| Free speech bur no freedom to intrude on the Rigts of others Perhaps we need to get away from the net as public ownership and community and base it on property rights. That is my connection and e-mail is private property and I alone am the arbiter whose mail I receive. |
|
| Your mail box is on private property, but that doesn't stop advertisers from sending you tons of circulars. |
|
joeabb65Premium
join:2008-06-17
Medford, MA | But you can get taken off of their lists and have the bulk mailings stopped. You can't do that with spam. |
|
| I've said it many times before, I'll say it again.
Block all email addresses by default except the ones
you wish to receive email from.
Let's look at this another way, spammers can use hijacked
(stolen) email accounts on mail server computers they do
not own or have permission to use, to send email to
recipients they do not know. Then, using that example,
a spammer can come into my house, use my computer and
email account to send email to people they don't know
and the court says this is free speech?
The postal analogy fails in that the advertisements you
receive in your mailbox are paid for and you have the
option of contacting the company and removing yourself
from the mailing list.
Apparently, spamming must be profitable or else there
wouldn't be so much of it. Someone must be buying those
r..e.pli...c..a R...ol..ex watches.
It seems this judge forgets that a person's rights extend
only so far. Once my rights infringe on the rights of
others, that's it. For instance, I have the right to come
into your house, stand on your table and sing the star
spangled banner. That's my right. I have the right to
kill you. Those rights end when it infringes on your right
to peace, privacy and security. It also ends when your
right to live is involved, hence I can't kill you.
I'd love an email service where all email is blocked by
default. Add the email addresses you want to a white list
and all unknown email/spam is eliminated.
--Deeply Shrouded & Quiet
--Central Control! D-Dial #49 |
|
 RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY | reply to rdmiller
said by rdmiller:Your mail box is on private property, but that doesn't stop advertisers from sending you tons of circulars. There is one slight problem with your comment. The advertisers have paid the USPS to deliver their ads and by supplying a mailbox (which in many cases is the property of the USPS to which they give you access in the form of the key to the lock on the door) you grant the USPS the right to place the mail there. Also, they is a USPS form you can fill out that allows you to remove your permission for the USPS to deliver mail from designated mailers. Once you fill out that form they will no longer deliver any mail that is sent by the advertiser (it is supposed to be delivered to a trash can not your mailbox [or returned to sender]). |
|
|
|
| reply to rdmiller
said by rdmiller:Your mail box is on private property, but that doesn't stop advertisers from sending you tons of circulars. But there is not a cost in your receiving junk mail in your snail mail box. Email, on the other hand, uses both bandwidth and disk storage space. Additionally, with junk snail mail, the sender bears ALL the costs of the mailing, but with spam email, you end up bearing all the costs (storage, retrieval bandwidth, etc.).
--
---
Eleven years of carrying The Clue Bat... |
|
 Noah VailSon made my AvatarPremium
join:2004-12-10
Lorton, VA
kudos:1
 ·Bright House
 ·Sprint Mobile Br..
| reply to RARPSL
Respecting them Rigts You may own the mailbox but federal code dictates what can go into it.
18 USC Section 1725
Whoever knowingly and willfully deposits any mailable matter such as statements of accounts, circulars, sale bills, or other like matter, on which no postage has been paid, in any letter box established, approved, or accepted by the Postal Service for the receipt or delivery of mail matter on any mail route with intent to avoid payment of lawful postage thereon, shall for each such offense be fined under this title.
I love the US Code. I read it to my kids at night before I put them to bed.
NV |
|
 ZaberWhen all are gone, there shall be none
join:2000-06-08
Cleveland, OH | reply to rdmiller
Re: Free speech bur no freedom to intrude on the Rigts of others That junk mail is no different than TV advertisements, the money earned by the USPO helps keep our costs lower. Spam however I have to pay for in costs for additional administration to the email system, additional storage and processing costs, an additional time to filter the crap out of my in-box.
--
Give a man a fish and he eats for a day, teach a man to fish and he will feed himself for a lifetime |
|
kpatzMY HEAD A SPLODEPremium
join:2003-06-13
Manchester, NH | reply to Scatcatpdx
But, what about all the ILLEGAL crap spammers spew on a daily basis? Is that protected under free speech as well?
If I mail anthrax packets through the US mail, even though I paid the postage, I would get in trouble, as the mail would be ultimately harmful to the recipient. Yet, spammers spew malware into people's inboxes millions of times a day, that's harmful to the recipients' computers and the Internet as a whole, and that's "free speech?"
If I mail ads for prescription drugs that don't require prescriptions (Viagra anyone), I would get in trouble. Yet, spammers spew this crap into people's inboxes millions of times a day, and that's "free speech?"
If I mail stuff that looks like official bank business to people, asking for personal banking info, I would get in trouble. Yet, spammers send out phishing scams all the time, and is that "free speech?"
I can go on and on and on. Spammers are crooks, plain and simple. There's virtually no correlation between legitimate advertising channels and spam. There hasn't been for 10+ years now.
--
The "duh" is the basic unit of measurement of human stupidity. While one may try to measure stupidity in megaduhs(10^6) or gigaduhs(10^9), larger units such as exaduhs(10^18) or yottaduhs(10^24) are more appropriate for measuring on a global level. |
|
