tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post3377171352894660311..comments2024-03-28T14:52:13.218-05:00Comments on Stonekettle Station: Constitutional SpamJim Wrighthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-30111534592467251032008-09-17T00:20:00.000-05:002008-09-17T00:20:00.000-05:00I started writing my spam post and after about an ...I started writing my spam post and after about an hour I started boring myself. I think I need mafia princesses, semi-automatic weapons, bodies buried in the end zone and probably Vin Diesel with a parachute to make it interesting.<BR/><BR/>Another night. <BR/><BR/>I am a huge believer in civil liberties - but I hate the way they are abused to protect the most obnoxious forms of advertising on the planet. Somewhere, somehow, there has to be a better balance point. Freedom of speech does not mean that every asshole on the web gets to send me email about V I A G R A.<BR/><BR/>Sigh. Vin Diesel needs their address.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-451633266323071172008-09-16T13:04:00.000-05:002008-09-16T13:04:00.000-05:00If the Russian or other Mafias could be trusted to...If the Russian or other Mafias could be trusted to just take it out on the spammers, that would be one thing. The problem is that collateral damages get pretty widespread.<BR/><BR/>That said, my webhosting company is actually German... (grin)<BR/><BR/>Dr. PhilDr. Phil (Physics)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11943336276878704753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-91375630512685371132008-09-16T09:29:00.000-05:002008-09-16T09:29:00.000-05:00sell AOL and a number of ISPs to the Gambino famil...<I>sell AOL and a number of ISPs to the Gambino family and their associates</I><BR/><BR/>We're gonna make yous a broadband offer yous can't refuse.<BR/><BR/><BR/>Brilliant, John, that made me laugh <I>before</I> I finished my first cup of coffee. That's an impressive feat.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-79774325092985978592008-09-16T09:24:00.000-05:002008-09-16T09:24:00.000-05:00Dr. Phil - When I was in the USSR (1989-1991), the...Dr. Phil - When I was in the USSR (1989-1991), there was a moratorium on sending certain kinds of computer equipment there due to worries about encryption technology, among other things.<BR/><BR/>As a result, computer networks tended to operate in the gray economy, which was dominated by the Russian Mafia as a means of laundering money and keeping in communication with overseas contacts. I have no doubt that many moonlighting KGB officers were involved in this as well. As a result, to this day, computer networks in Russia are heavily invested in by the Mafia.<BR/><BR/>So we come to this <A HREF="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/07/26/russian_spammer_killed/" REL="nofollow">story</A>. I was not surpised at the crime at all, given the parties involved, just as I was not surprised in the mid-90s when some uranium was confiscated from a karate dojo in Moscow (martial arts were illegal in the 80s and 90s, hence underground clubs were Mafia-owned - no comment on who I worked out with while I was over there).<BR/><BR/>My solution to spam: sell AOL and a number of ISPs to the Gambino family and their associates.John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-71214882848192267492008-09-15T23:01:00.000-05:002008-09-15T23:01:00.000-05:00Email is free? Spam doesn't cost anything muc...Email is free? Spam doesn't cost anything much (except maybe pennies in bandwidth?)<BR/><BR/>::spluttering in indignation::<BR/><BR/>Yeah, well, I'm with the carrier in this picture. I acquired, deployed and administered our first spam fitering system. And spam costs us a freaking fortune! That cost gets passed on to the consumer as a broad based increase in price across all our products.<BR/><BR/>Hah - now I, too, have a post percolating on this subject too. It's substantively different though, and while I can't use my own employer's info because of my personal moratorium about posting about work, I can do it as a analysis & opinion piece. It'll be a few days though.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-9564064412614581682008-09-15T21:30:00.000-05:002008-09-15T21:30:00.000-05:00What's the purpose of anonymous commercial "speech...What's the purpose of anonymous <I>commercial</I> "speech"? If the spammers are selling pirated software, uh, isn't that a crime? If they are selling Male Gigantism Boosters without a prescription, isn't that a crime?<BR/><BR/>The university's spam filter log keeps showing me ad come-ons where the return address is... mine. Um, why don't I remember that great deal for Photoshop? If I sent it that is. If I didn't send it, then you're starting your commercial relationship me with lying -- and why should I believe one encoded bit in the rest of that unread e-mail?<BR/><BR/>The real reason for anonymous commercial spam is so that the disgusted users can't find the spammer and hit him in the nuts with nail studded two-by-four. Which, unfortunately, would also be a crime.<BR/><BR/>But wasting my time, money, bandwidth, etc., apparently is not.<BR/><BR/>Sigh.<BR/><BR/>Dr. PhilDr. Phil (Physics)https://www.blogger.com/profile/11943336276878704753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-2004035971353365042008-09-15T19:01:00.000-05:002008-09-15T19:01:00.000-05:00Well, that's how I see it too, Nathan. Personally,...Well, that's how I see it too, Nathan. Personally, while I am a huge believer in Freedom of Speech, I don't see how your freedom of speech trumps my right to privacy.<BR/><BR/>Eric is the lawyer here - and I'm interested in his opinion, as always.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-35855515129535016852008-09-15T18:44:00.000-05:002008-09-15T18:44:00.000-05:00I don't know if the government agrees, but I consi...I don't know if the government agrees, but I consider my email account and my internet connection to be private property. Speechifiers are free to speechify to their hearts content...in the public square. They don't have that right in my living room. There should be some way to protect me from them invading my private space.Nathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00648438549121320566noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-64015709123018026282008-09-15T17:36:00.000-05:002008-09-15T17:36:00.000-05:00I believe you guys have a point.I don't have time ...I believe you guys have a point.