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 --------------------------------------------------------------------

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 --------------------------------------------------------------------

On Sat, 2 Aug 2003 mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:

Things got pretty twisted there in your response- let me unravel this:

* Jim Choate [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 [2003-08-02 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.

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?

* Jim Choate [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 :)

* Jim Choate [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 :)