CAN Spam Bill to Become Law

[Baphomet]

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/Score_one_for_the_spammers.html

 

[Dr. Anton Squeegee]

In article <vsmk4j61vkrsf9@corp.supernews.com>, no.spam@no.spam.us
says...

http://techupdate.zdnet.com/techupdate/stories/main/Score_one_for_the_spammers.html

Didn't you hear? It's now known as the 'YOU-CAN-SPAM' bill.

Warm up those blocklists, folks. You're gonna need 'em!


--
Dr. Anton Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
kyrrin a/t bluefeathertech d-o=t c&o&m
Motorola Radio Programming & Service Available -
http://www.bluefeathertech.com/rf.html
"Quando Omni Flunkus Moritati" (Red Green)

 

[JeffM]

Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

 

[Baphomet]

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...

Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?

 

[Ross Mac]

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?


I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the window

all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states rights....
As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually work
but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the Caymens or
Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole
countries????
Eventually with the pop up blockers, IP blockers, spam blockers and
such....we will logon to blank screens....Just a thought!
Later, Ross

 

[Baphomet]

"Ross Mac" <this.is.a.fake@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:kyizb.144210$Ec1.5803935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?


I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the
window
all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states rights....
As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually work
but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the Caymens
or
Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole
countries????
Eventually with the pop up blockers, IP blockers, spam blockers and
such....we will logon to blank screens....Just a thought!
Later, Ross

When I only used to get about fifty or so spams a day, I rather enjoyed
them. I was exposed to sexual acts that I didn't believe possible this side
of the Kama Sutra, I was gratified that so many wanted to make me rich
beyond my wildest dreams, and that finally the promise of a long and healthy
life would allow me to one day die erect.

Now that I get about five hundred spams per diem, I scream for surcease.
Thank God for fast internet connections ;-)

 

[Ross Mac]

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsrfelroijul2b@corp.supernews.com...

"Ross Mac" <this.is.a.fake@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:kyizb.144210$Ec1.5803935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?


I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the
window
all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states
rights....
As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually
work
but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the
Caymens
or
Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole
countries????
Eventually with the pop up blockers, IP blockers, spam blockers and
such....we will logon to blank screens....Just a thought!
Later, Ross

When I only used to get about fifty or so spams a day, I rather enjoyed
them. I was exposed to sexual acts that I didn't believe possible this
side
of the Kama Sutra, I was gratified that so many wanted to make me rich
beyond my wildest dreams, and that finally the promise of a long and
healthy
life would allow me to one day die erect.

Now that I get about five hundred spams per diem, I scream for surcease.
Thank God for fast internet connections ;-)


That's funny Baphomet....and not a bad way to go the way I see it! I too

have gotten a bit of an education from some of those spams....hehehe...have
a great holiday....Ross

 

[Baphomet]

"Ross Mac" <this.is.a.fake@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:NNqzb.145840$Ec1.5842069@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsrfelroijul2b@corp.supernews.com...

"Ross Mac" <this.is.a.fake@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:kyizb.144210$Ec1.5803935@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?


I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the
window
all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states
rights....
As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually
work
but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the
Caymens
or
Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole
countries????
Eventually with the pop up blockers, IP blockers, spam blockers and
such....we will logon to blank screens....Just a thought!
Later, Ross

When I only used to get about fifty or so spams a day, I rather enjoyed
them. I was exposed to sexual acts that I didn't believe possible this
side
of the Kama Sutra, I was gratified that so many wanted to make me rich
beyond my wildest dreams, and that finally the promise of a long and
healthy
life would allow me to one day die erect.

Now that I get about five hundred spams per diem, I scream for surcease.
Thank God for fast internet connections ;-)


That's funny Baphomet....and not a bad way to go the way I see it! I too
have gotten a bit of an education from some of those
spams....hehehe...have
a great holiday....Ross

And Happy and Healthy holidays to you too.

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com>, no.spam@no.spam.us
mentioned...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?

Well, in this case it is specified in the law that it overrides state
laws. Of course that could be challenged in court, but might lose.



--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <kyizb.144210$Ec1.5803935@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, this.is.a.fake@example.invalid
mentioned...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?


I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the window
all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states rights....
As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually work
but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the Caymens or
Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole
countries????

Looks like you haven't read the bill. It says that initiators can be
prosecuted. In other words, not just the spammers, but the marketers
that hire them. That should help a lot.

I just wish that people would quit speculating, since most of them,
especially the media wags, have no idea of how things are going to
turn out. As with any law, it must be enforced. And that may be a
problem for the FTC which is authorized to enforce ths law.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Baphomet]

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a38d819479a8dc09899d0@news.dslextreme.com...

