Court Rules WHOIS Privacy Illegal For Spammers 169
Unequivocal writes "Spammers hiding behind a WHOIS privacy service have been found in violation of CAN-SPAM. It probably won't stop other spammers from hiding (what can?), but at least it adds another arrow in the legal quiver for skewering the bottom feeders. Quoting from the article: 'A recent decision by the Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit has determined that using WHOIS privacy on domains may be considered "material falsification" under federal law... Although the ruling does not make use of WHOIS privacy illegal, it does serve as a clear message from the court that coupling the use of privacy services with intentional spamming will likely result in a violation of the CAN-SPAM act. This is an important decision that members of the domain community should refer to prior to utilizing a privacy shield.'"
Re:SPAM contents still a secret (Score:5, Insightful)
Material falsification? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Material falsification? (Score:3, Insightful)
A spammer's entire business plan can be summed up a "material falsification", can't it?
Like I always say, marketing is the art of making something seem better than it really is.
This is a good step but (Score:4, Insightful)
The first amendment is dead and buried... (Score:2, Insightful)
The Natural Right to Freedom of Speech is needed precisely for unpopular speech such as "spam" and even "kiddy porn" - a canary in the coal mine for more egregious government assaults on your freedoms!
It is your responsibility to decide what means you use to communicate with other people, and if you choose to use a ridiculously poorly designed protocol like e-mail then it is your (or your e-mail hosting provider's) responsibility to control who connects to your mail servers and how messages are to be accepted or rejected. There are many better technological solutions out there, and the CAN SPAM bull will only help proliferate the bad technologies at the expense of the good, while also hurting legitimate communication needs, and resulting in a corrupt and inefficient bureaucratic cesspool that will cost tax-victims billions!
Getting the government involved is the very worst thing you can do, and it has horrifying consequences down the road - spam today, other unpopular speech tomorrow, total tyrannical thought control the day after that!
Re:The first amendment is dead and buried... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The first amendment is dead and buried... (Score:5, Insightful)
Censorship is a red herring here.
Spam isn't "unpopular speech" merely because of what it says.
Spam is an abuse of a communication channel.
One more time: It's about consent, not content.
Re:SPAM contents still a secret (Score:4, Insightful)
In fact, harassment is completely subjective. It's not good to put subjective words into law. If I punch you in the face and cause visible damage, that is objective. If I take something that you can prove is yours, that's objective. But what about "harassment"? Some people are completely intolerant and consider themselves "harassed" at the drop of a hat. Others are far more tolerant. Still others never feel "harassed".
Thus the concepts of 'judge' and 'jury'. All human behavior will be open to interpretation, and context is vitally important to any judicious application of law. Also, the laws use their own guidelines for what given words mean, and due to their depth these are likely far less ambiguous than dictionary definitions wind up being.
In short you're mixing up English language with legalese, and that is why you're confused.
Another simplistic libertarian answer (Score:5, Insightful)
In libertarian la-la land, there is one freedom: to do whatever the hell I want without interference. But freedom isn't that cut and dried. My right to swing my fist ends at your face. Even on my property, I don't have the right to scream at the top of my lungs at 4 in the morning, because that impacts your freedoms.
Freedom isn't a simple thing. It isn't defined by imaginary and arbitrary natural rights. It is agreed upon and upheld by civilized people. For every freedom gained, there is a corresponding freedom lost, and so it is up to the group to decide what freedoms they are willing to trade for other more important freedoms. I, for instance, am willing to trade the freedom to scream at the top of my lungs at 4am, for the freedom to get a peaceful nights sleep.
And I don't give a rat's ass what YOU think your 'natural rights' entitle you to. Come into my neighborhood and start bellowing at 4am, and you will get a visit from the police, who will force you to stop, to protect my freedom. And THAT is as it should be, amongst civilized people.
Libertarians are akin to preschoolers, in that their idea of freedom is 'yer not the boss of me!' Well, the fact is that if you want to live in civilization, you have to let other people be the boss of you. If you don't like it, there is plenty of desolate wilderness where you can go be as free as you like, by yourself. But you DO NOT get to insert yourself into other people's lives and impose on them, claiming that if they try to stop you they are limiting your freedom. No, YOU are limiting THEIR freedom, and there are more of them than of you, so what they say goes. If you don't like it, well, there's always that lovely wilderness where you can be as free as you like without imposing on others.
Conflicting natural rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Let me make an analogy that I hope is a bit more clear, and illustrate that, under your definition of natural rights, spam presents a conflict.
You believe in the freedom to own property, yes? And the freedom of speech. Well, what if I were to scratch 'screw you!' into your car? Which freedom wins out, my freedom of expression, our your freedom to control your own property? Spam is a form of property vandalism, even if it is a form of free expression. And my right to control my property trumps your right to express yourself.
You seem to be arguing the opposite, so, please let us know where you park your car so we can come exercise our freedom of expression on it.
Re:Conflicting natural rights (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh, and from experience I can state that my opinions will be shouted down/down modded/kickbanned as quickly on a libertarian / Objectivist / Anarcho-Capitalist forum as yours are here. As I have said before, libertarians only care about their own freedom.
Libertarianism / Objectivism / Anarcho capitalism: What are three philosophies that boil down to 'I've got mine, so screw you,' Alex?