RT POLLOCK spoke thusly to: DICK ROEBELT
RP> >>> Part 1 of 2...
RP> DR> What you fail to take into consideration is a federal law
RP> DR> which prohibits you sending unsolicited fax's.
RP>Dick, care to comment on how the Law treats unsolicited faxing
RP>across international borders ? Is the onus on the "originating"
RP>side to prosecute complaints or on the "receiving" side ? I can
RP>understand how things might work if both sides have similar laws
RP>regulating this aspect, but how do things get done if one side
RP>hasn't anything to match ? Ahhhhh, but here I see that we get into
RP>the "political" aspects...and everybody knows that not even
RP>politics can stand up to the Law...or can it ? Any case law you can
RP>relate ?
   Hmmm... never noticed your "origin" line.  Most of us respond 
believing that everyone in the echo is in the USA.
[...]
RP> DR> Either way, you take up a valuable resource of another w/o 
RP> DR> permission.  And to do so just may push someone over the edge
RP> DR> to file suit against you - both civilly and criminally.
RP>Criminally ? Civilly, I can understand, but unless such electronic
RP>communications contained a message of a treasonous nature urging
RP>civil disobedience or other insurrection then there is not much
RP>consideration for criminal litigations. Oh wait a min: wire fraud !
RP>Yes, that would be a situation to launch criminal proceedings...
   In America, when there is a law on the books and the gvt. (for 
whatever reason) fails to enforce it, a citizen may take an action in 
qui tam.  Which means they are acting in the stead of the government. 
Quite a lucrative enterprise for hardy souls.
[...]
RP> DR> And I am truly surprised that no one has filed a complaint
RP> DR> against you with whatever regulatory agency that has
RP> DR> oversight of your profession.  That includes your competition
RP> DR> ratting you out.
RP>Sometimes the competition is about as friendly as a mountain cat...
RP>"unfair competition" and all the rest...
   In many of the "regulated" professions here (engineer, doctor, 
lawyer, CPA, etc.) a large number of complaints filed originate within
their respective peer group.  One way to cut down on the competition 
as well as to weed out the incompetent/bad name givers, I'm sure.
[...]
RP> DR> The Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 makes it
RP> DR> unlawful to not identify yourself and your calling number on
RP> DR> a fax.
RP>Now here's something I've never given much thought towards. There
RP>have been times when I've sent faxes without any source
RP>identifications: most had been solicited, and therefore expected by
RP>receiving parties. I've always looked at such identifiers as simply
RP>being a means to discern a general locale from which a message had
RP>originated. This would mean that if I were visiting down Stateside
RP>and sent faxes from my notebook/laptopper that I would _have_ to
RP>change the identification/origin headers to reflect the hotel/motel
RP>(or phone booth) number that I was staying at for whatever short
RP>duration of time might be involved. (Easier to send email and let a
RP>central communications system send-out an appropriate fax
RP>message...) With the available software, it's an easy act to
RP>install a false (source) number and originator's name.
   I found that little 'gem' in the operating manual of my new MFC.  I
called my Congresscritter for the actual law and it came yesterday.  
Haven't read it as yet.  But suffice to say that one either has to use
their own letterhead (containing that data) or allow the fax to send 
the phone number and originator's name in the fax placed header.
RP> DR> What some of us do (for revenge) is to completely color
RP> DR> several pieces of paper and tape them together and "return"
RP> DR> the fax.  That way we strip you out of toner and paper by
RP> DR> sending a "loop" fax to you...esp. in the middle of the
RP> DR> night.   The gist of that is hoping we get a message across
RP> DR> that we do not welcome intrusive faxes.
RP>Though I commiserate with you here, I do find that this is NOT
RP>necessarily the "best way" to fight back. There is, somehow,
RP>something "criminal" in that action... Unusual to find an attorney
RP>advocating the "taking of the law into one's own hands", I think.
   Whoa!!!  I ain't no lawyer and only a part-time atty.  Please do 
not judge my words as coming from an atty.  I don't want an UPL charge
against me.  The Florida Bar recently added several new staffers and a
whole bunch of $$$ to their budget for prosecuting unauthorized 
practice of law.  I don't wish to be their victim. 
   Dick
   TheMerc@Juno.com
Emergency repair procedure #1: Kick it.
* CMPQwk 1.42 84 *
--- Platinum Xpress/Wildcat! v1.1
---------------