Differences between version 16 and revision by previous author of LegislatingAgainstSpam.
Other diffs: Previous Major Revision, Previous Revision, or view the Annotated Edit History
| Newer page: | version 16 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 9:52:39 am | by GreigMcGill | Revert |
| Older page: | version 15 | Last edited on Friday, May 28, 2004 9:37:31 am | by CraigBox | Revert |
@@ -118,12 +118,14 @@
DanielLawson: apropos of both of the above points: http://slate.msn.com/id/2101297/ and http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/05/20/italy_p2p_law/. The former is tongue in cheek. The latter is current law in place in Italy, and I think is on the right track
MatthiasDallmeier: A ban from connecting to the Internet.
+
+GreigMcGill: I'm not really sure the penalty matters so much, but I'd agree with Matthias in that a ban would be the most useful, and nobody can be accused of using the legislation as a revenue trap. I think the main point is that whatever penalty is decided on gets enforced publically, and as frequently as possible as a deterrent.
!! 21. Should contraventions give rise to criminal or civil penalties?
!! 22. Should the responsible enforcement agency be given the ability to obtain search warrants conferring powers of entry, search and seizure?
SamJansen: Yes. This really needs to be the case.
zcat(1): Since spammers are an exceptionally low-life form of sociopath, it is felt by many that they may try to 'frame' legitimate mailing lists in order to hurt honest retailers in competition, draw attention away from themselves, or merely confuse the whole issue of legitimate vs. unwanted commercial mail. Any agency investigating spam needs to be aware that spammers are often completely devoid of normal human ethics.
