| |
 |
|
| Science Forum Index » Physics Forum » lawsuit actionable website that uses the name of a private c |
|
Page 1 of 1 |
|
| Author |
Message |
| bz |
 Posted: Sat May 07, 2005 10:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium@hotmail.com wrote in news:1115493577.645293.219060
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
[quote:a80dbfa5b0]The recent law that email must be transparent of its
sender may apply to websites.
[/quote:a80dbfa5b0]
It does NOT. The 'CAN SPAM' act only applies to e-mail and mobile services
messaging. It also prohibits harvesting e-mail addresses FROM web sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can_Spam_Act_of_2003
[quote]
It makes it a misdemeanor to send spam with falsified header information. A
host of other common spamming practices can make a CAN-SPAM violation an
"aggravated offense," including harvesting, dictionary attacks, Internet
protocol spoofing, hijacking computers through Trojan horses or worms, or
using open mail relays for the purpose of sending spam.
[unquote]
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| bz |
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 1:04 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_plutonium@hotmail.com wrote in news:1115536743.990367.219400
@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
[quote]
bz wrote:
a_plutonium@hotmail.com wrote in news:1115493577.645293.219060
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
The recent law that email must be transparent of its
sender may apply to websites.
It does NOT. The 'CAN SPAM' act only applies to e-mail and mobile
services
messaging. It also prohibits harvesting e-mail addresses FROM web
sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can_Spam_Act_of_2003
[quote:5a54fc5192]
It makes it a misdemeanor to send spam with falsified header
information. A
host of other common spamming practices can make a CAN-SPAM violation
an
"aggravated offense," including harvesting, dictionary attacks,
Internet
protocol spoofing, hijacking computers through Trojan horses or
worms, or
using open mail relays for the purpose of sending spam.
[unquote]
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know
is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
Well this is a shame that websites seem to have been untouched and
unaffected by legal laws as to permit a Wild West anything goes
attitude. Can we say that lawmakers were derelect of duty by
overlooking websites and giving websites some order and stability.
Perhaps websites are next in line to be given rules and regulations and
laws. For I would guess that most "commercial" would be websites and
not emails.
But perhaps the Can Spam Act does apply to websites if a good competent
lawyer makes precedents. I mean, arguing in court that the Can Spam
demands a true legitimate header to pinpoint the source. Arguing thus,
that websites require a true piece of information pinpointing the owner
of the website and how to get a hold of the owner and where the
geographical location of the owner.
So I think that the Can Spam Act of 2003 in the hands of a competent
lawyer should be able to make it apply to websites.
[/quote:5a54fc5192]
Since I am not a lawyer, I can not say for sure. But if you hope to bring
action using it, you are out of luck unless you are an ISP.
The law was not designed to stop spam. It was designed to allow spam while
making voters think that their lawmakers were doing something to stop spam.
It was written using suggestions of spammers.
It overrode much better anti spam laws of many states.
By all means, talk to your lawyers but I fear they will tell you what I
have told you.
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 1:19 am |
|
|
|
|
bz wrote:
[quote]a_plutonium@hotmail.com wrote in news:1115493577.645293.219060
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
The recent law that email must be transparent of its
sender may apply to websites.
It does NOT. The 'CAN SPAM' act only applies to e-mail and mobile
services
messaging. It also prohibits harvesting e-mail addresses FROM web
sites.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can_Spam_Act_of_2003
[quote:f0461782b6]
It makes it a misdemeanor to send spam with falsified header
information. A
host of other common spamming practices can make a CAN-SPAM violation
an
"aggravated offense," including harvesting, dictionary attacks,
Internet
protocol spoofing, hijacking computers through Trojan horses or
worms, or
using open mail relays for the purpose of sending spam.
[unquote]
--
bz
please pardon my infinite ignorance, the set-of-things-I-do-not-know
is an
infinite set.
bz+sp@ch100-5.chem.lsu.edu remove ch100-5 to avoid spam trap
[/quote:f0461782b6]
Well this is a shame that websites seem to have been untouched and
unaffected by legal laws as to permit a Wild West anything goes
attitude. Can we say that lawmakers were derelect of duty by
overlooking websites and giving websites some order and stability.
Perhaps websites are next in line to be given rules and regulations and
laws. For I would guess that most "commercial" would be websites and
not emails.
