Preventing False Spam Reports

[Merlyn]

My point exactly.  The person knowingly and maliciously submitting a false report could be held liable.  I never said SC should be held liable.  I never said the ISP or company doesn't have a right to control what goes in and out of its network.  I said knowingly and maliciously submitting a false report is illegal and could be procecuted under libel laws and well as computer abuse laws.

I am not sure if I was clear about the malicious and knowing part when I explained it before.  That is the part that would make the person reporting it liable, not the incorrect report itself.

27175[/snapback]

I have no idea how you get libel out of this.

This should be a totally dead subject by now.

Are you a lawyer? You are giving out legal advice and that is also a crime if you are not a lawyer.

[dra007]

It seems that he was rebutted over and over only to come back with the same arguments. In LOGIC/philosophy that is called a CIRCULAR ARGUMENT and as illustrated here it leads to endless and pointless exchanges unless someone decides to break the circle. End of story.

[WisTex]

No, I was just clarifying what I said since it appeared that I was misunderstood.

No additional arguments here. I could have picked apart all the responses if I wanted to. There was pleanty to fire back at, believe me. But I felt I made my point, even if you disagree. But I did feel I must correct someone's misunderstanding of what I was saying. Even if you disagree, I'd rather have you disagree about something I said rather than what you thought I said.

[dra007]

This is changing from a circular argument to beating on a dead horse.

[Merlyn]

Not sure if he is a troll or not.

Talk about beating a dead dog to death!

[Jank1887]

easy guys. I would tend to classify him as a person with a different point of view, and not go nearly as far as the troll category. And let's leave the puppies out of it.

He mentioned what he thought was a valid issue. It was discussed. A messaging forum is almost always an extremely inefficient place for debate, so circular arguments, misquoting/understanding, etc, have to be assumed as natural parts of the debate that will occur. In non-troll-like manner, he brought up valid point to his argument, counterpoints were stated, I think everyone who isn't mentioned that they aren't lawyers at some time or another (?which i think isn't necessary as long as you don't claim to be a lawyer giving legal advice?).

And, about libel: the tort or delict of making a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slander_and_libel )

So, because the fraudulent poster doesn't directly take action to prevent the victim's computer transmissions, but he does affect the victim's reputation to the 'Net community, affecting their decisions on whether or not to associate with the victim, it seems to me to fit that definition of libel. Not the computer abuse, though, as that seems like it would require direct action by the person on the victim's computer use.

(finally, any complete discussion/debate over this type of inefficient medium would require the beating of dead horses as people try to hammer out exact meetings and interpretations, which will often never get sorted out in practice. Not to say that it wouldn't be useful. You are free to stop reading at any time, and further posts won't affect you in the slightest.)

[Miss Betsy]

easy guys. I would tend to classify him as a person with a different point of view, and not go nearly as far as the troll category.

Absolutely. Trolls are not people with differing views, they are people who are unwilling to discuss or debate, but only have one viewpoint.

Debates are valuable because they do require you /think/ about answers instead of repeating rote replies. Sometimes new ideas surface that are better answers than either side of the debate.

Miss Betsy

[WisTex]

Good points.

27171[/snapback]

LOL. I actually thought about your points and conceded on many of them if you look back at the conversation. If I wasn't thinking or open to changing my viewpoint, I wouldn't have conceded and agreed that you made some very good points.

As far as I'm concerned, I brought up a point, it was countered, I conceded on some points, I clarified others, and in the end we still disagree. End of story. I don't see where I am being a troll or refusing to listen to other people's arguments. Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am not listening to and evaluating your point of view. It just means we disagree.

I'm sorry if me clarifying a point that was misunderstood and misquoted looked like me beating a dead horse. That was not my intent.

What initially looked like a clear cut violation of the law according to the letter of the law, now, due to this discussion, appears that it is open to more interpretation than I initially thought. Which is why I conceded, by the way, and argued no further.

[Jank1887]

Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I am not listening to and evaluating your point of view.  It just means we disagree.

27290[/snapback]

Actually, I find it kind of humorous that when I hear most people talk about 'closed-minded' people, what they really mean is "he wouldn't accept that his point of view is wrong" often coupled with "and mine is right", and often that's with minimal attempt at debate. By definition, a debate is where two people with differing opinions and support for those differing opinions argue for the supremacy of their opinion. Rarely does change of opinion occur.

[Miss Betsy]

a debate is where two people with differing opinions and support for those differing opinions argue for the supremacy of their opinion. Rarely does change of opinion occur.

Not in the debate itself. In a formal debate, each side tries to prove its point and there is a winner. Debating techniques don't require conceding a point and leaving out damaging information is allowed.

In an informal debate, however, each side may learn something in trying to defend their viewpoint - and conceding points and admitting that there is information that damages one's point is expected, but not required.

A discussion merely explores various facts and opinions without particular prejudice. Someone in a discussion isn't trying to convince others, but to verify information and to hear other viewpoints and clarify them. There may be some debate over certain aspects.

