Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Text Message Spammer Wants FCC To Declare Spam Filters Illegal

Soulskill posted about a year and a half ago | from the hello-sir-madam dept.

Communications 338

TCPALaw writes "ccAdvertising, a company purported to have 'a long, long, long history of pumping spam out of every telecommunications orifice, and even boasting of voter suppression' has asked the FCC to declare spam filters illegal. Citing Free Speech rights, the company claims wireless carriers should be prohibited from employing spam filters that might block ccAdvertising's political spam. Without stating it explicitly, the filing implies that network neutrality must apply to spam, so the FCC must therefore prohibit spam filters (unless political spam is whitelisted). In an earlier filing, the company suggests it is proper that recipients 'bear some cost' of unsolicited political speech sent to their cell phones. The public can file comments with the FCC on ccAdvertising's filing online."

cancel ×

338 comments

First spam! (5, Funny)

cpotoso (606303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258645)

First spam!

Re:First spam! (5, Insightful)

dintech (998802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258719)

"You have the right to free speech and I have the right not to listen."

Re:First spam! (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258769)

... and I have the right not to listen.

AFAIK the US Law does not state any such thing. That therefore must mean you do not have any such right, and are obliged to listen to whatever anyone has to say. /sarcasm

Re:First spam! (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259099)

er the right to free speech is the right to not have your speech curtailed by the government.

Seeing as it doesn't involve the drafting of legislation that curtails freedom of speech, If companies or users want to filter your shit they can damn well do so as they please.

Re:First spam! (1)

datapharmer (1099455) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259451)

A right to quiet enjoyment is written into laws in many places within the U.S., so yes, you do have that right.

Re:First spam! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259211)

"You have the right to free speech and I have the right not to listen."

Exercising my right to ignore the fuck out of you doesn't fix the problem with eventual increases on taxes and surcharges in my cellular bill to pay for this kind of bullshit.

And if you think you're not paying for that now or in the future, wake the fuck up.

I'm ok with this, just... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258941)

...make spam illegal.

Problem solved.

That's fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258669)

That's fine, provided that it becomes easier to sue those mass-producing spam, along with extraditing them to the US, for harassment.

Re:That's fine (4, Funny)

Noryungi (70322) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258849)

ccAdvertising is an American company, you [insert favourite insult here].

Re:That's fine (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258903)

American?

Re:That's fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259171)

ccAdvertising is an American company [...]

While that is true, such legislation would impact all of those sending spam, not just ccAdvertising. Further, last I checked, there are plenty of people outside of the US spamming individuals inside the US, which would necessitate some sort of legal recourse.

This right here? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258673)

A justification for murder if I've ever seen one.

Car Analogy (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258675)

That'd be like... Fuck you, spammer.

Re:Car Analogy (1)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258835)

Like watching the Quartlow brothers add 10W30 when you said 30HD. You point it out, and they say "Is equeevalent.'

--

I spam you. You spam me. We're a dysfunctional family.

Re:Car Analogy (5, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258853)

Like watching the Quartlow brothers add 10W30 when you said 30HD. You point it out, and they say "Is equeevalent.'

--

I spam you. You spam me. We're a dysfunctional family.

More like your car comes back from a service with adverts all over it. You complain and they say "don't try to infringe my freedom of speech". Then you notice that the cost of the adverts has been added to your service bill. They say "it is proper that recipients 'bear some cost' of unsolicited adverts".

Re:Car Analogy (5, Interesting)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259127)

More like your car comes back from a service with adverts all over it. You complain and they say "don't try to infringe my freedom of speech". Then you notice that the cost of the adverts has been added to your service bill. They say "it is proper that recipients 'bear some cost' of unsolicited adverts".

Attempts to remove the adverts cause the car to be disfigured and some even cause holes in the body. The warranty is voided and your insurance goes up as a commercial vehicle. The neighbors sue to have the junk removed, and the wife leaves for a used car salesman with ED pills.

Re:Car Analogy (1)

228e2 (934443) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259183)

Nailed it.

Re:Car Analogy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258945)

Well it is! (once the engine is warmed up... just ignore the cold start part)....

What's next? (4, Insightful)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258677)

Telemarketers who wants to make it illegal to not answer the phone? This is getting ridiculous.

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258715)

No, the telemarketers want to make it illegal for you'd to hang up.

