Slashdot Log In
Virginia High Court Wrong About IP Addresses
from the i-was-wrong-about-milli-vanilli dept.
The first 20 pages of the decision, which are all about legal standing, jurisdiction, and overbreadth, made my eyes glaze over. I'm not analyzing those at all except to point out that on most of those issues, the lower court came to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the Virginia Supreme Court, and there is no reason to think that the higher court is any more likely to be "correct" than the lower court (even granting the assumption that there is an objectively "correct" answer to these questions). Any time you feel intimidated by "experts," it's helpful to step back and ask whether the alleged experts even agree with each other.
Page 21 is where the technical stuff starts that we can tear apart directly. The decision says, in talking about the transmission of e-mail:
The IP address and domain name do not directly identify the sender, but if the IP address or domain name is acquired from a registering organization, a database search of the address or domain name can eventually lead to the contact information on file with the registration organizations. A sender's IP address or domain name which is not registered will not prevent the transmission of the e-mail; however, the identity of the sender may not be discoverable through a database search and use of registration contact information.
These are statements that are only true if you play some kind of parlor game to
find a way to read them as "true," not statements that indicate the court knew
what was going on. To review: IP addresses in the U.S. are generally allocated
by ARIN in blocks to Internet service providers
and Web hosting companies; these
companies then lease the IP addresses to their customers. You can
look up an IP
address with ARIN to determine which ISP or hosting company has been assigned
that particular block, but the ISP or hosting company generally won't tell you
the identity of their customer who has leased it from them. And anybody
can register a domain, but most domain registrars give you the option of registering
the domain anonymously, so that only the registrar knows the owner's true identity.
So the court's statement that a database search "can eventually lead" to contact
information is correct only if you clarify that it "can" lead there, but it usually
won't. As a finding of fact, this is 100% true, and about as useful as "Obama might
win in November. Or he might not."
But it's impossible to defend what the court says next:
As shown by the record, because e-mail transmission protocol requires entry of an IP address and domain name for the sender, the only way such a speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name. Therefore ... registered IP addresses and domain names discoverable through searchable data bases and registration documents "necessarily result[] in a surrender of [the speaker's] anonymity."
Now, there are two possible definitions of "anonymity" to consider: (1) you can be anonymous
to the extent that ordinary citizens reading your content cannot determine your identity
without a subpoena; or (2) you can be anonymous to the extent that even the government,
armed with subpoenas and wiretaps, can never find out who you are. But under either
interpretation of the word, the court's statement that "the only way such a speaker can publish
an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name," is wrong.
By default, almost all Internet users are already anonymous in the first sense, even without
using forged headers or other tricks in their e-mails. When you send e-mail through your own
Internet service provider's mail server, or when you log on to Hotmail and send messages from
a Hotmail account, or when you lease a dedicated server from a Web hosting company and use it
to send mails, the messages don't contain any more information about your true identity than
you decide to put in them. Only the government could ordinarily discover your identity in those
cases, by looking at the IP address that the message was sent from, and subpoenaing the Internet
service provider or hosting company for the identity of the person using that IP address at that
time.
But there are even ways to be anonymous in the second sense -- such that not even the
government could identify you -- without resorting to forged e-mail headers. You can create
Hotmail and Gmail accounts without giving the providers any of your true information. When
you send messages through those services, they pass along the IP address that you used to
connect to their Web sites, but you can obscure your IP address as well, by using an anonymizing
proxy or a service like Tor.
Elsewhere in their decision, the court indicated that what they really wanted to protect
was the right to send anonymous bulk e-mails that were political or otherwise
non-commercial. But even by that standard, it's still possible to use Hotmail and Gmail
together with an anonymizing proxy (the mail services do
impose limits on how many messages
each account can send in a day, but if you want to send bulk mails badly enough, you can always
sign up for multiple accounts). And if you only care about staying beyond the reach of U.S.
subpoena power, you can always sign up for a dedicated host overseas and send the bulk mails
from there.
Apart from the court's misstatement that forged headers are the only way to publish anonymously
in e-mail, there is the incorrect presumption that forged headers actually do afford
anonymity in either of the senses given above. The court wrote, "[T]he only way such a
speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name."
