 
Betthefarmonthisone
| The ONLY good Spammer is a DEAD Spammer !!! These scumbags just don't get it! But they will when they end up in prison or worse. The Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to SPAM or commit criminal acts. SPAMMING IS a criminal act even if your SPAM complies with the Can Spam Act. Looks like Buffalo needs a reality check and they are about to get a big one. | |
|  | 
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA | Re: The ONLY good Spammer is a DEAD Spammer !!! And the only happy Spammed person is the one that get's to flip the switch that send 5 Million Amps to the Spammers genitalia. | |
| | | cuindy
join:2000-07-21
Aurora, OH
|  Re: The ONLY good Spammer is a DEAD Spammer !!!
said by ColdFiltered  :And the only happy Spammed person is the one that get's to flip the switch that send 5 Million Amps to the Spammers genitalia. Better yet, put them in front of a CRT and make them read spam for 24 hours a day, with telephone ringer wires
hooked up to their privates, and ring them when they stop reading spam. | |
| | 
Doctor Four
My other vehicle is a TARDIS
Premium
join:2000-09-05
Dallas, TX
 ·AT&T U-Verse
| Spammers think they have a right to steal other's
bandwidth and server costs, when in fact they have
no such rights. This is often referred by anti-spam
advocates as "frea speech".
Rule #0: Spam is theft.
BTW, SPAM is a registered trademark of the Hormel meat
company, and referring to it in this manner, instead
of "spam" is something that mainly spammers do.
--
"Kayura or Badamon, whichever you are, you should know that I will never give up this battle. By the will of the Ancient, I shall succeed!" - Shuten (Anubis) from the Ronin Warriors.To RIAA/MPAA - You can sue but you can't catch everyone! | |
| | | 
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: The ONLY good Spammer is a DEAD Spammer !!! ...and trademarks are valid only in the same trade sectors used by the trademark holder.
Otherwise, the Cadillac Dry Cleaners in Cadillac, Michigan would be sued by GM....
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| | 
antiphishing
Phishing Scam Terminator
Premium
join:2004-06-09
Wilkes Barre, PA
| said by Betthefarmonthisone:
These scumbags just don't get it! But they will when they end up in prison or worse. The Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to SPAM or commit criminal acts.
I have a a Constitutional Right to shut down scumbag spammers day after day. 
--
Don't shoot the messenger,shoot the spammer
»www.antihotmail.com
Dslreports.com Profile: »profile.antihotmail.com
spammers_are_scumbags@antihotmail.com | |
|
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA
| I want to shoot Spammers. Let me have the right to first shoot those a-holes that throw stuff on my lawn, driveway, and sidewalk that skirt the USPS system (for which the mailbox is exclusive there for), and then turn around and scotch-tape junk email to my mailbox which they have no right to (that mailbox is there for me and the USPS to use and no one else).
I am betting a good 20% of my weekly trash is made up of junk mail not delivered by the USPS. | |
| | 
csnewbie
join:2001-02-12
Atlanta, GA | Re: I want to shoot Spammers. sounds like my mailbox | |
| | 
footballdude
Premium
join:2002-08-13
Imperial, MO
| said by ColdFiltered :Let me have the right to first shoot those a-holes that throw stuff on my lawn, driveway, and sidewalk that skirt the USPS system Man, I hate that. Just about every day someone throws some rolled up piece of crap 'newspaper' that looks like it was printed in someone's basement onto my lawn. I have a grabage can outside so they never even make it into the house but I resent having to walk my yard and pick up that junk in the first place. Lawn spam! | |
| |
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA | If they can Spam then I should be able to target IPs and DDOS them at will. Lock on Photon Torpedos and fire! | |
| 
Chaoswar
Premium
join:2002-09-23
Northlake IL
| eh? constitutional? So, if we screen our phone from marketing calls we're violating the marketing companies constitutional rights(in the case where the phone # is not on the don't call list)? Hrm... I would think an institution has the right to allow or disallow any sort of outside communication.
