[80572] in Cypherpunks
Re: Spam laws threaten remailers?
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Ross Wright)
Thu May 22 23:28:48 1997
From: "Ross Wright" <rwright@adnetsol.com>
To: cypherpunks@cyberpass.net, Greg Broiles <gbroiles@netbox.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 1997 19:38:51 -0700
Reply-To: "Ross Wright" <rwright@adnetsol.com>
On or About 22 May 97 at 15:25, Greg Broiles wrote:
> Both of the anti-spam bills that I've seen (CAUCE and Murkowski's)
> are poorly drafted - they're both overbroad and underinclusive. I
> don't think they're necessarily constitutionally "overbroad", but
> they haven't been written by people with a good understanding of the
> technical issues.
>
> As I read both bills, they'll prohibit behavior pretty universally
> considered legitimate - e.g., including a link to a web site in your
> .signature which happens to sell a product or service, for example.
This is really going too far!!! I was told, when I first got
on-line, that this was a "polite" way to get your product or service
out there, without spamming. By posting on-topic replies to usenet
and high traffic mailing lists, like this one... Shit, I hate this
"one bad kid gets the rest of the class in trouble" mentality. I am
really pissed at this whole issue and the goverment trying to get
it's grubby paws on the net any way they can!
I am also irked at the public's desire for this government
intervention.
> I think it'd make more sense to solve this problem technically,
> and/or carefully think about the legal framework appropriate for
> governing the flow of data between computers. (There are also sticky
> First Amendment issues here.)
You got that right.
> Ugh.
>
Arrrrgh.
Ross
=-=-=-=-=-=-
Ross Wright
King Media: Bulk Sales of Software Media and Duplication Services
http://www.slip.net/~cdr/kingmedia
Voice: (408) 259-2795
