What do spam and the mafia have in common?
A couple days ago, Alexey Tolstokozhev, a Russian spammer was found murdered. The crime scene investigators have ruled it as a probable mob hit (due to the placement of bullets).
Alexey was not just any spammer, as it turns out he may be responsible for up to 30% of all viagra and "enlargement" spam.
While I certainly don't condone murdering anyone, the money quote is too good to pass up:
"Violent murders is a clear sign that spam becomes a serious criminal activity" - the officials say. "Easy money attracts criminals, which bring their own version of "justice" with them."Remember the recent proposal to issue Letters of Marque and Reprisal for Osama bin Laden? This vigilante method certainly adds a new, although, arguably expected twist to it... and it is just slightly more effective than CAN-SPAM.
You see, spammers like Alexey are hardly operating legitimate businesses, as they pay black-hat hackers for access to zombie botnets -- which are destructive and harmful to the productivity and well-being of everything connected to the Internet.
For an explanation of botnets, be sure to check out:
Online Criminal Gangs Battle With Botnets
Storm worm botnet more powerful than top supercomputers
The Economics of Malware
What do Botnets and GPGPUs have in common?
The Commercial Malware Industry (pdf)
Update: despite being a popular story on Slashdot and Digg, it appears that this story is actually a hoax/rebranded occurrence of a murder from two years ago. Be sure to check out the above details on botnets.
Comments (62)
Manuel Lora
Spam is an unconsented-to use of property since people do not want to receive it (see Block & Kinsella on this). Further, the fact that he was aided by black hat hackers (I prefer the term "cracker") only made things worse. This spammer was essentially trespassing on private property.
If he was killed by a mafia, perhaps the punishment was somewhat severe, yet some punishment, even when done by private parties, was justified. I do not condone the mafia but that doesn't mean that the spammer wasn't guilty of anything either.
Published: October 11, 2007 10:18 AM
George Gaskell
I assume that the gangsters who killed him weren't motivated by their outrage over the spam in their email inboxes. I imagine that they killed him to get control over his operations, or some other dispute over territory or money.
Published: October 11, 2007 11:10 AM
Michael A. Clem
What? Was the Mafia upset about getting spam in their email? Or were they upset that they weren't getting a cut of the spam profits?? And can anyone verify if they're getting less spam now that the guy's dead?
Published: October 11, 2007 11:13 AM
Tim Swanson
Gaskell - somehow I doubt they were that upset about receiving unsolicited ads. My guess is that they'd probably like a cut. Who knows though... maybe he slipped and fell on some bullets.
Michael - I doubt we'll see any measurable decrease in spam. Someone will probably just replace him (the story didn't mention anything about the botnets being deactivated).
IMHO, if anything, full monetary compensation/restitution would have been the more humane/just method for adjudicating his criminal trespasses. He probably just bragged to the wrong guy at the wrong vodka station.
Published: October 11, 2007 12:38 PM
Person
Manual_Lora et al: The problem with that analysis is that this isn't like shipping a physical package. Nothing actually arrives on my prop-a-TIE. What happens is that I sent electricity in a certain pattern to a server, which then sends a pattern to a server, [repeat several times], and then the recpient sends electricity to his server to read the order of 1's and 0's it has stored. His server had to choose to accept that information and store it for him, and he had to choose to go to pick it up there. NOTHING that the sender physically had in his possession, is now in his possession. Unless you count "information" as "something". ... Which Stephan_Kinsella and Walter_Block have already determined is a no_no.
JUST TO CLARIFY, I'M NOT SAYING SPAM IS JUSTIFIABLE. I'm just saying it can't be rejected within the Kinsella/Block framework, unless they make concessions they'd rather avoid.
Published: October 11, 2007 12:44 PM
Erik
Strange.
I run a message board on an adventure travel website and for about three years the "comment spam" has mostly originated from someone I called "Alex The Spammer". He sold software to other eastern Europeans that would make the sending of spam more automated and provide access to the botnets to send it. As far as I could figure out spamming in Eastern Europe seems like an "Amway" for the three "P"s of Spam.
I have not noticed a decrease in phoney spam registrations but I would suspect that a murder would just likely change the spam merchants rather than stop it. Spam is a cash heavy, automated and underground business...a prime target for mobster takeovers.