But while it is possible to enter any domain you want in your return e-mail address
when you send an e-mail, the court apparently didn't know what it was talking about when it
referred to "entering a false IP address." You can't just "enter" any arbitrary IP address
when sending an e-mail. If user@domain name.com receives an e-mail, the mail server at
domain name.com has to receive the message over a connection made from some other machine,
and the domain name.com mail server can always see the IP address of the machine on the other
end of the connection. Normally, this machine on the other end would be the mail server of
the sender's Internet service provider. Or if the sender has leased a dedicated machine at
a hosting company, that dedicated machine would be the one connecting to the domain name.com
mail server. Some desktop spamming programs let you turn your home computer into the sending
mail server, so that it connects directly with the remote mail server to send the message.
In all of these cases, the receiving mail server can see the IP address of the sending
machine, so a government subpoena would usually be enough to determine the sender's identity.
(I know you all know this, but I have delusions that some helpful clerk will print out this
article and explain this to the judge.)
When spammers "enter" false IP addresses in sending mails, that usually means entering made-up
IP addresses in headers that are sent along with the contents of the message. However, these
would normally only have the effect of throwing someone off the trail who opened the message
sent to user@domain name.com and was reading the headers manually. Perhaps they would see some
random IP addresses scattered in the headers, would go to ARIN and look up the hosting company
or ISP that those IP addresses were assigned to, and would mistakenly file a complaint with
that company. But the domain name.com server can always see the true IP address that the message
was received from, and for people who know how to read the headers properly, that IP address
will be indicated in the headers as the address that connected to the domain name.com mail server
to send the mail.
So the court's statement that "the only way such a speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is
to enter a false IP address or domain name" is doubly wrong: because it's easy to send e-mails
anonymously without using forged headers, and because forged headers do not in fact provide the
level of anonymity that the court said should be protected anyway. The only way to truly
obscure your identity by hijacking a third-party IP address without permission, would be to
hack into a third party's computer, by infecting a user's home computer with a Trojan horse for
example, and
using it to send mail.
Presumably the court was not contemplating that such an
activity should be considered legal, even as a means of sending political speech.
It would presumably be unconstitutional for an anti-spam law to prohibit anonymous political
e-mails which attempted to hide the sender's identity -- that is after all what
"anonymous" means! You couldn't pass a law outlawing Tor, for example. But the Virginia
law doesn't apply to senders merely trying to hide their identity, it applies only
to the use of computers
"to falsify or forge electronic mail transmission information or other routing
information in any manner in connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail"
(emphasis added). There is a difference between obscuring one's identity (which Tor and anonymous
remailers allow you to do), and actively trying to frame an existing third party by using
forged headers to make the mail appear that it came from somewhere else, especially when
sending bulk mail, which is likely to generate complaints whether it's commercial or not.
By contrast, the
Washington anti-spam law
prohibits any mail which "misrepresents
or obscures" the origin of the message (emphasis added). This is broader and
could be construed to include a wider range of things, such as the use of overseas IP
addresses to send bulk mail on behalf of a U.S. company, or the use of anonymously registered
domains to hide the sender's identity. It would probably be unconstitutional to prohibit
these obscuring techniques for non-commercial anonymous e-mail, which is why the Washington
law specifically applies only to commercial messages.
But here I'm getting into issues like constitutional law where different experts might disagree.
The clear-cut technical fact is that, contrary to the court's ruling, forged e-mail headers do not
provide true anonymity when sending mail, whereas there are other, legal, ways of sending
mail that do make the sender truly anonymous.
What is frustrating about the court's misstatements about IP addresses, domain names,
and anonymity, is that the judge is obviously intelligent and could have understood
the concepts if they had been explained correctly to him. I held some misconceptions
for a long time myself about domain names and IP addresses, because the first explanations
I read were incomplete or wrong, or I didn't understand them.
But the mistakes in the ruling would have been caught if
the judge had just showed a draft to an Internet guru and said, "Hey, can you check if there's
anything wrong here?" I know, I know, that's "just not done" (and there are
probably
formal rules in most states
against showing a draft of a ruling to a third party before publishing it, even if the
third party reviewer is sworn to secrecy, as they should be).
But there's nothing stopping the judge from asking a technical expert during the trial,
"It seems to me that the only way to publish anonymously on the Internet would be to use
forged headers in e-mail. Can you tell me if that's right before I go too far down that
line of reasoning?"
I've appeared before judges in Small Claims court who did ask questions about any part of
the technical issues that they wanted to understand, and were even willing to revise
some prior misconceptions. But all of them, even the open-minded ones, proceed by gathering
information during the trial, and then in the conclusion, spell out their argument and their
ruling (during which time you're not allowed to interrupt), which is then set in stone unless you appeal.
