Re: More on digital postage
On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 Dale Thorn wrote:
jim bell wrote:
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. 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.
There are some neato methods to deal with the door and the phone, but I haven't investigated faxes since I don't run one at home.
Boring but it works: There are plenty of fax-to-PC programs out there. Anyone can save *lots* of trees by viewing faxes on the screen before printing the useful page(s). Yes, I know, this means human intervention, but so does crumpling up the ***BUY NOW*** garbage, tossing it at the recycle bin, missing, cursing, etc. Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs? Cynthia =============================================================== Cynthia H. Brown, P.Eng. E-mail: cynthb@iosphere.net | PGP Key: See Home Page Home Page: http://www.iosphere.net/~cynthb/ Junk mail will be ignored in the order in which it is received. Klein bottle for rent; enquire within.
At 1:09 AM -0500 2/16/97, Cynthia H. Brown wrote:
Here in Canada, the CRTC (Canadian Radio & Telecomms Commission) put out rules limiting the time of day, etc. for phone spam (voice or fax). Does anyone out there have the specifics of the CRTC regs?
"Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, meaningless words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled "spam." For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"? -- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?) -- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end? -- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"? As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.) The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not. Not something we should support. --Tim May Just say "No" to "Big Brother Inside" We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, I know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Higher Power: 2^1398269 | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Timothy C. May writes:
"Spam" has rapidly become one of those overused, overloaded, meaningless words. Everything bad on the Net these days is labelled "spam."
The term "spam" has its origins in the well-known Monty Python Viking sketch, where a diner has breakfast menu offerings such as Spam, spam, spam, spam, eggs, and spam. This sequence of one repeated thing, with an occasional something else, reminds us of how our news spool looks after spam has happened.
For the phone example in Canada, just what is "spam"?
-- Is it the semi-traditional definition of "spam," i.e., a phone call made to thousands of sites? (At the same time? Sequentially? How?)
-- Is it a robo-dialer, with no human at the other end?
Calling one person a thousand times is certainly spam. Calling a thousand different people is probably "Excessive Multiple Calling", or some such acronym.
-- Or is it merely an "unwanted phone call"?
This is definitely not spam.
As I see it, the danger of criminalizing "unwanted phone calls" is obvious. (Though obviously the courts and prisons are not about to be filled up with people who committed the heinous crime of making an unrequested phone call.)
If someone is calling me every day, and I ask them nicely to stop, continued calling should be illegal harrassment. If I've never heard from them before, then a couple unwanted calls aren't a big deal. The same principle should apply if someone decides they have a Constitutional right to bang on my front door at 6 am each and every morning.
The danger of all "junk mail" and "junk phone call" laws is that they give power to the government to decide on what is junk and what is not.
Not something we should support.
I wouldn't mind laws against "repeated unwanted communication." That way I decide what is and is not junk, and the perpetrator is on notice that further waste of my time, fax paper, phone line, or mailbox space will not be viewed benevolently. -- Eric Michael Cordian 0+ O:.T:.O:. Mathematical Munitions Division "Do What Thou Wilt Shall Be The Whole Of The Law"
participants (3)
-
Cynthia H. Brown -
Eric Cordian -
Timothy C. May