Would be really messed up if this actually turned into a valid excuse. | |
| | |
WTF WTF
| Re: wtf? like saying women; when approached for sexual purposes must always pull their panties aside and let the requestor have their way with them.
I'm all for that...
WOOO WOOO | |
| | | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
1 edit | Re: wtf? said by WTF WTF:like saying women; when approached for sexual purposes must always pull their panties aside and let the requestor have their way with them. I'm all for that... WOOO WOOO That kind of law could have unINtended consequences if members from a certain movement also got in on that action.;);)
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| 
nixen
Rockin' the Boxen
Premium
join:2002-10-04
Alexandria, VA
 ·Cox HSI
 ·Speakeasy
| Your Right to Freedom of Speech... Ends at my property line.
If my property line is my telephone, my firewall, my mail servers, etc., so be it. You don't have the right to force me to hear you. You don't have a right to leave your garbage sit on my property.
-tom
--
"Some people have morals, standards and ideals about quality, but I'm an American: I couldn't care less." --Tony Pierce (paraphrased) | |
| | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| Re: Your Right to Freedom of Speech... Well stated. I've made the exact same statement several times myself. And here I thought spammers had given up on the whole "constitution right to spam" BS.
I suppose painting grafitti on someone's house, or throwing a brick with a note attached to it thru someone's window is also "free speech." | |
| | | vic102482
Premium
join:2002-04-30
Upper Marlboro, MD
| Re: Your Right to Freedom of Speech... said by TheWickerMan :I suppose painting grafitti on someone's house, or throwing a brick with a note attached to it thru someone's window is also "free speech." Grafitti should be illegal, but if I want to throw a brick through your window I have every right to do so! Go back to China you control freak!;)
--
I tie a rope around my penis and jump from a tree, don't you wanna grow up to be just like me!!!! | |
| | | |
ColdFiltered
join:2005-01-25
Atlanta, GA | Re: Your Right to Freedom of Speech... How is graffiti not deemed illlegal is the perp did not get permission from the property own first? I call vandalism. | |
| | | | | BosstonesOwn
join:2002-12-15
Everett, MA
clubs:
·Comcast
| Re: Your Right to Freedom of Speech... said by ColdFiltered :How is graffiti not deemed illlegal is the perp did not get permission from the property own first? I call vandalism. Ever hear of sarcasm ?
--
"It's always funny until someone gets hurt......and then it's absolutely friggin' hysterical!" | |
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| said by nixen :You don't have the right to force me to hear you. Exactly what the spammers seem to forget. They seem to think that the right of free speech means that they can say anything they want, whenever they want and force everyone to listen. Sorry, but free speech isn't absolute. You can't spam me and tell me I can't filter it out (or have my e-mail provider filter it out) just like you can't shout "Fire!" in a movie theatre without expecting to be tossed out (or perhaps even arrested).
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
| | 
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL
| said by nixen :Ends at my property line. If my property line is my telephone, my firewall, my mail servers, etc., so be it. You don't have the right to force me to hear you. You don't have a right to leave your garbage sit on my property. -tom Interesting way of looking at this. But your thinking can be used against you.
I have a freedom of speech, and you have a freedom not to hear me. But if I stand out in the street and say what I want, but you left your window open, and can still hear me, then it's your fault.
The spammers will simply say I can send it all I want. If it crosses your "property line" then it's because you haven't done anything to stop it. If you don't want it coming through your firewall, then stop it. You simply left your window open...
Trust me, if we go forward with this train of thought we will only help their fight.
