Gravitymaster 0 #1 October 19, 2005 FBI Raid Nets Spammer Near Detroit NewsMax.com Wires Monday, Oct. 17, 2005 WEST BLOOMFIELD, Mich. -- A man described as one of the nation's leading senders of spam says an FBI raid on his home office has halted his e-mail operation. Warrants unsealed last week show that a September raid on Alan M. Ralsky's home in a Detroit suburb included the seizure of financial records, computers and disks. "We're out of business at this point in time," Ralsky said. "They didn't shut us down. They took all our equipment, which had the effect of shutting us down." Terry Berg, the top deputy in the Detroit U.S. attorney's office, declined to comment. Ralsky, 60, has said that he has 150 million or more e-mail addresses, and he has been a target of anti-spam efforts for years. Verizon Communications Inc. sued him in 2001, saying he shut down its networks with millions of e-mail solicitations. He settled, promising not to send spam on its networks. A federal law that took effect last year bans use of misleading subject lines and the sending of commercial e-mail messages that appear to be from friends. It also bans use of multiple e-mail addresses or domain names to hide senders' identities. ******************************************************************* Question: Should the ACLU defend his right to free speech? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #2 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuestion: Should the ACLU defend his right to free speech? QuoteVerizon Communications Inc. sued him in 2001, saying he shut down its networks with millions of e-mail solicitations. He settled, promising not to send spam on its networks. No. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #3 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuestion: Should the ACLU defend his right to free speech? QuoteVerizon Communications Inc. sued him in 2001, saying he shut down its networks with millions of e-mail solicitations. He settled, promising not to send spam on its networks. No. Suppose he claims their networks are public access much the way MCI took on AT&T in the 70's and he has the right to use them? After all, they are just access to the internet which was built with tax dollars. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #4 October 19, 2005 Quote Suppose he claims their networks are public access much the way MCI took on AT&T in the 70's and he has the right to use them? After all, they are just access to the internet which was built with tax dollars. You ever sign a waiver? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #5 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuote Suppose he claims their networks are public access much the way MCI took on AT&T in the 70's and he has the right to use them? After all, they are just access to the internet which was built with tax dollars. You ever sign a waiver? OK. Suppose he had. Surely you see this for what it is don't you. Just another example of the big corporations that run this country slapping the little guy down. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Nightingale 0 #6 October 19, 2005 Quote Question: Should the ACLU defend his right to free speech? I don't think the ACLU will get involved in this one. It would be an interesting court case, though. I don't recall whether something similar has been litigated before. I don't think so, but I'm too tired to look right now. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #7 October 19, 2005 QuoteFBI Raid Nets Spammer Near Detroit NewsMax.com Wires Monday, Oct. 17, 2005 WEST BLOOMFIELD, Mich. -- A man described as one of the nation's leading senders of spam says an FBI raid on his home office has halted his e-mail operation. Warrants unsealed last week show that a September raid on Alan M. Ralsky's home in a Detroit suburb included the seizure of financial records, computers and disks. "We're out of business at this point in time," Ralsky said. "They didn't shut us down. They took all our equipment, which had the effect of shutting us down." Terry Berg, the top deputy in the Detroit U.S. attorney's office, declined to comment. Ralsky, 60, has said that he has 150 million or more e-mail addresses, and he has been a target of anti-spam efforts for years. Verizon Communications Inc. sued him in 2001, saying he shut down its networks with millions of e-mail solicitations. He settled, promising not to send spam on its networks. A federal law that took effect last year bans use of misleading subject lines and the sending of commercial e-mail messages that appear to be from friends. It also bans use of multiple e-mail addresses or domain names to hide senders' identities. ******************************************************************* Question: Should the ACLU defend his right to free speech? Where has his right to free speech been infringed? He has no right to fraudulently misprepresent himself, which appears to be his modus operandi.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #8 October 19, 2005 QuoteWhere has his right to free speech been infringed? He has no right to fraudulently misprepresent himself, which appears to be his modus operandi. So you tried the penis enlarger and know it doesn't work? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #9 October 19, 2005 Quote QuoteWhere has his right to free speech been infringed? He has no right to fraudulently misprepresent himself, which appears to be his modus operandi. So you tried the penis enlarger and know it doesn't work? From your own post, which apparently you didn't bother to read: "A federal law that took effect last year bans use of misleading subject lines and the sending of commercial e-mail messages that appear to be from friends. It also bans use of multiple e-mail addresses or domain names to hide senders' identities". He's just a con-artist in a new disguise. Does the 1st Amendment protect con-artists? I think not.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #10 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuote QuoteWhere has his right to free speech been infringed? He has no right to fraudulently misprepresent himself, which appears to be his modus operandi. So you tried the penis enlarger and know it doesn't work? From your own post, which apparently you didn't bother to read: "A federal law that took effect last year bans use of misleading subject lines and the sending of commercial e-mail messages that appear to be from friends. It also bans use of multiple e-mail addresses or domain names to hide senders' identities". He's just a con-artist in a new disguise. Does the 1st Amendment protect con-artists? I think not. You think all laws that are passed are Constitutional? I guess we might as well eliminate the SCOTUS then. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #11 October 19, 2005 QuoteYou think all laws that are passed are Constitutional? I guess we might as well eliminate the SCOTUS then. A little too much troll in your Corn Flakes this morning? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #12 October 19, 2005 QuoteYou think all laws that are passed are Constitutional? I guess we might as well eliminate the SCOTUS then. The laws are supposed to be enforced unless/until the SCOTUS interprets them as unConstitutional. That is how the system works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #13 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteYou think all laws that are passed are Constitutional? I guess we might as well eliminate the SCOTUS then. The laws are supposed to be enforced unless/until the SCOTUS interprets them as unConstitutional. That is how the system works. Which is exactly why I asked if the ACLU would take his case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
