Hot answers tagged

52

Surely such a well meaning albeit naive driver wouldn't stand a chance in court if they said that it's because they've a section 230-like protection. Because Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act explicitly protects computer service providers from such charges. A driver is not a computer service provider, and the US legislature has never voted ...


38

This is a technical answer rather than a legal one. If those are unwelcome here, let me know My question revolves around why Gmail doesn't block "joe.schmoe@gmail.com" on the spot when it detects such an obvious fraud They often do. I am an admin on a G-suite domain, and I get several emails every month titled "Alert: User suspended due to suspicious ...


14

So many people have come up with ideas about spam that there is actually a standard "fill in the blanks" form for answering them! A copy can be found here. Filling in the blanks for your solution:- Your post advocates a (X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based (X) vigilante approach to fighting spam. As well as the technical side, it ...


3

No. From here: Organisations must not send marketing texts to individuals without their specific, valid and prior explicit consent. This consent must be recorded and kept as proof of consent. There is a limited exception for previous customers, which is known as the soft opt-in. A soft-opt in only applies if the organisation have obtained the ...


3

Owing to the First Amendment, in the United States your recourse would be limited to civil action based on violations of terms of service (meaning that "the authorities" are not going to knock on their doors to tell them to behave). This is not "spam" (which could be regulated) as the term is generally understood. It is annoying, but probably does not ...


3

I assume based on your reference to .edu and your can-spam-act-of-2003 tag that you are interested in United States law. The scheme you describe is illegal under the CAN-SPAM Act. 15 USC 7704 (b) (1) (a) (ii) (b) Aggravated violations relating to commercial electronic mail (1) Address harvesting and dictionary attacks (A) In general It is unlawful for any ...


3

47 USC 227 forbids anyone to make any call (other than a call made for emergency purposes or made with the prior express consent of the called party) using any automatic telephone dialing system or an artificial or prerecorded voice...to any telephone number assigned to a paging service, cellular telephone service, specialized mobile radio service, or other ...


3

This is also admittedly more of a technical explanation than a legal one but it's relevant. The spammer presumably has control of multiple accounts. Whether the accounts were stolen from other users or created by the spammer themselves, they likely have not just one but hundreds, thousands, or even millions of accounts they can send scam mails from. It ...


2

You would be liable for deceit, specifically leading him to believe that you intend to be at a particular place at a particular time to discuss business, but actually you do not so intend. The measure of damages for deceit is to ask what would have happened had you not deceived him. Absent your deceit, he would not have traveled to wherever he thought he ...


2

In the US, your experiment is problematic in several respects according to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 - Wikipedia. You can legally send unsolicited email, as long as you have an unsubscribe link in the message, and you have obtained those email addresses in a legal manner. Your project is problematic because 1) you using emails from an ...


2

I don't see anything illegal here. Americans are allowed to communicate facts to other people. Any law purporting to limit that ability would have to beat a First Amendment challenge, which is typically a tough thing to do. With regard to the specific causes of action you mentioned, none of them would apply: Privacy: this would not be an intrusion upon ...


1

First of all "spamming" is not the same thing as "scamming." But if you believe that the source is intentionally "spamming" or "scamming" there are places to report it (FTC, USA.gov). Going vigilante is not wise. For one thing, if you are wrong and they can show they are advertising in good faith, you may be guilty of making "harassing phone calls", which is ...


1

If you are conducting business in the U.S. then you need to comply with the CAN-SPAM Act. The FTC enforces that law, and offers extensive rules and guidance. Key excerpts from the FTC guidance page: Despite its name, the CAN-SPAM Act doesn’t apply just to bulk email. It covers all commercial messages, which the law defines as “any electronic mail ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible