Issues with your account? Bug us in the Discord!
Spammer gets 9 years in jail...
A2597
Fanboy
in Zocalo v2.0
[url]http://www.leesburg2day.com/current.cfm?catid=19&newsid=9671[/url]
My first reaction:
$500,000 A MONTH?!?!?!
My first reaction:
$500,000 A MONTH?!?!?!
Comments
What I am afraid of is that at some point someone is going to attempt to overturn one of these laws, using a first amendment arguement. That said your right to free speech should not be a direct cost to society. For example, if you protest on street corner, it cost little to society to make your voice heard, even if you block a street in a peaceful march, the burden to society is not hard to bear. This person, on the other hand, was costing companies, networks and individuals a serious amount of money, with no real benefit to society.
Jake
Jake
When you main out ads you pay postage. When you talk in a park, no one pays anything...unless there is an admission fee...in which case it is there choice.
But with spam, you are in effect billing your client for their server use.
This is the core of the stupid MS idea to have a fee on e-mail sending. The problem is there is no possible way of enforcing that!
I personally prefer an alternate method that would involve the postal system (I don't think anyone has suggested this before):
- Post office provides each resident of the US a e-mail box based on their name/company and 5-digit zip code (if they move, the address woulc change, but forwarding would be easy).
- Allow only e-mail from within the system to be sent to clients. No outside ISPs allowed in.
- Provide something like the land based telephone system - maybe 500 e-mails per month sent out. After which you are billed on a rate per e-mail (or per 100 e-mails) or whatever. The fee would be sufficient to cover excess strain on the servers from bulk e-mailer use.
Obviously the biggest flaw would be how to deal with e-mails from overseas - and perhaps if other countries adopt a similar method e-mail postal systems could be tied together.
I dislike the MS idea becuase it would charge per every e-mail. This I feel is wrong. The idea of my system would be that the home users will almost never pay. Small businesses will rarely pay. Large corperations will always pay. Spam companies will always pay.
--RC
[B]Some would argue porn shows a lack of respect for others, and its protected speech.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]
It is possible to argue that, yes, but in general porn is consensual by the parties involved. Spam isn't.
[B]Some would argue porn shows a lack of respect for others, and its protected speech.
Jake [/B][/QUOTE]Porn isn't being nonconsensually shoved down the world's collective throat.
As far a spam as protected speech, I doubt it would come to a lawsuit, but if it does, I would hope it the powers that be recognize that it should not be protected by the first admendment.
Jake
It's just matter of making punishment hard enough compared to profits of spamming.
I bet that few public executions of makers of these viruses and their economical backers would solve most of the problem much easier.
Or I could think some other creative ways...:shadow2:
[B]I'm waiting for spammers to get the death penalty. :) [/B][/QUOTE]
In piles of paper from bulk mailings! :D
[B]In piles of paper from bulk mailings! :D [/B][/QUOTE]
What about electric chair controlled by computer monitoring some email accounts?
Every time new spam message arrives it would give shock with bigger voltage and frequency. (starting from 50V and couple Hzs)