Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Spam Privacy The Internet Your Rights Online

Spammers, Privacy, Anti-Spam, and Lawsuits 458

Posted by Hemos
from the oh-my dept.
Digital Eco Freak writes "The Washington Post is running a story about a spammer suing to keep his address and personal info private. George Allen Moore Jr. of Linthicum, MD has sued Francis Uy for posting his contact information on the web. He has gotten threatening phone calls and messages, as well as an over-abundance of unsolicited catalgs and packages as a result of Uy's actions. The spammer is getting a taste of his own medicine, but the guy's business address turns out to be the same as his home address, so there may be real safety concerns. Should spammers get some privacy protection too?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Spammers, Privacy, Anti-Spam, and Lawsuits

Comments Filter:
  • by KDan (90353) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:36AM (#5678346) Homepage
    What are you talking about? Spammers should be exposed on stalls to have rotten eggs and tomatoes thrown at them. Privacy protection, riiiiight...

    Daniel
    • by slaker (53818) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:12AM (#5678607)
      "Privacy protection" smacks of human rights. As a right-thinking person, I can't support human rights for spammers.

      In fact, I think the only decision we have to make is "hunt to extinction" or seasonal hunting only.
    • by Bilestoad (60385) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:14PM (#5679488)
      Don't anyone harrass this guy:

      Maryland Internet Marketing LLC, George Alan Moore Jr, 300 Twin Oaks Rd, Linthicum MD, 21090-2154, 877-655-3438, 410-963-8226.

      Clearly he has suffered enough already at the hands of that cruel, cruel Francis Uy!
    • by Malor (3658) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:32PM (#5679596) Journal
      I'm going to leave aside the argument about whether or not privacy is a right (there are good arguments both pro- and con-).

      I do want to point out something a bit more fundamental, though. Rights aren't any good if they can be casually taken away.

      When everyone in the world despises you, when the government *hates* you and wants you *dead*.... that's when you need rights.

      If you only have them when you are popular, you don't have them.

  • Home/Business (Score:5, Insightful)

    by st0rmcold (614019) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:38AM (#5678355) Homepage

    This is the risk you run by running a business out of your home, privacy for him and his family are due, but not for his business that offends many people.

    If he runs a questionable business from his home, he can't expect to have any kind of protection. The spam business sure dosen't deserve any. He should of known better.
    • Re:Home/Business (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ZPO (465615) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:49AM (#5678449)
      Agreed, Mr. Moore chose to register the legal address of his business as his home address. He made this choice with full knowledge that spammers are not typically loved by internet users. The public owes him absolutely nothing.

      Now if someone could arrange to get a couple tons of manure delivered to his front lawn, that would be funny.
      • I can help! (Score:4, Funny)

        by siskbc (598067) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:49AM (#5678843) Homepage
        Now if someone could arrange to get a couple tons of manure delivered to his front lawn, that would be funny.

        Well, last month I ate two pounds of cheese a day, and didn't crap at all. This month, I've been eating nothing but fiber, greasy food, and hot chicken wings. I still haven't dumped for another two weeks, and I think things are ready to go.

        So if someone could just drive me to his house, I think I can manage the job for you.

      • A ton of manure is a money making venture, but 1500 flaming bags of dog shit... now that's funny.

      • How about a couple of tons of Hornel Spam instead? :)
    • Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Insightful)

      by eenglish_ca (662371) <eenglish@gmEINST ... minus physicist> on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:51AM (#5678461) Homepage
      Everyone should have privacy protection hands down, however, the authorities should be stiffer on the penatlies.

      Why didn't moore use a P.O. box?

      The reason spam has grown to such an epidemic is that there are idiots out there who actually open the spam and then order the products or services that they are offering thus funding and encouraging the spammers to further spam. All we need to do is have some sort of idiot test performed by ISPs. Within the first few days of signing up for internet and logging on the ISP should send an email advertising a product or service that fits the demographics of the user and if the user attempts to order the product or service they should get cut off. That should eliminate the pesky spammers.

      • by zackbar (649913) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:08AM (#5678580)
        Even if spammers received absolutely no sales via spam, there would still be people paying spammers to send out solicitations.

        Many spammers make money not by selling to the email targets, but by selling spamming services.

        And then there are the companies that view it as cheap advertising. Even if they make no sales, the fact that they get their name out is good in their eyes. They don't quite understand yet that they are generating badwill because even a bad commercial is good as long as you remember the name.

        Unfortunately, it's gonna get much worse before it gets better. Companies have only recently discovered the use of email as advertising instead of merely selling.
    • Re:Home/Business (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Schwartzboy (653985)
      Amen to that. In this particular instance, I think that the golden rule should apply...either that or "an eye for an eye", take your pick. In the interest of fairness, this gentleman should have all of the same rights and protections of his personal contact information that he extends to the rest of the world. What this will mean in practice, at least in the way that I understand the concept, is that Thou Shalt Not Spam. Attempting to enforce a double standard that favors spammers could have hordes of g
    • Re:Home/Business (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:02AM (#5678539)
      If he runs a questionable business from his home, he can't expect to have any kind of protection

      From unwanted catalogs? You are absolutely correct. From threatening phone calls and harassment? You are incorrect. Additionally, this is not a questionable business - it is perfectly legitamate. Maybe you don't approve of it, but your approval or disapproval does not make something legal, illegal, or "questionable".
      • Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Interesting)

        by plover (150551) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:35AM (#5678756) Homepage Journal
        Additionally, this is not a questionable business

        For the moment, that may be a technically true statement. However, according to many of the articles found on a google search, his spam is selling pirated copies of Norton Systemworks. Symantec is shutting his sites down as fast as he can bring them up.

        But you are correct in that even if he's found guilty in a criminal court, it's not in anyone's place to physically harass him. That's for the courts to decide. I just wish they'd hurry the process up a bit.

      • Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Insightful)

        by schon (31600) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:44AM (#5678816)
        this is not a questionable business

        Yes, it most certainly is.

        it is perfectly legitamate.

        In the same way that server hacking is legitimate?

        Spamming is, at best "questionable".

        It's not a matter of opinion: many states have laws banning it, and it's against the TOS of every reputable ISP.