tso-d_chris 0 #14 October 19, 2005 QuoteWhich is exactly why I asked if the ACLU would take his case. You received reasons why most do not believe ACLU will take the case , and why it does not appear any rights have been violated. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #15 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteWhich is exactly why I asked if the ACLU would take his case. You received reasons why most do not believe ACLU will take the case , and why it does not appear any rights have been violated. And the only person who responded, who has any legal experience, said it would make an interesting case. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #16 October 19, 2005 QuoteAnd the only person who responded, who has any legal experience, said it would make an interesting case. So if the only responses to which you're giving credence are those from people with legal experience, why on Earth are you bringing this up in a skydiving forum? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #17 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteAnd the only person who responded, who has any legal experience, said it would make an interesting case. So if the only responses to which you're giving credence are those from people with legal experience, why on Earth are you bringing this up in a skydiving forum? Speakers Corner is not a skydiving forum. I give more credibility to those who are more educated about certain issues. If you posted something about physics and Kallend disagreed with you, I'd give more credibility to Kallend. Yu disagree? Or was their troll in your cornflakes? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelpdiver 2 #18 October 19, 2005 Quote Question: Should the ACLU defend his right to free speech? Though free speech considerations have been raised with anti spam legislation, I believe the case law on junk faxes will cover the subject. Spam costs the recipient, not the sender, and that already puts the sender on shaky ground in terms of his rights. And commercial speech has never enjoyed the same rights as political speech. Add the disception and fraud elements, plus the DoS elements and it's not quite like the Nazis in Skokie. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SudsyFist 0 #19 October 19, 2005 QuoteOr was their troll in your cornflakes? Touché! Good one! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #20 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteOr was their troll in your cornflakes? Touché! Good one! Easily amused, huh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
dorbie 0 #21 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuote QuoteWhere has his right to free speech been infringed? He has no right to fraudulently misprepresent himself, which appears to be his modus operandi. So you tried the penis enlarger and know it doesn't work? From your own post, which apparently you didn't bother to read: "A federal law that took effect last year bans use of misleading subject lines and the sending of commercial e-mail messages that appear to be from friends. It also bans use of multiple e-mail addresses or domain names to hide senders' identities". He's just a con-artist in a new disguise. Does the 1st Amendment protect con-artists? I think not. Answer the damned question! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #22 October 19, 2005 QuoteHe's just a con-artist in a new disguise. Does the 1st Amendment protect con-artists? I think not. Why not? It protects pediphiles, the KKK, Nazis etc...Spammers don't injure anyone, they are just annoying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #23 October 19, 2005 QuoteIt protects pediphiles, the KKK, Nazis etc...Spammers don't injure anyone, they are just annoying. Do you have any specific court cases we could look at and discuss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites ReBirth 0 #24 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteHe's just a con-artist in a new disguise. Does the 1st Amendment protect con-artists? I think not. Why not? It protects pediphiles, the KKK, Nazis etc...Spammers don't injure anyone, they are just annoying. Spam costs the average small business of 100 employees with email an average of $20,000 per year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Casurf1978 0 #25 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteHe's just a con-artist in a new disguise. Does the 1st Amendment protect con-artists? I think not. Why not? It protects pediphiles, the KKK, Nazis etc...Spammers don't injure anyone, they are just annoying. Spam costs the average small business of 100 employees with email an average of $20,000 per year. The company I work for gets over 20K spam emails a month and it's increasing around 10% a month. It's a lot more than annoying its costing us a lot of money to filter out these emails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 1 2 Next Page 1 of 2 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0
Gravitymaster 0 #22 October 19, 2005 QuoteHe's just a con-artist in a new disguise. Does the 1st Amendment protect con-artists? I think not. Why not? It protects pediphiles, the KKK, Nazis etc...Spammers don't injure anyone, they are just annoying. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #23 October 19, 2005 QuoteIt protects pediphiles, the KKK, Nazis etc...Spammers don't injure anyone, they are just annoying. Do you have any specific court cases we could look at and discuss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ReBirth 0 #24 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteHe's just a con-artist in a new disguise. Does the 1st Amendment protect con-artists? I think not. Why not? It protects pediphiles, the KKK, Nazis etc...Spammers don't injure anyone, they are just annoying. Spam costs the average small business of 100 employees with email an average of $20,000 per year. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #25 October 19, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteHe's just a con-artist in a new disguise. Does the 1st Amendment protect con-artists? I think not. Why not? It protects pediphiles, the KKK, Nazis etc...Spammers don't injure anyone, they are just annoying. Spam costs the average small business of 100 employees with email an average of $20,000 per year. The company I work for gets over 20K spam emails a month and it's increasing around 10% a month. It's a lot more than annoying its costing us a lot of money to filter out these emails. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
