On Tue, 14 Feb 1995 12:34:24 EST, Geert K. Marien wrote:
>   Second, spamming is a process that is unique to computers.
 
Not entirely--something very much like it has been done with FAX machines
(now an actionable offense in most states), and automated telemarketing
(now an actionable offense at the Federal level).
 
>The spammers are the ones that we should go after
 
Agreed
 
>   a)  You would be VERY hard pressed to prove actual damages;
 
Au contraire.  I personally use an account paid for by my employer, but my
employer pays real money for the Internet link and would have little
difficulty producing a per byte cost allocation.  NUMEROUS users of NETNEWS
and other services pay their providers individually, by the byte.  They'd
have little trouble demonstating actual damages.
 
>   b)  You would have to make a strong case to say why spamming is or
>       should be illegal.  Just to say that you don't like it or that
>       it is off-topic on a list IS NOT enough!
 
Theft of service already is a reasonable case.  The analysis of the costs
of spamming (that I forwarded to my Congressman) posted a few days ago
makes a strong case.
 
>   c)  You would have to show malicious intent AND/OR that the person
>       KNEW BEFOREHAND that this would evoke a negative reaction.
 
Deliberate forgery approval headers for moderated groups looks like pretty
good evidence to me.
 
>It is  their agreement that would  be legally binding first.
 
Which is why every spammer so far has had their access canceled--spamming
violates terms of service agreements.
 
>   Lastly, as  I see  it, all  our sites agree  to exchange  mail.  This
>means, in effect,  that we will accept anything from  anyone in exchange
>for the right to send out the same.
 
Pretty much like a fax machine connected to a telephone, but junk fax
already is illegal.
 
>   If we start to get into what is  banned or not, we run the same risks
>that we are now facing in the country: banning and censoring at will and
>losing the freedom we cherish.
 
No one proposes to censor content.  Spamming is a process of sending
identical messages to thousands of newgroups.  The proposal is to impose
penalties for that process for ANY message (not just advertising).
 
De facto, what's happening is that code already is in place on the backbone
that is becoming increasingly effective at detecting and cancelling
identical messages posted to large numbers of newgroups and lists.  Hence,
the legislative issue may be moot.
 
/s Murphy A. Sewall <[log in to unmask]> (203) 486-2489 voice
   Professor of Marketing                          (203) 486-5246 fax