webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) (06/02/88)
In article <1236@ssc.UUCP>, fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: > > Does anyone know if the FCC would be interested in JJ? He is using > stuff regulated by them to continue his scam. Actually, more to the point, does anyone want the FCC or the U.S.Mail snooping around Usenet trying to figure out how to use his postings in court and incidently whether they shouldn't be exercising more visable control over such a visable underground communications system as Usenet? Geez. ----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber)
root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) (06/03/88)
In article <Jun.1.18.23.37.1988.7316@aramis.rutgers.edu>, webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: > Actually, more to the point, does anyone want the FCC or the U.S.Mail snooping > around Usenet trying to figure out how to use his postings in court and > incidently whether they shouldn't be exercising more visable control over > such a visable underground communications system as Usenet? > > Geez. Thank you!!! Thank you!!! Finally someone shows some sanity in this bull about JJ and his dollar bills. I can't believe how many people are actually asking for the government to come in to "punish this evil JJ." Do you guys really want the FCC to come and regulate this whole thing just because you have a problem with one simpleton who can't even pull a real scam off?
becker@ziebmef.uucp (Bruce Becker) (06/08/88)
In article <Jun.1.18.23.37.1988.7316@aramis.rutgers.edu> webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: >In article <1236@ssc.UUCP>, fyl@ssc.UUCP (Phil Hughes) writes: >> >> Does anyone know if the FCC would be interested in JJ? He is using >> stuff regulated by them to continue his scam. > >Actually, more to the point, does anyone want the FCC or the U.S.Mail snooping >around Usenet trying to figure out how to use his postings in court and >incidently whether they shouldn't be exercising more visable control over >such a visable underground communications system as Usenet? > >Geez. > >----- BOB (webber@athos.rutgers.edu ; rutgers!athos.rutgers.edu!webber) I for one agree with Bob. First of all, 'JJ' wasn't running a 'scam', just being a dink... Secondly, it would have to be a really serious felony-type problem that the UseNet system itself could not handle, and which threatented the well-being of the net and/or its participants. I don't think that 'JJ' has caused that sort of problem... Cheers, Bruce Becker UUCP: ...!ncrcan!ziebmef!becker!bdb BitNet: BECKER@HUMBER I don't think 'JJ' h
steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (06/08/88)
From article <33@uisc1.UUCP>, by root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user): > In article <Jun.1.18.23.37.1988.7316@aramis.rutgers.edu>, webber@aramis.rutgers.edu (Bob Webber) writes: >> Actually, more to the point, does anyone want the FCC or the U.S.Mail snooping ... >> incidently whether they shouldn't be exercising more visable control over >> such a visable underground communications system as Usenet? > Do you guys really want the FCC to come > and regulate this whole thing just because you have a problem with one > simpleton who can't even pull a real scam off? I think, however, that it is useful to stomp on people that do things like what JJ did, before the FCC decides to regulate things pre-emptively. Don't think that the FCC don't know about us: I'd be rather surprised if there were no USENET sites within the FCC right now. It's better that they know now that we're willing to help them than for us to find out that they're trying trying to regulate us because of a flowering of jerks like JJ. (Ghish, what a fight THAT would be..) -- ------------- Stephen Samuel Disclaimer: You betcha! {ihnp4,ubc-vision,seismo!mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve BITNET: USERZXCV@UQV-MTS
root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) (06/13/88)
In article <3132@edm.UUCP>, steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes: > > I think, however, that it is useful to stomp on people that do things like > what JJ did, before the FCC decides to regulate things pre-emptively. > Don't think that the FCC don't know about us: I'd be rather surprised if > there were no USENET sites within the FCC right now. It's better that they > know now that we're willing to help them than for us to find out that they're > trying trying to regulate us because of a flowering of jerks like JJ. I am about to write something that I would venture to say 99% of readers will take the wrong way. Go ahead, flame away. I'm ignoring it. :-) What I am reading here is that we should "stomp" on someone like JJ, who has not done anything illegal (any proof to the contrary - not emotional claptrap but hard statute or binding precedent - would be welcomed), yet we should infringe on his freedom of expression, which has been guaranteed to him under the constitution, so that the federal government, whose sole purpose it is to enforce this constitution, will not come in and illegally violate our right to self expression. About 40 years ago there were a group of people who did that also. In fear of being hunted and illegally persecuted, a group a Jews in Nazi Germany became informers for the Nazi government against other Jews in exchange for preferential treatment. Do we want to become the same kinds of people as that?
mark@clout.Jhereg.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) (06/14/88)
In article <75@uisc1.UUCP> root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user) writes: >In article <3132@edm.UUCP>, steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes: >> >> I think, however, that it is useful to stomp on people that do things like >> what JJ did, before the FCC decides to regulate things pre-emptively. >What I am reading here is that we should "stomp" on someone like JJ, who >has not done anything illegal (any proof to the contrary - not emotional >claptrap but hard statute or binding precedent - would be welcomed) Not too long ago there was a similar case of an individual which ran an ad in the paper which read something like JJ's message. Basically the gist of it was that you should send him a dollar just 'cause he was a nice guy. There were no promises of services, no advertisment of products, etc. Just a plea for cash. This individual was stopped by the post office for mail fraud. I don't beleive that they ever sued, but they did make him stop running his add, which netted him a fair amount of money. At this particular time, I can not remeber the case, but it was publicized a great deal. The precedent for this is that "chain letters" are illegal. If you think about it, given a standard chain letter where no money is involved, there is no reason why it should be illegal. It does not represent a hazard to anybody's morals, or hurt anybody. Directly. However, it does tie up the post office, thereby slowing everybodies mail down. If you think about the chain letter concept, it is possible for a chain letter to literally stop all mail from flowing through the system after only several inerations. Remember that chain letters multiply exponentially. Imagine that you sent a letter to 5 friends, and they sent it to five friends, etc. After about only a few itterations there are litterally millions of letters in the post office, asking for yet more letters to be written. Think about what this would do to the mail service in your area. Would you like it? (By the way, chain letters that involve money are a different ball of wax altogether. There is somebody out there getting rich, and somebody is being soaked, but they don't know it. This, therefore, is mail fraud.) What JJ did was not illegal according to his rights to express himself, but it is illegal according to laws which were developed to allow mail to flow throughout the world with as little problems as possible. Although the chain-letter law does impose a "limit" on our freedom of expression, it is not a limit which people going about normal day-to-day business are going to find bothersome, and in the long run, it helps us all. -- Mark H. Colburn mark@jhereg.chi.il.us mark@jhereg.mn.org ..!chinet!jhereg!mark
adf@uisc1.UUCP (Andre Franklin) (06/15/88)
In article <273@clout.Jhereg.MN.ORG>, mark@clout.Jhereg.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) writes: > Not too long ago there was a similar case of an individual which ran > an ad in the paper which read something like JJ's message. Basically > the gist of it was that you should send him a dollar just 'cause he > was a nice guy. > > There were no promises of services, no advertisment of products, etc. > Just a plea for cash. > > This individual was stopped by the post office for mail fraud. I > don't beleive that they ever sued, but they did make him stop running > his add, which netted him a fair amount of money. Makes you wonder about this great, free nation we live in, doesn't it? I mean, let's call it as it is, shall we? As you said quite correctly, there were no promises that weren't kept, no advertisements or false offers of products or services, he simply asked for money. So??? What's wrong with that? It is NOT illegal, NOT fraud, and frankly, I can't really say that I can see anything immoral about it. Contrary to the protestant work ethic maybe, but that's about it. So why does the Post Office, an official government agency, violate this man's constitutionally guaranteed right to self expression by blackmailing him or using other extortion techniques resembling more the Mafia than the free nation we claim to be? > > The precedent for this is that "chain letters" are illegal. Please, if you can, show me how this is based on the precedent of chain letters? If I put an ad into a newspaper and ask for money and give my address to send it to, there are not chain letters involved. In fact, I didn't send ANY letters at all, chain or otherwise. > given a standard chain letter where no money is > involved, there is no reason why it should be illegal. It does not > represent a hazard to anybody's morals, or hurt anybody. Directly. Directly or indirectly. And frankly, I am not really concerned how some preacher in Tennessee feels, the constitution specifically forbids the government from establishing religion, and morality fall right under that heading. But you are right, it shouldn't be illegal. There is no hazard to anyone, everything is voluntary, and the government should keep its nose out of people's personal affairs. Period! > However, it does tie up the post office, thereby slowing everybodies > mail down. And each person sending a letter is paying 25 cents for that privilege. What's next? Shall we make greeting cards illegal too? How about love letters? Anything except official business mail, does that sound good to you? As long as I put my postage stamp on that letter, it is as important and has as much right to being delivered as your love letter, your bill, or your greeting card. Your argument that chain letters should be illegal because they slow the delivery of someone else's love letter down is, for want of a better word, bullshit! > If you think about the chain letter concept, it is possible for a > chain letter to literally stop all mail from flowing through the > system after only several inerations. Remember that chain letters > multiply exponentially. So do pen-friendship letters. When I was 10, I at one time was corresponding at the same time with 114 people worldwide. Again, as long as the post office is a public utility that accepts to deliver mail for a fee, it is required to do so. Suggesting that someone else's mail should not be delivered because you don't like the contents of the letter is stupid, selfish, and inconsiderate in the extreme. I happen to feel that bills and invoices unnecessarily tie up mail delivery and that if everybody stopped sending them, the rest of the mail would get delivered a lot faster. An even more applicable point is sales junk literature. Let's get rid of all of the government propaganda they send to us paid for by our tax dollars, and then maybe we can talk about getting rid of mail that is paid for by private citizens. > (By the way, chain letters that involve money are a different ball of > wax altogether. There is somebody out there getting rich, and > somebody is being soaked, but they don't know it. This, therefore, is > mail fraud.) Ummm, did you bother to think before writing this paragraph? IF someone is getting rich, then that proves that chain letters can work. Otherwise the only one who'd get "soaked" is the poor sap sending the letters off in the first place. Remember, most of them send out 200-500 letters in the hope that someone will reply, each at 25 cents. Even if this was not the case, I have received (though never mailed) dozens of chain letters. Each and every one of the explains in detail that mathematically the scheme can work, but that there is no guarantee. Anyone who replies to such a scheme does so voluntarily. I have real problems understanding where fraud enters the picture. It seems a lot more fraudulent to me when someone cons 250 million people into electing him president with a bunch of pretty sounding lies, the vast bulk of which he has no intention of ever fulfilling. Now THAT is fraud. > What JJ did was not illegal according to his rights to express > himself, but it is illegal according to laws which were developed to > allow mail to flow throughout the world with as little problems as > possible. Care to cite chapter and verse? (Quote the applicable statute please) > Although the chain-letter law does impose a "limit" on our freedom of > expression, it is not a limit which people going about normal > day-to-day business are going to find bothersome, and in the long run, > it helps us all. I have heared that same argument used in connection with freedom of religion, freedom to travel, freedom to vote, and so many dozens of others. Each totalitarian regime imposes its restrictions because they will, in the long run, help us all. Sorry, I'm not sold on it. But welcome to the next totalitarian dictatorship.
steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) (06/16/88)
From article <75@uisc1.UUCP>, by root@uisc1.UUCP (Super user): > In article <3132@edm.UUCP>, steve@edm.UUCP (Stephen Samuel) writes: >> >> I think, however, that it is useful to stomp on people that do things like >> what JJ did, before the FCC decides to regulate things pre-emptively. > I am about to write something that I would venture to say 99% of readers > will take the wrong way. > > What I am reading here is that we should "stomp" on someone like JJ, who > has not done anything illegal (any proof to the contrary - not emotional > > About 40 years ago there were a group of people who did that also. In > fear of being hunted and illegally persecuted, a group a Jews in Nazi > Germany became informers for the Nazi government against other Jews in > exchange for preferential treatment. Do we want to become the same kinds > of people as that? You have some valid points (I'm sure) but to clarify: In 'stomping on' JJ I referred to helping the Govt. agencies figure out IF JJ had done something wrong and, if so, how to get him. If what JJ did was perfectly legal, then there isn't much that the authorities could do to him anyways. JJ is free to speak up, but If he made false representation about his financial/student status in his plea for money, then this could constitute fraud (which IS illegal). This is part of why it might be useful to find out who he really is... to find out just how much of what he said is TRUE. 3: The NAZIs: On the other hand, if people had fought Hitler and the NAZIs when they STARTED (rather than waiting until he had half of Europe), we might have had a few million less dead and mutilated bodies as a result. It is an double blade you invoke. The question is: is JJ more like an innocent victim or vivious threat? If you let everybody do what they want until too many people die (how many is too many? your mother?) then you will sooner or later end up with another hitler/stalin. If you let NOBODY do what they want, then you could, all to easily, end up BEING one your self. You have to fid a reasonable border between the two. In my mind, JJ may have crossed that border. -- ------------- Stephen Samuel Disclaimer: You betcha! {ihnp4,ubc-vision,mnetor,vax135}!alberta!edm!steve BITNET: USERZXCV@UOFAMTS
mhw@wittsend.UUCP (Michael H. Warfield) (06/17/88)
In article <273@clout.Jhereg.MN.ORG> mark@clout.Jhereg.MN.ORG (Mark H. Colburn) writes: >If you think about the chain letter concept, it is possible for a >chain letter to literally stop all mail from flowing through the >system after only several inerations. Remember that chain letters >multiply exponentially. Yeah, that's exactly what happened to IBM last December with the little Christmas tree message that brought their Email system down to it's knees. The article was in the Wall Street Journal sometime in December. The self repli- cating little monster was turned loose by someone who thought it was a cute way to send EVERYBODY a little Christmas greeting. :-) HE DID THAT ALRIGHT! That greeting quickly became the world's largest chain letter. According to the article, the message replicated itself to the point where traffic on IBM's world-wide network slowed to a standstill and had to be shutdown while they cleaned the beasty out of the individual mail systems by hand. --- Michael H. Warfield (The Mad Wizard) | gatech.edu!galbp!wittsend!mhw (404)-329-8139 | mhw@wittsend.LBP.HARRIS.COM An optimist believes we live in the best of all possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!