<BR/><BR/>I don't have time at the moment to expound in detail - but the major difference between junk snail mail and junk email, is that junk email costs me money - admittedly not a lot at the moment, but it's my bandwidth and it does have an impact. Additionally, junk email often contains malicious links, fraudulent services or products, and/or pornography. Seems to me there are sufficient issues there to prosecute spammers under current laws regarding such things - and especially if they are crossing state lines and/or international boundaries. <BR/><BR/>Eric, what's your take on that?<BR/><BR/>And regarding anonymity, I concur. I don't particularly like anonymous political or religious statements, however I do understand why they are necessary. And fortunately for me, I've never been in a position where I needed to worry about retaliation - but that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen and isn't a real worry for a number of folks. John's comment here are particularly relevant I think. <BR/><BR/>More on this later, but right now I've got a couple of pending issues that I have to take care of.Jim Wrighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11259550121437562338noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-34133454098445232842008-09-15T15:37:00.000-05:002008-09-15T15:37:00.000-05:00Yeah, Eric, when I wrote that I thought about why ...Yeah, Eric, when I wrote that I thought about why I'm anonymous - to protect me from employer and regulatory scrutiny in my exercise of free speech. However, I'm not selling anything either - once you are selling stuff, some of that cloak should come down in the name of accountability.John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-4625314438301969122008-09-15T15:23:00.000-05:002008-09-15T15:23:00.000-05:00As John points out, the reason anonymous speech is...As John points out, the reason anonymous speech is protected is because someone might be afraid of retalitation. What I would add--and what John misses in his comment--is that retaliation doesn't have to be lethal to be legitimate. An anonymous person might reasonably fear loss of a job, blackballing, or loss of invested time (i.e. loss of benefits upon termination). And while I believe that civil disobedience calls for a person to accept the consequence of illegal activity, I'm not convinced that's the case when one talks about government whistleblowing: I think Mark Felt was entitled to his anonymity and did the nation a service in speaking to Woodward and Bernstein, regardless of his motives in doing so. Similarly, I think Daniel Ellsberg did the nation a service in leaking the Pentagon Papers, which he did anonymously until he eventually turned himself in.<BR/><BR/>Just as a consequence of having a Second Amendment is that idiots will own guns, and a consequence of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments is that crooks will have lawyers, a consequence of the First Amendment is that assholes will have the right to send unsolicited junk mail. The sad truth is that most rights will be utilized by unsympathetic people--but the point of having those rights across the board is that we have no way of adequately distinguishing the anonymous asshole who clogs the internet from the anonymous hero who provides a reporter with documentation that shows cigarette companies consistently misrepresented the results of cancer studies and consciously tilted their advertising efforts to reach underage customers.<BR/><BR/>Finally, I agree entirely with John (yes, I know, how often does this happen? :-) ) that the legal strategy against spam needs to take account of the fact the <I>reciepient</I> pays for the speech. The major problem with the Virginia statute (and the Virginia court's approach to it) is that it assumes e-mail is <I>free</I>, which technically isn't actually the case--the cost of spamming is shared or even mostly transferred to the person whose drive is filled and bandwidth capped by the spam.<BR/><BR/>As a further matter, was Jaynes prosecuted for possession of stolen goods or any kind of wire fraud for having the stolen account information and using it? And if not, why not? It seems to me those would have been the stronger charges to begin with.Erichttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18275812152895151542noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-91122350987205807502008-09-15T14:39:00.000-05:002008-09-15T14:39:00.000-05:00But still I wonder: Who TF clicks on this stupid s...<EM>But still I wonder: Who TF clicks on this stupid shit?</EM><BR/><BR/>People who are looking for pirated software (which the super cheap "download now" software is), knock-off watches, counterfeit designer goods, cheap drugs and prescription medicines, pornography and other adult material, etc.<BR/><BR/>And Jim, I was gonna blog on this myself. Wish <EM>I</EM> was retired :-).vincehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16955307244053931069noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8243351006478134285.post-25031548067939394792008-09-15T14:04:00.000-05:002008-09-15T14:04:00.000-05:00"However, the traditional interpretation of the Co..."However, the traditional interpretation of the Constitution guarantee's the people to be anonymous if they so choose, a while I don't agree with the mindset behind it, it is the law of the land and must be upheld."<BR/><BR/>I would point to the nom de plume "Publius" and say that the Founders made quite a use of the technique from time to time. :p<BR/><BR/>However, there was a real threat of death for the men who wrote as Publius. Don't see that so much today.<BR/><BR/>But the real legal principle for outlawing spam is that in some way the spammer expects the recipient to pay for receiving the speech. In both time and money (fraction of bandwidth that I pay for) - I wind up paying for speech I do not want. The4 First Amendment does not protect <I>that</I>. Want to reach people? Set up a website and Google bomb it.<BR/><BR/>But still I wonder: Who TF <I>clicks</I> on this stupid shit?John the Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03467337009577733553noreply@blogger.com