At 13:09 18-12-02 -0500, you wrote: >On Wed, 18 Dec 2002 14:54:59 +0100, Bart Buitinga wrote: > >>> BTW, US citizens are requested by the government to forward all such >>> spams, to include complete headers, to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]". The >>> number 419 is the number of the section in the US legal code that covers >>> these types of scams. > >>> Sam Heywood > >> Is that another part of the same code stating that "opt-out" options are >> obliged in unsollicited commercial mass mailing, but not demanding their >> functionality? > >There is no law stating that opt-options are required. Spammers >frequently advise their readers that the messages are not spams because >they are being sent in compliance with some US law. Then they go on to >cite a non-existent federal statute. The spammers want to trick you >into using the purported "opt-out" option so that they can verify that >you are reading their spams and also to confirm that your email address >is valid. Once they have confirmed the validity of your email address >they will sell your email address to fellow spammers and you will get >more spams. > >> Not being a US citizen I can assure you that that part is a laugh. > >That part isn't a laugh. It is just a dirty trick that one may resort >to in order to get his way with someone by citing a law which doesn't >exist. If you were a fellow US citizen living in this country and you >were having fun doing some things that I don't approve of, I might be >able to trick you into desisting from doing those things simply by >advising you that what you are doing is against the law. You might >stop doing them until after you consult with a lawyer and pay your >money just to find out that the law I cited doesn't even exist. >Another thing that could happen is that you might believe that I am >telling you the truth. As a result you would stop doing the things >which I complained to you about. You might stop it without even going >to a lawyer first and paying your money to find out if I were advising >you correctly. Spammers don't want to be reported and complained about. >They like to trick the recipients of their messages into believing >that their unsolicited commercial email messages are legal by citing >non-existent laws protecting spammers. The average spam victim will >simply believe the lies and he won't go to the trouble of investigating >whether the sending of such messages is legal. This kind of dirty >trick is played in every country in an attempt for some people to get >their way with others. Oftentimes the trick works. Sometimes the only >smart way people can avoid being tricked in this manner is by seeking >legal advice, but that will cost them a lot of money.
Funny; not only spammers mention "legal" limits of their activities, but rightwingers in American newsgroups usually do too, suggesting that spamming is in fact illegal in the US, forcing spammers to disguise themselves as mailinglists (thus having this opt-out possibility, which may of course always coincidentally be broken). The main problem is of course, that there are no customs at internet boundaries, causing both the US' vulnerabiliy for spam from the rest of the world, and vice versa (maybe in terms of quantity the rest of the world is slowly gaining in on the US) Few countries other than the USA, EU and some conservative theocracies have any specific legislation regarding the internet at all, btw. Considering Nigeria however (and supposed you're aware of the complete legal segregation of this countries northern part, as has been clearly demonstrated in the bloody rioting about last months miss world festival, and the Sharia practise of stoning women, not to mention the accusations of heavy terrorist activity) it seems unlikely that the US would even bother to sort out minor trouble like spam in these parts. > >> Maybe be >> US is just that much more repressive when it comes to _foreign_ spam (or >> just looking for other excuses to drop bombs every here and there)? > >No, this is not the case. 419 is the number of a section in the US legal >code that addresses this kind of fraud. The same kind of fraud is played >by US citizens seeking to scam fellow citizens. Whether the con-artist >is a foreigner or a citizen doesn't matter. The same penalties apply. >In the case of a con-artist living in some other country and trying to >scam US citizens, the US will tell the other country about him and >request that the other country prosecute him under similar laws in the >other country. Sometimes the US might try to make such prosecutions >happen by applying diplomatic leverage and sanctions and import >restrictions on that country's goods, etc. Most countries try to get >along with each other by cooperating toward the fulfillment of mutual >interests. Sometimes countries have problems in cooperating with each >other. Every now and then they try to resolve such problems by war. > >Sam Heywood >-- >This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser: >http://browser.arachne.cz/ > > >
