Broadband Tech > Security > Scam and Phishbusters > Is Spam a privacy invasion? Is it illegal?

Is Spam a privacy invasion? Is it illegal?

"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit....The ancient concept that 'a man's home is his castle' into which 'not even the king may enter' has lost none of its vitality....We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. If this prohibition operates to impede the flow of even valid ideas, the answer is that no one has a right to press even 'good' ideas on an unwilling recipient. That we are often 'captives' outside the sanctuary of the home and subject to objectionable speech and other sound does not mean we must be captives everywhere....The asserted right of a mailer, we repeat, stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."

United States Supreme Court: ROWAN v. U.S. POST OFFICE DEPT. , 397 U.S. 728
--

Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket?

reply to nge
It's not a privacy invasion. Whether it is a theft of service is argued from time to time. When the spammers use trojanized computers to send spam (as most do) there is no question that it is unethical and likely illegal (might depend on local laws at the site of the hijacked computer).
--
AT&T dsl; Westell 327w modem/router; SuSE 10.1; firefox 2.0.0.12

reply to nge
Wikipedia entry on the Can-Spam Act of 2003
»en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAN-SPAM_Act_of_2003
--
A drink a day keeps the shrink away. - Edward Abbey

reply to nge
Invasion of privacy? A simple spam email isn't that. Now, if the email contains some malicious code that installs a keylogger or something similar would qualify as that.

You have to look at it this way, there must be some good money in it, otherwise, it would've gone away a long time ago.

Is it unethical? That's kind of a stretch. Illegal? If it's sent through the proper channels, i.e. not zombie PCs, false addressing, etc. then no.

Unwanted, yes, but again, there must be money in it.

reply to nge
I'd disagree with it not being an invasion of privacy.

1) I did not provide my email for them to come knocking at my "internet door" Just because there is a door there isn't an open invitation for anyone to knock. I don't let strangers into my home and I hang a very solid sign "No Soliciting" on my home door, let me tell you when a Door to Door person ignores it, my only reply is, "I'd never buy from someone who cannot read. Unfortunately we are not provide with a "no soliciting" option on emails.

2) Solicitors of emails would probably ignore these as they have no morals of compunction to follow rules, they ABUSE not use the internet through either illegal or at least immoral means to disturb and disrupt MY life, sure, its a small inconvenience etc. but why should I HAVE to read and BE inconvenienced in the first place? I'm rude to solicitors and rude to spammers, unfortunately there are also phone spammers who pull the same type of crap and hide behind the masking of telephone numbers etc.

3) Spam mail is Unwanted by most, unneeded by most and abhorred by most. SPAM (Self Propagating Annoying Mails) come to my email, the only big problem with these is that I am stuck because when someone SPAMS they have found a way to hide behind a re-mailer, or other such programs (or use bots etc as mentioned) the cost? I'm annoyed, I DO pay for it with elevated internet costs and the bad guys are left to do as they please because no one wants or cares to do anything concrete to stop these idiots from abusing the network.

So, illegal? No but it should be. Invasion of privacy? You darn right it is, no ifs, and or butts, you invade MY computer with your spam and it is taking up my time (even the 10 minutes I take to configure an anti spam is 10 minutes too much IMHO!)

reply to nge
If any aspect of spam is still legal it shouldn't be...

Invasion of privacy? Maybe not directly, but I certainly didn't sell MY email address to anybody. They STOLE it. If I could find out who STOLE it and provided it to spammers lists I would send them a nice bill.

Unethical? Look at what 99.999999999% of spam is pushing. It's not legitimate businesses, that's for sure. It's all scams. The junk mail you get in your mailbox is at least paid-for advertising of companies you may want to do business with. Spam is 2000% crap.

Most spam is distributed using botnets which involve unauthorized access to computers which is illegal in the US and many other countries as well.

Does spam cost the recipient money? Indirectly, yes, whether it's in increased bandwidth costs (passed from ISP to customer), or time spent deleting all the crap, or time/money invested in anti-spam technology. Most of my software development outside work (on my SPARE time) has been to keep all the spam crap the latest botnets are spewing out of mine and my wife's inboxes. At present, over 90% of the email that hits my server is filtered out as crap.

And since spammers can't take NO for an answer (I use SPF and greylisting), I have to spend more time updating my filters everytime they manage to slip some of their crap through. They're wasting my time, and their time, but they don't care.

--
Windows Vista has detected that your mouse was moved. In order to enhance your user experience, Vista needs to contact Microsoft to re-activate the software. Please make sure you are connected to the Internet, have your credit card handy, then click OK.

reply to nge

quote:

---

A divided Virginia Supreme Court affirmed the nation's first felony conviction for illegal spamming on Friday, ruling that Virginia's anti-spamming law does not violate free-speech rights.

Jeremy Jaynes of Raleigh, N.C., considered among the world's top 10 spammers in 2003, was convicted of massive distribution of junk e-mail and sentenced to nine years in prison.

Almost all 50 states have anti-spamming laws. In the 4-3 ruling, the court rejected Jaynes' claim that the state law violates both the First Amendment and the interstate commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution.

---

That is certainly good news.