site Search:


 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery






how-to block ads


 
Share Topic
Post a:
Post a:
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

1 edit

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

said by SixSpeed:

I don't think it is bandwidth providers duty to police the way customers use the bandwidth
This is one of those things where, taken to an extreme (in either direction) it's a problem. I wouldn't want to make providers responsible for anything customers do. But, they shouldn't be immune from any responsibility when it's obvious they turned a blind eye, and were complicit to some extent.

There are many aspects of the law which involve "what a reasonable person" would be expected to know (do). There would be nothing wrong with holding providers to that standard.

What I want to know is, where was Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF)? All we hear from their fans is how wonderful it was for EFF to launch a personal injury lawsuit against telcos. Why didn't EFF file a class action against these parties?

Mark
SilverSurfer1

join:2007-08-19

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

said by amigo_boy:

Why didn't EFF file a class action against these parties?
Glad you asked - EFF is the leading civil liberties group defending your rights in the digital world.

To answer your question, had there been a civil liberties cause of action, then the EFF would have responded. But the proliferation of bots/spam/child pr0n is not and never has been a civil rights action.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

said by SilverSurfer1:

But the proliferation of bots/spam/child pr0n is not and never has been a civil rights action.
I have a right against being infested by spambots. And a right against spam mail. If EFF were truly a defender of rights, they would have filed a class action against these parties.

It would have improved everyone's use of the internet, in practical, tangible ways, than suing telcos.

Mark
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

Where is that right stated? i don't remember learning about that in History or Gov't class.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

4 edits

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

said by hottboiinnc:

Where is that right stated? i don't remember learning about that in History or Gov't class.
Glad you asked. See the following:

said by US Supreme Court :

Both the absoluteness of the citizen's right under Sect. 4009 and its finality are essential; what may not be provocative to one person may well be to another. In operative effect THE POWER OF THE HOUSEHOLDER UNDER THE STATUTE IS UNLIMITED; HE MAY PROHIBIT THE MAILING OF A DRY GOODS CATALOG because he objects to the contents or indeed the text of the language touting the merchandise.[1]
As a matter of background, this case concerned 39 USC 3008 [2]. Congress enacted this law primarily as a protection against smut mail. It placed sole discretion of what is objectionable in the hands of the receiver. The mass-mailing industry challenged the law arguing it infringed their constitutional right to communicate with anyone. That it was too broad and would eliminate even non-smut mailings.

The court disagreed, using such remarks as:

said by US Supreme Court :

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.[3]
Therefore, you have what the court deemed "unreviewable discretion" in determining which mail can be prohibited.[4]

For this reason, Postal Form 1500 exists.[5] This form is an Application for Prohibitory Order. The postal equivalent to a restraining order. You are allowed to file it for *any* mailing. This is recognized by the Postal Service's own procedures.[6]

Of course, it's my contention that you should have learned about this from the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) if they truly concern themselves with your rights.

Mark

=== References ===

[1] Rowan, DBA American Book Service, et al. V. United States Post Office Department, et al. 397 U.S. 728, 737, emphasis added. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#737).

[2] 39 USC Sect. 3008 (»www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/39/3008.shtml), previously codified as Sect. 4009

[3] Supra note 1, p. 738. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#738). See also:

said by US Supreme Court :

Today's merchandising methods, the plethora of mass mailings subsidized by low postal rates, and the growth of the sale of large mailing lists as an industry, in itself, have changed the mailman from a carrier of primarily private communications, as he was in a more leisurely day, and have made him an adjunct of the mass mailer who sends unsolicited and often unwanted mail into every home. ... whether measured by pieces or pounds, Everyman's mail today is made up overwhelmingly of material he did not seek from persons he does not know. And, all too often, it is matter he finds offensive.
P. 736. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#736).

[4] Ibid., p. 739, footnote 6. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#F6). See also:

said by US Supreme Court :

The section was intended to allow the addressee COMPLETE AND UNFETTERED DISCRETION in electing whether or not he desired to receive further material from a particular sender.
P. 734, emphasis added. (»supreme.justia.com/us/397/728/case.html#734).

[5] »www.usps.com/forms/_pdf/ps1500.pdf

[6]

said by US Postal Service :

-- The prohibitory order. This order aids in protecting customers from receiving pandering advertisements through the mail. An addressee may obtain a prohibitory order against the mailer of an advertisement that THE ADDRESSEE DETERMINES, IN HIS OR HER SOLE DISCRETION, to be offering matter for sale that is erotically arousing or sexually provocative, as defined in title 39, United States Code, 3008. POSTMASTERS MAY NOT REFUSE TO ACCEPT A FORM 1500 because the advertisement in question does not appear to be sexually oriented. Only the addressee may make that determination. The order prohibits the mailer from sending any further mail to the applicant (and his or her eligible minor children included in the application), effective on the 30th calendar day after the mailer receives the order.
Postal Bulletin PB 21977, July 30, 1998, p. 13, emphasis added. (»www.usps.com/cpim/ftp/bulletin/1···1977.pdf).

Jodokast96
Stupid people really piss me off.
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

Ah, them not having the right to send it is not the same as you having the right to not have it sent.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

1 edit

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

said by Jodokast96:

Ah, them not having the right to send it is not the same as you having the right to not have it sent.
Did you read what I wrote? You have the right to file Form 1500, which can lead to law enforcement action if the sender continues to mail you.

At a bare minimum you could sue the sender in your jurisdiction's Small Claims court, probably receiving a default judgment (because the offender wouldn't travel to defend themselves against what is indefensible.). After you have a few of those judgments, sell them to collection agencies for 50 cents on the dollar.

Mark
hottboiinnc
ME

join:2003-10-15
Cleveland, OH

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

but that does not mean E-Mail. Postal mail and email are two different things. And as we seen here before from one other state not too long ago it is a persons right to send SPAM in one state. Right to free speech.
amigo_boy

join:2005-07-22
Reviews:
·magicjack.com

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

said by hottboiinnc:

but that does not mean E-Mail.
I agree. But, I didn't say email. What I said is, if the EFF is going to sue telcos (when the law specifically grants telcos immunity when participating with the executive branch), why wouldn't they sue spammers when we already have a Supreme Court ruling from 1970 which *screams* applicability to the electronic age?

It would certainly have much more practical and tangible effect than nebulous damages of my email being *lawfully* snooped.

Mark

Jodokast96
Stupid people really piss me off.
Premium
join:2005-11-23
Erial, NJ
kudos:2
said by amigo_boy:

I have a right against being infested by spambots. And a right against spam mail.
You do?
SixSpeed

join:2001-12-24
USA
Reviews:
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Global Crossing & Hurricane Electric looked other way ??

said by Jodokast96:

said by amigo_boy:

I have a right against being infested by spambots. And a right against spam mail.
You do?
Yeah, the founding fathers scribbled that on the back of the original Constitution.

Thursday, 31-May 21:57:56 Terms of Use & Privacy | feedback | contact | Hosting by nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo
over 12.5 years online © 1999-2012 dslreports.com.
Most commented news this week
Hot Topics