        If it was not questionable, spammers wouldn't have to rape misconfigured relays, and they wouldn't have to play "whack-a-mole", jumping from ISP to ISP to continue to harrass everybody else.
      • by IWannaBeAnAC (653701) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:47AM (#5678830)
        here [internet.com]
      • Re:Home/Business (Score:3, Insightful)

        by meatspray (59961)
        I agree than that threatening phone calls are a problem here, but a little harassment is just what this calls for, after all he's harassing us to buy into his spam. Every piece of spam i recieve wastes my time a little, i have to fish my real mail out, open each one, unsubscribe (assuming it works). I feel he should be harassed at least as much as every person who's time he wasted. No I'm not saying he should be personally endangered, but if anyone that received spam from him was allowed to send him one c
        • Re:Home/Business (Score:3, Insightful)

          by rgmoore (133276)

          No I'm not saying he should be personally endangered, but if anyone that received spam from him was allowed to send him one catalog per piece or call him once per piece, I'd imagine that to be quite fair.

          It goes on further than that too doesn't it? Who's paying for all this bandwidth?

          Yes, and who pays for the catalogs that you're suggesting that people send him? That's right, an innocent third party. If he's scum for using other peoples' resources, then the people who ask a company to send him an unso

      • Re:Home/Business (Score:3, Insightful)

        by cloak42 (620230)

        The main problem with most spammers, and the same thing that makes it illegal for them to spam, is that they get their email addresses through illegal means. Either they do this by harvesting them from web pages--which is illegal because there was no opt-in involved--or they buy lists from people who obtained them through illegal means (either by harvesting or buying them from somebody else).

        It's a vicious cycle of illegal means, and it's sort of like money laundering, but it should be easy to prove that

      • Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Informative)

        by gurps_npc (621217) on Monday April 07, 2003 @11:53AM (#5679310) Homepage
        You MIGHT be correct. However, 99% of all spammers routinely break the law.

        Specifically they:

        1) Do not keep "do not email" lists as required by many localities.

        2) Do not respect California's "ADV:" in subject line requirement.

        3) Break truth in advertising rules.

        4) 50% of the time they talk about making money at home, they are discussing a Ponzi scheme where you become a Spammer. The other 50% of the time they are not talking about becoming a spammer, they are talking about an outright Nigerian scam. Both of these are illegal in the U.S.

        5) If they are spamming for Porn, they make no effort to stop kids from receiveing their spam, thereby breaking MORE laws.

        What it comes down to is that they systematically break a TON of misdeamenors, and many of them systematically commit multiple felonies. Just because it is hard to prosecute them does NOT mean they are innocent.

    • Re:Home/Business (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Musashi Miyamoto (662091) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:07AM (#5678566)
      I do not agree. The problem of the tyranny of the majority is one of the wrongs that the constitution of the USA tried to right. Take note that almost all of the rights in the bill of rights were placed there to protect the minority opinion from being opressed by the majority. That in fact is is the reason that the first settlers to the new world went there, the reason behind the Revolution, and the reason behind the influx of most of the immigrants of the early 20th and late 19th centuries.

      As long as spamming and junk mail remains legal, which it likely will, as it is part of that touchy subject of the first ammendment, he will be in the right.

      What is more illegal is the intentional harassment of the spammer by others. If they were mailing and calling him with political or commercial requests, they probably cannot be stopped (other than by a no-call list). However, the intentional harrassment might be considered illegal, if it can be proven.
      • Re:Home/Business (Score:5, Insightful)

        by st0rmcold (614019) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:12AM (#5678603) Homepage

        A company that offends people, wether illegal or legal, should not have the right to be anonymous, anyone receiving his service has to right to complain about it at any time and in any manner.

        I don't agree with the threatening phone calls, but if you do something that's bad enough that it will entice someone to commit an illegal act as such in retalition, maybe you should rethink you're service and try to do something that could benifit the community.

        IF you don't want to, it's your choice, but the fact remains, people will keep threatening you on the phone because they are very displeased with the service they have tried to stop for a long time.
        • Like abortion clinics? Doctors are killed because they provide abortions (which are perfectly legal), but I don't think they should rethink what they're doing...they're providing, in my opinion, a very necessary service.

          I'll agree that they don't have the right to be anonymous. Public business records are, in fact, public. But nobody has the legal right to brake the law...threatening phone calls/letters are illegal under most states' stalking laws. Harass this man to the fullest extent of the law (emai
          • Irony Alert! (Score:3, Insightful)

            by AndroidCat (229562)
            The reason that spam works for big name spammers is because they send out millions of spams to find the small number of people who will actually buy their junk.

            They reason that they get harassed because of all the millions of people they've pissed off, a small number will step over the line.

          • Re:Home/Business (Score:3, Insightful)

            by DutchSter (150891)
            The question here is whether or not the guy can/should be harassed, rather it's a question of whether or not Uy can be compelled to remove the guy's information from his website.

            What little precedent exists in this area seems to side with Uy. The mere posting of this kind of information (whether home or business) is not illegal. The article didn't say (or maybe I read too quickly) whether or not Uy was inciting others to harrass the spammer. The closest I can find is:

            Moore, who uses an e-mail moniker
      • Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Rev.LoveJoy (136856) on Monday April 07, 2003 @11:05AM (#5678941) Homepage Journal
        It has been said so many times in this forum alone ...

        Commercial speech is not due the same protections as individual speech.

        As you are quick to point out, the US Constitution provides a number of checks and ballances for the individual; regardless, the courts have interpreted these rights somewhat differently with respect to business.

        Regards,
        -- RLJ

      • Re:Home/Business (Score:3, Informative)

        by Dr. Manhattan (29720)
        As long as spamming and junk mail remains legal, which it likely will, as it is part of that touchy subject of the first ammendment...

        The First Amendment applies only in a very limited way to commercial speech, and courts have had no problem declaring analogous postal mail and fax behavior illegal [utdallas.edu]. I wouldn't bet much that spam stays legal forever.

        The main problem with spam isn't First Amendment issues, it's cost-shifting and theft-of-service. And that kind of stuff has always been illegal.

      • Re:Home/Business (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jat2 (557619)
        If they were mailing and calling him with political or commercial requests, they probably cannot be stopped

        In that case, I would like to announce the founding of a new political party called "The Right to a Quiet Uninterrupted Dinner at Home" party. Our party platform consists of two items: the criminalization of unsolicitied phone calls, mail and email, and the creation of a federal opt-in list with harsh criminal (i.e., jail time) penalties for violation.