Published: October 11, 2007 1:16 PM
Person
The spam problem can be solved by programming mail servers to require a payment (five cents, five dollars) to accept a message from an address you haven't heard from in the last 30 days.
Published: October 11, 2007 1:30 PM
Yancey Ward
I didn't even know it was possible to determine a mob murder from any other due to the "placement of the bullets".
Published: October 11, 2007 1:54 PM
Robert M.
I've always been suspicious of law enforcement when they blame things on mofias, gangs, etc. Seems to me that they are just inept and it sounds better to be beaten by a big, bad organization than a few common thugs. I guess you have to look at their cars and houses. If the cops drive ferraris and live in mansions, then chances are that there are mafias in the area. If they drive mercedes and live in nice houses, then they are just the average, overpayed cops (exaggeration i know).
Published: October 11, 2007 2:18 PM
Robert M.
Wow I spelled "Mafia" wrong..
Published: October 11, 2007 2:19 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Person (or should we call him Silas or John Sharp?):
Silas, you sound like a broken record. You vociferously fight the anti-IPers, and the anti-spammers, yet you won't say you are in favor of each. I've explained elsewhere exactly why spam can be a type of trespass.
Published: October 11, 2007 2:48 PM
RWW
I can't believe I agree with Person on this. Kinsella's arguments for spam being trespass are utterly unconvincing, unlike his writings on IP, and I've always been surprised and dismayed at this disparity.
Published: October 11, 2007 3:02 PM
RWW
Incidentally, Kinsella's weird offhand comment about Person's identity is probably a bad portent about where this thread is going, considering Kinsella's usual style of "argument."
Published: October 11, 2007 3:09 PM
Stephan Kinsella
RWW, why don't you explain what you find unpersuasive about my spam ideas?
As for Silas, I've never mentioned his name despite knowing it for a long time now. But now that he's admitted it, I'd prefer real names instead of cowardly, annoying, juvenile 'nyms. And I've not resorted to any illegitimate argumentation tactic, as you intimate.
Published: October 11, 2007 3:16 PM
Kevin B
It is well known that sending spam goes against policy of nearly every, if not every, incoming mail server.
Person, your argument that "NOTHING that the sender physically had in his possession, is now in his possession" is unconvincing. While information may not be "something" in the terms you prefer, energy certainly is something.
Blasting a hole in your house with my laser and using your argument wouldn't be bought here either.
Published: October 11, 2007 3:36 PM
Person
Silas, you sound like a broken record. You vociferously fight the anti-IPers, and the anti-spammers, yet you won't say you are in favor of each.
Yeah, isn't that odd: I point out flaws in arguments *independently* of whether I agree with their conclusions. How improper of me! I should instantly agree with any line of reasoning, as long as I agree with the end.
a)Apples are red.
b)Blood is red.
c) Therefore, the American flag has red.
"Hm, good point -- from the fact that apples and blood are red, it follows that the American flag must be red."
I've explained elsewhere exactly why spam can be a type of trespass.
Er, in that particular elsewhere, you merely linked to another blog post, which links to another blog post, which links to a paper whose reasoning I just responded to.
As for Silas, I've never mentioned his name despite knowing it for a long time now. But now that he's admitted it, I'd prefer real names instead of cowardly, annoying, juvenile 'nyms.
Yeah, good point, since the validity of an argument depends directly on who's making it, like you claim in your defenses of Hoppe's argumentation ethics.
And I've not resorted to any illegitimate argumentation tactic, as you intimate.
Really? You've never falsely attributed positions to me (i.e. strawman)? You've never attacked me personally or tried to intimidate me (ad hominem, appeal to violence)?
Published: October 11, 2007 3:37 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Silas [Person]:
Where? What?
? I never implied that. We have to refer to each other for identification. I prefer to use real names. And if you find it annoying that someone uses your own name, why'd you announce it; and anyway, if you find it annoying, it's nothing compared to your professional gadflying.
Correct. Next!
Published: October 11, 2007 3:43 PM
Person
"Where? What?"
If you've ever wondered how Stephan_Kinsella responds when you make an argument he can't refute, that pretty much summarizes it.
Published: October 11, 2007 3:47 PM
Person
Kevin_B: you're saying that the energy you get from spammers on your property violates your rights?
How about light energy?
Published: October 11, 2007 3:49 PM
Stephan Kinsella
Person:
Silas: the issue is control. Did the spammer assert control, through some efficacious means, of the owner's property, without the owner's consent, or not?