Re:What's next? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258955)

No, they want to make it illegal for the phone company to block the call from ever going through.

Do you really want your phone company deciding who can and cannot call you?

Re:What's next? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259131)

No, they want to make it illegal for the phone company to block the call from ever going through.

Do you really want your phone company deciding who can and cannot call you?

If my number is on the "Do Not Call" list and the company is a telemarketer/pollster/politician? Abso-fucking-lutely!

Re:What's next? (4, Insightful)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258731)

I guess this guy should be educated on what "free speech" is and what "net neutrality" means. In fact, because of the when-in-Rome thingy, I propose to communicate it comprehensibly, in terms those people understand, i.e., *everyone* should write them an e-mail on that matter.

I think they know, but ... (5, Insightful)

dbIII (701233) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258775)

I think they know, but pretend not to if that is to their advantage.

Re:What's next? (4, Insightful)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259173)

I thought the whole "free speech" things was that the government can't restrict speech whereas it has no bearing on private individuals or companies.

Re:What's next? (3, Informative)

Eggplant62 (120514) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259301)

Apparently the spammers missed "EmarkertersAmerica.org vs Spamhaus" in their research. I foresee nothing but fail related to this action.

Re:What's next? (2)

Houndofhell (1480889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259309)

Don't you mean *everyone* should write them 100 e-mails on the matter?

Re:What's next? (4, Funny)

geirlk (171706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258739)

Not very soon after, they'd start calling collect.

Re:What's next? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258763)

No, it's a telemarketers who wants to make it illegal for your phone company to reject his call for you.

As far as I know, no phone company drop telemarketers call, *you* have to either answer the phone, let it ring, terminate the call or filter it with an answering machine.

Note that this guy can rot in hell with his free speech AFAIC.

Re:What's next? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258811)

the phone company i use have a block calls from unlisted numbers service and most telemarketers use unlisted numbers

Re:What's next? (4, Insightful)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258803)

Surely the simplest solution is make spam filters optional but default them to Opt in.

Re:What's next? (2)

Edzilla2000 (1261030) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258979)

Surely the simplest solutions is for the FCC to drop the filing?

Re:What's next? (3, Funny)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258995)

No, the simplest solution is to shoot people like him.

How much would you like to bet that if he succeeds in manipulating the system he'll move all his bank accounts back onshore as a way of saying thanks to the system?

Re:What's next? (2)

Big Hairy Ian (1155547) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259381)

Ok right so now we have both Free Speech and The Right to Bear Arms in this thread! Awaits prohibition :)

Chutzpah (4, Insightful)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258681)

The world would be such a boring place without it.

Re:Chutzpah (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258779)

I think the proper Yiddish word that you are looking for is "Shyster."

Re:Chutzpah (2)

Sulphur (1548251) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258847)

I think the proper Yiddish word that you are looking for is "Shyster."

Dayenu.

Sounds reasonable (5, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258685)

This sounds reasonable to me - the telephone company has no business filtering phone calls, so it should not filter text messages either. Subscribers may choose to employ a spam-blocking service, which could be provided by other people than the phone company.

Re:Sounds reasonable (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258691)

Yes,

and together with this we should also change the following.
If you receive unsolicited and unwanted email, the sender is criminally liable for e.g. stalking. If a company is the sender, tha liabilty is transferred to the CEO, the entire board of directors and all shareholders.

Re:Sounds reasonable (4, Insightful)

TFAFalcon (1839122) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258707)

That's why the spammers will not be based in the US.

Re:Sounds reasonable (4, Informative)

geirlk (171706) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258745)

"Hello, I'm calling you collect, because my uncle, the Prince of Persia has all his cash tied up in banks overseas, and we need your help to liberate those $10.000.000.000..."

Re:Sounds reasonable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258977)

""Hello, I'm calling you collect, because my uncle, the Prince of Persia ..."

That doesn't get you through, nowadays you'll have to pretend you're the queen of England.

Re:Sounds reasonable (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258711)

So its also reasonable for your ISP to remove the mail-filter to filter out spam mails?

Should, as the article states, SPAM filters be made illegal?

I get about 1-10 mails per day into my inbox. Spamassasin et al block about 10-20k per month worth of spam. I'll gladly forward those to you, since you find it sounding reasonable (NOFI)?