I've never seen a judge say, "Here's the line of
reasoning in my head right now, and my tentative conclusion. Is there anything in that
chain of reasoning that you want to dispute, before I make it final? I am not
promising to change my mind just because you disagree with something. But I will take it
into account." This is essentially what scientists do when they submit their papers for peer review
before publishing them, to minimize the chance of making an error. Judges could do the same thing
-- if not formally, because they're not allowed to show opinions to third parties, then at least
informally, by running their ideas past the experts assembled in their courtroom -- to reduce
the chance of making a mistake. But have you ever heard of a judge doing that?
The Virginia judges probably did about as well as one could be expected to do, having learned
all these technical terms only recently, and then withdrawing to their chambers to form an
argument without any feedback from any technical experts. So, given the technical howlers
that ended up in the ruling, the moral is that forming an argument in isolation from experts
is probably not the right way to go about it.
summary way to long. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:summary way to long. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:summary way to long. (Score:5, Funny)
"You can always choose not to read them."
Damn. I wish someone had told me that 20 minutes ago :(
Parent
Re:summary way to long. (Score:4, Insightful)
>>>But the decision contains statements about IP addresses, domain names, and anonymity that are rather basically wrong, and which may enable the state to win on appeal.
So who would the State of Virginia appeal to? (just curious)
Parent
Re:summary way to long. (Score:5, Informative)
SCOTUS [wikipedia.org], especially in a case like this where their are likely federal issues, since it involves a lil' ol' network [wikipedia.org] that spans the entire globe:
Federal courts may only overrule a state court when there is a federal question, which is to say, a specific issue (such as consistency with the Federal Constitution) that gives rise to federal jurisdiction. Rulings of state supreme courts on such matters may be appealed directly to the Supreme Court of the United States.
Parent
Re:summary way to long. (Score:5, Funny)
You don't have to tell us. Nobody here reads the articles or the summaries. Hell, we barely read the comments they're responding to.
Parent
Re:summary way to long. (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Some of us don't even finish writing the
Re:summary way to long. (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Man, I was gonna read it, but I clicked and then by the time I scrolled down a bit, and a bit, I was too tired and/or bored to continue.
There are prescription medications to help with that.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:summary way to long. (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps some contributors misunderstand the concept of a "summary." I've seen more than a few who could definitely use a primer on the effectiveness of "brevity" as well.
Fair enough, but I honestly think that in this case, the overlong and verbose summary is a refreshing change. What generally and typically passes as a "story" is most often a few scant one-line paragraphs that summarises, or worse, describes and editorialises, a real event or an issue.
It's not unlike what we routinely get from an organisation like CNN, where "news" is offered up in the form of sound bites, provocative graphics, and an absurdly dramatic soundtrack. If it wasn't for the pseudo passionate mumblings and fixed but empty stares of Anderson Cooper, or the rumbling drone from Wolf Blitzer, we could step back and recognise that what's presented is mostly devoid of content.
If you think that's an exaggerated comparison, try reading future Slashot stories with lynx (or just dump it to less, like I do). By the time you find the actual content, you realise there's not enough there to even bother with. In Slashdot's case, it's a truism that what's of most value is found in the contributions of its readers. It's similarly the case that most of us wait for or anticipate a reader offering up the real meat of the story, or some unique insight into it. We don't read the articles just because we're lazy. We don't read them because what's found on the pages of Slashdot is simply better.
Think of it this way -- this may be the one time where we should be modding the summary instead of the posts!
Parent
Re:summary way to long. (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:summary way to long. (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Won't help me a bit. Unless it increases the rate at which I can move my lips.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Huh? Interesting, but it seems to actually slow me down... I think it would for most people unless you're in the habit of reading only one word at a time. But I think for most people it's customary to pick up several words at a time while reading fast.
Re:summary way to long. (Score:5, Insightful)
and I really wish someone had put that sentence right in the court's face.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
but the ISP or hosting company generally won't tell you the identity of their customer who has leased it from them...So the court's statement that a database search "can eventually lead" to contact information is correct only if you clarify that it "can" lead there, but it usually won't.