All your jabbering about 1's and 0's might impress liberal arts majors, but it's beside the point and seems to be a vague attempt at scientism (shocking for an engineer! shocking!)
Let's take another case. Let's suppose I lurk outside your house and when you drive home and hit the RF remote to open your garage, I surreptitiously record the code. The next day, when no one's home, I drive near your house. I emit the same code, and voila, the garage door opens. Have I opened your garage door, or not?
If I didn't open it, then who did?
And now that the door has opened to me, does that mean I'm now welcome to your house? After all, when someone opens a door like that, it is a way of inviting you in.
Now whatcha say?
Published: October 11, 2007 4:17 PM
Robert M.
Stephan Kinsella:
The difference is that one device (the garage door opener) guards access to your house and is designed to be used only by you.
Email, on the other hand, it designed to receive signals from others. That is pretty much the whole point of it. If anything, SPAM is a nuisance, not a trespass.
It could be equated to light or sound. If someone reflects light to your eyes (you see them,) and you didn't want them to, it's not a trespass, but perhaps a nusiance. Same goes with sound and your ears.
Kevin B: Blasting a hole in your house with my laser and using your argument wouldn't be bought here either.
My house isn't designed to accept signals from a laser.
Published: October 11, 2007 4:59 PM
Axel Riemer
Can we start killing those people who send me junk mail too? I mean, if spamming is trespass, then so is every time I get those junk budget magazines.
Spam is email. Email is communication. Calling spam a crime is like branding every stranger who came up to you and said, hey, would you like to buy a set of encyclopedias a criminal. And then gang-shooting them.
The problem I see is that the internet was designed by government mucky-mucks, and they completely forgot to design any sort of security into it. Whoops. Too bad the internet wasn't developed privately - I wonder what it would look like? But I bet we wouldn't have spam.
When a salesman knocks on your door, you are under no obligation to open it. Our email accounts, however, are like open doors. If you think otherwise.. well, why do you think spam is such a problem?
Published: October 11, 2007 5:13 PM
Johan Ridenfeldt
Robert M.,
While of course being fully capable of receiving it (and, hence, in a silly semantic way, being “designed” for receiving it), the mail drop in my front door is nevertheless not intended for receiving canine excrement. Spam is nothing but the electronic equivalent of canine excrement.
Published: October 11, 2007 5:30 PM
Jean Paul
ALL felt externalities of willful action are trespass. This is the only consistent way to define it.
So, when someone willfully acts, and later the consequnces of that action are felt by others (the physical state of their justly owned matter is materially altered), the first person has committed a trespass against the others.
The owners may, for whatever reason, choose to disregard the trespass (such as if the externality is positive, or if the costs of deterring the trespass are too high for the pain of the trespass, or if it is understood that the debt for a trespass is to allow the equal and opposite trespass, as in the case of verbal conversation) but it is all still trespass.
All communication is tolerated trespass.
Spam qualifies as trespass. You own your machine, and in your externality-free, trespass-free conceptual bubble, you expect your machine to rightly do NOTHING when you check your mail. If it does something other than nothing, such as show you a happy birthday letter from your mom, that may be a welcomed and forgiven trespass; if it is about viagra pills, probably it is unwelcome and unforgiven.
The solution to spam is to put a pricetag on message acceptance (with exemptions for a user-defined whitelist), and clearly delineate the contractual boundaries of acceptable use: acceptable use for strangers is when I get paid.
Published: October 11, 2007 5:50 PM
Juvenym
What exactly is the _content_ of this blog post? How would it be described? "mises.org underlings celebrate murder of spammer"? Seriously... it sounds bad, but that's all I see in this post.
And to correct some factual errors in the post:
the 'mafia' don't spam, they did not kill him to because they wanted his business... (spamming isn't a zero-sum game btw). the mafia don't spam because no aspect of spamming requires their 'unique' skills - spamming requires no violence or coercion, hence it is not the domain of the mafia.
the 'mafia' likely killed him because he was (or they thought he was) holding out on paying them 'protection money'... yes, coercive tax collection by a non-state entity (or does the mises.org fascination with the 'mob' and anarchy blind you to this possibility). failure to pay protection money is the leading cause of mafia violence in Russia (this should be obvious). What's next? blog post entitled "what does bread and the mafia have in common" celebrating a russian bread-shop owner being murdered by the mafia for not paying protection money?
