is about, YMMV.) ----------------------Kaos-Keraunos-Kybernetos--------------------------- + ^ + :25Kliters anthrax, 38K liters botulinum toxin, 500 tons of /|\ \|/ :sarin, mustard and VX gas, mobile bio-weapons labs, nukular /\|/\ <--*-->:weapons.. Reasons for war on Iraq - GWB 2003-01-28 speech. \/|\/ /|\ :Found to date: 0. Cost of war: $800,000,000,000 USD. \|/ + v + : The look on Sadam's face - priceless! --------_sunder_@_sunder_._net_------- http://www.sunder.net ------------ On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
* Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 23:06]:
This is a cop out.
No, you asked for an explanation. The book is an excellent one. Just another example of you wanting somebody else to do it for you.
Right, the book may be an explanation of law and democracy- no one is arguing that, but you're statement is a cop out, because you're not willing to back your statements with a supporting arguement. "Go read a book" fails as a supporting argument because it lacks the connection you're trying to draw with your statement.
On Saturday 02 August 2003 23:35, mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
Ultimately, you could say my objective is to ask for more RIGHTS, not RESTRICTIONS. But rights also come in the form of law. I'm not asking for more restrictions on email.
If we accept that the set of "natural rights" is fixed, then by asking for more rights (for yourself), you are in fact arguing for more restrictions (on others). I have long argued that spam is tresspass and theft of service, but I have stopped arguing for legislation because I recognize that it is futile. Your actions against telemarketers are successful because both you and the telemarketer are within the same jurisdiction and tort law exists to support your action. But try to apply the same tort concept against some Chinese spam generator (or Korean, or Romainian, ad infinitum) and you will quickly see that the global nature of the internet renders regional tort law moot. I keep a loose track of the spam I receive (typically >50/day) and a good 85% originates offshore, even though the benefiting party may be domestic. Enacting tort law will simply drive the remaining 15% offshore, and the benefiting parties will just argue that they have been Joe-jobbed. The problem is that the present email structure was designed for a more naive time when all parties were trusting and trusted. The solution *is* a technical one. We must build fences against the tresspassers, but inevitably some will sneak through. If you want to receive email, you will have to deal with email. That's freedom, isn't it?
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
Your actions against telemarketers are successful because both you and the telemarketer are within the same jurisdiction and tort law exists to support your action.
You're both wrong, his actions are not successfull. In fact they harm the society as a whole and help the company. The money he 'wins' doesn't come from the company, any more than the money that pays the companies lawyers comes from the company. It comes from the customers via higher prices. So what you're actually doing is allowing the company to take more money from the community then would have happened without such laws. What you're doing is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich. Some 'good'. -- ____________________________________________________________________ We are all interested in the future for that is where you and I are going to spend the rest of our lives. Criswell, "Plan 9 from Outer Space" ravage@ssz.com jchoate@open-forge.org www.ssz.com www.open-forge.org --------------------------------------------------------------------
* Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 23:06]:
On Sun, 3 Aug 2003, Roy M. Silvernail wrote:
Your actions against telemarketers are successful because both you and the telemarketer are within the same jurisdiction and tort law exists to support your action.
You're both wrong, his actions are not successfull.
I guess you'd have to define what you mean by 'success' in this case. Clearly in terms of my own well-being, this activity is successful because I get an opportunity to vent my frustrations, which is a very good theraputic feeling, and I also get well compensated for my trouble. I feel pretty good about it. I don't get raging pissed at telemarkters anymore.
In fact they harm the society as a whole and help the company.
You'll have to support that claim somehow.
The money he 'wins' doesn't come from the company, any more than the money that pays the companies lawyers comes from the company. It comes from the customers via higher prices.
If it were my choice, such a company wouldn't have any customers. But hey, there's a sucker born every minute, and if these telemarketers are going to seperate idiots from their money, fine by me. The money is better off in the hands of the company in this case.
So what you're actually doing is allowing the company to take more money from the community then would have happened without such laws.
