--- "Coles, Patrice M." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Again, finger-pointing clearly has not solved the problem thus > far, > > so maybe working *together* to make the whole system more > reliable > > would be a better approach. > > >Blocking spam-friendly sites helps a lot. What sort of "working > >together" do you suggest be done? > > Below is something I read about how computer hacking will be > treated by the law in the U.K. Maybe we need to look at something > along these lines in regard to spam. This would allow prosecution > of spammers as well as any ISPs who knew about it and elected not > to take appropriate action. >
I see several problems here. 1) "prosecution of spammers" - some laws already permit that. The SEC and FTC implement enforcement actions. However, this requires the government to actually do something. When Newskies.net attacked my server in late August in furtherance of their 419 scam, I filed a complaint about their DOS attack with the FBI. I'm still waiting for a response two months later. No one at Newskies is in jail. The attacks continued as late as Oct 14. 2) Even if you used "prosecution" loosely, and include civil action by the government, you have three of 50+ state AG's taking action in a small number of spam cases (Wash, Calif, NY). With the exception of Washington, the AG in question is focused solely on spammer scum within their own state. If the Calif AG doesnt want to go after someone in Reno, how is he going to go after someone in Shanghai? 3) Private action, as has been documented in the state of Washington, does not pay. 4) Holding the ISP legally responsible for the actions of his customers when he fails to enforce his AUP has its attractions. If a statute is written which does that and it survives legal challenges, the feds can certainly raid uu.net. I'll even hold their coats while they seize the servers and run the sticky tape all over the premises. Make sure you understand though - if you dont like SPEWS preventing uu.net's non spamming customers from communicating because the IPA's of their servers are blocked as part of a larger listing of uu.net space, how are you going to react when they can't communicate because their servers are sitting in the evidence room at the Falls Church FBI HQ? Sorry, I remain unimpressed with the theory that government action is superior to industry self regulation. The beta test of your theory is simply not proving it to be a practical solution. __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? HotJobs - Search new jobs daily now http://hotjobs.yahoo.com/ _______________________________________________ spamcon-general mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://mail.spamcon.org/mailman/listinfo/spamcon-general#subscribers Subscribe, unsubscribe, etc: Use the URL above or send "help" in body of message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Contact administrator: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
