PDA

View Full Version : It's illegal to annoy


pgp_protector
01-09-2006, 11:37 PM
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html


A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."







So How Long tell this is shot down ?

halo
01-09-2006, 11:43 PM
how annoying...

oh hang on...no it not..it means its legal to annoy US citizens and they cant do a sodding thing about it...not exactly sporting, but could be fun :D

leigh
01-09-2006, 11:45 PM
But if a person remains anonymous and continues to annoy you... what are you supposed to do about it? With proxy servers and email, it really can become impossible to really track down the guilty parties.

tcbcoolscene
01-09-2006, 11:49 PM
I'm sure its one of those things there to scare people into not doing it, like fake security cameras in supermarkets

chrisWhite
01-09-2006, 11:50 PM
Yeah, especially when you consider how big a priority annoying people are going to be to the authorities, it's not like they're going to send the FBI after you because someone has hurt feelings.

csmallfield
01-10-2006, 12:05 AM
I think even the lawmakers in this case realize that this is not possible to enforce, nor will they try. If you want to annoy someone, and remain anonymous you can. Also, if you are annoyed you aren't going to go through the hassle of pressing charges.

The purpose of this law will be if someone is caught stalking you through other means, it's one more avenue to prosecute them on. If one were caught, evidence could easily be found on ones computers proving that "internet threats and stalking" took place. It's a contingency law, just in case this is the only thing they can hold a serious stalker, it's on the books.

One could no longer say, well it's not against the law to annoy people, because it is, if it's via the internet and if one does not disclose their identity.

csmallfield
01-10-2006, 12:06 AM
dbl post due to too busy error

PhantomDesign
01-10-2006, 02:31 AM
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

[/i]
So How Long tell this is shot down ?
Your spelling and grammar annoy me. If you don't disclose your name, address, phone number, credit card number, credit card expiration date, credit card verify number (on the back) and a scan of your driver's license, I'll contact the FBI. :deal:

P.S. This is basically a law against internet related harrassment - that's all. It makes it punishable if nessecary. It's probably redundant.

Per-Anders
01-10-2006, 02:37 AM
Yes, this is just a law to help try and prevent stalking/harrasing on teh internet. Seems barely any different to any other stalking/harrasment law out there already, apart from it's governing behaviour over the internet rather than through any other communication channel, probably just plugging up a hole in the law, nothing to be concerned about (unless you're an internet stalker/creep).

Frank Lake
01-10-2006, 05:54 AM
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

[/i]







So How Long tell this is shot down ?

It won't be. It's a non-intrusive type of law that is used to lay down a legal basis so other laws can easly come into being. So lets say "XYZ" person on this board 'annoys' person '123' enough to make them get the police involved. CGTalk is then forced to give-up the information they have on the person 'annoying' others, face heavy fines/jail time, or BOTH because the laws then included the people who own the site and the people who host it as adding the person 'annoying' another. After this happens CGTalk would then have to consider changing the rules into a more rigid form. Including more invasive cookies or a move complex sign in process.

Frankly this law is SOOOOooooooo stupidly PC in nature that it threatens society. I mean how can you give someone who is wrong the correct information or solid C&C without being annoying in one facet or another.

Fides
01-10-2006, 06:33 AM
This law got slipped into an unrelated, must pass law for Department of Justice.

And it's blatantly unconstitutional.

YerEvilTwin
01-10-2006, 06:47 AM
I had some annoying guys playing "day of defeat" the other day. Maybe I should report it to my local law official?

Grim Beefer
01-10-2006, 07:47 AM
I'm personally tired of lawmakers trying to glue rules from the "analog" world onto the Internet (or computers in general). This is an attempt to basically define the online equivalent of an "obscene phone call", only we all know that the two are incomparable. It reminds me of the way that the Feds have expanded CALEA (http://www.eff.org/news/archives/2005_08.php#003876) by comparing broadband to phone networks.

Stahlberg
01-10-2006, 08:53 AM
without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy

What's the big? Apparently you're free to annoy someone as much as you like, as long as you are not anonymous, and not breaking any other laws.

The day anonymity disappears from the internet will IMO be a huge step forward for mankind. Where's the bad? Us average good guys have never been able to hide our identity from those who want it, anyway... of course the bad guys are real good at hiding.

ndat
01-10-2006, 09:26 AM
What's the big? Apparently you're free to annoy someone as much as you like, as long as you are not anonymous, and not breaking any other laws.