I could always pull a republican comeback, and say that the money I take from the community trickles back into the community :) But I'm not a republican, so I can only say that the money funds my schooling (and gambling, which in turn funds my schooling). If I'm helping the telemarketing company as you claim, I wonder why telemarketing companies don't excessively intentionally break the law on a larger scale, and deliberately attempt to rack up the charges. Hey, I could be a consultant, and advise telemarketing companies how they can really rack up 1500 dollar lawsuits to really help their business. Really Jim, I guess I'm just failing to see how this is profitable to the companies. How do they profit from my lawsuits against them?
What you're doing is stealing from the poor and giving to the rich.
My winnings end up in my pocket, and I'm not exactly rich, so where else is the money going Jim? These companies? How does such a cost get passed on to the consumer? Higher prices, you say? If a company can turn around and charge higher prices for their product or service and stay in business, why didn't they do this in the first place? Why would it require a lawsuit to get the prices up? Well, I'll tell you. The fact is that the company is charging as much as they can to begin with, because their goal is to maximize profits. If they can turn around and start charging the customer more to increase profits, there's no reason why my lawsuit was needed. The fact is, if the company has any sense, they're charging as much as they can from day one. So while my lawsuit doesn't increase the price to the consumer, it does deter the company from harassing other consumers on the phone. So it pays off for everyone. Consumers get decent prices, and there's no hidden cost for them to pay in the form of coping with harassing phone calls. This cost is removed, thanks to me :)
* Roy M. Silvernail <roy@rant-central.com> [2003-08-02 23:06]:
On Saturday 02 August 2003 23:35, mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
Ultimately, you could say my objective is to ask for more RIGHTS, not RESTRICTIONS. But rights also come in the form of law. I'm not asking for more restrictions on email.
If we accept that the set of "natural rights" is fixed, then by asking for more rights (for yourself), you are in fact arguing for more restrictions (on others).
I would almost agree with that, but in this particular case I don't see how tort law restricts them from sending spam. With a tort law that gives me a right to claim $500 per spam, they can still send spam, in fact, I might even welcome the spam. But then it's only fair to compensate me for my damages and troubles. Heck, I might even buy the product they're selling at the same time.
I have long argued that spam is tresspass and theft of service, but I have stopped arguing for legislation because I recognize that it is futile.
You've given up?
Your actions against telemarketers are successful because both you and the telemarketer are within the same jurisdiction and tort law exists to support your action. But try to apply the same tort concept against some Chinese spam generator (or Korean, or Romainian, ad infinitum) and you will quickly see that the global nature of the internet renders regional tort law moot.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Being outside of the U.S. would make it more difficult for me to assert a claim, but not impossible. I'm no expert on this, but I believe there are lawsuits against overseas companies, and I heard that countries basically trade judgements.. ie. if we have $1 million in judgements against Canadian companies, and vice versa, they enforce our judgements and in exchange we enforce theirs.
I keep a loose track of the spam I receive (typically >50/day) and a good 85% originates offshore, even though the benefiting party may be domestic. Enacting tort law will simply drive the remaining 15% offshore, and the benefiting parties will just argue that they have been Joe-jobbed.
I don't know about your numbers, but lets assume they're accurate. I would be happy with going after the locals, because I want to be compensated whether it's someone in my country or otherwise. So it would be a good start to get compensation for internal spam- no reason to ignore that. In fact, considering all the spam I get, and figuring that I can only handle a few lawsuits a week while maintaining my real job, 15% of of your 50/day leaves 7.5 emails per day that are actionable. Not bad. That's more than enough. If I get $500 per lawsuit, I would actually feel that the whole spam problem is resolved, because it would be enough compensation to collectively not care about the foreign spam. If the 15% are eventually driven offshore, that's still an improvement. But in reality, a large chunk of that 15% will just stop what they're doing. Also, if their email originates offshore, but they still live locally, I can still sue them, because their personal jurisdiction is within my long-arms reach. Relocating servers does not get them off the hook. If I'm in New York, then they are doing business in New York under New York's jurisdiction, and that is where the forum would be. Enforcement of the judgement would be in the jurisdiction of their person, or their assets. So if that's Florida, that is where the money will come from. The legal system doesn't care if their servers are in Vanuatu. Sure it would be more difficult to trace them, but let's not deny the private right of action for those with the resources and motivation to make their claim.
