Bush Tries to Control SPAM

[Veraca]

No joke. Bush is trying to control SPAM on the internet. Ha-ha. This is a dumb law is what I personally think.

Anyway I wasn't sure if this went here or somewhere else.. But read the article here: http://news.com.com/Create+an+e-annoyance%2C+go+to+jail/2010-1028_3-6022491.html?tag=nefd.pulse

And the law states:
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you must disclose your identity. Here's the relevant language.

"Whoever...utilizes any device or software that can be used to originate telecommunications or other types of communications that are transmitted, in whole or in part, by the Internet... without disclosing his identity and with intent to annoy, abuse, threaten, or harass any person...who receives the communications...shall be fined under title 18 or imprisoned not more than two years, or both."

I was just curious about everyone's opinion on the US's presidents opinion?

[isolatedotaku]

If it works, I am all for it, and will right it down as the ONE THING Bush did right.

If it doesn't work, then I probably won't care. You can only be let down so far.

[LadySage]

As far as Bush is concerned, the internet is SERIOUS BUSINESS.

[Veraca]

Well first off, this law only applies to US residents since he doesn't RULE the internet.

Second off, there's no way you can stop SPAM completely.

And I agree with the article that the law stating the word "annoy" is too general.

[Sorrow-kun]

As far as Bush is concerned, the internets is SERIOUS BUSINESS.Fixed.

[Ninja Realist]

No seriously, when I saw this...I couldn't stop laughing. This is so ridiculously ironic. For years people have been always telling people not to spam and be respectful, while others have been telling people not to take the internet too seriously.

Well now, as LS so beautifully said, the internet really is serious business. Anyone who flames me can expect a request for their social security number, credit card info, and bank info among other things. Just so I can know the identity of the person flaming me of course.

[Veraca]

Yeah I laughed at it really hard too, Ninja. Although, I believe, that if the person flamming you is in the UK or any other country not in the US then they don't have to give their identity.

[Ritalin]

It's not intended for trolls or flamers on forums, it's for email scams and usenet (usenet is, and always will be, overflown with trollling, spam, and flaming). I read about this on digg awhile ago, and there is no way for this to be enforced outside of emails and usenet, which there will be very difficult anyway.

You can ask for a name, but there is no way to prevent someone from giving you wrong information, in fact it is a lot more likely this will happen online than it does offline. What is the attacked person going to do? Find the trolls IP and contact their ISP and ask for information? That can't be done, because most respectable ISP's have privacy protection for it's customers.

The internet is an information and communication tool. It IS different than a telemarketer ringing you up constantly. Almost all email spams/scams/annoyances you get are caused by worms, something non-human. And if you reply to it asking for personal info, not only will that bring in more spam (because the worm marks your email as active), you will never get a reply. Do you ask for personal information from someone talking to you on the bus when they say something that annoys you? That's essentially the same thing as the internet, and no, you don't ask for info. You move along.

... It's a lot easier to ignore annoying people on the internet than offline anyway. Real life doesn't have ignore or block buttons.

[Veraca]

Ah. From what I understood is that it applied to everything on the internet, and thought that he was even trying to track cellphone spam because they can connect to the internet now too.

[ShinoMatrix]

I'm still laughing...

I don't know why, but it just sounds to me like a bunch of people writing something on paper they know can't be done (effectively enough) just so they have something to show Mr Big Man to make him look like he might know something technical beyond the keyboard outside on his secretary's desk... Sure people want this to happen, but you might as well try and ask those people in Hong Kong making bootlegs to please stop making such things... hell, at least there's actually a face to arrest with bootlegs... you gonna arrest a piece of code now that generates these spam? Heck, I'd be interested to find out if a virus did respond back with their address and name :D

[Pedro The Hutt]

Well, from how I read the law no, if you do insert your "actual" name and your annoyance suddenly is perfectly legal(just name yourself John Smith then, should keep the Feds busy). If you however use a nickname or no name at all, you're performing an illegal act and can get prosecuted for that... how that works is beyond me too.
I can already imagine it...
"Pedro The Hutt, please state your true idendity so you can be properly prosecuted, signed: The FBI
PS. If you are not a US citizen please disregard this message" .....riiiight.

But like it's been said, they could be a bit more specific on the annoy thing, what annoys me could not even slightly bother someone else and vice versa. Like this the law could easily be abused, you just need to pipe up that an e-mail annoyed you and voilà, you've got grounds for a legal charge.

[Veraca]

Yeah I got to thinking today "How can they arrest codes that create the spam? They try and trace it back to the original person who made it- who's probably dead by now or so high up on drugs he should be dead? And that's even rare after going through about 20 hundred and more computers and emails just to find it."

I mean we all get those long forward messages. I know I do. I got one two years ago and just last month I got it back-- I even found my email in the forward message thingy. So if they have to arrest the person who annoys- wouldn't that also mean that they have to arrest every person on those lists to sends one and question each person who recieves it if they were annoyed?

Sounds insane to me.

[Raiden]

Since when was being 'annoying' illegal? Its seems more of a press stunt than an actual legal thing, policing it would be a nightmare. It seems G.W wants to look like he's doing something about internet fraud and has come up with an easy solution. Another solution is to have 2 email accounts, one for important stuff (i.e. Friends) and the other to used whenever you need to use an email adress for a web site. But if they can catch the people that make the worms then i'll be impressed.

[Dark Lord]

There's no way that law would work because...

THE REIGN OF SPAM CANNOT BE STOPPED!!!

It makes a nice breakfast meal too...

EDIT:

Oh yes... I would just like to add that this is a part of George Bush's plan for World Domination... First the internet, next the WORLD!!!

[Roark]

I'm in support of this bill. Maybe we can finally ban Soup from IRC.