The day anonymity disappears from the internet will IMO be a huge step forward for mankind. Where's the bad? Us average good guys have never been able to hide our identity from those who want it, anyway... of course the bad guys are real good at hiding.

LOL yeah :P.

Hi I'm Adam and I did naughty stuff with your dog. That still seems wrong somehow...

One of the main reasons I like the internet is anonymity. I still act the same way but it is somewhat freeing to be sexless, raceless, and not have other identifying features that lead people to treat you in certian ways. Your basically a blank slate and all that you are is a personallity unless you tell people who you are.

I think this is the only forum that I'm acctually myself in, I don't know how because I don't remeber registering anymore but my real name is even listed lol :). Well acctually I am a year younger then in my profile but oh well, who knows why I did that.

Acctually I think this law is targeting spam mail not really other stuff. Otherwise you could go to jail for telling an annoying knock knock joke to someone you don't know over msn. I think they should have worded it better but I think they were trying to make it so it didn't have crazy loopholes.

Stahlberg
01-10-2006, 10:09 AM
One of the main reasons I like the internet is anonymity.
Well, as usual everyone's entitled to their opinion of course, but... that's one I've never really understood myself. A bit like Cosplay, never really got that either. :D

Hi I'm Adam and I did naughty stuff with your dog
LOL but I'm sure there's some other law against messing with other people's pets...
you could go to jail for telling an annoying knock knock joke to someone you don't know over msn
Hehe, but then the defense comes back with: prove that the joke is annoying.

PhantomDesign
01-10-2006, 10:31 AM
I'm very non-anonymous with my internet dealings - but of course I don't mind my name & reputation being attached to what I do on the internet. There are (of course) certain pieces of information I won't disclose, but the same goes with meeting people in real life.

As far as a blank slate; what is there to be ashamed of? If people can't accept you for who you are, they'll never really accept you.

Breinmeester
01-10-2006, 11:02 AM
Oh great... another new feed for the "I'll sue your @$$" population.... That'll help mankind along...

slaughters
01-10-2006, 01:07 PM
I agree with ndat/Adam. It sounds like this law is more aimed at Spammers than at stalkers.

It essentially makes anonymous, or fraudlent spam mail illeagle. Now bulk spammers can be arrested or fined. For some reason I don't seem to have a problem with that :)

Tibbar
01-10-2006, 03:52 PM
This reminds me of speech codes at college, now disguised as harassment policies, where speech that offends, annoys, or creates a "hostile" environment is banned. People really need to learn about the 1st Amendment. No one has the right to silence others just because it might make them feel annoyed. (Threats and true harrassment excluded.)

csmallfield
01-10-2006, 07:37 PM
I'm with Adam about the anonymity thing, Feeling comfortable to express your opinions, not being judged on anything except exactly what you are saying is a big plus. Also, disclosing one's identity in every aspect of the internet would make stalking extremely easy. As it is, when I google "Chris Smallfield" (my name) I get like 4 pages of websites, all kinds of forums I've posted in, where I've said all kinds of things. If you wanted to you could find out a heck of a lot of info about me, my internet habits and interests, where I went to school.

Another example where disclosing identity can work against you is one time, I was being asked to work on a small shareware game. In an attempt to find out if the guy paying me was a legit, I did a google search on his name, and a porn content wholesaler came up and on the page the man I was dealing with came up as one of the top buyers. Same name, same location same e-mail address. I made the decision to not deal with someone who buys and sells porn through websites.

Stalking laws are a sticky issue, and I am totally a freedom of speech person, but my overall opinion on rights is something like, do whatever you want, say whatever you want, but as soon as you start violating other people's rights you pay the price. With stalking, or harrassment, violates the victims right to privacy.

Being stalked is horrible. It makes you feel endangered, scared and sick all the time. I speak from experience. There is very little that the victim can do, no matter what the laws say, because someone who is a stalker generally doesn't care about laws. Any ammo that gives stalking-victims more power is great in my opinion.

-Chris

pgp_protector
01-10-2006, 08:00 PM
...snip...

Another example where disclosing identity can work against you is one time, I was being asked to work on a small shareware game. In an attempt to find out if the guy paying me was a legit, I did a google search on his name, and a porn content wholesaler came up and on the page the man I was dealing with came up as one of the top buyers. Same name, same location same e-mail address. I made the decision to not deal with someone who buys and sells porn through websites

....snip...