        Now any member of my party can call his hom

    • Clarify (Score:5, Interesting)

      by ackthpt (218170) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:27AM (#5678706) Homepage Journal
      This is the risk you run by running a business out of your home, privacy for him and his family are due, but not for his business that offends many people.

      If he runs a questionable business from his home, he can't expect to have any kind of protection. The spam business sure dosen't deserve any. He should of known better.

      Agreement, somewhat. In fits of anger and frustration I've felt like, if the spammer was my neighbor I'd go over and give him a knuckle sandwich. Not the best way for me to handle the situation, but by the same token, he should respect my right to privacy and my wishes not to have ads sent to me via forged addresses.

      That the spammer conducts a questionable business is general and yet an understatement. If it's a business they conduct until they make enough money to pay their rent, or some other short-term expense then it could hardly be classified as a business, more a simple enterprise. Probably your 'questionable' view is derived from the very dubious products most of these people are selling. Phony pharmacuticals, useless money making schemes, or actual criminal intent to gather personal/financial information.

      Here's the thing. Their privacy can only be so well guarded, since you need to contact them, or the person who used their services, to make any transaction. Therefore they need to expose a phone number or a web site. The more clever ones use offshore sites and stolen cell phones. (Ever notice fraud related spam peaks Friday-Sunday, when it's most difficult to contact an ISP/law enforcement? I've been through this a couple times, I know.)

      Stupid spammers give out their home phone numbers or a website, which can easily be tracked with a who is lookup. I have one targeted, and he will receive a lot of junk mail, soon. Thanks to his spamming me. I don't feel any remorse about such a practice of harrassment, other than the amount of wastepaper it generates. With most spam it's been a one-way street, they harrass you, you can't even communicate back to them, despite laws on the books or coming soon.

      If I could, I would:

      DoS attack spammers websites.

      Sue those I can track down, for my time and resources in dealing with their garbage.

      Find out who Bulkers Warehouse is and shut them down. They spammed, several times, from offshore forging my email address.

  • by Sibeling (597639) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:40AM (#5678364) Homepage
    .. how long it will take people to post his address and email adress here..
    George Allen Moore Jr. of Linthicum, MD


    Bets are now open!
  • by operagost (62405) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:40AM (#5678367) Homepage Journal
    Uy, a self-described "Web geek" who does tech work for a distance learning center at John's Hopkins University, said he remembers the exact date he first saw electronic spam and resolved to fight back. It was April 12, 1994, before e-mail even existed in its current form.
    What current form is that? The one with Outlook's broken HTML and macro viruses?
  • The anti-spam. The more bacon people eat, the less spam there can be!
  • ... someone posts his private details here.

    I have no sympathy at all though.

    ______________
    cheap web site hosting [cheap-web-...ing.com.au] for you and for me

  • Well... (Score:2, Funny)

    by acehole (174372)
    Maybe we should give them the choice of opting out. That seems to work well for us...

  • Spammers safety (Score:5, Insightful)

    by geekguy (97470) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:41AM (#5678373)
    The threatening phone calls are a bit much, but as far as the junk mail goes, it sounds like he dosn't like the taste of his own medicine. Spammers are people too, althow they are a lower form, and no person should have to fear for there life. Can you spam a spammer, yes. But please keep it at that.
    • Re:Spammers safety (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Angry White Guy (521337) <CaptainBurly[AT]goodbadmovies.com> on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:03AM (#5678546)
      The threatening calls are agreed, a bit much, but there are laws in place to prosecute this. Don't forget he is a businessman, providing a service, and people have a right to bitch about his service; if they break the law in a conversation with him, it's up to him to deal with it accordingly, but pissing and moaning "Why Me?" is not going to get him any sympathy, nor any cash.

      This guy is a bottomfeeder of the Internet. He is no more than a script kiddie, except that he is profiting from his actions, many which could be questionable and IMHO, should be deemed illegal. Spammers in general (I won't comment about his M.O., as I can neither confirm nor deny that he uses open relays, subversive methods to foil spam detection algorithms, which should be a violation of the DMCA in the US) use weaknesses in the current implementation of e-mail to furhter their own cause, and their wallets. I do not see this as a legitimate business, any more than web defacement is. It is because of his bending of the laws that he is hated. His business practices are questionable, plus he is guilty of doing the exact thing that he is complaining about. Check out this this article [internet.com] about his posting of people's personal information on the web.
      • > The threatening calls are agreed, a bit much, but there are laws in place to prosecute this.

        Assuming, of course, that you could find a jury who would convict.

        For that matter, assuming you could find 12 people who could serve on such a jury. You could spend months dealing with an endless stream of jurors during jury selection, each of whom says something along the lines of: "No, Your Honor, I hold that spammers are subhuman, and therefore the law that applies isn't the one prohibiting humans from

  • by Zathrus (232140) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:41AM (#5678375) Homepage
    They certainly should enjoy privacy protections. And, to my knowledge, they're enjoying exactly the same ones that everyone else has, which is pretty much none at all when it comes to a private individual posting information.

    Now if he was physically attacked, injured, etc. as a result of his address being posted then he could possibly sue Mr. Uy for endangerment, have him arrested for being an accessory, etc. but otherwise he's fighting a rather weak legal battle. Especially when he abuses the very same lack of privacy of millions of other people.

    Frankly, I don't have much problem with his address being posted. You reap what you sow. If he wasn't such a scumbag it wouldn't be an issue.
    • by luzrek (570886) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:50AM (#5678459) Journal
      Spammers should know better than anyone else the privacy is dead. He should have known better than to do anything which would have gotten people irritated at him.

      As far as I know, the laws restricting businesses from calling you at home (at least in my state) don't apply to private individuals. I would say that the publication of Mr.Uy's home address would be covered under the First Amendement, and I think that simply publishing a list of the home addresses of spammers' home addresses and phone numbers would be. However, if such a list was published on a sight telling poeple to go kill the spammers then it would be akin to the much talked about "hit-list" of abortion doctors and would therefore be illegal.

