Senator Nelson Pursues Spammers Via RICO Act 19
JCMay writes "Democrat Bill Nelson of Florida has introduced legislation to the United States Senate that would expand the RICO act to include spammers that forge email addresses and do not provide mechanisms by which recipients can opt-out of future mailings."
Not more of this... (Score:5, Insightful)
Almost no spammers fit the definition of "racketeering". What is the point of jamming them under RICO? Criminalize the forging of headers and leave it at that.
At least it wasn't the Interstate Commerce clause. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not more of this... (Score:2, Informative)
The point in jamming spam under RICO is you can take all the property and money they have and the spammers has to prove it was made legally. Personally I don't think even spammers deserve that.
Re:Not more of this... (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the point of jamming them under RICO? Criminalize the forging of headers and leave it at that.
Agreed -- the thing I would be concerned about, in the use of RICO, is that how many innocent people who are unwittingly running open relays could get unfairly stung?
Granted, they should be more careful, but how far can this go? It's simple enough to filter at the SMTP level, and just reject mail that doesn't come from a legitimate domain, or is coming from an IP number that doesn't match the domain name in the header. But what if the individual packets -- at the IP layer -- are being routed through your network? What if you're, say, running a router for a multihomed LAN for a rural community--say a wireless or satellite link and a T1 line -- and do not know that some (but not all) of the packets associated with a piece of SPAM (or a lot of it) are going into your network and out again -- dynamically routed?
Will "being careful" be precisely defined to say what packets, and at which network layer, we are responsible for filtering, and which packets and at which network layer we cannot, and should not, be held accountable? What if the address they're forging is one of mine ? Will they seize my property first, ask questions later?
And what about sending your mail through a series of mail servers and proxies, i.e. an SMTP server behind your firewall where your mail is actually handled vs. the firewall that simply proxies the traffic (and possibly checks for spam!). Will this be misconstrued by an over-eager law enforcement person who does not know the difference between this careful practice and "forging mail headers." After all, the machine the mail came from originally is not the same as the one transmitting to the rest of the world.
And good heavens, what about those of us running or using mixmaster for legitimate purposes? ZKS? anonymizer? or even SSH for that matter? If the feds can't actually see what's going on through a wiretap or packet sniff, will they simply assume this to be evidence of "spamming" from some remote host? Will they start outlawing the practice of logging into your home sever over ssh and checking your mail in a text-based mail reader?
And what about UUCP mail, mutt, DECnet and BITNET mail? In theory, your bog standard sendmail.cf can still handle these headers. Granted, you don't see things like ucbvax!hplabs!hao!joeuser%decvax@mit-lcs.arpa anymore, but (shudder) what if spammers started exploiting some of these more bizarre and ancient addressing techniques from the old store-and-foreward networks, that may still appear to be valid addresses according to most sendmail.cf files?
--When marriage is outlawed, only outlaws will have in-laws.
Re:Not more of this... (Score:3, Interesting)
I think some (a minority) are terribly dangerous (the shooters for instance)
I also think it is wrong for anyone to harrass someone for a legal medical procedure.
streetwalkers
I assume you mean prostitutes, if it is illegal in your area, someone should enforce the law.
small-time dug dealers
Are no different then big time dealers who haven't made it yet. Drugs are illegal, some are dangerous, get rid of the dealers.
BTW I think many currently illegal drugs should be legalized.
Re:Not more of this... (Score:1, Informative)
My objection is to charging them under an unrelated law that is supposed to deal with the Mafia, because it reduces the burden of proof and makes it easier to impose punitive seizures.
Bad Law vs Bad use (Score:2)
The accused Mafia/Small time drug dealer should both be proven to commit the illegal act to whatever level required by law.
If a mere accusation is enough, then it should be for all crimes. If substantial proof is required, then it should be required for all crimes.
There shouldn't be two classes of crime, those we have to prove, and those we can just guess at.
Re:Not more of this... (Score:3, Insightful)
It's funny. The activities of Microsoft, the RIAA, and the MPAA can easily be considered racketeering, but the DoJ does nothing, but if some small time prostitute wants to spread some love, they're all over it. Gotta love the Christian Taliban.
As an aside, screwing with font sizes in the main text of a page should be made illegal too. ;-) I end up with either ridiculously small text which is unreadable, or (like the "media release") I get ridiculously huge text which fits only five words on the screen.
Mmmm... Opt-out... Tasty... (Score:2)
Why not just make all unrequested commercial email illeagal?
Slashdotted Already (Score:4, Funny)
A modest proposal (Score:5, Funny)
Re:A modest proposal (Score:3, Funny)
Hey, Free Porn! Did you hear what Toner Discount told me happened to him?
His girlfriend, Hot Naked Teens, dumped him for somebody else named "Increase Your Penis!"
Easier solution (Score:2)
define this please (Score:2)
Please define high-volume. What is the minimum? Will it be lowered as the big guns are taken out? Who decides it's spam and not "legitimate" email? Florida does not have the best reputation for keeping track of things...
Re:define this please (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:define this please (Score:2)
And, RTFA when I quoted it...? Slashbot you are.
A real fix (Score:2, Funny)