-Chris

And just think, if he now googles your name, he'll know why you didn't want to do business with em :)

Not that they don't pay, or anything, just becuse they buy porn.

paperclip
01-10-2006, 08:15 PM
So why isn't junk mail illegal then?


Or is it only illegal if it's racist/sexist/ any other 'ist'?

csmallfield
01-10-2006, 09:07 PM
And just think, if he now googles your name, he'll know why you didn't want to do business with em :)

Not that they don't pay, or anything, just becuse they buy porn.

haha, right. It wasn't that he was buying porn, he was buying content from a wholesaler for his own pornsites, people I've met in the porn industry are shady. And who wants a shady buisness partner.

pearson
01-10-2006, 09:12 PM
Arlen Specter is the person resposible for sneaking this in. His website (http://specter.senate.gov/), which recommends that you email him rather than send him snail mail (because of delays due to testing for anthrax), has been understandably having trouble staying online because of all the interest he's generated.

Honestly, I hate politics with a passion, but if we don't keep a tight reign on these crooks, they'll try anything. Good or bad, you should take a moment to fill out his web form (if you can get it) and let him know what you think.

Skirnir
01-10-2006, 09:53 PM
Im gonna have to agree with breinmeester while delving even further into the issue.

I do not see much good coming from this law. It is loose...the word "annoy" is exactly what proves its looseness. Do you really think stalkers and email spammers are that dumb to get caught on a law forbidding annoying "other people" on the internet? They have enough understanding about the law(most of them probably have had run-ins with the law) to defend themselves against such a loose cannon. They will just claim that the person they were allegedly "annoying" was not in fact annoyed, because they were always given the information to not be contacted (even if it was worded poorly, or hidden in tiny slurs or subjects).

The only thing that will come about this is harm against your common individual. The powerhungry individuals, or the "give to me cause Im so poor" individuals, will merely use this to their advantage. You see these lawsuits all the time today. Random innocent individuals being sued for extraneous things even though any person in their right mind would yell BS at those, whom were allegedly suing them.

I personally believe this is another effort to provide evidence against the gaming industry. Let us face it, most of their arguments against games(consoles in particular) have failed miserably, many of which were deemed unconstitutional. However, I believe this is one last ditch effort on attempting to not only gain control of the internet, but also to attack games.

You see it all the time online. Individuals insulting each other back and forth, annoying each other again and again and again. I would say a good majority(easily over 50%) at least at some point find themselves in such situations as this while playing online. What could seem more, by legal definition, "annoying?" Nothing thats what. Now whereas I do not think they would have the justification to arrest over 50% of the population, I do however believe they would sue corporations in order to make way for stricter forum/gaming/blog/chat/etc. rules that hurt the community even more.

Let us face it. The internet is loved so dearly because you can go online, anonymously and tell whoever you want to to F*** off. That is one of the main reasons people have what I will call an addiction or obsession with the internet. The internet is ruled by no one and should be ruled by no one. If they want to make legal documents that are directed at only spam mail and stalkers, then they should word it in such a way as to not attack the common individual.

On the other hand if they were also including...what you would call "Trolls"...well than they should state exactly what a troll is(which I would say is invariably easy to define) and say that anyone involved in such activities could be fined or be imprisoned for such and such.

However their current documentation, including the word "annoy" as their primary leverage is unconstitutional and will only hurt your average citizen in the end.

Grim Beefer
01-11-2006, 02:45 AM
The day anonymity disappears from the internet will IMO be a huge step forward for mankind. Where's the bad? Us average good guys have never been able to hide our identity from those who want it, anyway... of course the bad guys are real good at hiding.

I think that you should have a look at the EEF website (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/) for starters, and here (http://www.newsfactor.com/perl/story/7782.html) for a some real world examples in line with the former admonishments (just a quick serach, there are plenty of others). I don't know if you have ever lived in the United States, but the freedom to express yourself anonymously is as old as our Bill of Rights. The Federalist papers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_papers) were written through pseudonyms up until the French edition in 1792, at which point the identities of Hamilton, Madison and Gay were revealed. Similarly, Benjamin Franlkin had several pseudonyms, many of them women, and one (Silence Dogood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin)) actually caused him to resign from his apprenticeship once his secret identity was revealed (making him a fugitive in the process).