  • by Jailbrekr (73837) <jailbrekr@digitaladdiction.net> on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:41AM (#5678376) Homepage
    You reap what you sow. This is an EXCELLENT tactic against spammers. They have absolutely no defense. Basically, they are being opted into a dead tree mailing list. If they want to invoncenience us, we can invonvenience them.
  • by ecalkin (468811) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:42AM (#5678385)
    firstly, whatever you feel about spamming, using your home as a business address in this kind of endeavor is just stupid. it's hard to feel sorry for him on that point.

    secondly, i believe that *any* business that doesn't want/hasn't had real person (not voicemail, answering machine, po box) contact info published should be investigated for fraud.

    e
  • Odd (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Gyorg_Lavode (520114) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:43AM (#5678389)
    Spamming must be one of the few businessess where the business doesn't want anyone to know where they are. I really can't believe a company could have legal backing to hide from those people who it impacts. I don't think the spammer has any right to privacy from people expressing displeasure at his 'service'.
  • or are spammers considered guilty until proven innoccent (or lynched, whichever comes first)?
  • It should not surprise anybody that, in absence of meaningful government action, some clever people are taking the law into their own hands and attacking spammers with any means at their disposal. Rock on, I say. There is a threshold of offense to society at large which has been crossed long ago by these bastards.
  • reverse situation (Score:5, Insightful)

    by selderrr (523988) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:45AM (#5678410) Journal
    I run a small business from home too, and until recently, my kids used the same computer for games as I did for my mail. The amount of obscene spam i receive from guys like him made my buy an extra iMac for the kids.

    If he doesn't respect my privacy, i honestly can't sympathise with him either. As harsh as it may sound, I often have the impression that spammers are like kids : you can talk & explain all you want, but unless you send them to their rooms to cry out loud for a while, they won't stop being naughty.
  • Should spammers get some privacy protection too?

    No. Definitely not.
  • Spammers... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by danro (544913) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:45AM (#5678414) Homepage
    Spammers should have the same privacy protection as everyone else.
    Rights apply equally to scumbags too.

    But that won't stop me from giggeling with glee of course.
    How do you like them unsolicited calls, dead trees, emails and sms messages now mr Spammer sir?
  • They can, and they should, but everyone who has gotten spam from him should counter-sue for taking their personal information as well.
  • by heytal (173090) <hetal,rach&gmail,com> on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:48AM (#5678435) Homepage
    His journal can be found here [slashdot.org]

    The Journal also has the address of Moore.. enjoy..
  • by Noryungi (70322) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:50AM (#5678453) Homepage Journal
    I read that question and I thought "WTF? Spammers to get privacy? No way!!".

    The Internet is, before anything else, a system based on sharing and cooperation. Which is what makes it so interesting: people who know what they talk about post interesting information on all kind of subjects, and enrich a global discourse.

    Linux/Open Source systems are the best example of this: they were made possible -- and became a force in the computing world -- through sharing and cooperatino. For instance NetBSD added "Net" to "BSD" to reflect its root in the cooperation made possible by the Internet.

    On the other hand, spammers do nothing but abuse the resources of the system and inundate people with messages that are othing more than complete scams.

    Abusing the cooperation and the good will of the global Internet, and using its resources in an unlawful way (it's a scam, remember?), is IMHO, enough to forfeit all the protections that should be enjoyed by all on the Internet.

    Would you protect the privacy of a live-and-still-at-large criminal? I think not. Would you protect the "privacy" of a con artist, knowing full well that he may rip off another person behind your back? I think not.

    Remember this: spammers are swindlers. Period. No privay for the wicked, says I.

    Besides, sending thousands of email messages per day, on a network known for it lack of security and authentication is just asking for trouble... (Proof enough that they are stupid as well as dishonest!)

    Also interesting: go to Cryptome [cryptome.org], and read all about two scam artists of a different kind: these two do not spam, but they swindled the public by offering snake-oil security products. Very, very interesting and recommended reading...
  • Slightly Off-Topic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by epicstruggle (311178) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:50AM (#5678458)
    Graphic images appearing unbidden on PCs by way of e-mail in-boxes could qualify as evidence of a "hostile work environment," something that's prohibited by federal employment law.
    Porn spam--legal minefield for employers [com.com]

    "Just as an employer has a duty to protect from patrons and other people--like the (delivery) guy who fondles a secretary--there's a good theory saying a company has a duty to filter (offensive e-mail) even if the employees are being harassed entirely from far outside the company walls," Volokh said. "If the employer is reasonably capable of filtering the material, and if it doesn't do that, it would be held liable."

    Wow, interesting how spam could be the basis for a hostile work enviromnet lawsuit.

    later,
  • Will he have to sue Google [google.com] now?

  • by TrollBridge (550878) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:52AM (#5678468) Homepage Journal
    As tempting as such delicious retribution may be, you can't believe that returning his violation of your privacy (the spam) with a violation of his (death threats, etc.) will have any positive results beyond a temporary feeling of satisfaction.

    Remember what we learned in kindergarten: two wrongs don't make a right. I'd say spamming is an acceptable (and decidedly amusing) way of getting your message to him, but when it puts him and his family at risk, you've gone too far.

    • by dissy (172727) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:37AM (#5678767)
      > you can't believe that returning his violation of your privacy (the spam) with a
      > violation of his (death threats, etc.) will have any positive results beyond a
      > temporary feeling of satisfaction

      Tell that to the legal system, concidering thats exactly what its in place to do.

      > but when it puts him and his family at risk, you've gone too far.

      So let me get this straight.
      This dumbass goes out of his way to break the law (It is illegal in his state to spam), and also went out of his way to give his home address where his family lives as his place of business, and this is somehow OUR fault?

      I'd say he put his own family at risk by being stupid and breaking laws and pissing off everyone, then told everyone 'legally you must deal with my work related things at my home address'

      In addition, if there is a family and say for example the husband commited a murder, and the wife/kids KNEW it happened, and KNOW something will happen in return for that (In this example from law enforcement)
      Whos choice again was it for them to stay with the husband?

      Now granted it could be totally possible that this spammers family doesnt know he is a criminal or the extent he goes out of his way to start fights with the world at large, but after the light harassment (IE spam the spammers postal mail, sending tons of trash mail, etc) they should get a little bit of a clue that something screwy is going on.
      Most people would find it strange to have their S.O. state they have to remain in secret and noone can know what they do, in order to conduct their business.