This is just some troll abusing a loop-hole in the free-speech law. Technically, the spammer is completely right though. Morally, completely wrong. So should we remove all spam filters from e-mail, because spammers have the right of free speech? Or do we need to modify the free-speech law, saying that SPAM isn't free-speech? Who decides then, what SPAM is. I find everything says to be SPAM. It needs to be filtered now.

Re:Sounds reasonable (4, Insightful)

rioki (1328185) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258755)

Actually GP has a point. The service provider has no right to filter anything, as long as it was properly payed for. The receiving end has all the right to filter any way they like. If they don't like the word purple, let them filter all messages that contain the word purple.

Re:Sounds reasonable (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258799)

I don't agree with your statement but assuming that the courts hold it to be true then I, and hopefully everyone else, will pre-authorize the service provider to filter out the spam for me. Preferably service providers would include the authorization as part of their contract terms.

Re:Sounds reasonable (4, Insightful)

SeventhGear (2054850) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259011)

Why do I see this as a chance for the service provider to stick it to us again? "Oh you want 'SPAM' messages filtered out? Yeah, that will be an additional $9.99 per month." Then they will try to find a way to block 3rd party apps from blocking SPAM so you have to use their service or root/jailbreak your phone to avoid unsolicited messages.

Re:Sounds reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259253)

Stop giving them ideas.

Re:Sounds reasonable (4, Insightful)

T-Bone-T (1048702) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259349)

I have found that the more cynical you think about how a company will do something, especially companies like AT&T and Verizon, the more correct your predictions will be.

Re:Sounds reasonable (5, Insightful)

dywolf (2673597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259403)

the problem is it WASNT properly paid for. Messages I recieve I have to pay for. I didnt agree to recieve the spam, I didnt agree to spend my money on recieving it, therefore, screw the spammer. It's like sending ad spam to fax machines and costing companies money via fax paper.

Re:Sounds reasonable (3, Interesting)

mlk (18543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258821)

> So should we remove all spam filters from e-mail, because spammers have the right of free speech

I'm not sure that is quite what the troll is claiming, rather that ISPs should not filter the emails. You have the right not to listen (i.e. set up(1)) any spam filter you want. However the spammer has the free speech right to not be impeded in spamming the crap out of you(2) by the ISP as the ISP should not take any note of the content coming in, but just deliver it all equally.

It is an interesting argument.

1) I would take an "opt-in" to a ISP provided spam filter to be acceptable.
2) Only in a political way, but I'm not sure on that.

Re:Sounds reasonable (2)

mlk (18543) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258909)

Free speech right here is badly worded. The ISP, as a common carrier should not play with content unless asked to by the recipient.

Re:Sounds reasonable (1)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259227)

The free speech provisions of the US constitution are grounded in the First Amendment. The amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

So as I read it, the Free Speech provisions in the constitution do not apply unless the Service provider is a Government entity. Having said that, I am not a lawyer (US constitutional law or otherwise) and I dare say there is some asinine ruling somewhere on the books in the US that would give some veneer of legality to this.

Re:Sounds reasonable (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258743)

This sounds reasonable to me - the telephone company has no business filtering phone calls, so it should not filter text messages either.

Bullshit. The phone company should most definitely filter both calls and text messages if the customer requests it. If I don't want to receive any calls by 555-1234567 because they are from some sicko who breathes at me in the middle of the night, the phone company should block the calls when I ask them to. And if I don't want to receive any spam messages, and my phone company offers a spam filter, and I ask them to please use it on my number, then yes, please!

What you mean is that they should not do it without asking their customers. But the alternative is not to not do it, the alternative is asking the customers.

Subscribers may choose to employ a spam-blocking service, which could be provided by other people

For example, the phone company. Why not? They are in the best position.

Re:Sounds reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258757)

So for some unfathomable reason the phone company can't compete for my business by providing a service I want. Get real this is called competition - and no I'm not a real big fan of phone companies but I have yet to find anyone that wants spam texting or otherwise. BTW texts cost me $.20 each because I don't text so I don't have a plan how much do you think I want spam texts!

Re:Sounds reasonable (5, Insightful)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258761)

Where I live, the sender pays for text messages.

Problem solved. I don't get any spam.

