Re: In re: Spam and Gate Crashing

Greg Cirillo wrote:
>
> Unfortunately, there is no clear way to attack this problem.

Of course there is, it has been used for a long time and quite effectively too. You just contact the people the spammer gets his service and have them warn him or boot him. There's no need to bring the full force of the legal and police systems to bear on such people. This approach works fine, costs next to nothing, and allows for differences in experience of users and so on in a way that a gigantic scheme of legal definitions courts, and legislation never could. Why do you just assume that the only way to deal with spamming is to make it illegal?

> However,
> if the post is clearly without substantive merit, and just intended to
> "gum up" the list, you could argue some sort of tort such as interference
> with business relations, nuisance or something along those lines. This
> would be very fact-intensive and cutting-edge. As you well know, the
> ability to frame a case and file an intelligent brief may be sufficient
> leverage to stop the Spamming.

It would also take a lot of time, money, lawyers, and hassle. Sending some E-mail to his postmaster and a quick phone call from the postmaster to the spammer will do just as well.

> Copyright seems inapplicable (even if the message violates Copyright Law,
> the list is probably not the "violatee"). It's not "trespass" because
> (a) there's no property involved, and

Isn't there? What about the use of he computers and such in ways to which the owners do not consent? By analogy, if I grant an easement on some land I own for some purpose (like walking to a parking lot) and the walkers start holding political rallies there, I can claim they are tresspassing can't I? Isn't this the same kind of limited permission to use my computer I am granting when I set up a mail box on it? Heck, what about physical mail slots (not US Postal Service mailboxes which fall under all kinds of other restrictions)? If I set up a slot to allow people to deposit "Suggestions" for how I can improve my business and someone keeps dumping vast quantities of useless mail in there, is he not guilty of tresspassing or something like that?

> (b) the list is open to the public.
> (The "Spammer" did not have to sneak onto the list, s/he could have just
> subscribed like you or me and Spammed away.) The "rules" of the list
> probably do not form a contract among list users, so breach of contract
> is not very likely.

Well, there can be either an implicit or explicit contract assumed when someone subscribes to any mailing list, and the most basic one that ANY list would want to enforce is one against spamming. If I voluntarily allow you to make some use of my computer, you have to do it on terms I am willing to accept. Right?

> There may be some criminal nuisance claim, but how
> would you go about enforcing it? What police force/prosecutor is likely
> to pursue this sort of case?

Because such cases are typically rather petty, this is a case of swatting a fly with a sledge hammer. As I said, just send some mail to his postmaster and the spamming will stop. Problem solved.

> A practical solution (maybe) is to filter and delete Spams. The Spammer
> has no right to get his/her stuff posted, so it can be deleted.
> Unfortunately, the technology may not be up to the task.

That's an absurd way of handling the situation (though in a pinch it might help a little). The net is a collection of cooperating people and machines. If someone isn't willing to cooperate there is fundamentally no way to live with him in that environment. He will either have to shape up or get out.  

--Brian

Brian K. Yoder
<byoder[_at_]netcom.com> Received on Fri Oct 20 1995 - 02:37:27 GMT