      As the old storys go, when the little gang member kid starts getting into fights, its a shame that it needs done but the parents need to do something about it to get that to stop.
      If they willingly choose to ignore it and allow their target child to live with them, they cant with any seriousness expect not to have drive-by shootings at their house which could very well kill them, being innocent bystanders.

      Unless some very very specific conditions are met, which most do not appear to be, this guy knowingly broke laws and angered the community, knowingly put his family into danger, and the rest of the family knowingly is keeping themselfs in this danger without doing anything to get out of the situation.

      While the kids are probably too young to realize or do much about this, and its ashame both parents are endangering the kids lives this way, thats exactly what it is. Both parents, endangering their kids lives.

      But please, blame the stupid fucks actually doing the wrong here. Not the victoms that are doing the only thing they are left to do.

  • Spammers (as people) should not be singled out and treated differently under the law. Don't we all wish we could be exempted from junk mail? Threatening phone calls should be dealt with under existing law. If there are too many of them to allow practical enforcement, then the spammer should have to consider that a hazard of pissing people off for a living. If it's illegal to disclose contact information, then the spammer is guilty too.

    Thems ma random thoughts on this.

  • by Mortanius (225192) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:53AM (#5678480) Homepage
    I feel that Uy (who seems a bit self-righteous in the first place) has definitely crossed a line with this. While junk email is surely annoying, it's also purely electronic, a simple press of the delete key and it's gone, you can continue with your work unencumbered. With this guy giving out his home address, though, Moore is, as the article states, receiving packages, piles of junk mail, threatening phone calls, the works. Email can't blow up in your face; unmarked brown packages can. His personal (and his family's) safety has been compromised, willingly and knowingly (now) by Uy.

    The fact that his business address is the same as his home address does cast some doubt on this, as Uy may not have intended to give out Moore's home address, but from what I gather, he knows now, and has still refused to take down the information, so it's not so much of a point anymore.

    Just because you don't like someone or what they do, they still have rights. Uy is walking a dangerous line, it would seem, his fate is in the hands of the masses right now. If harm befalls Mr. Moore, Uy's going to be in a spot of trouble.
    • The fact that his business address is the same as his home address does cast some doubt on this, as Uy may not have intended to give out Moore's home address, but from what I gather, he knows now, and has still refused to take down the information, so it's not so much of a point anymore.

      ACTUALLY, it is still VERY much a point. IF Moore had since changed his legitimate business address, fine.

      (I say legitimate in the context of it being a real address where his business receives correspondence and not leg
    • Devil's advocate point - what about ISPs that charge by data transferred? 100 spams a day in your box, that you have to download before you can delete 'em (not counting web clients, though), each with images that total 50k (not unreasonable), totals 5 MB per day!
      Point being that this can actually cause economic harm to you - this is the same reason that telemarketing to cell phones is illegal in most places... the telemarketer, by calling you, is costing you money. In quite a few places, there are laws against telemarketing via fax for the same reason.

      Currently, incoming email is free for the most part, but that is slowly changing as ISPs start adopting data-transfer business models (couple stories about that on /. a few months ago) or placing caps on data transferred during a time period.

      Finally, for email not blowing up in your face - what about an email with HTML that loads a web site or runs a VBS that then automatically installs some spyware? Most of us aren't running OE or have turned preview off, but what about the rest of the population? What if said spyware crashes their machine, taking out their financial or business records? That could be horribly damaging.

      My point is that Moore is not exactly innocent and is skirting legality... Plus, spamming someone could be (and has!) been considered harassment... whether that's in real life or electronically. I agree that no one should be sending him unmarked packages or threatening phone calls, but signing him up for every junk mail list you can find seems not only reasonable and well-deserved, but is also playing by Moore's rules.

      -T

    • I feel that Uy (who seems a bit self-righteous in the first place) has definitely crossed a line with this.

      Oh really? And exactly what line did he cross? As far as I can tell he took publicly available information and posted it on the web.

      With this guy giving out his home address, though

      Yeah, and I can open a phonebook, grab some random name, and post it on the web. So what?

      Email can't blow up in your face; unmarked brown packages can.

      Well if Francis Uy sends a package that explodes then I'd agre
    • Moot point (Score:3, Insightful)

      by varjag (415848)
      While junk email is surely annoying, it's also purely electronic, a simple press of the delete key and it's gone, you can continue with your work unencumbered.

      This line suggests that you're not yet a victim of spam. We'll talk when you'll be getting a hundred of flashy, htmlized porn/penis enlargement/nigerian scam/cable descrambler/make$1000000@home crappy messages a day over a dialup line.

      Just because you don't like someone or what they do, they still have rights.

      Look, if someone deliberately pisse
  • Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Quill_28 (553921) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:55AM (#5678490) Journal
    Seems like everybody is saying this guy has no rights because he a spammer(the lowest life form).

    What if this guy spoke harshly about the government, would you feel the same?

    If he was an abortion doctor would he feel the same?

    If he was a communist would you feel the same?

    I find it almost humorous the people who rail for rights until they disagree.

    The question is can you do to anyone what was done to the spammer. Not whether or not he was a spammer.

    One side or the other folks, no sitting in the middle.

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PhxBlue (562201) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:38AM (#5678770) Homepage Journal

      What if this guy spoke harshly about the government, would you feel the same?
      If he was an abortion doctor would he feel the same?
      If he was a communist would you feel the same?

      Nice try, but that's not a valid analogy. Which of those three groups you mentioned makes money by violating my privacy rights?

    • Re:Interesting (Score:5, Insightful)

      by kbielefe (606566) <karl.bielefeldt+ ... Nospam.gmail.com> on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:42AM (#5678798)
      What if this guy spoke harshly about the government, would you feel the same?
      If he stood on my front lawn and yelled with a bullhorn through my window, yes.

      If he was an abortion doctor would he feel the same?
      If he performed abortions on women who didn't want them, yes.

      If he was a communist would you feel the same?
      If he forced me to be a communist, yes.

      People hate spammers precisely because they inflict their views and solicitations upon others and use subversive means to do so, not because they hate people who sell their kind of products. Also, their actions increase the cost of my internet service. Would you still stand up for the rights of an abortion doctor if his services significantly increased the cost of your health insurance, whether you used his services or not?
    • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

      by deblau (68023)
      I happen to agree with the general attitude here, so let me clarify the position for your benefit.