--
I have a shaved head, a goatee, and tatoos. Don't you realize the rules don't apply to me. | |
| | | 
rahlquist
Redeye
join:2001-10-30
Villa Rica, GA
| Re: Your Right to Freedom of Speech... said by Wills :said by nixen :Ends at my property line. If my property line is my telephone, my firewall, my mail servers, etc., so be it. You don't have the right to force me to hear you. You don't have a right to leave your garbage sit on my property. -tom Interesting way of looking at this. But your thinking can be used against you. I have a freedom of speech, and you have a freedom not to hear me. But if I stand out in the street and say what I want, but you left your window open, and can still hear me, then it's your fault. The spammers will simply say I can send it all I want. If it crosses your "property line" then it's because you haven't done anything to stop it. If you don't want it coming through your firewall, then stop it. You simply left your window open... Trust me, if we go forward with this train of thought we will only help their fight. Hmmm youve got a point. But, there are ways you can be limited. For example if you wanted to gather a crowd to chant your message it would be unlawful assebly?(IANAL jut playing devils advocate) In some places if you used a magaphone or PA over a certain dB then you would be violating noise ordenances.
So taking your argument, if I closed my windows and reasonably insulated my house then the laws of the community should protect me from further intrusion of your right to free speech.
The problem with this argument is that the spammers are saying, ok you insulated yourself from us. You have community laws protecting you. But is there a law against me putting up a billboard accross from your house, no, ok then I will do that till its outlawed. Oh its outlawed now, well then I will drop fliers in your yard, oh thats no longer legal... hmm Then I will....
They are working their way through every way they can stretch the law in their favor not caring that in the end they will eventually elimiante themselves. But those doing so dont care as long as they get rich in the process.
Others are saying hmmm you insulated yourself from us and closed your windows, here take this brick with our message and throwing it through the window. This is akin to the emails that have garbage in them to defeat baysean filters. ITs a sad sad world....
--
The difference between foresight and hindsight is only a matter of when you bother to think things through. | |
| | | | 
tapeloop
1959. I try to kick the ball. I miss.
Premium
join:2004-06-27
Airstrip One
| Re: Your Right to Freedom of Speech... Man I love these extended metaphors. 
You also have to take into account that while the flood of junk that spammers send out is free (or extremely cheap) per message to the spammer, the poor recipient of this stuff wastes time, money and bandwidth trying to block things that he/she doesn't want.
I'd be sorely pissed if a university can be allowed to block P2P/Newsgroup access because it causes high server load but not be allowed to block spammers that are almost as bad, if not worse.  | |
| | PDXPLT
join:2003-12-04
Banks, OR
| ..since in this case, the university is a government institution.
If this was a private university, they could block all they want. But as a part of a state government, they can't constitutionally block "free speech".
It'll be interesting to see how this ends up. | |
| | | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
| Re: Unfortunately, they may have a case .... said by PDXPLT :If this was a private university, they could block all they want. But as a part of a state government, they can't constitutionally block "free speech". That depends... If that free speech is interfereing with legitimate mail and is causing any number of problems, including higher costs, etc. they have a reason to block it.
The univeristy I work at already blocks spam and has an excellent defense... University email is to be used for university business only.
--
64 bit CPUs and OSes? That's so 1996.
The public is wonderfully tolerant. It forgives everything except genius. -Oscar Wilde | |
| | 
NPGMBR
join:2001-03-28
Arlington, VA | Interesting Point Is............ The University sold the addresses of its students and staff to the company so they have to take some responsibility for whats happening.
I'd say the university played with fire and are now getting burned. | |
| | 
Ian
Premium
join:2002-06-18
ON
·Bell Sympatico
| Re: Interesting Point Is............ Excellent point. I think we're the only two that saw that part of the article. Question for UT. If you sold the e-mail addresses of your faculty, stidents and staff to this company and presumably others, is that not de-facto permission for them to use the addresses to send e-mail? I hate spam as much as the next person, but making money by selling your e-mail addresses and then claiming damage from such action is pretty scuzzy as well.