The online world protects a person from those that have authority above them, or quite simply - more power. Because you can rest assured that your identity is secret, you could safely be a whistleblower for any amount of nefarious activities done by institutions, something that would be impossible with your ideal proposal. And short of actually reporting a crime, you could at least vent some indignation without fear of reprisal or retribution from a vindictive employer (or government official). In 1990 the McDonalds corporation filed a libel case against two activists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McLibel_case) who were passing out this leaflet, (http://www.mcspotlight.org/case/pretrial/factsheet.html) claiming that their good name was being smeared by such do-gooders. McDonald's threated to sue more than fifty organizations in the 1980's, due to the idiosyncrasies of British libel law - all because they knew WHO they were of course. This is a great example of the power of anonymity; if McDonalds can't ascertain the identity of "online" activists, then there is no one to cuff with a lawsuit. So while your claim may make some amount of binary sense, I don't think you are fully considering how this will affect others.

Stahlberg
01-11-2006, 06:32 AM
This is a great example of the power of anonymity; if McDonalds can't ascertain the identity of "online" activists, then there is no one to cuff with a lawsuit. So while your claim may make some amount of binary sense, I don't think you are fully considering how this will affect others.
So you want people to be able to send you spam, write whatever they like about you and your loved ones, send whatever virus, stalk you, hack into your computer even, without you being able to find out who they are (you know the government can act anonymously too, right)?
Anyway I'd think most honest well-organized activists wouldn't mind being sued, since it would get them publicity - and the chance to potentially even win the case.

We're not living in the 1700's, the methods used back then won't work today.
But, whatever. No politics please. Of course you guys can choose anonymity for comfort, my vote is: I'd rather rid the world of spam and virus than have that comfort.

Grim Beefer
01-11-2006, 09:19 AM
So you want people to be able to send you spam, write whatever they like about you and your loved ones, send whatever virus, stalk you, hack into your computer even, without you being able to find out who they are (you know the government can act anonymously too, right)?
Anyway I'd think most honest well-organized activists wouldn't mind being sued, since it would get them publicity - and the chance to potentially even win the case.

We're not living in the 1700's, the methods used back then won't work today.
But, whatever. No politics please. Of course you guys can choose anonymity for comfort, my vote is: I'd rather rid the world of spam and virus than have that comfort.

Of course I do not endorse such devious behavior, but your argument is flawed to begin with. You assume that a lack of anonymity would disqualify your forementioned list, but there's no rational reason to believe such. I think stalking, identity theft, forgery, phishing, and a host of other serious crimes would stand to benefit enourmously from total online transparency. I used activists as one example before, but a much more common victim is the news. Companies routinely bully news outlets into suppressing stories that are unfavorable to their "pulic image" by parlaying with advertisng revenue. A well publicised example of this involves Fox News, Monsanto, and a husband and wife team of investigative reporters (http://www.prwatch.org/prwissues/1998Q2/foxbgh.html). Due to the possible independence of online media (versus your tightly controlled evening news), this sort of tyrannical manipulation is unfeasible on the Internet; and as long as people can publish anonymously, journalists and employees alike have a potential shield against lawsuits as well. As for you 1700's claim, the following is an excerpt from a "1995" Supreme Court ruling in McIntyre v.Ohio Elections Commission,

"Protections for anonymous speech are vital to democratic discourse. Allowing dissenters to shield their identities frees them to express critical, minority views . . . Anonymity is a shield from the tyranny of the majority. . . . It thus exemplifies the purpose behind the Bill of Rights, and of the First Amendment in particular: to protect unpopular individuals from retaliation . . . at the hand of an intolerant society."
(source (http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Anonymity/))

I guess I'd like to make the point that I don't choose anonymity for "comfort", but instead because of human rights and freedom of speech. I'll close my input on the subject with the fate of Scott Taylor (http://www.jsonline.com/news/metro/dec05/375555.asp?format=print), a dental student that was ordered to repeat a semester, had his schlorship revoked, and was sentenced with a year of suspension - all for posting negative comments in his personal blog about some of the school facutly and students. Taylor was also threatened with expulsion if he continued to post material on "any blog sites that contain crude, demeaning and unprofessional remarks." Good thing he can still post anonymously....

Stahlberg
01-11-2006, 12:56 PM
You assume that a lack of anonymity would disqualify your forementioned list
No, but I think it's a big step in the right direction. It's a prerequisite. A spammer who inadvertantly tells everyone his identity with every spam he sends probably won't be in business for much longer, one way or another...
Since I became mod here I've seen some horrific PM's, ones that you never get to see (and be glad you don't). There was one where a whole families lives were threatened, in the obscenest possible terms... we were never completely sure who wrote that. I know a girl right now who's being 'stalked' online. It's real, it happens every day, and it's only going to get worse.

