Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 4 Dec 1997 13:39:35 +0000 (GMT)
From:      Stephen Roome <steve@visint.co.uk>
To:        chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: annoying spammers...
Message-ID:  <Pine.BSF.3.96.971204133357.3409C-100000@dylan.visint.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <199712022212.OAA05302@kithrup.com>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 2 Dec 1997, Sean Eric Fagan wrote:
> In article <19971202144625.59050.kithrup.freebsd.chat@right.PCS> you write:
> >Well, that seems to be the crux of the matter.  The courts have not (AFAIK)
> >ruled that a computer meets the definition of a fax machine.  If it has,
> >then I have a bunch of $500 claims I'd like to send out.
> 
> We have several lawyers working with "us" on CAUCE (http://www.cauce.org/).
> Their feeling is that, no, the "junk fax" law does not apply to spam --
> it is apparantly clear from the congressional record that Congress intended
> only fax machines to be covered, not computers -- and even though a computer
> with a fax modem is, email is *not*.

AFAIK there's a bit of law in the UK or something that implies that
although it's written in some statute book that you can't do XXXX.
There's a limit to how far it will go, and I'm pretty certain that a fair
few cases have been thrown out due to people taking the letter of the law
and not the spirit of the law, which is it's purpose.

Again, I don't know what it's like in the US, but I expect much the same
ideal is hopefully upheld (or attempted anyway), in which case I'm still
not certain whether fax == computer is true or not. They didn't intend it
that way originally, but it's possibly more applicable now. The fax
machine here gets less comms than my mailbox.

> HOwever, if you're in the US, call yoru congresscritter and support the
> Smith Bill -- it basicly adds email to the junk fax law, which has been
> upheld in courts so far, meaning that the email version would likely as
> well.  And, unlike the other two bills introduced into congress, it is an
> opt-in scheme (as opposed to an "opt-out" scheme, whereby you have to ask to
> be removed from the list, for each spammer who has a list).

What if we are subject to US law, i.e. own a US domain name, but aren't
residents of the US ? The law still applies to our actions, although we'd
need to be extradited in case of court appearances ?

Does our voice still count though ? (doubt it)

	Steve
--
Steve Roome - Vision Interactive Ltd.
Tel:+44(0)117 9730597 Home:+44(0)976 241342
WWW: http://dylan.visint.co.uk/




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?Pine.BSF.3.96.971204133357.3409C-100000>