But perhaps the Can Spam Act does apply to websites if a good competent
lawyer makes precedents. I mean, arguing in court that the Can Spam
demands a true legitimate header to pinpoint the source. Arguing thus,
that websites require a true piece of information pinpointing the owner
of the website and how to get a hold of the owner and where the
geographical location of the owner.
So I think that the Can Spam Act of 2003 in the hands of a competent
lawyer should be able to make it apply to websites.
Archimedes Plutonium |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| CWatters |
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 1:21 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
<a_plutonium@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1115493577.645293.219060@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
[quote:fd32f33cb0]Perhaps even hacking of computers for it may involve spyware.
[/quote:fd32f33cb0]
Most likely the use of shared tracking cookies - normally used to imptove
the targeting of adverts. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Guest |
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 1:26 am |
|
|
|
|
If news.admin has a rule and regulation that posts to the newsgroups
that forge other people are stopped, then I would presume the logic
applies to websites, where we can say that a website titled with a
header "Info on Archimedes Plutonium" and" Facts
about Archimedes Plutonium" are forgies and thus news.admin must
eliminate that website. Being that their rules prompt them to eliminate
newsgroup forgies.
Archimedes Plutonium |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Mark Martin |
| Posted: Sun May 08, 2005 7:40 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
a_pluton...@hotmail.com wrote:
[quote:a563d81a23]If news.admin has a rule and regulation that posts to the newsgroups
that forge other people are stopped, then I would presume the logic
applies to websites, where we can say that a website titled with a
header "Info on Archimedes Plutonium" and" Facts
about Archimedes Plutonium" are forgies and thus news.admin must
eliminate that website. Being that their rules prompt them to
eliminate
newsgroup forgies.
Archimedes Plutonium
[/quote:a563d81a23]
Don't haggle with the physics newsgroup about this issue. Even if
any of us has valid legal insights, eventually you'll have to hire a
lawyer in order to file a lawsuit. So my advice to you is, go hire a
lawyer. Do something about it, instead of just complaining about it on
the internet.
-Mark Martin |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
| Archimedes Plutonium |
| Posted: Mon May 09, 2005 9:45 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
Sun, 08 May 2005 16:52:49 +0100 Ben Rudiak-Gould <br276deleteme@cam.ac.uk> Ben Rudiak-Gould wrote:
[quote:dd1ec8cd41]Archimedes Plutonium wrote:
I'm almost certain I know what happened here. Notice that the part of the
URL starting with "google.com" looks like a Google search URL, namely
http://google.com/search?num=30&hl=en&scoring=d&as_drrb=q&q=archimedes+plutonium&as_qdr=w&btnG=Google+Search&lr=&sa=N&tab=gw
If you open that URL, you will indeed get 30 results from Google on the
subject of "archimedes plutonium".
Many people are unaware that when you click on a link from a Google search
page, most browsers will tell the destination site not only that you came
from Google, but also WHAT SEARCH TERMS YOU USED. This happens because the
URL of the referring page is passed to the destination server, and
search-engine URLs generally contain the search terms. Certain unscrupulous
individuals use this to harvest search terms, then create dummy web pages
which contain those search terms surrounded by random filler, in the hope of
polluting future search results with links to their site. No human being is
involved in choosing the words to be used.
By posting this URL in a public forum, Mr. Plutonium has probably made
things much worse for himself. Every time someone follows the link he
posted, the server will record that they were searching for "archimedes
plutonium". This will probably lead to the creation of lots more dummy pages
containing those words, and further pollution of search results.
-- Ben
[/quote:dd1ec8cd41]
Hi Ben. So this rogue site of breastcancerrisk added the search terms of Google into their header.
What is to prevent all normal and drab sites of doing the same?
The rogue site set up a "dummy website" so that the name of the miscreant culprit and perpetrator could remain hidden.
What is to prevent all of the normal websites of adding Google search terms into their headers and thus boosting their normal site into a SuperSite where
it appears in top places on any Google search.
I read some California news saying that Google had a blackout last Saturday that lasted for 2 hours. And it appears as though Google has a blackout today
for I could not get through to them.
I wonder if the blackouts are related to this breastcancerrisk development. For it is plainly and clearly seen that it is a form of a virus or worm to
overload Google. To incorporate Google search terms into the headers of a website is a viral like attack on Google.
Archimedes Plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sun Nov 08, 2009 5:33 pm
|
|