OT - Cyber annoyances

It's illegal to annoy
A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you
must disclose your identity.
http://tinyurl.com/czaml

Some here may be quite interested in this.

Now, I am just passing this on as an FYI, but I'm betting it's just another
BS law.

KJK

On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:13:56 -0600, "KJ.Kate"
> wrote:

>It's illegal to annoy
>A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you
>must disclose your identity.
>http://tinyurl.com/czaml
>
>Some here may be quite interested in this.
>
>Now, I am just passing this on as an FYI, but I'm betting it's just another
>BS law.
>
>KJK
>
Ahhh, but it's also still legal to use an alias as long as it's not
used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there
be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law
enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg

In article >, Spike wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:13:56 -0600, "KJ.Kate"
> wrote:
>
>>It's illegal to annoy
>>A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you
>>must disclose your identity.
>>http://tinyurl.com/czaml
>>
>>Some here may be quite interested in this.
>>
>>Now, I am just passing this on as an FYI, but I'm betting it's just another
>>BS law.
>>
>>KJK
>>
> Ahhh, but it's also still legal to use an alias as long as it's not
> used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there
> be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law
> enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.

Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits
where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where
profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government
office.

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, Spike wrote:
> > On Mon, 9 Jan 2006 22:13:56 -0600, "KJ.Kate"
> > wrote:
> >
> >>It's illegal to annoy
> >>A new federal law states that when you annoy someone on the Internet, you
> >>must disclose your identity.
> >>http://tinyurl.com/czaml
> >>
> >>Some here may be quite interested in this.
> >>
> >>Now, I am just passing this on as an FYI, but I'm betting it's just another
> >>BS law.
> >>
> >>KJK
> >>
> > Ahhh, but it's also still legal to use an alias as long as it's not
> > used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there
> > be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law
> > enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.
>
> Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits
> where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where
> profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government
> office.

Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly.
Otherwise, where's the incentive?

--
Wound Up
TS #65

In article . com>, Wound Up wrote:
> Brent P wrote:

>> > used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there
>> > be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law
>> > enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.
>>
>> Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits
>> where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where
>> profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government
>> office.

> Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly.
> Otherwise, where's the incentive?

Let's say you are senator and I'm a citizen who disagrees with how your
policies, voting, etc. You use this new law to put me in prison or fine me
into shuting up.

"Brent P" > wrote in message
...
: In article . com>, Wound
Up wrote:
: > Brent P wrote:
:
: >> > used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there
: >> > be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law
: >> > enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.
: >>
: >> Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits
: >> where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where
: >> profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government
: >> office.
:
: > Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly.
: > Otherwise, where's the incentive?
:
: Let's say you are senator and I'm a citizen who disagrees with how your
: policies, voting, etc. You use this new law to put me in prison or fine me
: into shuting up.

*smirk*

I think you have that one nailed.

KJK

:
:
:

Brent P wrote:
> In article . com>, Wound Up wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>
>
>>>>used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there
>>>>be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law
>>>>enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.
>>>
>>>Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits
>>>where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where
>>>profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government
>>>office.
>>
>
>
>>Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly.
>>Otherwise, where's the incentive?
>
>
> Let's say you are senator and I'm a citizen who disagrees with how your
> policies, voting, etc. You use this new law to put me in prison or fine me
> into shuting up.
>

But who likes spam but spammers? Who likes harrassment? It's not as if
one camp will side with you on party lines or any other, for that matter.



--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694
AHPBBFM links repository: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx

KJ.Kate wrote:
> "Brent P" > wrote in message
> ...
> : In article . com>, Wound
> Up wrote:
> : > Brent P wrote:
> :
> : >> > used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there
> : >> > be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law
> : >> > enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.
> : >>
> : >> Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits
> : >> where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where
> : >> profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government
> : >> office.
> :
> : > Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly.
> : > Otherwise, where's the incentive?
> :
> : Let's say you are senator and I'm a citizen who disagrees with how your
> : policies, voting, etc. You use this new law to put me in prison or fine me
> : into shuting up.
>
> *smirk*
>
> I think you have that one nailed.
>
> KJK
>

I was actually agreeing, if you read it. And, I think it would be too
expensive and impossible to enforce in this manner effectively.

--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65

AHPBBFM posting rules: http://tinyurl.com/ak694
AHPBBFM links repository: http://tinyurl.com/a9qsx

On Tue, 10 Jan 2006 13:45:07 -0600,
(Brent P) wrote:

>In article . com>, Wound Up wrote:
>> Brent P wrote:
>
>>> > used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there
>>> > be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law
>>> > enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.
>>>
>>> Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits
>>> where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where
>>> profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government
>>> office.
>
>> Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly.
>> Otherwise, where's the incentive?
>
>Let's say you are senator and I'm a citizen who disagrees with how your
>policies, voting, etc. You use this new law to put me in prison or fine me
>into shuting up.
>
>
As if things are not bad enough with all the back biting and bickering
over who did what to whom, all interfering with getting anything
done... now you want to give them a new tool to try to silence each
other... a new way to throw mud? And where does it end? As an
individual, if you promote Mickey D's over Windy's, I get annoyed and
bring charges against you? Should we have a national law that says
everyone must run the toilet paper over the top as opposed the down
the back just to protect us from people who may be annoyed by those
who like the opposite direction. This is insanity.
--

Spike
1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy
w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok;
Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich
gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound
audio-video...
See my ride at....
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg
Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/d..._11_05_002.jpg
Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/E...ebuild_006.jpg

In article >, Wound Up wrote:
> Brent P wrote:
>> In article . com>, Wound Up wrote:
>>
>>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>used for an illegal purpose. And how would it be enforced? Will there
>>>>>be a new government agency devoted strictly to internet law
>>>>>enforcement? Sounds like a "feel good" law to me.
>>>>
>>>>Selective enforcement. The same way that 55mph interstate speed limits
>>>>where traffic flows at 75mph is enforced. It will be enforced where
>>>>profitable or on people who have angered/annoyed someone in government
>>>>office.
>>>
>>
>>
>>>Word. Key one is "profitable", either directly or indirectly.
>>>Otherwise, where's the incentive?
>>
>>
>> Let's say you are senator and I'm a citizen who disagrees with how your
>> policies, voting, etc. You use this new law to put me in prison or fine me
>> into shuting up.
>>
>
> But who likes spam but spammers? Who likes harrassment? It's not as if
> one camp will side with you on party lines or any other, for that matter.

As if government has time for that nonsense. This law will only be used
to curb people's usage of the 1st admendment.