I'd say the fact that you can't bounce back to a sender, that spam harrassers tends to misrepresent their identities in their alleged email addresses, is definitely illegal, considering that they are trying to sell something to you.
I'm sure there's something about that in commercial law - I suppose I should make use of the fact I'm now at Uni and pester the Law professors until they dig the relevant provisions out. I'm sure that would also allow some suitably enraged user/s to make the Police force one Mr Atkinson to divulge the identies of his email harrassement team. Wesley Parish On Sun, 17 Aug 2003 11:11, you wrote: > > Making it illegal would not affect his efforts, which all emanate from > > overseas. > > I'm not going to argue legalities with you, not being a legal type, but > surely the same sort of restrictions that apply to child porn adn offensive > material being sent from over seas would still make it possible to > prosecute some one if they were originating stuff from NZ. > > What I mean is this, if I were to send child porn from Pakistan to here I > would still get arrested surely. Why wouldn't a law change make spamming > just as liable to prosecution. > > > other jurisdictions make it illegal, without a jot of difference to the > > spam load. > > Can you expand on that comment? What other jurisdictions? Am interested to > know. > > I personally would love to see the law changed to include an opt in, opt > out option. On my letter box I can place notices regarding who can drop > what in it ( said notices unfortunatley don't apply to the IRD, bills and > Property sales people ) and they are reasonably enforcable if I want to go > about enforcing it. Electronic mail should be the same, even if it is less > tangbly physical. > > Cheers, > > Shane -- Mau e ki, "He aha te mea nui?" You ask, "What is the most important thing?" Maku e ki, "He tangata, he tangata, he tangata." I reply, "It is people, it is people, it is people."