second... the connection of botnets to spamming is even more spurious than 'crime to prostitution and drugs'... i won't even bother to explain why (libertarianism 101 and hint: DoS).
as for "spamming = trespass"... I now get more physical spam than email spam (thanks to gmail), why is this physical spam not 'trespass' too? I get 0 email spam (seriously.. gmail rules), but half my physical mail is spam. What if a person emails me some hand-typed business solicitation - 'unsolicited commercial email'... is this spam? is this trespass? Does it have to be automated? does it have to be bulk? how many is 'bulk'? Is it trespass because I simple 'don't want to get it'... which would make some annoying people with my email address guilty of trespass (and I guess worthy of a bullet in the head by your logic). A 'crime' can not rest on such fuzzy ground.
the reason spam can not be trespass is because an email address by it's nature is an open invitation to send you anything = having an email address is like saying (surprise) 'i will receive email'.
the problem is technical... the design of the internet and it's older protocols are flawed - they assume a smaller, friendlier and more open internet (government and academia are to blame)... therefore the solution is technical too. But instead of standing back and allowing a technical solution to be developed out of necessity, most people see the solution to everything in threatening violence (i.e. making the thing they don't like illegal) and it's weaker form, social sanction - note that it's now fashionable to wish death and suffering upon spammers.
and btw, isn't there an inherent contradiction in being anti-IP and anti-spam? wouldn't no electronic property imply no electronic trespass too?
seriously.. get Kinsella and Swanson off mises.org, or at least limit them to 1 post per week each... I grow tired of their spam.
Published: October 11, 2007 6:19 PM
Jim
some websites are claiming this dead Spammer story is a hoax:
"Thursday, October 11, 2007
Hoax? Is Alexey Tolstokozhev, spammer, dead? "
http://sunbeltblog.blogspot.com/
http://taint.org/2007/10/11/203243a.html
"Here are my reasons:
*
There are still no corroborating stories in the press, several hours later;
*
‘Alexey Tolstokozhev’ doesn’t appear in ROKSO, or even Google;
*
The entire site claims to have been shut down due to load, all except for that one page — there isn’t a single link that can be reached that works"
Published: October 11, 2007 7:48 PM
averros
The story is most likely a hoax - although it has a real-life precedent (one russian spammer was killed a couple years ago).
Anyway, Person does not seem to be able to grasp the difference between situations when someone uses information obtained somewhere to make something with physical property _he_owns_ and the situation when somebody sends commands (such as e-mail messages) to have _other_person's_ property to perform some acts - without permission (and usually against the explicit wishes) of the property's owner.
The former does not violate physical property rights; the latter does. (I think inability to understand the concept of property is what causes the confusion).
The fact that spam is information is irrelevant (nobody cares who owns the spam) - the problem is that it denies the physical property (i.e. the computer) owner's right to control his property.
The fact that e-mail system lacks security (i.e. "locks" or other authentication mechanisms) is also irrelevant. The fact that a door was left unlocked does not excuse a thief. The claim that sending clearly unsolicited messages is ok because sender was not informed that he is trespassing is also preposterous - any reasonable person knows that spam is unwanted, just like everyone knows that doors to other people's houses are not to be opened without invitation from the hosts.
Published: October 11, 2007 10:43 PM
Jean Paul
Avveros, bravo. All points well made.
Published: October 12, 2007 12:24 AM
TLWP Sam
Aw come on, isn't there a communications easement of sorts where someone can communicate with you even though you may not want to hear it (within reason)? Is spam trespass because it affects someone with a low download limit? Or because the time taken for a busy business owner to filter out the spam and important emails takes precious time? Likewise the same could be said for junk mail as it now takes more time to sort the mail. Likewise what of someone who comes to the counter who isn't a customer or a potential customer but rather someone (say a salesperson or someone unemployed giving their giving 'please consider me if a vacancy becomes available' spiel) who is wasting your time and repelling a genuine customer who may not like standing forever in line, puts a product back on the shelf, walks out the door and gets a bad impression of the business operator. Is this fellow a trespasser as he has wasted the business operator's time and ruined the operator's chance to get revenue for his business?
Published: October 12, 2007 1:33 AM
TokyoTom
Tim, I'm curious as to your own thoughts on your blog title - what DO spammers and the mafia have in common?