In article <kyizb.144210$Ec1.5803935@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, this.is.a.fake@example.invalid
mentioned...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?


I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the
window
all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states
rights....
As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually
work
but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the
Caymens or
Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole
countries????

Looks like you haven't read the bill.

You are correct sir. I didn't read the bill but only the David Berlin
article on ZD Net. While I didn't much care for the article because of its
almost endless equivocation, Berlin believed the bill to be unworkable.

It says that initiators can be
prosecuted. In other words, not just the spammers, but the marketers
that hire them. That should help a lot.

I just wish that people would quit speculating, since most of them,
especially the media wags, have no idea of how things are going to
turn out. As with any law, it must be enforced. And that may be a
problem for the FTC which is authorized to enforce ths law.

Did the bill contain an FTC supplemental funding provision? If not, it's a
guarantee of no effective enforcement.

You know, it's not rocket science to craft good legislation. If (and I
repeat...I have not yet read it) this legislation is full of loopholes and
can't be enforced because of inadequate funding or such other structural
impediments as might exist, then this is the exact result the legislator's
intended. My cynical side/sense is that in an election year, they wanted to
appear to be huffing and puffing with self righteous indignation about
attempting to do something to stem this internet scourge while ensuring that
defacto, nothing gets accomplished. Otherwise, you would be forced to
believe that the pols are all incompetent stupids oblivious to unintended
consequences, which is hardly the case.

From my point of view, better no law than bad law but I'll try to read the
actual legislation before I pass final judgement.

 

[Baphomet]

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsugjgl0cg767a@corp.supernews.com...

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a38d819479a8dc09899d0@news.dslextreme.com...
In article <kyizb.144210$Ec1.5803935@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, this.is.a.fake@example.invalid
mentioned...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?


I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the
window
all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states
rights....
As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually
work
but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the
Caymens or
Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole
countries????

Looks like you haven't read the bill.

You are correct sir. I didn't read the bill but only the David Berlin
article on ZD Net. While I didn't much care for the article because of its
almost endless equivocation, Berlin believed the bill to be unworkable.

It says that initiators can be
prosecuted. In other words, not just the spammers, but the marketers
that hire them. That should help a lot.

I just wish that people would quit speculating, since most of them,
especially the media wags, have no idea of how things are going to
turn out. As with any law, it must be enforced. And that may be a
problem for the FTC which is authorized to enforce ths law.

Did the bill contain an FTC supplemental funding provision? If not, it's a
guarantee of no effective enforcement.

You know, it's not rocket science to craft good legislation. If (and I
repeat...I have not yet read it) this legislation is full of loopholes and
can't be enforced because of inadequate funding or such other structural
impediments as might exist, then this is the exact result the legislator's
intended. My cynical side/sense is that in an election year, they wanted
to
appear to be huffing and puffing with self righteous indignation about
attempting to do something to stem this internet scourge while ensuring
that
defacto, nothing gets accomplished. Otherwise, you would be forced to
believe that the pols are all incompetent stupids oblivious to unintended
consequences, which is hardly the case.

From my point of view, better no law than bad law but I'll try to read the
actual legislation before I pass final judgement.

I just read the CAUCE http://www.cauce.org/news/index.shtml position on
S.877 Ammended and they don't appear overly thrilled with it.

 

[Baphomet]

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsujlc3n6gnuad@corp.supernews.com...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsugjgl0cg767a@corp.supernews.com...

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote
in
message news:MPG.1a38d819479a8dc09899d0@news.dslextreme.com...
In article <kyizb.144210$Ec1.5803935@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, this.is.a.fake@example.invalid
mentioned...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?


I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the
window
all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states
rights....
As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually
work
but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the
Caymens or
Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole
countries????

Looks like you haven't read the bill.

You are correct sir. I didn't read the bill but only the David Berlin
article on ZD Net. While I didn't much care for the article because of
its
almost endless equivocation, Berlin believed the bill to be unworkable.

It says that initiators can be
prosecuted. In other words, not just the spammers, but the marketers
that hire them. That should help a lot.

I just wish that people would quit speculating, since most of them,
especially the media wags, have no idea of how things are going to
turn out. As with any law, it must be enforced. And that may be a
problem for the FTC which is authorized to enforce ths law.

Did the bill contain an FTC supplemental funding provision? If not, it's
a
guarantee of no effective enforcement.

You know, it's not rocket science to craft good legislation. If (and I
repeat...I have not yet read it) this legislation is full of loopholes
and
can't be enforced because of inadequate funding or such other structural
impediments as might exist, then this is the exact result the
legislator's
intended. My cynical side/sense is that in an election year, they wanted
to
appear to be huffing and puffing with self righteous indignation about
attempting to do something to stem this internet scourge while ensuring
that
defacto, nothing gets accomplished. Otherwise, you would be forced to
believe that the pols are all incompetent stupids oblivious to
unintended
consequences, which is hardly the case.

From my point of view, better no law than bad law but I'll try to read
the
actual legislation before I pass final judgement.

I just read the CAUCE http://www.cauce.org/news/index.shtml position on
S.877 Ammended and they don't appear overly thrilled with it.

I just read part of the bill. As usual, the legislature did a brilliant job
of outling the problem; it was their proposed solution that was sadly
lacking. If they had wanted an immediate halt to spamming, they would have
declared it a deliberate assault on critical global infrastructure, declared
it a terrorist act, and handed enforcement over to Homeland Security. They
are in the unique position of having the resources to effectively deal with
the problem.

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <vsugjgl0cg767a@corp.supernews.com>, no.spam@no.spam.us
mentioned...

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a38d819479a8dc09899d0@news.dslextreme.com...
In article <kyizb.144210$Ec1.5803935@bgtnsc05-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, this.is.a.fake@example.invalid
mentioned...

"Baphomet" <no.spam@no.spam.us> wrote in message
news:vsov6nrgon6l82@corp.supernews.com...

"JeffM" <jeffm_@email.com> wrote in message
news:f8b945bc.0312011729.68ed432a@posting.google.com...
Never mind that we in California
had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that,
which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap.
(Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?


I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the
window
all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states
rights....
As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually
work
but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the
Caymens or
Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole
countries????

Looks like you haven't read the bill.

You are correct sir. I didn't read the bill but only the David Berlin
article on ZD Net. While I didn't much care for the article because of its
almost endless equivocation, Berlin believed the bill to be unworkable.

I'm sorry to hear that. I also read the Berlind article. I cannot
understand how these supposedly well-informed journalists can be so
harshly critical of the bill when they can't offer a solution that
would be acceptable to all parties involved.

I'd like to quote two important sayings, both sum up the situation.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."

"The longest journey begins with the first step."

Berlind and others want congress to do everything _now_, and when they
can't get congress to do that, because of the big money the marketers
and their sock puppet The DMA have, they throw a journalistic tantrum
and say that the bill will be worse than no law at all. They talk
foolishness.

Berlind and others want the journey to be completed on a single step,
and are totally unwilling to compromise to any other journey. This
has caused the federal government to take no steps at all, so for the
last 5 or 6 years, absolutely nothing has been passed at the federal
level. Thanks a lot, you bunch of journalistic Chicken Littles.
Because of your constant harping that "The sky will fall" if a bad law
is passed, we have had no federal laws at all. And the states have
had to go it alone, with little results because of almost total lack
of enforcement. If the journalists would stop putting a bad spin on
the new law, and give it a chance to work, maybe someday we will see a
reduction in spam. So far, without a federal law, spamming has turned
into a free-for-all, literally smothering the email system with spam.
It cannot, in any way, be worse with any federal law, no matter what!

And Linford has done just as much damage, with his naysaying. He, a
Brit, should mind his own business and keep out of U.S. political and
legislative processes.

It says that initiators can be
prosecuted. In other words, not just the spammers, but the marketers
that hire them. That should help a lot.

I just wish that people would quit speculating, since most of them,
especially the media wags, have no idea of how things are going to
turn out. As with any law, it must be enforced. And that may be a
problem for the FTC which is authorized to enforce ths law.

Did the bill contain an FTC supplemental funding provision? If not, it's a
guarantee of no effective enforcement.

Bills are bills, not laws. There are USC codes, and then there are
CFRs Codes of Federal Regulations. We will have to wait to see how
the law is implemented.

You know, it's not rocket science to craft good legislation. If (and I
repeat...I have not yet read it) this legislation is full of loopholes and
can't be enforced because of inadequate funding or such other structural
impediments as might exist, then this is the exact result the legislator's
intended. My cynical side/sense is that in an election year, they wanted to
appear to be huffing and puffing with self righteous indignation about
attempting to do something to stem this internet scourge while ensuring that
defacto, nothing gets accomplished. Otherwise, you would be forced to
believe that the pols are all incompetent stupids oblivious to unintended
consequences, which is hardly the case.

Congress is giving the executive branch a tool to do a job. How the
Federal Trade Commission uses that tool depends on a lot of things.

There is going to be a lot of pressure on the FTC to get this to
succeed. The law supercedes the state laws, and states are going to
want to get something done. It's going to be some time for the law to
get rolling because it will be challenged on First Amendment
Constitutionality. That's already happened at the state level, but it
will probably take a year for the challenges to be defeated in courts.

From my point of view, better no law than bad law but I'll try to read the
actual legislation before I pass final judgement.

You can't pass final judgment because the bill requires the FTC to
report back to congress after an amount of time, I believe it is 24
months. Then the legislators may modify the laws to get more results
or to stop unintended results. Only time will tell.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <vsujlc3n6gnuad@corp.supernews.com>, no.spam@no.spam.us
mentioned...
[snip]

I just read the CAUCE http://www.cauce.org/news/index.shtml position on
S.877 Ammended and they don't appear overly thrilled with it.

I used to be a member, but withdrew my membership once I found out
that they were part of the problem, not part of the solution. >:-(


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun]

In article <vsun5721b2kk2e@corp.supernews.com>, no.spam@no.spam.us
mentioned...
[snip]

I just read the CAUCE http://www.cauce.org/news/index.shtml position on
S.877 Ammended and they don't appear overly thrilled with it.

I just read part of the bill. As usual, the legislature did a brilliant job
of outling the problem; it was their proposed solution that was sadly
lacking. If they had wanted an immediate halt to spamming, they would have
declared it a deliberate assault on critical global infrastructure, declared
it a terrorist act, and handed enforcement over to Homeland Security. They
are in the unique position of having the resources to effectively deal with
the problem.

That's not how things are done with something that's protected as Free
Speech. They'd get the courts to issue an injunction to stop
enforcement, claiming that it doesn't meet the Central Hudson tests.
But the 'zeroth' test, before all of the other four tests, is 'Is the
speech legal?' If not, then it isn't free speech. Well, the FTC has
already said that more than 2/3rds of all spam is fraudulent in some
form. So one might say that the new spam law is only codifying what's
already known to be illegal. But if that makes the FTC get off their
duff and enforce it, I'm all for it.


--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS? Check HERE First:###
http://users.pandora.be/educypedia/electronics/databank.htm
My email address is whitelisted. *All* email sent to it
goes directly to the trash unless you add NOSPAM in the
Subject: line with other stuff. alondra101 <at> hotmail.com
Don't be ripped off by the big book dealers. Go to the URL
that will give you a choice and save you money(up to half).
http://www.everybookstore.com You'll be glad you did!
Just when you thought you had all this figured out, the gov't
changed it: http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/Units/binary.html
@@t@h@e@@a@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@m@e@e@t@@t@h@e@@E@f@f@l@u@e@n@t@@

 

[Baphomet]

"Watson A.Name - Watt Sun, Dark Remover" <alondra101@hotmail.com> wrote in
message news:MPG.1a3cf53b8a485afa9899f1@news.dslextreme.com...

In article <vsun5721b2kk2e@corp.supernews.com>, no.spam@no.spam.us
mentioned...
[snip]

I just read the CAUCE http://www.cauce.org/news/index.shtml position
on
S.877 Ammended and they don't appear overly thrilled with it.

I just read part of the bill. As usual, the legislature did a brilliant
job
of outling the problem; it was their proposed solution that was sadly
lacking. If they had wanted an immediate halt to spamming, they would
have
declared it a deliberate assault on critical global infrastructure,
declared
it a terrorist act, and handed enforcement over to Homeland Security.
They
are in the unique position of having the resources to effectively deal
with
the problem.

That's not how things are done with something that's protected as Free
Speech. They'd get the courts to issue an injunction to stop
enforcement, claiming that it doesn't meet the Central Hudson tests.
But the 'zeroth' test, before all of the other four tests, is 'Is the
speech legal?' If not, then it isn't free speech. Well, the FTC has
already said that more than 2/3rds of all spam is fraudulent in some
form. So one might say that the new spam law is only codifying what's
already known to be illegal. But if that makes the FTC get off their
duff and enforce it, I'm all for it.

You can't enforce that for which you have no budget and or technical
expertise.

Since a preponderance of the spams are for MLM (a.k.a. pyramid schemes which
are largely illegal) bilking those who can least afford it in their attempt
to work from home, the legislature had a multitude of avenues from which to
approach the spam problem. Sadly, they chose none of them.

For the time being, I will stick with my original assertion that our
"esteemed" lawmakers are in bed with the spammers on one level or another,
getting vast sums for their reelection coffers, and that they deliberately
crafted a bill they knew full well would be unworkable.