Connare Tech: Owner’s Corner

One of the classes I am taking this semester is a journalism class. Some of the articles I have been writing about focus on the happenings of the tech world. While articles are often adjusted for length and content by my editors, some of my articles I feel raise interesting issues. I have decided to post my original versions of the articles here as while they might not be nearly as grammatically correct or flow properly it goes along with the same style of my other posts. Just my thoughts, strung together about certain issues, take or leave from it what you want.

Earlier this month the Virginia Supreme Court ruled that spam emails are not protected by the first amendment and that the state’s anti-spam laws, for which the defendant was convicted by, are not in violation of the right to free speech or the interstate commerce clause of the constitutional.

The defendant, Jeremy Jaynes, according to the Spamhuas project, which tracks spam on a global level, listed Jayes as the eight largest spammer in the world before his arrest in 2004. Jaynes conviction lands him nine years behind bars for sending more than 53,000 emails using AOL’s servers in a 3 day period.

“SPAM not only clogs email inboxes and destroys productivity; it also defrauds citizens and threatens the online revolution” said Virginia Attorney General Bob McDonnell in a press release regarding the victory. The court in its decision said that misleading speech for commercial means is not protected. This is along the same lines that have already been established by previous legal precedents such as yelling fire in a crowded room when there isn’t which is not protected. Some students agree with the decision.

“It sounds right,” says Rachel Stover a junior marketing major. “Spam is an invasion. The fact that you get it so much of it without agreeing to it is a problem.”

Virginia’s anti-spam law makes it a class 1 misdemeanor or class 6 felony to send out emails in this manner of over 10,000 within a 24 hour time period, 100,000 in a 30 day time period, or one million in a year. It defines a spammer as someone who “uses a computer or computer network with the intent to falsify or forge electronic mail transmission information or other routing information in any manner in connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail through or into the computer network of an electronic mail service provider or its subscriber” according to Virginia’s legislative website.

However, the conviction was narrowly upheld by a split 4-3 ruling. In the dissenting opinion Judge Elizabeth Lacy writes that the anti-spam law is unconstitutional “because it prohibits the anonymous transmission of all unsolicited bulk e-mail including those containing political, religious or other speech protected by the First Amendment.” Members of the UB community were also split about the decision.

“Tenure insures that faculty can have rights under academic freedom to say things that might be in contrast to current thinking. So in the same way, spam falls under freedom of speech, to contact me or any person about a particular product or service, to provide me with information,” says Teresa Miklitsch an adjunct professor in the graduate school of education in educational leadership and policy.

“How is spam any different than telemarketers, or the junk-mail, like credit-card offers that I receive at my house? I never ask for either, so why are they permissible, but now spam isn’t?” wonders Miklitsch.

This is the first time that a spammer has been convicted on a federal level, according to the press release by the Virginia attorney general’s office, experts believe that the ruling won’t have any immediate affect on the amount of spam that winds up in your inbox.

“Spam has changed nature of e-mail for the worst there is no question about that,” says William J. Rapaport, an associate professor in the department of computer science and engineering. “I’m optimistic about the decision but still skeptical because nothing has worked so far to stem the tide of spam.”

“Today in light of people using facebook or blogs we are opening ourselves up intentionally to more spam,” Miklitsch said. “They are all open communication that we’ve created by choice. So we’ve created an open market for communication.”

If the lack of a general consensus among students and professors at the University at Buffalo is any indication, much like that of the Virginia Supreme Court, don’t be surprised if this issue is brought up again in the near future, though this time in front the 9 justices of the U.S. Supreme Court.