--
I've always figured that if God wanted us to go to church a lot, he'd have given us bigger behinds to sit on and smaller heads to think with.--P. J. O'Rourke | |
| | biznatch11
join:2004-11-21
London, ON
| I agree. I was hoping someone else noticed this. If UT sold them the e-mail addresses then UT should accept the e-mails. Otherwise, UT makes money selling the addresses but then blocks the e-mails? That seems more illegal/unethical then sending the e-mails in this case. | |
| 
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
| ANY network has the right . . . to refuse traffic from ANYONE.
quote:
"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."
Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court
ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT.,
397 U.S. 728 May 4, 1970.
--
Ö¿Ö
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's Newest Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| | TheWickerMan
join:2002-04-09
Enola, PA
| Re: ANY network has the right . . . said by newview :to refuse traffic from ANYONE. Right, and I believe there was another precedent set, besides the one you mentioned. Going back about 10 years, I seem to remember hearing about notorious spammer Sanford Wallace, back in the Cyberpromo days, trying to sue ISPs who were blocking his spam. I believe he lost. | |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| Right to free speech The story doesn't say which "constitutional right" the University supposedly violated by blocking the spam, but going by past spammer claims it's probably the "right to free speech." What spammers don't see to get though, is that while they have a right to free speech, they don't have a right to force me to listen. I can use filters (or have my ISP use filters) to block them out.
And if their "speech" causes harm to the place they are directing it, the venue's owner has the right to toss them out. To use an analogy, if someone stood up in a movie theatre and started shouting at the top of his lungs about how great herbal Viagra was they would be tossed out of the theatre. They wouldn't be able to complain about their free speech violated.
The University is saying that the rush of spam crashed their server and the filters are the measure taken to prevent this.
What I can't believe is the judge's response. He didn't seem to think that the crashes were that serious:
The university has a policy blocking all spammers, and Jordan said the school has blocked between 1,500 and 2,000 of them. He said spam has caused several delays in the UT computer system, including one crash that lasted 48 hours.
One judge questioned the seriousness of the problem.
"There is not a serious threat from these e-mails to the system here," said Judge Jerry Edwin Smith.
If a 48 hour downtime due to a crash isn't serious, I don't know what is.
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
| | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: Right to free speech It is free speech for the spammers, only because most use harvested email addys, and are not paying to send them out..it is not free to us because we are paying for their crap as a hidden cost...
--
BlooMe | |
| 
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
1 edit | They have a right to free speech... ...but not a right to use services I pay for to do it.
Meanwhile the First Amendment says CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW...
Universities, corporations and message board operators are free to abridge any damn thing they want. | |
| |
See 7 replies to this post | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Well as much as spam irriates me I am not going to get in a uproar over it. It is a exercise in futility. As long as you have lawyers who argue 2+2 equals.........;
St. Crispen's Day Speech
William Shakespeare, 1599
Enter the KING
WESTMORELAND. O that we now had here
But one ten thousand of those men in England
That do no work to-day!
KING. What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.
And he can get a Judge to agree with him. Spam will swarm like flys.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you. | |
| zentec
join:2002-01-05
Monroe, MI
·Verizon Online DSL
| Valid Points RFA!
"The Austin-based service said it legally targets students, faculty and staff, whose e-mail addresses were sold to the company by the university."
The university SOLD the email addresses, which is implies that the university also sells addresses and other data for the sole purposes of marketing. Hey, it happens.
Since the dating company purchased this information, there's an implicit understanding that they'd be used to contact the students with promotional offers. Only a misrepresentation by the bulk mailer would make the contract void and subject to sanctions, including blocking.
I'm not a spam apologist, but if you are going to be mad at someone, you need to be mad that the university for selling this information in the first place. | |
| |
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
·Qwest.net
| Re: Valid Points You are absolutly correct if the University sold them they don't have leg to stand on. If I were a student or staff of that place I would be not be happy. But as I have said what can you do about it, nothing much.
