Re: Virus Infection Holds Computer Files Hostage
Oh my, I see I've been "promoted" to a "bright young reader", by the esteemed moderator. I'm not exactly young, but he gets credit for getting things 50% right.
I will point out, yet again, that that remark was in regards to a proposal for a law that banned quote malicious activity unquote on the Internet. The point being was that that term is too broad and too vague to be _legally_ _enforceable_. To get a law that would pass judicial review, one would have to specify the _particular_kinds_ of acts that are to be proscribed.
Note: *all* computer viruses, 'zombie' infectors, etc. most 'spyware', and virtually all the 'browser hijacker' type stuff are *ALREADY*ILLEGAL* in the United States, under 18 USC 1030. Available on-line at: http:/
A "new law" won't do diddly-squat about the problem without active enforcement.
And, if you _have_ active enforcement, you _don't_need_ any new laws.
Recommended reading: The FTC's "Report to Congress" on the practicality (or lack thereof) of a national "Do Not E-mail" registry, similar to the Do Not Call registry. Available on-line at:
While I disagree with a number of their conclusions regarding the viability of a Do Not Email registry -- there _are_ ways to do it that address the drawbacks they identify -- the really _interesting_ meat in the report has to do with the difficulty of prosecution of violators of existing law. See "C. Obstacles to Enforcement" starting on Page 23 of the report.
In 2003, Earthlink got over 45 million pieces of spam to the 'honeypot' addresses they run. They were able to link about 5% of those messages to an identifiable source. Barely 1/3 of the identifications were good enough that they could send a cease-and-desist warning letter.
That is what *over* _twelve_thousand_ man-hours of effort 'bought'. Call it half-a-million dollars worth of effort.
Another ISP reports over ONE THOUSAND man-hours expended in _preparing_ a lawsuit against *one* spammer.
Government prosecutions from the States of WA, and VA show similarly high costs:
"A prosecutor in Washington State spent four months and sent out 14 pre-suit civil investigative demands (CIDs) just to identify the spammer in one lawsuit. Likewise, in another case, it took the Virginia Attorney General, over the course of four months, multiple subpoenas to domain registrars, credit card companies, and Internet providers, and the execution of a search warrant, before having enough information to file a case against a spammer."
What they do on _their_ own private property *IS* their prerogative.
Their 'right' to do so does not extend to coming onto _my_ private property to do it.
Show the 'bright young reader' that people are demanding that restrictions be put on _their_own_ activities -- as distinct from demands that limits be imposed on the actions of 'other people' -- and he will willingly change that to 'practically anyone'.
The situation is exactly like that with various kinds of 'morals' laws -- try to find _anyone_ who supports an anti-prostitution statute on the basis that "it will discourage _me_ from hiring prostitutes".
In many areas of the country, "pan-handling", and/or other forms of "spare change?" solicitation, on the streets is disallowed by law. Should equivalent pleas be allowed on the Internet, or not?
read more and respond »Posted 5 years ago by Robert Bonomi in General Telecommunications Forum