All I can come up with is that they both test property rights systems, though in different ways. Spammers not-violently exploit open-access systems, while the mafia use violence to exploit those who cannot defend their "private" property, viz., they treat as a commons what is socially recognized as private property.
Published: October 12, 2007 2:19 AM
Tim Swanson
To answer a couple of questions,
I posted a brief update at the top, it appears that the story is a hoax.
Either way, I think it does bring up a valid point about vigilantism and bringing property abusers (hackers, and those that knowingly use their services) to justice.
However, as I said in a previous comment, there are more humane/just methods for adjudicating his criminal trespasses (of financing hackers) such as full monetary compensation/restitution.
TokyoTom, you went a bit deeper than I expected. It really had more to do with bullets than philosophy. Interesting comment though.
Published: October 12, 2007 2:33 AM
jeffrey
Here is a report on the hoax, which points out that this will do the spammer some good!
Published: October 12, 2007 5:44 AM
Jean Paul
"Is this fellow a trespasser as he has wasted the business operator's time and ruined the operator's chance to get revenue for his business?"
The person is a trespasser if, in the act of impinging on someone's property, the property owner or the owner's agent declares them to be. The trespass is due purely to 'felt presence'.
A banana peel discarded on your lawn qualifies, and yes, junk mail also qualifies.
There is no 'easement' for communication, as this would imply partial ownership by the sender of some aspect of the receiver. The sender has no implicit rights in the matter. It is up to the receiver to tolerate the trespass or not.
Finally, there is no trespass attributable to customer A for the 'loss' of customer B's business. The shop owner does not 'own' either customer's business, so a claim of loss is impossible. If B chooses to shop elsewhere, that's B's choice alone. The shopkeeper may feel disappointment or frustration over B's free choice, but that frustration cannot be transferred to some other actor as blame or responsibility.
Published: October 12, 2007 8:00 AM
Michael A. Clem
I'm curious. If spam is unsolicited unwanted messages, the question arises: how do you know it's unwanted until you look at it? Unsolicited is obvious, but then an email from a relative could also be unsolicited but greatly appreciated.
It seems to me that the only way to look at it is the costs involved, and a technological fix. When using newsgroups, for example, the software is set up to download the headers only, and then the actual body of the message is downloaded only if you click on it. Why can't the same be done with regular email messages? This would help the end-user, although the messages would still be on your ISP's server. They could easily delete any messages that remained unopened after a certain amount of time, with automated software.
Published: October 12, 2007 9:46 AM
Robert M.
Johan Ridenfeldt :While of course being fully capable of receiving it (and, hence, in a silly semantic way, being “designed” for receiving it), the mail drop in my front door is nevertheless not intended for receiving canine excrement. Spam is nothing but the electronic equivalent of canine excrement.
I believe that this is a bad analogy. The purpose of email is to accept data in a certain form from a sender. The purpose of a mail drop is to accept letters from a mail carrier. Spam is in the form that is meant to be accepted by your email program. Dog exrement (unless it's sealed in an envelope) would not be delivered by a mail carrier would constitute a trespass if put in your mail drop.
Also, if you want to get really technical about it, spam is delivered by your ISP to your email box. The dog poo in which you speak is not delivered by an authorized carrier. Your email could be kept free of spam by the deliverer, but then people would be crying about privacy (remember the outcry over Google doing it?) You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Just because you can put quotes around my words doesn't make them incorrect. If email wasn't designed to receive email what was it designed for? That's like saying telephones are capable of receiving calls, but werent designed for it.
Published: October 12, 2007 11:30 AM
Person
Let me try to respond to my critics by pointing out what I think is the most analagous to what spam is.
Let's say I send my robot to a privately-owned but open access place, like a mall. I instruct it to store any and all data that might interest me. What interests me?
-Images of the mall interest me, but NOT if they contain the image of a goth.
So the robot goes there and comes back, storing a picture of a goth.
Now remember, my robot only got that picture because *I instructed* it to gather data, and it failed to recognize a goth.
Did that violate my property rights? Of course not.
Let's make it more like the spam scenario: say the mall actually has a policy against goths! (As ISPs have a policy against spam.) It will kick out any goths that appear at the mall, but some linger before they can be kicked out. How are they violating *my* rights, though? I'm the one that chose to gather their data by an ineffective algorithm.