--
Low voltage Tech's are wimps, Real tech's use 45 pound filament transformers, plate voltages no less then 2400 volts with at least 10 amp's lighting 8877 triodes...BPL I'm coming to get you. | |
| 
Kilroy
Premium,MVM
join:2002-11-21
Ann Arbor, MI
·WOW Internet and C..
| Solution I think the solution should be that the University give back the money they received when they sold the company the addresses, possibly reasonable court costs. Then they would be free to block the e-mails and site without any further obligations.
Of course this will never fly as it makes sense.
--
I have two favorite sports teams, University of Michigan and whoever is playing Michigan State. | |
|
Krenath
@63.135.x.x
| Free Speech doesn't mean forcing people to listen The First Amendment is there to protect people against the government prosecuting people for the opinions they express or the religion they practice.
It's not there as a way to argue that if you have somethign to say and someone has a place in which it could be said, to FORCE them to allow you say it there.
Yeah, you're perfectly able to say what you want without prosecution. Just don't expect to be entitled to make use of other peoples' private property to do so.
Congress cannot make a law abridging your right to free speech...
But as long as you're standing on MY property or using MY systems, I'll abridge your ass daily with a smile. And there's not a damned thing *anyone* can do about it. | |
| | internetlol2
join:2005-01-04
Fairfax, VA
| Re: Free Speech doesn't mean forcing people to lis "He also noted that UT blocked users on its system from visiting their Web site after LonghornsSingles.com refused to stop sending the e-mails."
If I were a student there I would be pissed if they blocked my access to a web site. Blocking spam is one thing, and should be left up to the organization to decide what commercial email they will and will not accept, but they shouldn't block access to a site. (web sites that provide illegal content would be an exception of course). | |
| |
calvoiper
join:2003-03-31
Belvedere Tiburon, CA
| Re: Free Speech doesn't mean forcing people to listen said by Krenath:
The First Amendment is there to protect people against the government prosecuting people for the opinions they express or the religion they practice.
It's not there as a way to argue that if you have somethign to say and someone has a place in which it could be said, to FORCE them to allow you say it there.
... Just don't expect to be entitled to make use of other peoples' private property to do so.
... as long as you're standing on MY property or using MY systems, I'll abridge your ass daily with a smile. And there's not a damned thing *anyone* can do about it.
Uhhh, you need to review some of the court cases involving freedom of speech and privately owned areas that are "like" public spaces--including both "company towns" and shopping centers.
A university with dorms is about as close to a "company town" as anything these days, and by acting as an ISP, the university is controlling all access through a powerful type of media.
I'm certainly not saying that spam is a good thing, nor am I saying that there aren't legal ways for an ISP to block spam. I AM saying that folks should be careful before cavalierly declaring that ISPs have no free speech restraints, lest that argument be used to block website access. (It's curious to note the different reactions to spam blocking and website blocking, though they have some substantial similarities, especially if folks reject the finer points in favor of broad over-generalizations such as "The First Amendment doesn't apply to ISPs." It does, at least in some forms....)
calvoiper
--
VoIP--the death knell of remaining voice monopolies! | |
| 
Erwin_D
join:2003-06-30
Netherlands | Correct me if I'm wrong... ...but I seem to recall that commercial speech is not covered by the first ammendment. And since spam is commercial by defenition, the spammers can yell "1st ammendment" all they want, but they simply have no case. | |
| | jmuskratt
join:2000-11-21
New Orleans, LA
| Re: Correct me if I'm wrong... Bingo. While it is covered, there is a much lower standard the state actor has to satisfy in order to justify the prior restraint.