I just can't fathom why anyone would sign up for a service where they would have to pay for calls received, beyond the base rate.

Re:Sounds reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258855)

sender pays here also, still get spam.

Re:Sounds reasonable (4, Informative)

alexgieg (948359) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258861)

Where I live, the sender pays for text messages. Problem solved. I don't get any spam.

Here in Brazil the sender pays, but I still receive spam. It so happens that the phone company can partner with a spammer so that he pays much, much less for sending spam SMS than normal people do. At least they make the official spammers offer an opt-out, but any time a new company signs up with them, I start receiving brand new spam. ~sigh~

Re:Sounds reasonable (3, Informative)

TapeCutter (624760) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259133)

I work for a large Japanese corporation with >150K employees, they sell indirect access to our corporate in-boxes to spammers. They call it a "social club" and advertisers offer specials "exclusive to company X employees", they are broadcast by HR once or twice a week and tailored to fit the geographical location. Personally I don't mind being paid to delete spam.

Re:Sounds reasonable (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258987)

The only time I pay for receiving calls / SMS is if I am roaming internationally. Why anyone would sign up for a service where they pay when someone wants to call / text them *even if they don't want the communication* is beyond me. You want to send me stuff? You pay for it. All of it.

Both sides pay (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259243)

Where I live, both the sender and receiver pay for each text message sent/received. All the cell phone providers in the US are like this unless you get an unlimited plan.

Re:Sounds reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258963)

This only sounds reasonable if the receiver has some unlimited texting plan. While most plans do, pre-paid and other lower end plans may not and on such plans I do not agree with this.

To me it's like a collect call coming into someone's house phone, and as long as someone or thing picks up you get charged (no asking "do you accept" etc), and because you have an answering machine that picks up you're getting charged for it

Sounds reasonable - not (1)

golodh (893453) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259091)

I'm at liberty to appoint anyone I want, and especially a telecoms company, to screen and filter calls on my behalf.

Re:Sounds reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259145)

Except the caller pays the charge, while with text messages both parties are potentially charged. Not everyone bothers to get unlimited texting or data plans. Mobile providers are filtering out the spam because they don't want to have to provide unlimited text and data without higher cost. Oh and because, its what we want the mobile providers to do (who cares about this bloke's latest viagra substitute..).

Good (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258693)

Good http://sfisoft.com.tr

Fuck them (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258697)

and I'm staying polite...

Free speech != compulsion to listen (0, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258703)

They can talk all they want, but nobody has to listen to their whining.

"voter suppression" (2)

aepervius (535155) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258725)

Why the fuck is that even allowed in any sane democracy ?

Re:"voter suppression" (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258893)

Why the fuck is that even allowed in any sane democracy ?

You're talking about an insane democracy.

Re:"voter suppression" (2)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258953)

The "voter suppression" was a series of text messages that many would find offensive, but whether they were intended to suppress votes or to convince people to vote differently is a matter of interpretation.

Re:"voter suppression" (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259093)

"Voter suppression" is typically an excuse to protect voter fraud.

In many states, it is illegal to confirm that the person showing up to vote has the right to do so. I grew up in Cook County Illinois (Chicago area), and I've had dead relatives "vote". I've seen busloads of people who obviously didn't live in the precinct dumped at my local polling place to "vote". In the last Illinois primary, a reporter was able to get a ballot by claiming to be the United States Attorney General. He returned the ballot after proving his point, but if he had wanted to he could have "voted" as Eric Holder.

Meanwhile, such harmless things as having a police officer directing traffic within sight of the polling place is often used as an excuse to claim "voter suppression".

It's important to remember that any actual "voter supression" leaves behind real people with real complaints. That's hard to cover up. However, using dead and former voters to stuff the ballot box is a "victimless" crime (the dead don't complain), unless you care about the integrity of the vote.

Let's get it out of the way. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258727)

Because that form is bound to appear sooner or later I want to make it clear that I advocate a

( ) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante

approach to fighting spam.

but

(X) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

If he tells you to jump, then ask (1)

robbak (775424) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258729)

you ask if you need to use blue, nails, screws or bolts to secure your feet to the floor.

You can tell the worth of an argument by the one arguing it. In this case, it is clear evidence that spam filters should b mandatory.