(But one specific response: Stephan_Kinsella, when your entire attack on IP is physicalist reduction, you have forfeited your standing to complain about my "1's and 0's" argument.)
Published: October 12, 2007 11:44 AM
Kevin B
Person: "you're saying that the energy you get from spammers on your property violates your rights?
How about light energy?"
Yes, light energy can be used for trespass. That should be obvious.
Robert M: "My house isn't designed to accept signals from a laser."
Fine. How about I jam your house with em radiation so that your garage door opener doesn't work, eh?
Person: "...say the mall actually has a policy against goths! (As ISPs have a policy against spam.) It will kick out any goths that appear at the mall, but some linger before they can be kicked out."
The goths are then trespassing, perhaps not against you but against those with the right to restrict their presence. Sending spam is trespassing against those with the right to set the terms of use.
Published: October 12, 2007 12:49 PM
Ron
Allow me to throw some fuel on the fire...
One reason to consider spam a trespass is because those 1s and 0s take up space. They consume storage space not only on the hard drive of the final receiver's computer, but also on every email server between the sender and receiver, at least temporarily. Storage space costs money, and there is a finite amount of it at any given time on any computer. Spam takes up storage space without the consent of the owner of that space. This seems pretty simple to me.
That said, there are lots of ways to prevent the receipt of spam. As far as I know EVERY ISP provides a mechanism for either blocking email from certain addresses/domains, or accepting email only from a user-defined list of addresses/domains. It can be annoying, as you may not receive some emails that you would have otherwise liked to get, but every transaction requires choices, and advocating legislation, litigation, or the death penalty for spammers is a case of wanting to have one's cake and eat it too...of wanting someone ELSE to be responsible for what they receive via email.
It's the same principle as watching television...it's up to you to choose what you watch and flip past the stuff you don't. We are each responsible for our own internet usage, and protecting our computers from spam, viruses, etc. is part of the cost of using the internet. Foisting that cost onto someone else is certainly a trespass.
Published: October 12, 2007 12:50 PM
Kevin B
Person,
The "1's" and "0's" (or "on" and "off") are physical measurements of electrical energy.
Published: October 12, 2007 12:56 PM
George Gaskell
I just linked over to the anti-state.com article, and from there to the Daily Apology, and from there to the site of James Redford, aka Count Lithium von Chloride.
Boy, that's 20 minutes of my life I will never get back.
Mr. Redford should use his supposedly stratospheric IQ to learn some HTML skills.
Published: October 12, 2007 1:37 PM
Kevin B
Robert M,
Or better yet, I find the code to your garage door opener and use it to open and close your garage all day while you're at work until your garage door opener wears out.
Or I could close your garage door while you try to open it.
Ohhh, the pranks I could pull. ;P
Published: October 12, 2007 1:39 PM
Stephan Kinsella
"Person" (Silas):
-Images of the mall interest me, but NOT if they contain the image of a goth.
So the robot goes there and comes back, storing a picture of a goth.
Now remember, my robot only got that picture because *I instructed* it to gather data, and it failed to recognize a goth.
Did that violate my property rights? Of course not.
Let's make it more like the spam scenario: say the mall actually has a policy against goths! (As ISPs have a policy against spam.) It will kick out any goths that appear at the mall, but some linger before they can be kicked out. How are they violating *my* rights, though? I'm the one that chose to gather their data by an ineffective algorithm.
The goth is not necessarily *controlling* your robot.
Naahh. I ain't forfeited jack.
Kevin B:
Or I could close your garage door while you try to open it.
Zackly. What can Silas say to this?
Published: October 12, 2007 2:40 PM
Robert M.
Kevin B:
Or better yet, I find the code to your garage door opener and use it to open and close your garage all day while you're at work until your garage door opener wears out.
Last time I checked you can't wear out a computer by spamming it.
Stephan Kinsella:
Or I could close your garage door while you try to open it.
Maybe Silas can't say anything to that, but I can. Spam does not prevent anyone from using their computer, that would be preventing me from using my garage door.
Yall sure are good at making up ridiculous analogies. Keep them coming, I'll keep on shooting them down.
Published: October 12, 2007 3:37 PM
Kevin B
Robert M: "Spam does not prevent anyone from using their computer, that would be preventing me from using my garage door."
Really? Spam consumes physical property that does not belong to the sender.
Spam consumes bandwidth, memory, and/or disk space. Do you deny this?