BTW - that Scott Taylor guy... after reading what he wrote on his blog I find it really hard to sympathize with him:
"a (expletive) of a teacher" and another that described 20 classmates as having the "intellectual/maturity of a 3-year-old."
He had a scholarship, something very few have, and he blew it by acting like a baby. Instant karma. I hope he learned to be more diplomatic in the future.

There are ways to remain anonymous for individuals wanting to reach the public with some very sensitive but important information... one is to have a friend, perhaps someone in another industry or state or country or whatever, publish the information.

Grim Beefer
01-11-2006, 02:05 PM
No, but I think it's a big step in the right direction. It's a prerequisite.

I do agree that such a method is one step in a possible solution. However, once you start talking about online anonymity being the first casualty in some further teleological drive, such a methodology doesn't give liberty a very good prognosis. I believe your proposal would cause the arrest and deterence of some criminals, but eventually we would be right back where we started with another "freedom" on the chopping block to eliminate some "new wave" of online criminals that could evade our then current identity schemes. This is what Orwell warned us about over 50 years ago, the logical conclusions of such terminating proposals in a modern technological world would lead to nothing short of total surveilllance (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surveillance).The solution to deviant behavior is not to lock every possible system of criminal explotation down so tight that no one has any "freedom" to break the law; not only will it evolve crooks and law enforcement to monstrous proportions through co-vaccination, it causually erodes personal freedoms while doing nothing about the core problem of criminal incentive.

slaughters
01-11-2006, 05:16 PM
Grim Beefer - It's easy to point out flaws. There is not one truth, law, or action that can not be argued against. But arguing *against* things never results in solutions, it's just a mechanism for placing road blocks in front of anything you personally disagree with.

How would *you* go about preventing spammers from flooding me with e-mails, or from people receiving hate mail. I mean - aren't they impinging on *my* rights as well?

If you're that interested then stop building road blocks. Throw out a viable alternative instead.

csmallfield
01-11-2006, 06:52 PM
It's a tricky problem. I honestly don't know what the solution is, but to argue that not knowing the correct solution means you shouldn't argue against something you believe is definitely not the solution, is kind of ridiculous.

Here is a fictional conversation to demonstrate my point.

"We have an immigration problem, let's kill all illegal immigrants!"

"No wait, that's a terrible idea."

"Well, what's your solution?"

"It's a complex problem that cannot be solved by one blanket law or action, I don't know the solution yet.

"Well, then you should shut up so we can get to killing."

Is that logical? Not really.


Grim Beefer - It's easy to point out flaws. There is not one truth, law, or action that can not be argued against. But arguing *against* things never results in solutions, it's just a mechanism for placing road blocks in front of anything you personally disagree with.

How would *you* go about preventing spammers from flooding me with e-mails, or from people receiving hate mail. I mean - aren't they impinging on *my* rights as well?

If you're that interested then stop building road blocks. Throw out a viable alternative instead.

slaughters
01-11-2006, 07:44 PM
...Here is a fictional conversation to demonstrate my point.

"We have an immigration problem, let's kill all illegal immigrants!" ...Is that logical? Not really.Or, you could just "get off the pot", make a decision, and offer a solution which was *better* than just "kill all the illegal immigrants".

Don't let fear of not being able to come up with the one-perfect-solution-which-solves-all-problems , stop you from making a decision and offering a better solution.

Mysterious X
01-11-2006, 08:59 PM
dbl post due to too busy error

now that's annoying :p

halo
01-11-2006, 09:13 PM
Losing anonimity on the net does nothing to stop the problem...why? because people instead of using anonomous id's will simply use false id's. Even if constraints are made into reducing false id's people can just be abusive or carry out illegal acts with legit id's.

Something that may have escaped people here is that just because something is illegal in one country does not make it so in another...like i said, it means that we can annoy the crap out of americans, but they cant touch us.

If you take spam as an example, having anon id does nothing to solve it because a lot of spam comes from blacknet ip blocks...these are hacked block ip's that are stolen or created...its like saying you have to wear number plates on your car and then stealing someone elses.

csmallfield
01-11-2006, 11:41 PM
Or, you could just "get off the pot", make a decision, and offer a solution which was *better* than just "kill all the illegal immigrants".