Misunderstanding of Constitution at its best! (1)

roman_mir (125474) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258733)

This type of misunderstanding of Constitution is so spread across the population, it's so insidious, that I think even some judges may fall prey to it, however I don't believe that the spammer in question is misunderstanding the law, he hopes to use this misunderstanding of the law by the public to try and get his way.

The Constitution does not at all say that private individuals or companies must protect and defend and recognise the right to free speech of other individuals. The Constitution applies to the federal government, it's a document that states what authority federal government has.

The federal government is not allowed to impede free speech (though it very often does), an ISP is NOT any government, it's a company or a person (yeah, a corporation is just a fictional front for people). One person does not have to provide another person with a free media access.

Federal government OTOH cannot place this spammer to jail for saying controversial things, that's the point of the free speech right.

But this is just another out of series of misunderstanding of what rights are. Constitutionally protected individual rights are not there so that one individual would not violate right of another, it's there so that the government, the collective would not violate rights of individuals.

The concept of rights does not apply in a relationship between 2 individuals (or companies or individuals and companies), it only has meaning and applies when used in the context of an individual dealing with government.

Re:Misunderstanding of Constitution at its best! (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259257)

The concept of rights does not apply in a relationship between 2 individuals (or companies or individuals and companies), it only has meaning and applies when used in the context of an individual dealing with government.

That's a possible view, but most thinkers - including the US Founding Fathers - consider that humans do have some rights that others must attend to, be they natural, god-given or just based on some implicit social contract. Rights like property, respect of agreements/contracts, etc.

Now, they're not in the US Constitution, because - as per the The Declaration of Independence - they're supposed to be self-evident.

kill spammers (1)

Tom (822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258735)

Can we please shoot them? Please? Pretty please?

Re:kill spammers (1)

azalin (67640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258749)

Wouldn't that be .. too quick?

Re:kill spammers (2)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258877)

No. Never give them a chance to escape, no matter how satisfying it would be to prolong things.

Re:kill spammers (2)

deniable (76198) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258925)

He said shoot, not kill. This way we can prolong our therapy.

Re:kill spammers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258771)

OK, but do it outside we don't want to clean up the mess, whatever disease they have may be contagious.

Re:kill spammers (2)

geogob (569250) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258907)

Killing is a barbaric punishment. I propose having them delete junk mail all day long for the a few years. If they don't behave, a bit of solitary confinement, sorting important message though an inadequate spam filter should do the trick.

Broken record... (4, Funny)

portwojc (201398) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258747)

I heard this before back in the late 90's when I a customer called up and asked why he couldn't connect. I told him "Sir you're account has been disabled for spamming". He new darn good and well he was spamming, oh but he denied it, and in frustration claimed freedom of speech. Good luck with that governments can deny speech we're not the government. Boy was he upset. Fun times. Sad these days spammers don't seem to get burned so easily unless they are dragged into court by someone big company...

Sorry .gov's looks like you might lose your spam filtering.

Re:Broken record... (1)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258807)

Don't most ISPs these days have terms of service that include spammers having to pay damages?

-jcr

Business making laws against the people (1)

jamesh (87723) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258787)

So business is petitioning the government to make a law that the people do not want... seems like we've been here before, and business normally wins. Okay I don't know about "normally wins" but it's certainly happened before. At least with DMCA while I don't agree with the motivations behind it it's at least an order of magnitude more rational than this.

Re:Business making laws against the people (2)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258805)

No, this is a thief trying to get the government to businesses to allow him to steal the use of their equipment and services. The carriers don't want spammers any more than you do, because the spammers irritate their customers and waste their resources.

-jcr

Re:Business making laws against the people (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258905)

No, this is a thief trying to get the government to businesses to allow him to steal the use of their equipment and services. The carriers don't want spammers any more than you do, because the spammers irritate their customers and waste their resources.

-jcr

Thats an odd definition of theft.

Re:Business making laws against the people (2)

berashith (222128) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259119)

I pay per text that I receive. I am pretty certain that my carrier is more than happy to allow these to come through. I even tried to use a partial blocking application ( not just all texts ) but that apparently was preventing the texts from being read, but not received. I was still being charged for every spam that I didnt see.