In this particular thread, people who don't spam are considered 'innocent' by one side and any fallout from anti-spam filtering should be avoided. The other side thinks that those who don't spam are responsible for choosing a provider that does not permit spamming and there are no 'innocents' but only 'ignorant.'

Both sides, probably, would agree that if there were a way to separate spammers from non-spammers by individual that would be the best way. However, the only way to track spam is by IP address so that has to be the criterion. Since the IP address may have both spammers and non-spammers using it, one side thinks that if non-spammers are using it, there should be some way of allowing non-spammers to avoid the consequences of using an IP address that spammers are using. The other side considers that the non-spammer has to take responsibility for hir use of email and that the non-spammers are either part of the problem or part of the solution, not bystanders.

I may be stating the 'other' side weakly, but that's the gist as I see it.

Miss Betsy

[dzaidle]

"I don't mind targetting the spammers. I hate spam. It just pisses me off when innocent people are harmed by overzealous people. I've seen it happen many times, and it has personally cost me thousands of dollars, punished for a crime I did not commit."

Methinks WiseTex doth protest too much. Spammer? Lawyer? Spammer's lawyer?

[gazza]

Oh good grief! Every sane person acknowledges that spam is bad, e.g. is costings billions in wasted time/resources each year world-wide. The current fight against spam is akin to war. Ergo, there will be innocent casualties, aka 'friendly fire', as the battle is waged and tactics by both sides evolve.

The crux of this thread seems to be whether spam reporters deliberately file reports, i.e. 'maliciously', which on the face of it is bad, or by accident, which, to be honest, when bombarded by dozens of potential spam e-mails per day, is highly probable. Surely if a user erroneously reports an e-mail as spam there are sufficient safeguards build into the system to catch this?

On a legal note: 1) the complainant would probably have to prove that the report was actually malicious and not inadvertent; 2) perhaps only Europeans should report 'spam' emanating from the US as there are, as far as I know, no international civil laws regarding libel.

[WisTex]

Actually, I am referring to spammers or other harassers who file malicious reports against people who reported them for spam or other violations. I have seen and heard this happen many times, and luckily your organization seems to be one of the few that checks or cares whether reports are real or not. SpamCop.net would not have warnings stating that a user would be banned and possibly fined by SpamCop.net for submitting false reports if this were not the case!!!! SpamCop.net obviously has had this problem in the past, otherwise they would not go to great lengths to discourage it. I was only suggesting that they put more teeth in their warning by stating it is illegal. (After hearing what people say, I think it "might" be illegal and some juries would say guilty and some would say innocent based on their interpretation of the law... the law may be vague enough to be interpreted either way.)

I think that some of you are totally misunderstanding what I am saying. And the problem is, if I try to clarify what I said, I am accused of beating a dead horse.

[turetzsr]

Actually, I am referring to spammers or other harassers who file malicious reports against people who reported them for spam or other violations.  I have seen and heard this happen many times, and luckily your organization seems to be one of the few that checks or cares whether reports are real or not.  SpamCop.net would not have warnings stating that a user would be banned and possibly fined by SpamCop.net for submitting false reports if this were not the case!!!! SpamCop.net obviously has had this problem in the past, otherwise they would not go to great lengths to discourage it.

27619[/snapback]

...AFAIK, this is not the case. The reasons for the warning, IMHO, are (1) SpamCop (Julian) cares enough to beleive that his reporting tool should be used in a proper way by us, just on general principle and (2) if SpamCop becomes known for filing false reports, those reports will tend to be ignored and, thus, reduce their value for all of us.

I was only suggesting that they put more teeth in their warning by stating it is illegal. (After hearing what people say, I think it "might" be illegal and some juries would say guilty and some would say innocent based on their interpretation of the law... the law may be vague enough to be interpreted either way.)

27619[/snapback]

...Which is probably a good reason for not saying that it is illegal. Perhaps "may be illegal"? However, I believe that the notes in the parser page relating to why a reporter should ensure that s/he is really reporting spam and to the right abuse addresses are (or, rather, should be) more than sufficient justification for us following the rules.

I think that some of you are totally misunderstanding what I am saying.  And the problem is, if I try to clarify what I said, I am accused of beating a dead horse.

27619[/snapback]

...That seems to be just one person's issue. I'm glad it hasn't stopped you from continuing to post here to explain further. <g>

[WisTex]

Which is probably a good reason for not saying that it is illegal.  Perhaps "may be illegal"?  However, I believe that the notes in the parser page relating to why a reporter should ensure that s/he is really reporting spam and to the right abuse addresses are (or, rather, should be) more than sufficient justification for us following the rules....

When I first posted the suggestion, I didn't realize that it was open to so much interpretation. But I think that with a good lawyer, you could easily convince a jury that computer abuse and libel have occured, especially if the harasser is retaliating for you reporting them for spam (i.e. has motive) or is harassing you in other ways.

But, you are right, on second thought, probably not a good idea to post it.

That seems to be just one person's issue.  I'm glad it hasn't stopped you from continuing to post here to explain further.  <g>

27624[/snapback]

Thanks.