Unless, of course, you have a subpoena, in which case the ISP or hosting company will most certainly tell you. And they will likely do
Just a random thought ... (Score:3, Interesting)
As much of the issue in this case seemed to involve forged headers, have any of the companies whose domain names were used in a forgery ever tried suing under slander laws?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There may be a few willing to try, but I'm sure they're a minority. I just logged in to my 'spam' box to check the domains being used. The vast majority seem to be legitimately registered domains selling 'R0lex R3plicas' or 'V1agra'. A small subset are from 'bankofamerica.com', 'wachovia.com', or 'easternbank.com' presumably from people who feel sufficiently isolated from a US lawsuit. The rest are from gmail or yahoo accounts or domains that I assume don't even exist. I'd be surprised if there were en
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
In recent months, a client of mine has been joe jobbed so heavily that they've been unable to work due to backscatter. Not only is their business name being used in connection with spam promoting online gambling sites but being self employed and relying on email for their work it's costing them money.
You hit the real problem though...
If ever there were a class of criminal deserving of rendition protocols and gitmo style internment...
so to summarize TFA ... (Score:2)
tl;dr
State Supreme Court, State Law (Score:2)
> ...which may enable the state to win on appeal.
This is the Virginia state supreme court ruling against Virginia state law. Just who do you think they are going to appeal to?
Re: (Score:2)
The state can appeal to the USSC, since it's a state court applying federal law (the Constitution).
Whether or not the USSC will actually grant certiorari (hear the case) is another matter entirely.
It's a court, what do you expect? (Score:2)
This is the same court system that required a server's RAM to be held as evidence, since it was a data-storage device.
Someone will challenge this, and the State will lose. That's the way the system works.
i agree with the summary for a change (Score:4, Insightful)
They're shooting themselves in the foot (Score:2)
Virginia needs to consider the economic benefits of spam [today.com].
You might want to stick with what you know (Score:5, Informative)
IANALY, because I have another 1.5 semesters and a bar exam to go. However, I still know a lot more about the law than you, which is why I know things like this was a VA Supreme Court case, not a trial.
Appeals don't work like your small claims cases (thank the gods). You have written briefs from the parties and any interested amici curiae, which is where your technical experts come in. The "trial" is oral arguments before the justices (not "judges") of the VASC, where the two parties have fifteen minutes to emphasize certain parts of their cases while the justices interrupt with questions as the mood strikes them. Typically, this is where the justices ask for further explanations of the arguments in the brief, generally about things that seem not to make sense or could use further clarification. Sometimes, justices will ask questions that draw better arguments out of a party, so as to convince other justices around to their way of thinking.
A justice would never ask, "Well, I'm going to rule this way; what do you think," because that's not the appropriate language for the Court; you're confusing a peer-to-peer relationship with one that is decidedly not. The attorneys for the parties aren't peers of the justices, and the amici aren't peers of the justices. Your role as party or amici is to provide the justice with the information the justice wants in order to come to a conclusion. However, justices will ask questions to get at facts they need, and a skilled lawyer will be able to figure out where a justice is headed from a question, and explain why that reasoning is good or bad.
It's all well and good to have a layman's critique of the system, but it would help if the layman wasn't basing his opinions on completely irrelevant experiences and actually knew something about the system he was critiquing. Hell, even a quick Wikipedia search would have prevented basic misunderstandings about the nature of the court: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_Virginia [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What Courts Know (Score:5, Interesting)
A court is generally not supposed to know anything that's not brought to its attention in the case, other than legal issues which the court is supposed to know all about. If a court issues an opinion in which it is wrong about how e-mail and IP addresses work, that is simply because one of the following things went wrong:
On technical matters, when a court gets it wrong it is usually not the court's fault.
The best way I've seen to sum this up... (Score:3, Interesting)
Correct by Definition (Score:4, Informative)
> The first 20 pages of the decision, which are all about legal standing, jurisdiction,
> and overbreadth, made my eyes glaze over.
So legal stuff makes your eyes glaze over and yet you are going to give us your legal opinion. Right.
> I'm not analyzing those at all except to point out that on most of those issues, the
> lower court came to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the Virginia Supreme
> Court, and there is no reason to think that the higher court is any more likely to be
> "The first 20 pages of the decision, which are all about legal standing, jurisdiction, and overbreadth, made my eyes glaze over. I'm not analyzing those at all except to point out that on most of those issues, the lower court came to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the Virginia Supreme Court, and there is no reason to think that the higher court is any more likely to be "correct" than the lower court (even granting the assumption that there is an objectively "correct" answer to these questions). correct" than the lower court (even granting the assumption that there is an
> objectively "correct" answer to these questions).