      Seems like everybody is saying this guy has no rights because he a spammer(the lowest life form).

      Not that he has no rights, but this guy is infringing on my personal property (by actively causing me to spend money to read his advertisements). Therefore, he is a criminal, and criminals shouldn't have the same freedoms as others because they have demonstrated a lack of responsibility. Freedom and responsibilit

    • Re:Interesting (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Alsee (515537)
      Seems like everybody is saying this guy has no rights because he a spammer

      I'll take your word for it that some idiots have said something to that effect, but I sure don't see everyone saying that.

      The question is can you do to anyone what was done to the spammer.

      Yes, at least as far as Francis Uy's actions are concerned. All Uy did was say what Moore's address is and what his profession is. Both of these pieces of information are public record.

      It isn't a case of it being ok to violate a spammer's righ
  • No. Why should they? not like they are running an honest business. If they *are* in fact so legit and honest, I don't see why they should have to worry about privacy protection. Thousands of addresses are out there on the net, I don't see those people whining. People don't go about harassing someone for "fun" (unless you are a criminal I suppose but spammers aren't complaining due to criminals attacking them). The only reason people hate and go against spammers is because the business of spam is interferi
  • by StandardCell (589682) on Monday April 07, 2003 @09:57AM (#5678502)
    As the details of this lawsuit are revealed in court, Mr. Moore may find himself the target of other problems. If it's revealed in court that he committed a criminal act, such as criminal conspiracy or being an accessory to fraud like what the FTC is chasing down these days, the judge could very well refer the case to a DA for criminal charges. Even in the article, Symantec accuses him of advertising warez. Mr. Uy, the anti-spammer, would do himself well in his counter-defense to bring up any such activities.

    Make no mistake, the entertainment value of this case could have far-reaching implications. Mr. Moore will also find out quickly that dissemnation of publically-accessible information is protected free speech. The golden rule rides again...
    • > Even in the article, Symantec accuses him of advertising warez.

      Yeah. I've gotten spams for warezed Symantec and Norton products from George Alan Moore's operation, too.

      So where the fuck has the BSA been for the past year and a half? Where the fuck have Symantec's lawyers been for the past year and a half?

      Why is it that when I hear about the FTC shutting down a spammer, or the BSA thuggin' an office building, it's usually some two-bit podunk operation that I've never heard of. Why can't they t

  • by egoff (636181) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:06AM (#5678563)
    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals let the The Nuremburg Files website stay online [wired.com], which depicts pictures of aborted fetuses and had a "hit list" of abortion doctors. Even though at least one doctor on the list had been murdered, and his name was crossed out on the list, the Court still saw that this was free speech. If that could stand, surely this website is well within the bounds of the law
  • Monetary cost (Score:5, Interesting)

    by digitalhermit (113459) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:10AM (#5678590) Homepage
    I was thinking about this...

    I get somewhere on the order of 400 spam emails a day between eight email addresses coming to my registered domains and the aliases for different jobs. My spamassassin filters snag about 80%-90% leaving 20-40 messages per day. Not a whole lot, but these messages require a few minutes a day to process. Because the ones that do make it past spamassassin appear legitimate, I need to check them in case they are potential customer requests. If it takes me two minutes a day to check this spam (and that's conservative), over a year it will cost me over 12 hours. If I multply that by my hourly rate then that's a good amount of money.

    Contrast this to regular, *regulated* snail mail spam:
    1) The sender pays for the advertisting.
    2) There are no advertisements for, among other things, enlarging my penis, growing my hair, fixing my septic tank, or teenage blondes willing to do anything on Spring Break.

    Point 1 is the important thing, IMO. Why should it cost me in time and resources for someone to advertise products in which I have absolutely no interest, and in fact, many of which I find repulsive? Freedom of speech? Bullshit. This is not a free speech issue. Advertisers can't break into my house and paper my walls with flyers and child porn. They are not allowed to call me at all hours of the day. They are not allowed to pretend to be legitimate persons in order to sell something.

    I will defend a person or organization's right to publish materials on whatever topic they see fit. This does not mean that they can attempt to force their thoughts or their advertisements on me.
    • I thought I was the only one getting these SPAM messages about fixing my septic tank!

      It actually made me worry: Who would know I need help with my septic tank? What kind of dietary changes would I need to make?

      Especially since I don't have a septic tank, to the best of my knowledge. (Soon to follow-"We will help you determine if you have a septic tank!!")

      Now, my suitemate in college, I bet HE needs some septic tank SPAM...

  • Well whoptie shit (Score:5, Insightful)

    by GrouchoMarx (153170) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:10AM (#5678592) Homepage
    My work address is my home address, too. Does that mean I can sue him for sending me spam on safety grounds?

    If you run an extortion business, expect to have people with guns hanging around. Deal. If you run a drug dealing business, expect to have crazy drug addicts knocking on your door. Deal. If you fence stolen goods, expect to have theives around you often. Deal.

    If you are going to send spam, don't complain when you get it back. Deal. Sorry, I've got no sympathy.
  • by gotan (60103) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:12AM (#5678601) Homepage
    ... can we then at least post the address of the judge who thinks that privacy rights of spammers are to be valued over those of their victims?
  • by MarvinMouse (323641) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:13AM (#5678611) Homepage Journal
    I receive so much spam to one e-mail address that it effectively makes that address useless.

    Yet, I have to spend everyday sifting through the spam to make sure that an important e-mail wasn't sent to that address.

    I would love to have a place to e-mail these spams to that could handle it, at this point it should be considered legally harassment considering the fact that I have spent 30+ min a day going through it all.

    As well, I receive what I can only call virus starters from one person all the time. Someone trying to mask their address sends me their new e-mail virus every few days. Too bad it's useless since I am using Linux.

    The Baynesian filter on Mozilla helps a bit, but I still have to seperate the wheat from the chaff so to speak.

    If anyone knows of a way to get back/stop them or a place I could send these e-mail and they can just automatically handle them. It would be appreciated. I used to use spamcop, but I just don't have the time to go through that web page for every single one, and there is no way I am going to pay for it considering it hasn't lessened the amount of spam I receive.