I would like an ability to send the text back to my cell provider. Every text that comes back to them does not charge my account. They can look to see that I am not sending them back legitimate texts. This way, it will cost them plenty for allowing texts, and they can actually provide a service for their million percent markup, and I wont have t o pay for this crap

Bullshit. (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258793)

Spamming is not, and has never been a free speech issue. It's a property rights issue. The spammer's right to free speech does not create a duty for anyone else to allow him to use their privately-owned equipment to send the spam. If the greasy little bastard wants to advertise, then he should buy ad space like any legitimate business would.

-jcr

where will it end? (1)

SpaceCracker (939922) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258797)

Next thing they'll be asking for a law against spam filters in email services.

Re:where will it end? (2)

gagol (583737) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258885)

Well, some tv broadcasters considers walking out of the room when ads plays to be equal to stealing... this is not far from this.

Re:where will it end? (1)

xenobyte (446878) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259365)

Well, some tv broadcasters considers walking out of the room when ads plays to be equal to stealing... this is not far from this.

Here's a novel idea: Make the ads interesting so people WANT to watch them! - Problem solved!

I other news... (4, Insightful)

Zaatxe (939368) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258923)

Assassins Guild wants bullet-proof vests to be declared illegal.

Is nose punching free speech? (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | about a year and a half ago | (#42258973)

I believe I have an important message to express in the form of punching advertisers in the nose. I believe this is a freedom of speech issue and it should not be suppressed. And if there are medical costs, I believe the recipient should be responsible for them.

First Amendment (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42258983)

Err, someone needs to educate this idiot. The first amendment prevents the government from passing laws abridging free speech, it does NOT limit the actions of individuals or companies to ignore or filter whatever they want:

Specifically, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

As I read once: your right to swing your fists wildly stops at the tip of my nose.

Right to Speech != Right to be Heard (2)

EmagGeek (574360) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259013)

It's a common misconception to think that the Right to Free Speech is equal to a Right to be Heard. But, nothing could be further from the truth.

Let them know how you feel (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259097)

As often as possible

Let Jason Flanary, Jason Flanary and others know how you feel.

They're probably too busy to check all their email, what with maintaining their spam filters and all. I wonder what would happen if people tried taping a bunch of sheets of paper together, feeding in to a fax machine and using a little tape to make endless "free speech" fax loop - then hit send after configuring resend at the maximum (9999). Some shops have a whole row of fax machines on display you can exercise your freedom from....

Re:Let them know how you feel (2)

ledow (319597) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259175)

Welcome to the 80's.

Have you not heard of fax modems? (and if you have, welcome to the 90's!). I've routinely faxed Windows Printer Test Pages because it's the most convenient thing to send to test the fax, with modern network->fax system, I wouldn't mess around with bits of paper and fax machines (what are those?! Welcome back to the 80's!)

All you'd do would be to tie up their phone lines a bit until they blacklisted the numbers on their internal switchboard (which might even happen automatically with any half-decent telephony hardware and things like 9999 retries). And, if successful anyway, all you would do is add a couple of megs of "black" PDF's to their spool folders.

Childish protest won't help, if that's what you're after. Just state your rights and objection. If enough people do that, in whatever manner, it will work. Anything above and beyond that is more likely to get YOU into trouble, though.

Like spam, if you just repeat the same message endlessly with a blatant agenda to harass people into buying through sheer volume you will get ignored.

Write a single, sensible, reasoned, properly-delivered letter and your opinion instantly counts for more.

His Rights are wrong (1)

Y2KDragon (525979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259115)

He has the right to say whatever he wants. I have the right not to listen to it.

Free speech? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42259299)

Wasn't the original intent of Free Speech simply to ensure that the populace could always speak out against the government without fear of reprisal, as another check and balance? (In the same vein, wasn't the second amendment that the citizens had the right to bear arms as both a check on the government's power as well as to ensure that an army could be raised relatively quickly with minimal supplying and training required, ie. Minutemen, since this was back in a time when the government was prohibited of maintaining a standing army for longer than 2 years?)

Then we have the First Amendment Right to (1)

gabrieltss (64078) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259311)

deface ccAdvertising's website and put up our own message, or reverse spam his business, or spam his customers with anti-spam. Once you go down this road then -everything- should be taken into consideration as free speech. And specifically used against companies like ccAdvertising.

I think it's appropriate to say... (1)

MrKaos (858439) | about a year and a half ago | (#42259323)

aaaahhhhhhhhhh!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...