spam control again

[josephc at etards.net (josephc at etards.net)]

On Mon, 14 Jul 2003, Jerry Feldman wrote:

> On Mon, 14 Jul 2003 16:03:47 -0400 (EDT)
> josephc at etards.net wrote:
> 
> > We can throw out your reply right there. The US constitution should
> > have NO BEARING on the Internet. The Internet is more than the US, and
> > if we're going to start applying a country's laws to it, I think we
> > would be better served looking beyond our borders.
> This is very problematical. Yes, the Internet is global. But, there
> should be a set of rules that govern the Internet analogous to the
> international rules that govern the oceans. 
> But, if the laws of the US (or the individual states) do not apply,
> period, then there can be no criminal acts on the Internet, but there
> also cannot be commerce. 
> 
> I think we need some form of reasonable international laws that deal
> with the Internet that law enforcement agencies can use to deal with
> things like credit card fraud, identity theft, and other "criminal"
> acts. The problem is in difining a "criminal" act. In some countries,
> just speaking one's mind is a criminal act. Or even the practicing of a
> religion other than the state religion is a criminal act. Or, in the US,
> just having some pictures of naked adult women that would be legal in
> most magazines could be made illegal. 
> 
Disseminating child pornography, bribary, slander, and extortion are all 
illegal acts regardless of whether they are done over the Internet or in 
the "real world". Anti-spam laws would be laws specifically applied to the 
Internet and are in a different class.

I was a little too wordy in my last emails so I think I need to hone down 
my point a little better. My contention is the anti-spam laws are not 
required to help fight spam and we should put our efforts into furthering 
knowledge of existing, effective solutions.

-joe