    I am getting desperate to do something since I am received 100+ a day (yesterday I got 167 spams alone, and that's a Sunday.) Yet, I cannot do anything about it. If anyone can help in anyway, please let me know.
  • by nurb432 (527695) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:14AM (#5678619) Homepage Journal
    If so, there is no case, how can one be sued for posting information in the public domain and anyone could get if they wanted too, via phone book or 'who is'..

    True it sux to be harassed ( all this 'get what he deserves' stuff aside ), but if he's not smart enough to have at least a PO Box for his 'company', then he's a fool.

  • by Tom (822) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:14AM (#5678620) Homepage Journal
    Both the instinctive answer ("he's a spammer, he deserves whatever he gets") and the apparently rational answer ("two wrongs don't make a right") fall short of the actual issue.

    And it's so simple.

    See, here's a guy who is - as a business, no less - doing exactly that to other people that he doesn't want done to himself.
    Simple answer: "Come back when you've stopped violation others privacy, then we'll hear your case."
  • I Think He Has (Score:3, Insightful)

    by gallen1234 (565989) <gallen@NospaM.whitecraneeducation.com> on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:24AM (#5678682)

    From the article:

    "If I was doing something wrong, I think I would have heard," Moore said.

    It sounds to me like he has - from an awful lot of people.

  • by DeepDarkSky (111382) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:30AM (#5678725)
    Granted, we love to see people get what they deserve, or a taste of their own medicine. But no matter how scummy someone is, it does not entitle anyone to do something illegal to him (I'm not saying spamming him or subscribing junk mail for him is illegal). But at some point, you have to recognize that there are laws and like it or not, you need to obey them, until such time when you can get them changed.

    In this case, I don't think it is appropriate to expose the person's home address. As distasteful as I think his business is (I get spammed pretty badly, worse, I get one of those reply-to bounce back spams, where I get 1600 emails in an 8 hours stretch), I don't think there's call for exposing this person's home address, especially since we know he is conducting a business that is hateful to most of us, because it puts him in physical danger from some would-be lunatic who thinks he's doing the world a favor by doing physical harm to this person.

    Would anyone really do tihs? Well, look at people who killed abortion doctors because they were against abortion and "murder" of an unborn fetus. These misguided individuals are out there. Spammers are bad, but do they deserve to die? Some of you may think so, but that's hardly justice.

    Spammers generally have just an email address and they don't necessarily know any more than that. They may spam the hell out of you, but they don't tell the world who you are and where you live. Tnhey may not deserve it, but their privacy is just as important as ours.

  • privacy and business (Score:4, Interesting)

    by bob dobalina (40544) on Monday April 07, 2003 @10:58AM (#5678914)
    I wonder if this is such a concern (and the court hasn't thrown it out already) because this person's "place of business" happens to be his home. I mean, would there be an issue here if all the spam, junk mail and boxes were being received at an office somewhere else?

    Disregarding that question, I definitely have a hard time sympathizing with his case, least of all because he's a spammer. There's a lot of noise about "right to privacy" in many circles, the most notable being celebrity status and what constitutes "public information" about private citizens on the net. But what right to privacy of your home information do you expect if you're listing it in TLD registration information? If I allow my phone number to be published in a phone book (and nowadays, that I don't put it in a "do not call" registry), do I have a reasonable expectation that I will never receive calls selling vacuum cleaners and low low interest rates on home equity loans?

    Someone else brought up the issue of the Nuremberg files [com.com], specifically how courts have found that simply listing this information incites people to commit actions against them. And while people who make threats and perform other illegal actions should definitely be prosecuted, I don't see how someone can be compelled to not display public information that is available elsewhere.

    Spammers often use the defense that people who don't want their "offers" shouldn't put their addresses in the public domain (where the public domain means almost anywhere in public that spammers can conceivably connect to and harvest), and certainly that's the common wisdom today, not just among spammers but anyone looking to control their inbox. But if spammers are going to play by these rules, they must also be prepared to live by them, and if someone can get their contact information off a publicly connectable system, they must be ready to deal with the results. They certainly need no warning that making a living as a spammer is one of the more unpopular positions one can make for oneself.

    Frankly, this whole thing reeks of someone exercising their right to free speech and then complaining when they find their views to be wildly unpopular with their audience. One has the right to spam, but one does not have the right to be free of, and immune from, the reaction of the spammed.
  • by AArmadillo (660847) on Monday April 07, 2003 @11:08AM (#5678957)
    I say rule in his favor and protect his privacy! What goes around comes around -- if this guy's privacy is violated then no one will fight on behalf of anyone else's privacy. On the other hand, this is just the legal precedent the world needs to fight back against spam. If this case is ruled in the favor of privacy, future cases relating to spam will be able to reference a solid legal ruling about personal demographics and information.
  • by MImeKillEr (445828) on Monday April 07, 2003 @12:34PM (#5679606) Homepage Journal
    Since when?

    In Texas, all you need is the person's name or address to get all kinds of info -- and free.

    Wanna know how much property Michael Dell owns, its taxable value, etc?

    Check out this link [traviscad.org] for info on his property within Travis County. The Williamson County [wcad.org] link hasn't worked in awhile, otherwise you could see the property there as well.

    Click on Appraisal Roll
    Click Search Real Estate by Owner's name
    Enter "Dell M" (no quotes)

    Click on any of the Owner Ids and scroll down. You can even get a plat map, suitable for stalking.

    Heck, Sandra Bullock's address is in there too.

    I don't know about other states, but anyone can go to the county courthouse in any county in Texas and get the info for free.

  • What's the judge's e-mail address??? So we can subscribe him to lots of spam so he can start the trial with a properly unbiased mindset about spammers...
  • by phorm (591458) on Monday April 07, 2003 @01:14PM (#5679815) Journal
    He was selling drugs in your neighbourhood... except the packaging made it very easy to trace back to him home "place of business"

    He was writing you "if you want a bigger [insert genetalia of preference], contact me at xyz" - with tire treaders from a motorcycle in your front lawn

    He spraypainted "For a good time... get a bigger [again, insert genetalia] Contact xxx at yyy" on the side of your house.

