On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:36:26 GMT, in <alt.privacy.spyware>, "-=ô;ö=-"
<Not.Telling@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> This article re-prined in entirety from
> http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=[REDACTED]
[snip]

Not quite, ****wit. You left off:

"© 2003 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. Reproduction by
Syndication Service only."

Then you proceded to blatantly violate both U.S. federal law and applicable
international treaties (i.e., the Berne Convention).

And BTW... The artice in question is so far off-base as to be a serious
DISservice to anyone gullible enough to be misled by it. One (perfectly
legal and proper, under "Fair Use") quote is sufficient to establish this
beyond ALL doubt:

'But career spammers, "hackers gone bad, or they are crooks
gone geek," as Internet lawyer Alan Ralsky puts it,'

Alan Ralsky is no "Internet Lawyer". He is one of THE WORST of the career
spammer scumbags, a convicted felon (U.S. District Court for the Eastern
District of Michigan, case #: 94-CR-81041-ALL), and so well-known that even
the Detroit Free Press has run articles on him:

<http://www.freep.com/money/tech/mwend13_20021213.htm>

A more complete dossier can be found at:

<http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/search.lasso?evidencefile=1290>

> in case you try the link and cannot get to it....
>
[snip]

Why would anyone want to? There is FAR more wrong with that article than
there is right with it.

--

Jay T. Blocksom
--------------------------------
Appropriate Technology, Inc.
usenet01[at]appropriate-tech.net


"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."
-- Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
NOTE: E-Mail address in "From:" line is INVALID! Remove +SPAMBLOCK to mail.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Unsolicited advertising sent to this E-Mail address is expressly prohibited
under USC Title 47, Section 227. Violators are subject to charge of up to
$1,500 per incident or treble actual costs, whichever is greater.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -