 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / Diseases and Disorders / Cancer / January 2006fyi- everybody
http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html That's ominous.  SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html > > That's ominous. All the more reason for people to munge/spoof their email addresses. J http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3576511 A new law extending telephone harassment prohibitions and penalties to anonymous e-mails and Voice over IP (define) calls has raised nary a peep among civil liberty groups and the legal community. The provision, contained in the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) signed last week by President Bush, amends the existing law to create criminal penalties for anonymous e-mails and VoIP calls sent with the intent to "annoy, abuse, threaten or harass any person." "It only extends the current telephone harassment laws to the Internet. It extends the same protections to new forms of communications." >> > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html >> >> That's ominous. > > All the more reason for people to munge/spoof their email addresses. Careful with that. I've been chasing spammers since 1996, spammers who try to disguise the origins of their messages, and unless they're VERY, VERY good (the rare exception) one can almost always trace them to a provider. Given that, one could subpoena logs from the provider and find out who was using that IP address at that date and time. They're typically using "bot nets" nowadays, so we can't trace them to their own provider, just to the location of their hijacked "bot". So as usual, the lawbreakers have the means to avoid prosecution, while the innocent who used to be protected by the First Amendment, Magna Carta, etc. get shafted. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > >> > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Careful with that. I've been chasing spammers since 1996, ??? I don't spam. If a person munges their email address, nobody can threaten them by email. That law seems to be addressing emails and VOIP. J >> >> > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html >> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >email. >That law seems to be addressing emails and VOIP. Writings on Usenet are to be classed as e-mails. However it would be difficult to prove intent to annoy unless it was made obvious IMHO. It should be remembered that there are no secrets online to those who have the necessary powers. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >> >> > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > ??? I don't spam. I meant only that chasing spammers is where I got extensive experience in header reading and message tracking. It isn't easy for the average person to hide his identity from a determined government. > If a person munges their email address, nobody can threaten them by > email. > That law seems to be addressing emails and VOIP. I have a feeling they'll try to apply it to everything; usenet, web pages, streaming content, whatever. They didn't let the First Amendment stop them, after all. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > >> > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html > >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Given that, one could subpoena logs from the provider and find out who > was using that IP address at that date and time. Well, I understand what you're saying, and that's exactly why it doesn't matter why a person is anonymous or not; they can be traced if they do/say/write something aggregious. My point was that some people reply to both group and the poster's email address or the latter. If it's kept on newsgroup, for all to see, then if there's a misunderstanding of what has been conveyed, some of the rest of us can clarify, whereas emails sent to the poster enter their private inbox and words over the internet can be misconstrued. In any event, clifto, I spent some time last night and this morning, checking various newsgroups, where I would have expected there to be a "reaction" to this news. The one I most expected to react never even mentioned it. The others and through searches on the posted website (in Google), the reactions vary from: 1) who voted that idiot in <g> 2) "shrug" 3) "feel good" addon to a larger parcel of legislation that was pushed through 4) "your post is annoying me" (tongue in cheek type posts) So, I really don't think it was even worth calling to our attention. J >> >> > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html >> >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > >So, I really don't think it was even worth calling to our attention. There has been limited discussion about it on uk.legal here http://tinyurl.com/d8r2y Again many folks do not take it seriously. I do however because I have had people post in my name and also anonymously about me. Unlike Clifto says if the posts are made through some newsfeeds such as ReadFreeNews you cannot trace the ISP or even the IP. There are a few of these kind of newsfeeds about and I suspect the new law could be aimed at them and of course at anonymous remailers. It is now possible in theory to prosecute a newsfeed that allows anonymous posts as well as anonymous posters or e-mailers. I do not mung my e-mail addy and I can honestly say I do not have any problems at all. I have a program called mailwasher ($20) that allows me to screen all my mail before I download it from the server and spam gets deleted by me without downloading it. Ordinary posts that are illegal can easily be reported and stopped if they bother anyone. Personally I cannot see how a person who doesn't use their own name in e-mails can be taken seriously but I can understand people being frightened by malicious mail if they fall for the hysteria about spam and such like. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html > In any event, clifto, I spent some time last night and this morning, checking various > newsgroups, where I would have expected there to be a "reaction" to this news. The one I [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 3) "feel good" addon to a larger parcel of legislation that was pushed through > 4) "your post is annoying me" (tongue in cheek type posts) <http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/12/84628.shtml> "The Blogosphere is filling up with frantic posts from those who routinely comment on use-net groups and blogs expressing dismay and concern over a new law that prohibits posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity." Not that I'm much for blogs, but it's beginning to appear they're an ever-improving source for news. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. > <http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/12/84628.shtml> > > "The Blogosphere is filling up with frantic posts from those who routinely > comment on use-net groups and blogs expressing dismay and concern over a > new law that prohibits posting annoying Web messages or sending annoying > e-mail messages without disclosing your true identity." So clifto, what do you intend to do? Post with your full name and SS # and address in your signature? (whoops no, that would encourage cyberstalking). :p J >> <http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/12/84628.shtml> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Post with your full name and SS # and address in your signature? > (whoops no, that would encourage cyberstalking). :p Actually, it's not difficult to come up with my full name. A quick Google groups search on clifto@clifto.com is illustrative. Lots of people on usenet know me, too. So if someone tried to say I was unidentified, he'd have an uphill battle. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >> <http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2006/1/12/84628.shtml> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Post with your full name and SS # and address in your signature? >(whoops no, that would encourage cyberstalking). :p If someone wants to cyberstalk you changing you ID will not stop them. The best way is to alert others to the fact you are being stalked and then 'most' people will just ignore the stalker as the victim should to. Stalkers are easily dealt with once the victims correspondents stop replying to the stalker or just follow the victims wishes in how to deal with the stalker. Believe me I speak from experience. If you type turtill into google group you will eventually come to pages where google has placed a notice saying one or more posts have been removed because of legal action. They are among the very few posts I object to. Most stuff I take as fair comment or comment by mentally ill people and I ignore that. I post in my real name and with a genuine e-mail addy and I get very little spam and absolutely no stalking posts because the e-mail would be traceable and stalkers would know that. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >> > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html >> >> That's ominous. > >All the more reason for people to munge/spoof their email addresses. >J Not really. In fact the opposite seems to be the case. It appears that it only applies to anon correspondence. It appears that folks can annoy each other using their own names but not if they are anonymous. I thought US law didn't apply in the uk if there was no offences matching it in the uk. However we have seen some bankers extradited for wire fraud across state boundaries or similar. There is no such offence in the uk but that didn't prevent the extradition of british bankers to the US. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html No "J." The implication is that if you continue to annoy me you will have to post your full name and other details. No more munging. Mel >> > http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > extends the > same protections to new forms of communications." >No "J." The implication is that if you continue to annoy me you will have >to post your full name and other details. No more munging. You are wrong. It is no good you saying you are annoyed or that you are being annoyed. You have to prove 'intent' to annoy and that can be quite difficult unless it is obvious or stated. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html >>No "J." The implication is that if you continue to annoy me you will have >>to post your full name and other details. No more munging. > > You are wrong. It is no good you saying you are annoyed or that you > are being annoyed. You have to prove 'intent' to annoy and that can be > quite difficult unless it is obvious or stated. There's some court out there (*cough* *ninth* *circuit* *cough*) that will accept advance notice as intent, as in "It annoys me terribly when people say 'the', this is fair warning to everyone in advance," followed by a suit against everyone using that word in the next week. SignatureIf John McCain gets the 2008 Republican Presidential nomination, my vote for President will be a write-in for Jiang Zemin. >>>No "J." The implication is that if you continue to annoy me you will have >>>to post your full name and other details. No more munging. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >say 'the', this is fair warning to everyone in advance," followed by a >suit against everyone using that word in the next week. Really! Well even then it would have to be shown it was done with 'intent' IMHO. Such as proving the person actually saw and/or understood that message. I have no experience of USA courts. pete SignatureDue to privacy considerations, I will not respond to mail from gmail.com. For more information, please visit www.google-watch.org/gmail.html |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.