Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?

[mindfuq at comcast.net]

* Jim Choate <ravage at 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.