From: James D. Wilson (netsurf@sersol.com)
Date: Fri Feb 05 1999 - 08:19:51 MST
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-extropians@extropy.com
> [mailto:owner-extropians@extropy.com]On Behalf Of mark@unicorn.com
>
> NetSurfer [netsurf@sersol.com] wrote:
> >First off laws which allow for the prosecution of businesses which
> >advertise via spam has absolutely *nothing* to do with encryption
or
> >anonymity with the exception that the use of falsified headers IN
SPAM is
> >treated as the fraud it is.
>
> So spam sent through anonymous remailers will be totally legal
because
> the remailer puts a 'real' email address on the message? Spam from
'real'
> email addresses will be totally legal? Gee, that will really reduce
the
> amount of spam I get.
Spam sent through anonymous remailers will not be totally legal; while
spam sent through anonymous remailers will not violate sections of
antispam laws which mandate authentic headers, that same spam will
still violate cost transfer clauses or trespassing clauses or theft of
service clauses of those same laws.
>
> >Well the law has been in place for a number
> >of years, and has upheld on appeals, and you are still able to
practice
> >your freedom of speech (except by sending unsolicited faxes to
> people) and you still have anonymity
>
> Duh, that law requires every fax to include a valid telephone number
that
> it was sent from. It *bans* fax anonymity. Get a clue sometime.
Ad hominem again. No, what I was trying to say is that the "domino
effect" or "slippery slope" argument that passing the junk fax law
would end privacy and anonymity and collapse commercial use of
electronic communications simply did not happen. And yes, there were
people making the same argument against the junk fax law as you make
against junk email law i.e. the end of anonymity, creation of a police
state, violation of my "free speach (tm)" etc.
>
> >This is simply anti-theft and anti-netabuse legislation. If you
are not
> >stealing from people and hijacking other peoples mail servers and
network
> >feeds you have nothing to fear.
>
> Bullshit. Anyone who wants anonymity and privacy on the Net has
everything
> to fear from fanatics like you and Mike. If spam is legal when
> sent through
> anonymous remailers then spammers will just use them. If it's not,
then
> anonymous remailers will be shut down completely and utterly, and
there
> will be no more anonymity on the Net.
Ad hominem again. See paragraph 1 above; these laws do not ban the use
of anonymous remailers. They usually have clauses that state that
there are additional fines/punishments for falsifying headers in
UCE/UBE. It does not state that UCE/UBE with valid headers is legal.
For example, in the Texas bill under consideration there are one level
of penalties for simply sending UCE/UBE. If you send UCE/UBE *and*
falsify headers, for example, by making it look like AOL or Juno or
Hotmail were the senders, it adds additional penalties on top of the
simple UCE/UBE penalties. This is like the difference between robbery
and armed robbery. Armed robbery usually carries stronger penalties
than simple robbery. UCE/UBE with false headers will carry higher
penalties than UCE/UBE with valid headers. Remember that when the
spammers try and make the spam look like it was sent by a non-involved
third party, it damages the reputation of that third party business.
In fact one of the tactics the spammers use for retribution against
anti-'s is to send out glaringly abusive fake UCE/UBE which looks like
it was sent by the anti- (includes the anti-'s email address, ISP,
phone #, street address, etc) so that the anti- will get
grief/threats/etc. from the spammed recipients. On NANAE or FREE or
SPAM-L this is known as being "Joed."
>
> >Talk to the owners of the ISP's who have
> >had to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars just to protect their
> >networks from the criminals and ask them what they think of
spamming and
> >about laws to curb it.
>
> As far as I'm aware, I'm the only person on this list who's had to
waste
> days dealing with spammer attacks on his domain. And I'm the one
who's
> arguing against rabid, abusive anti-spam laws. You just don't seem
to
> have a clue as to what you're asking for.
Ad hominem again. Every person on this list has already been the
victim of spamming as spam seems to make it through to the list
periodically. Furthermore I have had to deal with spammer attacks on
my domains - that's why I started doing something about it instead of
just deleting it or ignoring it. I responded by (1) customizing smap
and smapd from the fwtk (2) implementing tcpd (3) utilizing ORBS,
ORCA, the RBL, DSSL, (4) by joining anti-spam lists and (5) by
lobbying for stronger laws against UCE/UBE.
>
> >I prefer
> >arguments of logic rather than insulting the people I'm carrying on
a
> >dialogue with - its much more effective.
>
> Then give us some logic. Answer some questions. Stop making
assertions
> which have no basis in reality. And stop claiming that you're the
good
> guys and we're supporting the "evil" spammers, when you're trying to
> enforce a police state on the Net. Erase the anti-spam fanatic memes
> from your head and start dealing with reality.
Ad hominem again. I have given you logic. I have answered your one
question above and replied to your many statements as well.
An anti-spam law does not result in a police state on the net any more
than the junk fax law resulted in a police state on the telephone
network.
>
> Mark
>
- -
James D. Wilson
"non sunt multiplicanda entia praeter necessitatem"
William of Ockham (1285-1347/49)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGP 6.0.2
Comment: Spammers are NetAbusers - Jail Them With The Other Criminals
iQA/AwUBNrsMFzAufbtGOmgdEQJ8/wCg/ApziNnoQqkECTNYURXEnVTaP8YAoJ4X
FS4JDhsIf/1RB8rCtl4pYWeE
=A3NF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:03:00 MST