The Virginia Supreme Court is the ultimate authority on matters of Virginia state law. Where Virginia state law is concerned what the Virginia Supreme Court says is "objectively correct".
If the court had upheld the conviction then the defendant could appeal to Federal court on the grounds that the law violates the First Amendment. However, since the court overturned the conviction the state has no grounds for an appeal to Federal court because there is no Federal question.
I agree that there may be flaws in the court's reasoning, but the nearest thing to an appeal is for the state to ask the Virginia Supreme Court to re-hear the case.
Re: (Score:2)
VA could also appeal to the USSC, since the decision was based on an interpretation of the First Amendment.
appeal (Score:2)
. . . which may enable the state to win on appeal.
What appeal? Think the US Supreme Court is going to take this case? Possible, but unlikely.
Impossible to defend? (Score:3, Insightful)
But it's impossible to defend what the court says next:
As shown by the record, because e-mail transmission protocol requires entry of an IP address and domain name for the sender, the only way such a speaker can publish an anonymous e-mail is to enter a false IP address or domain name. Therefore... registered IP addresses and domain names discoverable through searchable data bases and registration documents "necessarily result[] in a surrender of [the speaker's] anonymity."
Impossible to defend? Just watch me.
You're overlooking a perfectly reasonable generalization that the judge is making. The IPv4 packet headers and the email headers, to the judge, are one and the same: Both can be used (indirectly) to identify the sender of the email, and both need to be "forged" in order to send anonymous email.
Keep in mind that tunnelling your packets through a proxy effectively "forges" the IPv4 source address, since the communication is actually originating at your computer, but on the receiving end, it shows up as being from the proxy, even though the communication actually originated elsewhere.
The judge was right to point out that you can't communicate on the Internet without including some kind of "sender address", and this address needs to be forged in order to use the Internet to communicate anonymously. As far as his argument is concerned, it doesn't matter whether the headers you're forging are specified in RFC 791 or in RFC 822.
Armchair Quarterbacking (Score:2)
The first 20 pages of the decision, which are all about legal standing, jurisdiction, and overbreadth, made my eyes glaze over. I'm not analyzing those at all except to point out that on most of those issues, the lower court came to exactly the opposite conclusion from that of the Virginia Supreme Court, and there is no reason to think that the higher court is any more likely to be "correct" than the lower court (even granting the assumption that there is an objectively "correct" answer to these questions). Any time you feel intimidated by "experts", it's helpful to step back and ask whether the alleged experts even agree with each other.
Well this quote really gets the article started off with a bang. First of all, the expertise of a trial court and a state supreme court should not be presumed to be equal. A trial court judge could be as fresh as the day is young, but a supreme court justice there has to be elected by the legislature and has to go through a vetting process that favors experience.
This sort of "all experts are equal" attitude confuses issues like global warming, where there are clearly people more knowledgeable about a subj
I disagree (Score:2, Insightful)
If you aren't prepared to put your name to what you say, then I don't want to hear it.
Tell that to all the Iraq war protesters (when it first started) who had their houses vandalized and were assaulted because of their views.
Or the folks who disagree with their Governments and are being watched, were tortured or killed.
Or how about being an atheist in a theist country and trying to get work - outside of working for Bill Maher.
Just saying.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish that public key signing of e-mail on a ma
Re:I don't want any anonymous mail in any case. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, we wouldn't. There is no merit to that whatsoever. There are plenty of ways of communicating religious or political messages that do not require forging email headers. First, there are anonymous email accounts that do not forge anything. Second, there are anonymous blogging services. Third, there are anonymous web hosting providers. The techniques that these anti-spam laws use have no valid use except to send out mail with no way to communicate back to the original sender whatsoever, making it nearly useless for legitimate religious or political messaging purposes.
Yup. I agree. However, if we get to the point where we have to start signing things to prevent spam, legitimate anonymous email will become a lot harder, and thus laws like this one actually protect legitimate anonymous speech by making it harder for people to abuse the email system in a way that causes people to overreact and block all anonymous speech. The negative consequences of spam on free speech are far, far greater than the negative effects of this law, so if this law successfully reduces spam, it has a positive impact on free speech, not a negative one.
