At 10:11 AM 5/2/2003 -0600, kestrel wrote:
>
>> The First Amendment Center has an article on the new Virginia
>> anti-spam measures.  I'm not sure if those measures are really tough
>> or if they step over the line into draconian.  It should raise some
>> concerns about protected commercial speech, at any rate.
>>
>> http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=11415
>
>I would agree that it's a tad draconian to paint all of it with the same
>tar... 

I don't think it's protected commercial speech to try to trick me into
buying something, as many (if not most) spammers do.  I don't think it's
protected commercial speech for them to come, in effect, uninvited into my
private home (and therefore, I don't think telephone solicitation is
protected commercial speech, either).  I don't think it's protected
commercial speech to lie and steal, as many (if not most) spammers are
about doing.  To hell with them.  Period.

>however, (you knew there had to be a however!) when that email is
>presented in such as a way as to deliberately attempt to defraud the
>potential consumer (as so much of it is) or when it tries to trick you or
>alarm you ("your pharmacy gave you the wrong prescription!"
or "Your order
>has been cancelled!" or "Your password has been stolen!"
-- all examples
>from recent spam I've received) 

Amen, sister.

>or when it's porn (directed with no clue as
>to who's receiving it -- and *that* is a violation of *current* laws let
>alone electronic ones) I find it very hard to develop any concern for the
>ppl sending it.

Darn right.

>Also, current methods exist for ppl to opt out of receiving telephonic junk
>mail (telemarketing calls) and for much of the paper junk mail delivered by
>the post office, but no one of can get out of email spam unless we don't
>have email. When the crap is sent out to everyone it's done by essentially
>*hijacking* the bandwidth of ISP's... which means the capacity they pay for
>is being stolen by the ppl sending all that crap over it -- that they don't
>pay for. *I* pay for my ISP connection and all the attendant uses I put to
>it. I do not want to pay for spam, yet I am. 

And I am, too, and I'm damned tired of it.  They should not be having a
free ride.

>They (the government) made it
>illegal for "spammers" to send spam over fax machines and cell phones
>because they recognized that the *receiver* of such were the ones paying for
>it, and they had no choice in the matter because of the way the technology
>works. 

Which means they have some catching up to do, because the way the
technology works right now doesn't give any of us much choice about spam.  

>I call that theft. And if they lose the profits of their theft I
>don't feel sorry for them.

Not one blasted bit.

>If spammers want to pay ISP's to carry the crap, and "consumers" have a
>legitimate, effective way to opt out of receiving it -- then let them do
>what they're doing (with rules to eliminate porn, scams etc) and caveat
>emptor reign.

Right.  Make them be honest, for heaven's sake, about who they are and what
they're doing.  Make them put their true e-mail address on the spam, and
not use the kind of subject headings under discussion here recently, the
ones that don't make sense.  That way, my filters can work and I can send
most of them to the shitcan, where they deserve to be.

I don't like my choice taken away.  I don't like being signed up for things
without my knowledge and then have the spammer baldly lie saying that the
spam they're sending is in response to my signing up for it.
Blankety-blank liars!  I don't like having my inbox stuffed with garbage
and porn and stupidity.

Go, Virginia!  Bring 'em down!  I'm all for it.

Veloci--sick of all the crap--raptor
 

--- Rachel's Little NET2FIDO Gate v 0.9.9.8 Alpha