Spammers, Privacy, Anti-Spam, and Lawsuits 458
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?"
Karma is alive and well (Score:5, Interesting)
business address vs. home address (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Re:first post! (Score:4, Interesting)
But what law says that your business address and phone number should be absolutely private? Just because it is also your home address and phone number should have no impact. Either way, freedom of speech trumps freedom of privacy. It is mentioned specifically in the Constitution wheras privacy is only hinted at.
Re:Home/Business (Score:5, Interesting)
Now if someone could arrange to get a couple tons of manure delivered to his front lawn, that would be funny.
Should Spammers get some privacy? (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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,
A Line Has Definitely Been Crossed (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Lawsuit may expose spammer to more trouble (Score:4, Interesting)
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...
Re:Home/Business (Score:3, Interesting)
Next we'll hear complaints from AOL when they receive the shipment of 13 million "X number of free hours!" CDs that I've been collecting over the years. Bunch o' spineless whiners.
Monetary cost (Score:5, Interesting)
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 receive 100+ spams a day (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:A Line Has Definitely Been Crossed (Score:4, Interesting)
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
Re:The real question is.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Home/Business (Score:1, Interesting)
relationships and reciprocity (Score:2, Interesting)
Would I invite Billy back the next year? No.
Now, I have no idea whether Billy later reformed and is currently feeding underage endangered species milk which he has formulated using genetic engineering while on scholarship to Stanford. I tend to think he might now be a semi-successful spammer, sending people the equivalent to bats to the head, over and over, and grinning like the jerk he was at age 6 or 7.
Publish address if it comes to you, alert villagers.
There's a radio show I used to listen to whenever possible (still on), by a guy named Les Kinsolving, out of Baltimore. (Alas, not played local to me now
If someone asks you an honest question or message (online or IRL), it's out of line to explode at them just because the question's been asked before. But if someone bulk-mails you a phoney "personalized" message which wastes your time (spam, telemarketing, etc), they deserve the foghorn.*
timothy
*This does not rule out all online advertising -- for one thing, I like my online time to be subsidized in general, and for another I *like* certain advertisements. Mmmm, tastiest part of the Sunday paper!
Clarify (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Two wrongs don't make a right (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Home/Business (Score:4, Interesting)
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:Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right (Score:5, Interesting)
> 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.
privacy and business (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Intersting Interview possibilities (Score:1, Interesting)
Spammer business practice (Score:2, Interesting)
No (Score:2, Interesting)
After spending an unbelievable amount of money on purchasing anti-spam protection devices, the answer is no.
Im sorry the guy has gotten a few hundred unsolicted catalogs. In the past two days the company that I work for has recieved over 5,000 unsolicited catalogs. Since he claims to be running a business, then maybe he should get a business address instead of a personal address. Personally I have no love for spammers. They waste my time, they waste my energy, and they waste my money. And yes it is my money when I think of how much I could have used that (insert cost of anti-spam device here). This includes SA which costs nothing but the hardware and the pipe.
Social Norming (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Home/Business (Score:3, Interesting)
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 home to "campaign" for our political cause.
Re:Privacy protection? (Score:2, Interesting)
What spammers do is akin to theft and tresspass, and should be prosecuted as such in courts of law. It's also a pain in the ass, but it doesn't mean I'm allowed to beat the shit out of a spammer should I meet one in person - or do anything that amounts to mob justice.
Re:Home/Business (Score:1, Interesting)
Well, I would contend this as I intend to do in other more binding forums.
90%+ of spam is fraudulent. The use of forged return addresses is ubiquitous. Spammers recently and habitually used one of my addresses as the Reply-To:|From: address for a spam campaign. I have all the bounce/complaint/threatening email to prove it and plan to use it.
Practicing fraud over the nation's phone lines is illegal.
Spam is theft. Spammers steal people and business time and resources. Spam has gotten so bad (has anyone noticed a drastic increase in the last few days) that I spend hours a day that I could use to do other business/personal related things.
Spam is a violation of privacy and a direct affront to moral values. For a domain I've owned/had since 1993, and that I'm sure never had a previous owner, it took a whopping hour from the time I created an email address for my 6 year old daughter until she got her first spam. Brute force guessing is one of their many techniques. It didn't take much more time than that for her to start getting enlargement and farm girl messages. That my friends is pandering and contributing. I wouldn't let her read her email without an adult in attendance, but having to send her out of the room before selecting a message for deletion is not only aggravating but shouldn't be necessary. There are only 5 people with valid knowledge of her email address now, and they didn't have it before that.
So, I don't know if this person perpetrated any of the things that I feel are illegal about spam, but from what I've seen, any large outfit participates across the broad categories of spam (pyramid and get rich quick schemes/Enlargers and HGHers/porn/software (pirated or otherwise)/cheap legal services). There is one group of spams that are vastly different, the nigerian fraud scam, but at least this one is actually being addressed at the legal level already.
foo
Re:Actually, it wouldn't help much. (Score:2, Interesting)