Don't let fear of not being able to come up with the one-perfect-solution-which-solves-all-problems , stop you from making a decision and offering a better solution.

well it's easy to come up with a better solution for my fictional scenario. It's not fear holding me back from making a decision on a better way, it's taking the time to properly assess and think about solutions instead of rushing into something that won't work and will actually harm personal freedom.

Rash, blanket judgements are rarely any good for anything, including stopping what they are created to stop. What's the point in that? That's a waste of everyone's time. Instead of thinking about a solution, one has to fight the bad ones first.

Stahlberg
01-12-2006, 03:19 AM
I understand the argument about not tampering with personal freedoms... but I don't agree. It's not the thin edge of the wedge, it's not a snowball that will roll downhill until it reaches gargantuan size and kills everyone. RL is more messy and complex than that. Trends can never be asymptotic curves that may rush towards a singularity if we don't watch out... they are more like irregular sine curves. I think I'm just a bit too jaded to have any idealism left about things like personal freedoms and such... We can never be truly free. To me it's not black and white, but a range from light grey to dark grey.

IMO there's no way the world is ever heading towards anything like what Orwell wrote, no matter what laws are passed. The biggest thing intellectual idealists ignore is always the fact that the general public isn't as much like a herd of sheep as they like to think. The average man will fool you... he'll take a lot of crap. For decades, even. Then, suddenly, a threshhold is passed, and there's a sea-change, and the pendulum starts to swing the other way. A human dystopia (or utopia) can never be completely stable.

csmallfield
01-12-2006, 05:23 AM
The average man will fool you... he'll take a lot of crap. For decades, even. Then, suddenly, a threshhold is passed, and there's a sea-change, and the pendulum starts to swing the other way. A human dystopia (or utopia) can never be completely stable.

On some level you are correct. But that threshold can get pretty bad and is worth the attempt to avoid it, instead of sitting idley by. IE: Japanese Internment camps, the Red Scare, being a Muslim in America today.

slaughters
01-13-2006, 05:40 AM
Giving up Freedom is a bad thing, but then taking part of my freedom away by protecting spammers is a bad thing as well.

People all ready accept that certain freedoms have to be given up in exchange for security and safety.

Example 1: You can't carry a loaded pistol on an airplane. That is giving up your freedom and right to bear arms

Example 2: You can't falsely shout "FIRE" in a crowded theater with out expecting to be thrown in jail. That is giving up your freedom of speech.

Most people are reasonable about it because they realize that giving up certain freedoms in specific and controled ways is a long term benefit to them.

The whole thing is just a balancing act. Balancing the "freedom" to act irrationally by a few against the safetly and welfare of the whole.

P.S. Spammers are even lower on the food chain than Lawyers are.

Frank Lake
01-13-2006, 01:21 PM
Grim Beefer - It's easy to point out flaws. There is not one truth, law, or action that can not be argued against. But arguing *against* things never results in solutions, it's just a mechanism for placing road blocks in front of anything you personally disagree with.

How would *you* go about preventing spammers from flooding me with e-mails, or from people receiving hate mail. I mean - aren't they impinging on *my* rights as well?

If you're that interested then stop building road blocks. Throw out a viable alternative instead.
Just by pointing out, indetail, what the flaws are and exactly why it should never take place IS showing alternatives by narrowing down potential pitfalls and lighting up areas that may not have been lite-up before. Also by 'requiring' someone who disagrees, with you or anyone else, to come-up with a viable alternative is EXACTLY why anonimity is nessasary.

I agree that Spam sucks but have you ever try'ed to deal with your RL advert mail in the same ways? Some of these advert company's are hard to reach and difficult to deal with even with a paper trail.

Honestly there should be an INTERNATIONAL 'Do not Email' list in which company's need to conform too.

Oh and to provide a 'con'. I'd like Stalhberg or yourself for that matter, to post his address and phone number.

But frankly the way the internet and INSANE national governments have been going lately it's just a matter of time.

Sbowling
01-16-2006, 01:17 AM
[QUOTE=pgp_protector]http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html

[/i]





I thnk they should make a law that makes it illegal to use a picture of yourself in your avatar. There are some UGLY people out there and it annoys me to have to look at their pictures.

EpShot
01-16-2006, 01:22 AM
P.S. Spammers are even lower on the food chain than Lawyers are.

what about the spammers lawyers?

CGTalk Moderation
01-16-2006, 01:22 AM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.