The burden on the mailservers of processing hundreds of thousands of UCEs is sufficient in my book (but, while IAAL, IANAJ). | |
| 
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| This is not necessarily spam! UCE/UBE: unsolicited commercial/bulk email
It could be argued that this is not spam since the school (which owns the domain) solicited these emails by selling the list... that's if we can take the word of this dating site... a very big IF 
Spammers lie, of course... but I did not see any rebuttal re this alleged sale. | |
| | 
RARPSL
join:1999-12-08
Suffern, NY
| Re: This is not necessarily spam! said by pog :UCE/UBE: unsolicited commercial/bulk email It could be argued that this is not spam since the school (which owns the domain) solicited these emails by selling the list... that's if we can take the word of this dating site... a very big IF This classification of the mail as being Solicited because the School sold the addresses to the company is a gray area. Did the school have PERMISSION from the student(s) and staff to include THEIR address? If not, then any mail sent to someone who did not give permission is UNsolicited. This is the same principle as giving your address to a company to communicate with you but withholding permission (by checking or unchecking a check box on their Web Form) for advertising or passing on to unrelated 3rd parties. The school has the address for SCHOOL RELATED purposes and any other use or distribution requires separate permission. | |
| | |
pog
Premium
join:2004-06-03
Kihei, HI
·Hawaiian Telcom
| Re: This is not necessarily spam! said by RARPSL :This classification of the mail as being Solicited because the School sold the addresses to the company is a gray area. Did the school have PERMISSION from the student(s) and staff to include THEIR address? It certainly is a very gray area. Do the students actually have rights to their addresses? Maybe it's more like my domain at work... employees are issued addresses that are deleted when they leave... I (via the big cheese's authority) can put anything I choose into those boxes with or without the consent of the employee. If we sell our company email list to some 3rd party, that's "management's" business... not the employees'.
If an authorized employee/rep of the school did indeed sell the list of student emails directly to this company then it's very poor ethics for the school to turn around and render that list useless by blocking messages. I would think by buying a list it's implied that it's going to be usable. However, we have no idea what the terms of such a sale were... single use? Maybe the spammer actually bought the list from a middleman/harvester? Too many unanswered questions, I think.
If not, then any mail sent to someone who did not give permission is UNsolicited. This is the same principle as giving your address to a company to communicate with you but withholding permission (by checking or unchecking a check box on their Web Form) for advertising or passing on to unrelated 3rd parties. The school has the address for SCHOOL RELATED purposes and any other use or distribution requires separate permission.
I would agree with you 100% IF the student addresses belonged to the students themselves and were not on the school's domain. Perhaps I read the article wrong, though... everything I've said up to now was based on the notion that these addresses were @school.edu and were hosted by the school's servers.
It's a whole other game if Sally Student gave the school her Gmail account for communication and the school then gave that account to a spammer. | |
| |
oliphant
I Have 8 Boobies
Premium
join:2004-11-26
Corona, CA
| There are many uses for such a list including policital or charitable uses which may be except from the spam rules.
It is not the duty of the school to enforce proper use of the list, thus is not solicitation of bulk commercial email, especially of the amount that would crash their servers.
--
Don't get it, demand it! The Anime Network www.theanimenetwork.com | |
| jsouth
Jsouth
join:2000-12-12
Wichita, KS
| OK then... If the spammers have a right to send out massive amounts of spam, then I have a right to walk into their house, store front, etc with a sledgehammer and use it on their servers.
--
BTK is Caught!!!! | |
| | Miah1
join:2004-10-15
Belton, TX
| Re: OK then... The fact is noone or nothing will stop the sellers from trying to peddle thier wares no matter how illegal you make it. Spam works that why people do it, if you are shallow enough to think that a spammer is targeting just you then you are sadly mistaken. If you dont want spam, configure your mail client to block all mail except from email addresses you choose to get through, or if its from your website, filter it at the mail client by subject, if you need help on your site try this
href="mailto:jdavis@supercircuits.com?subject=ThisIsGettingDeleted">Email me Here
Email me Here
Outlook, Thunderbird and many popular mail clients offer you plenty of ability to filter your mail. Allowing the government to regulate something people are too stupid or lazy to look do themselves is worse than arresting someone trying to sell something IN OUR CAPITALISTIC COUNTRY!!! No matter how tacky thier approach may be. And while I dont approve of spam ALL of it is well within yours, mine and every end users ability to control. | |
| | | |
|
|
A Constitutional Right to Spam
·