I am not saying anything other than that, at minimum, sending spam is trespass against those with the right to set the terms of use prohibiting spam. Spam consumes scarce physical property. The end.
Published: October 12, 2007 4:17 PM
Kevin B
Robert M: "Spam does not prevent anyone from using their computer, that would be preventing me from using my garage door."
Really? Spam consumes physical property that does not belong to the sender.
Spam consumes bandwidth, RAM, and/or disk space. Do you deny this?
Published: October 12, 2007 4:19 PM
Kevin B
double post. sorry. glitch. :/
Published: October 12, 2007 4:21 PM
James
When you open up an email account and you put it on the internet you are inviting people to email you.
How can you know the spam is actually spam before it is sent?
People spam because it works and some of the people who receive the mail do indeed buy what is being advertised.
So how can it be a trespass for one person, but an appreciated solicitation for another? How would you know before you sent the email?
Published: October 12, 2007 4:34 PM
Kevin B
James,
The act of opening an email account is not an invitation to be emailed by EVERYONE. I have a business email account that was opened explicitly for communication with business partners.
If you consume another's property before they give you permission, then you risk trespass. Go around painting people's houses before asking permission and see what kind of response you get. Sure, some of them may appreciate it. As for those who do not appreciate it, well, you are going to hell as far as they are concerned. ;)
Published: October 12, 2007 4:43 PM
Kevin B
I suppose it would be more accurate to say that consuming another's property without permission is trespass, even though the trespass may be forgiven afterward.
Published: October 12, 2007 4:47 PM
James
To compare painting peoples houses without permission to getting an email is absurd.
I said if you open an email account and put it on the internet you are inviting people to email you.
If you have a business account and only give it to trusted people who will not share it or spam you then you will never receive spam.
But, if you put your email on the internet then you will get email that you may or may not want just as if you advertise your physical place of business you will get physical mail you may or may not want. That cannot be considered trespass.
Published: October 12, 2007 5:03 PM
Kevin B
James: "If you have a business account and only give it to trusted people who will not share it or spam you then you will never receive spam."
ROFLMAO. I have opened up email accounts and received spam within 24 hours without sending a single email or otherwise telling a soul.
Unsolicited email is similar to unsolicited house painting, unsolicited housecalls, unsolicited shoe shines, unsolicited graffiti "artwork", unsolicited phonecalls, etc.
All these acts use scarce physical property without prior permission of the owner.
Published: October 12, 2007 5:36 PM
James
Is your number listed in the phone book or have you ever given it out? If so, no call is unsolicited.
Or in your view every call is trespass, but then forgiven when it is your wife, relative etc.
As for spam within hours, your spam filter sucks. Try Gmail or Yahoo, I get about 1 or 2 a week and my address is easily found on the internet.
Utilizing email and having the address on the internet one accepts that people will email you without your permission. How is someone going to get your permission without contacting you in the first place?
Having shoes to shine or a wall to paint does not give anyone permission to do those things unsolicited. Having a communication device advertised in a phone book or on a website does provide the assumption that people will indeed attempt to communicate with you.
Published: October 12, 2007 5:55 PM
Kevin B
James: "Having shoes to shine or a wall to paint does not give anyone permission to do those things unsolicited. Having a communication device advertised in a phone book or on a website does provide the assumption that people will indeed attempt to communicate with you."
Ah, so you're saying that if I reveal my number or address to others and include that they may call me only under certain conditions, then those conditions do not apply. That is the point we disagree on.
I won't nitpick your comment, but you asked an interesting question: "How is someone going to get your permission without contacting you in the first place?"
Advertising doesn't have to consume others' property without their permission. For instance, cable television comes with commercials. You may not prefer commercials, but you must take them along with the other viewing content that you purchased.
When it comes to TV, you've chosen ahead of time to accept the commercials. Now, if someone had somehow "snuck" a commercial into ABC-Family programming, then whose property did they trespass against? I say the network's AND everyone attached to the network whose TV was used to display the commercial, because they did NOT have permission to use the network's resources nor your TV.
Another great way to advertise without first using another's property without permission is..bum ba ba baaa!..The World Wide Web. There is just no excuse for spam.
Back to the telephone, only calls without permission are trespass. Your wife has (or perhaps not) your permission to call you, as probably do your friends. I doubt telemarketers have your permission (/preference), and finally I would bet that you forgive wrong numbers on most days.