    This is spam. It is an abuse. People who engage in fraudulant activities invite such things upon themselves. If all people were reasonable... then perhaps we could only expect an increase in deliveries of "fertilizer" to this guys house... as of yet no spammers have been injured to my knowledge - though many have been tracked down.

    While there are legal ramifications for drug dealers, they are often hard to pin down and get away with it. Same with spammers. Would you feel sorry for the drug dealer if some angry citizens felt a need to contact him on his/her acvitivies?

    How about the guy that tire-treads on your lawn? Or a graffiti artist? Feel sorry for them?

    Spam is the pollution on our internet, the graffiti in our mailboxes. I feel no sorrow for spammers who are being harrassed, as so long as none actually get seriously harmed, I will not (even if they do, I might not, depending on the spammer).
  • Social Norming (Score:3, Interesting)

    by JGski (537049) on Monday April 07, 2003 @01:25PM (#5679885) Journal
    I don't have a major problem with it up to the point of actually physical harm (given the vanishingly small size of the spammer "community" I still mystified that no one has taken that tact yet - perhaps the internet community is infinitely more civilized than spammers).

    Outing a spammer is simply part of re-establishing social norms. What they do is abhorrent to the majority of the internet community and they take advantage (free ride in economic terms) the social anonymity provided by the internet to do it.

    When you live in a small community, part of the "folksy niceness and safety" of small towns is due to the fact that the social network is so small that you can't act up too far outside of the social norms of the social network without immediate negative impact. For those who were part of the usenet community in the 1980s much of the academic/intellectual elan and espirit de corps was directly (exclusively?) due to this phenomena. The community was small enough that it was just one community and the social norms were quite clear (no advertising, value for ration discourse with healthy but respectful debate, mostly, etc.)

    Similarly in the big city you have the opportunity to become anonymous since there are dozens to thousands of overlapped social networks to belong and/or escape to. People in cities act (and drive) like jerks because the probability their behavior getting back to their social network is very small and even if it did with resulting negative consequences, the current social network is, worst-case, abandonable with others available even locally. Consider usenet today or any part of the Internet for that matter.

    Spamming represents an extreme in personal (virtual) space violation - akin in social intrusion to a fatal attraction stalker in some ways. Outting spammers by posting personal information is simply applying age-old social norming: if you mother, spouse, neighbor, church or other key personal social (support) network knew what you were doing, would you still do it? The fact that it makes spammers uncomfortable is direct proof that the desired social conditioning forces are kicking in. 90% of all social harmony involves forces like this.

    JGSki

  • My opinion. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dagmar d'Surreal (5939) on Monday April 07, 2003 @02:14PM (#5680204) Journal
    Should this guy have his privacy protected against being bombarded with unsolicited catalogs and faxes at home?

    Not only "no", but "hell no".

    I am positively rabid about not allowing my personal and private, non-business email address to be used for anything but personal, non-business email, and yet after a few years, every f**cking spammer on the planet seems to be using it anyway, it's getting a dozen spams a day, and there isn't any legitimate way they could have obtained it.

    To make the spam go away, I have to virtually "move" by changing my email address, reducing my accessibility to that of a virtual drifter, and making it impossible for anyone to reach me who hasn't heard from me in a year or two. The same rules should apply to this piece of human waste calling himself a businessman. If he wants the spam to leave him alone, he can move somewhere else like the rest of us have to do.

  • by frankie (91710) on Monday April 07, 2003 @04:30PM (#5681109) Journal
    I really hope Wm James (owner of Spamreaper) isn't too upset about getting Slashdotted. Anyways, here's my story:

    I arrived at the District Court in Glen Burnie a bit before 9am. My lawyer was there already. ( <plug> Jonathan Biedron, great guy, highly recommended if you need any family law or such in central Maryland </plug> ) We compared notes, made sure we had all our printouts, and went to Courtroom #4.

    District Court is the first level of the civil judicial system, no serious crimes here. All the other cases on the docket were either family disputes or tenant evictions. Upon entering the room, George saw me and sent his lawyer (Cheryl Asensio, from Glen Burnie) to talk to Jon. George was kindly willing to drop the case if I took down my pages. Jon declined. When the judge got to ours he asked if we had settled; he saw that it was going to be long and bizarre, and was hoping to avoid it. No such luck, so he sent us back to wait and asked the judge next door to take our case while he finished up the usual pile of landlords.

    [drat, gotta go to IT staff meeting. time passes.]

    At 9:30 we were sent to Courtroom #3, Judge Robert Wilcox presiding. The plaintiff always goes first. We started out informally, and George narrated his side of the case. By 10:00 Judge Wilcox said that he hadn't heard anything to prove I was responsible for the harrassment. Jon and I are about to pack our bags when Asensio decides to go the whole nine yards with formal witness testimony. Groan.

    Citizens have a constitutional right to a proper day in court (except for "material witnesses" and "unlawful combatants" but let's not go there), and that's what George wanted. Asensio examines Fatburn first, and introduces pages from Google Groups into evidence. She cited someone's signature file quoting Dave Barry advocating castration [slashdot.org] of spammers as an indication of the kind of horrible people that inhabit NANAE. (during cross examination George testified that he had never heard of Dave Barry).

    Then she questioned me, apparently hoping that I would crack under pressure and confess to secretly organizing a cabal of Anti-Fatburn Terrorists. We got sidetracked for about 5 minutes in a discussion of how I contacted a guy who foolishly hired a spammer to advertise his hydraulic valves [google.com]. Eventually she ran out of ways to try asking me "yes or no, are you going to stop harrassing my client?" and rested her case at 11:30.

    District cases usually take between 30 seconds and 5 minutes, so everyone else in the room sighed with relief. The judge was still unconvinced and promptly ruled in my favor. I feel bad for the poor tree that I killed printing up my un-needed defense. Ah well, hopefully it will remain that way; any District ruling can be appealed to Circuit "de novo", meaning we start all over from scratch.

    George tried to send me a message, and wanted to make an example of me. Instead I had a message for him: every time you try to mess with me, I will post it on the net, and more people will learn about you. I don't encourage harrassment against you, and I don't need to. The facts speak quite loudly enough. Your best option is to crawl back under a rock and suck it up, or move to some state other than the one I live in.

The meat is rotten, but the booze is holding out. Computer translation of "The spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak."

Working...