Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2HousePlague
4. You stand in front of a bank (ostensibly giving away lemonade samples), but then harass customers as they enter, stuff business cards in their pockets they don't want, follow them home, take over the TV remote control, tell them who they can talk to on the phone and who they can't, invite your friends over and make a mess...
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by baddog
Possible misdemeanor (trespassing)
|
Hmmm... maybe, OR...
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2HousePlague
4. You stand in front of a bank (ostensibly giving away lemonade samples),
|
Fraud (misrepresentation of commercial intent) = Felony
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2HousePlague
...but then harass customers as they enter, stuff business cards in their pockets they don't want,
|
Assault* (uninvited trespass of the "body) = Felony *(Obviously not a
physical assualt in this metaphor, but the e-equivalent, which would be invasive, aggressive entry with the intent to steal or harm)
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 2HousePlague
follow them home, take over the TV remote control, tell them who they can talk to on the phone and who they can't...
|
The approriate law to address the issue here does NOT YET exist, which is among the reasons I wanted to go through this exercise.
We're facing activities here that are (I think we all agree on this point) crossing lines beyond which the law SHOULD get involved.
What I have discovered by reading the posts in this thread is that many of you ARE distracted enough by the technical differences between Viruses and Spyware to be UNABLE to consider the comparison I intended -- based on
effect, not infection vector.
The reason I posed the question as I did is not because I don't understand the difference between the different types of programs -- I do, as well as any of you, I assure you.
The reason I framed the comparison as such is simply because in the case of "Viruses", we (all of us, as prospective plaintiffs) can immediately benefit from the fact that the law has both precedent of action and scope of inclusion, across a broad range of cases. So that if and when we decide we've had enough of what Spyware distributors are doing (and getting away with in the guise of e-marketing), we can rely on the understanding of DENIAL OF SERVICE we have achieved via the pursuit and prosecution of Hackers and e-Virologists. But, to do that, we have to begin to separate the
method from the
effects.
Let me leave you with this link to the FCC Web site. If
I were a prosecuting lawyer, looking for root precedents that I might apply to make a case against someone who had "taken over the TV remote control, and [told me] who [I] can talk to on the phone and who [I] can't..."
I would think of ways to applying this FCC violation to our medium --
Section 301. And that, my friend IS a felony.
j-