I would also add that free speech---even free political speech---is not absolute. The Supreme Court has long held that time, place, and manner restrictions on speech are perfectly allowable. Email is a manner of speech. It is, therefore, completely reasonable to put limits on speech sent via email, so long as the restriction is reasonably narrow in scope, which these regulations are, IMHO. The court striking this down is completely unreasonable, and I would strongly encourage Virginia to ask the SCOTUS to grant certiorari on this one.
Parent
Re:I don't want any anonymous mail in any case. (Score:5, Insightful)
If you aren't prepared to put your name to what you say, then I don't want to hear it.
Then, you will hear only those things that no one is trying to suppress by intimidation or retaliation.
If you don't have time for anonymous speech, that's fine. However, anonymous speech too often conveys vital information for it to be prohibited for those who want to hear it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
If you aren't prepared to put your name to what you say, then I don't want to hear it.
Then, you will hear only those things that no one is trying to suppress by intimidation or retaliation.
Note that, according to his subject line, GP was referring specifically to mail. He was not saying that he doesn't want to hear anonymous speech in general, just not in his inbox.
I agree with him. People should have the right to speak their mind anonymously in a public forum without limitation, but I don't want anything anonymous in my private inbox.
Re: (Score:2)
Bull.
We're mixing words and sentences up to the extent that nothing has any meaning any more. If someone wants to print anonymously, they can contact a newspaper (blog/whatever), submit an article, and be heard if the media entity will print it. Hence "publius" in the federalist papers.
But sending mail headers with fraudulant address should be "fraud" in the criminal sense and prosecuted in extreme cases.
To be honest, I don't mind a simple heading of "anonymous" - then I can screen you out without a probl
Re:I don't want any anonymous mail in any case. (Score:5, Interesting)
And if my inbox were a public place funded by public money, anonymous people might have a claim to using it. But my inbox is a private place funded by my money and therefore I have the right to stop people from sending to it since it costs me money to download their message.
I have the right to block phone numbers that don't display their Caller ID from calling me. People who hide their phone number are free to call anyone they want...just not me. And that's because I'm the one paying for the line. You do not get to use my line without my permission. Why should my inbox be any different?
Contrast this with my physical mailbox: I don't pay for it (directly, at least). It does not cost me money to have somebody else send me something, in general. And even COD (does anybody actually still do that?) allows me to refuse delivery if I don't want to pay. Since it is, to some degree, a public method, people can send me things without my requesting it and I have the ability to discard their messages unread. It costs me nothing.
But because I have to pay for the network connection, because I have to pay to download your message before I can determine if I want to see it, it means I get to have some control over what gets put in it.
Your right to anonymous speech does not come with a right to an audience. You do not get to enter my home, without my permission, to try to make your case. If I want to hear your speech, I will go to where you make it.
Parent
Re:I don't want any anonymous mail in any case. (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, I *do* have free speech. EVERYWHERE.
No you don't. You don't have the right to free speech within my house, and I can tell you to leave my home and use force to compel you to if something you say offends me. Hell, I can make you leave my home if you refuse to say something I want you to say.
You do not have the right to free speech on my servers. If I'm running a forum and I don't like what you say, I'm well within my rights to delete your posts and ban you forever. Because I own these things, I have control over them, in many ways more control than the government will ever have. The government can only restrict certain types of speech, I can restrict any or all speech.
Parent
Re:I don't want any anonymous mail in any case. (Score:4, Insightful)
When you tell people they can't spam, you're telling them that they don't have the right to speak their mind to the world.
No, you're telling them that they don't have the right to make everyone listen to what they want to say... which they don't, as far as I'm concerned.
What they choose to say on their own web site, which I visit voluntarily, or in a public forum, which no-one is forced to attend, is one thing. What they shove, unsolicited, into millions of inboxes is quite another. The problem with spam is not what they say, but the push model they use to say it.
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
that's your choice. that doesn't mean anonymous mail should be outlawed.
i think that forged e-mail header should be banned, but anonymity is an important pillar of the right to privacy.
it may not be necessary for most people to send anonymous e-mails usually, but we still live in a world in which dissidents are persecuted, sometimes even killed.
even in the U.S., if you're a whistleblower for a powerful corporation, or perhaps a powerful government organization, you may face serious repercussions for your ac
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I would tread on the rights of others to prevent spam
Then I am glad you are not in government.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know what this has to do with the subject at hand, but I agree with you to some extent. I don't agree that it has to do with people addicted to their jobs, although