The problem is that the present email structure was designed for a more naive time when all parties were trusting and trusted. The solution *is* a technical one. We must build fences against the tresspassers, but inevitably some will sneak through. If you want to receive email, you will have to deal with email. That's freedom, isn't it?
No, it doesn't have to be this way. A system of trust is a good one, as long as there is accountability. I love not having any privacy / blocking features on my phone. Anyone can call me, and family members aren't blocked or screened. They get my voice immediately. Even telemarketers are free to call me; but if they dare break the TCPA, they will have to compensate me. This is a great arrangement because I don't need to barricade everything and fear blocking people I want to talk to. I don't have to pay my phone company for privacy features, adding to their profits while they sell my number to the telemarketers simultaneously. And when a bad guy gets through, I get compensated well enough not to care. In fact, I even welcome telemarketing calls.. muahaha! And I must say, the corporations are failing with their technical solutions. This is not working. Spam still gets through, and I don't get compensated when this happens. My legitimate mail gets blocked because the filters don't work, and even worse, I don't get compensated when that happens. Private corporations are abusively exercising their power to regulate who can email who, and the collateral damage is ignored. These private corporations need to be removed from power. They should not have this power. If an entity must have this power, it should be the government, but certainly not a careless profit driven heavyweight. Spamassassin works pretty well, but this is a user level tool, not being used by ISPs. I would use spamassassin in combination with tort law. This would be the best protection. As it stands, the technicians are blocking my legit mail, and I want to sue these people more than anything. They are causing more damage and frustration than the spammers. I won't rest until MAPS and AOL are removed from power.
* Jim Choate <ravage@einstein.ssz.com> [2003-08-02 17:00]:
Your comparison of your email inbox and your living room being equivalent is flawed on several layers. The first is the concept of 'privacy', you have it in your living room because you have a door and locks. You don't have any of that in an electronic mailbox. An electronic mailbox is like ones front porch, inherently a place with -public- access.
I should address this in more detail. The privacy I have in my livingroom is not because of doors and locks. These don't stop those who want to violate my privacy. The law does, however. It's more important and effective to have breaking an entering laws than to have these locks. A six foot pry bar will get past most locks, but to get past the law, they better have one hell of a lawyer (more difficult to acquire than a pry bar). This is the point Bruce Schneier made in a recent issue of Wired. People are so focused on perimeter protection that they're completely overlooking detection and *response*, and blocking legitimate access at the same time. Example- people who think technical solutions will keep out the telemarketers and they buy all these privacy features for their phone. This doesn't stop telemarketers- they still get through. But it does hinder family members, forcing them to go through hoops to get to your voice. But if you get wise and improve on your *reaction* to telemarketing calls, you don't need the privacy features. Remove them, and welcome all callers as I do. Default to trusting people, so you don't distrust someone you should. Then when one of the bastards takes advantage, respond and make them accountable. Sue them. This philosophy doesn't work for everything, but it is the absolute best tool for stopping telemarketing. I don't block anyone I want to talk to, yet I get compensated for the telemarketing calls. And I'm even able to do this w/out preventing the free speech right of the telemarketer, because they were able to make their pitch. If someone tried to take the tort law out of the TCPA, I would probably sue them for violating my freedom of enterprise :)
At 05:52 PM 08/02/2003 -0500, Jim Choate wrote:
You seem to miss the fundamental point of what 'law' is for in a democracy.
No, Jim, he understands exactly what law is for in a democracy, which is enforcing anything 51% of the people want until something else gets its 15 minutes of public attention, and that includes "doing something" about spam, or about people with the wrong skin color or nationality wanting to live in your neighborhood, or making sure that people with the wrong combinations of number or gender can't be married, or providing landing zones for visitors from other planets. What law is for in a free society is an entirely different question - I think you're saying that laws that define spam as a tort are wrong as well as not useful, and I think agree with you. But democracy is only compatible with a free society when everybody remembers to bash politicians who interfere with freedom. Laws _could_ help by defining use of nuclear weapons on spammers to be justifiable homicide (or litterin' an' creatin' a disturbance.)
participants (6)
-
Bill Stewart -
Jim Choate -
Justin -
mindfuq＠comcast.net -
Roy M. Silvernail -
Sunder