If your phone contract states that you agree to accept all calls abiding by the terms of use of AT&T (or whatever) and a telemarketer abides by such terms, then there is no trespass. Simple.
Published: October 12, 2007 7:17 PM
James
There is no trespass because you make your number available and choose to pick up the phone.
There is no trespass because you voluntarily give out your email address and choose to open the email.
Published: October 12, 2007 7:31 PM
Kevin B
James,
Who cares if my number is listed? That in itself DOESN'T give anyone permission to use my phone, just as listing my address doesn't give anyone permission to use my house. LOL!
Published: October 12, 2007 7:42 PM
James
There is a huge difference between calling your publicly available phone number and thinking that listing your address gives someone permission to use your home.
Seriously? That is your argument?
But, I have a simple solution, never pick up your phone.
Published: October 12, 2007 7:59 PM
James
The saddest part is the consequences of limiting the free flow of information for some supposed trespass that is at best a small nuisance that lasts 1 second to hang up or delete.
Do you really want to pay every time you send an email? Do you really want courts involved to decide if you received an unsolicited email or it was a welcomed one?
Published: October 12, 2007 8:03 PM
George Gaskell
One e-mail is de minimus. One thousand (or one million) is not. The legal and moral status of one e-mail is the same as the one million e-mails, even if the practical means by which we deal with them are not.
Merely having an e-mail address is not an invitation to be contacted. That is the same kind of (indefensible) thinking that leads people to believe that owning property inside some arbitrary territory is equivalent to consent to taxes imposed by the government of that territory.
Published: October 12, 2007 9:27 PM
Jean Paul
James, the free flow of information should not be stopped for those who wish it to flow freely. I don't think anyone here is suggesting that.
Of course the state botches the fix by resorting to its handy guns (to a hammer, everything is a nail) to implement do not call lists and other stupidity.
Nobody wants to have to pay every time they send an email - and nobody would have to pay EVERY time. They would only pay if they were a non-authenticated sender, or contacting a mailbox for which they were not on the whitelist (the do-not-pay list).
Anyway, uninvited impact upon your property by someone with no explicit right to do so is trespass. Telemarketing calls qualify. Spam qualifies.
Published: October 12, 2007 9:31 PM
James
If you give out your email or phone number you have consented to being mailed or phoned.
Whether you pick up the phone or open the email is your voluntary choice. It is a means of communication that you provide for the explicit reason for people to contact you.
How many calls or emails defines spam or telemarketing and how do you define trespass and what do you want the state or a private security firm to do about a small nuisance? Do you really want a court to decide if you consented to an email or phone call?
Kevin B. states that all communication is trespass, but is forgiven afterward or not.
That is a ridiculous position to hold and unenforceable.
George, having an email address AND posting it on the internet does indeed give everyone access. You have to accept that in this age of the free flow of information.
This whole discussion is irrelevant though given the state of spam filters. I get very little spam and it has no impact on my productivity and yet I encourage anyone to email me with any proposition or information as I have willingly put my email on the internet and expect people to use it.
Published: October 12, 2007 10:04 PM
George Gaskell
If you give out your email or phone number you have consented to being mailed or phoned. Whether you pick up the phone or open the email is your voluntary choice. It is a means of communication that you provide for the explicit reason for people to contact you.
No, consent to being contacted is consent to being contacted. Your idea of implied consent is a forced, and false, metaphor for actual consent.
How many calls or emails defines spam or telemarketing
One.
how do you define trespass
Infringement of another person's property, such as interference with another person's lawful possession of his property.
what do you want the state or a private security firm to do about a small nuisance?
The choice of remedy is not germane to the question of whether there has been a trespass. The remedy may be minimal when the trespass is minimal, but the question of whether there has been a trespass still needs to be answered.
George, having an email address AND posting it on the internet does indeed give everyone access.
Access is not consent. I could leave my door unlocked or open or missing altogether, and yet a person who walks into my house without permission is still a trespasser.
You have to accept that in this age of the free flow of information.
I don't have to accept anything. Regardless of what "age" you seem to think we are living in, the principles of property and liberty do not change merely because you would like information flow to be "free."
Published: October 13, 2007 8:54 AM
Tatiana Covington
Ignore spam, or use filters. Rely on yourself.
Published: November 25, 2007 8:42 PM