OT: This is interesting

[MattB]

<http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news>

Basically it says that posting anonymously "to annoy" is illegal. Seems
like pretty lame law (not to mention unconstitutional), but maybe we
could use it around here.

Matt

 

[Scott Gordo]

MattB wrote:
> <http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news>
>
> Basically it says that posting anonymously "to annoy" is illegal. Seems
> like pretty lame law (not to mention unconstitutional), but maybe we
> could use it around here.
>
> Matt

Oh boy. Here we go.

/s

"Gentlemen, stahhhht yooooour engines!"

 

[GWood]

I read a blurb the other day in one of the "E" trade magazines regarding
legitimate vs. illegal/spam/unsolicited internet traffic. The article
stopped short of saying that legitimate traffic was less than half of the
current packets clogging the internet. What it did say was that the thirst
for bandwidth had vastly outstripped the anticipated demand, and further
confessed that anticipated demand had been based on usage by legit users.
The sheer volume of spam didn't get factored in.

FYI - Legitimate users never really got defined. I assumed it was whatever
didn't fall into the spam / bot generated / unsolicited **** categories.

Forget the fines. I'm for lynch mobs.

"MattB" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
<http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance,+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491
..html?part=rss&tag=6022491&subj=news>
>
> Basically it says that posting anonymously "to annoy" is illegal. Seems
> like pretty lame law (not to mention unconstitutional), but maybe we
> could use it around here.
>
> Matt

 

[MattB]

GWood wrote:
> I read a blurb the other day in one of the "E" trade magazines regarding
> legitimate vs. illegal/spam/unsolicited internet traffic. The article
> stopped short of saying that legitimate traffic was less than half of the
> current packets clogging the internet. What it did say was that the thirst
> for bandwidth had vastly outstripped the anticipated demand, and further
> confessed that anticipated demand had been based on usage by legit users.
> The sheer volume of spam didn't get factored in.
>
> FYI - Legitimate users never really got defined. I assumed it was whatever
> didn't fall into the spam / bot generated / unsolicited **** categories.
>
> Forget the fines. I'm for lynch mobs.
>

But this particular law doesn't address the majority of spam, because
the intent isn't usually to annoy, but to make a buck. Sure you may get
annoyed, but as long as the intent was to make money then it doesn't apply.

Matt