Comments on: Spitzer goes after Gratis http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8313 p2pnet.net offers not-your-lamescream news on movies music digital media P2P peer-to-peer TV television file sharing freedom of speech open source product news Wifi mobiles company Mon, 01 Dec 2008 18:19:00 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8313#comment-36559 Reader's Write Sat, 25 Mar 2006 11:59:12 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8313#comment-36559 "Gratis, based in Washington, D.C., did not immediately respond to requests for comment...." I assume there's a nexus to New York State, otherwise we'd all have to put up with what are considered "appropriate" standards for publishing material on the internet in each of the 46 states, 4 commonwealths, the District of Columbia, and territories. If they only harvested e-mail addresses and sold them, it's unlikely that rises to the level of criminal fraud. If they collected information beyond just e-mail address, there is likely an issue. If they did not give away the prizes promised on the website, then that is definitely fraud. As is the usual case with stories like this, those who have been inconvenienced by some SPAM, are being portrayed as pathetic 'victims' of a "massive privacy violation." It wasn't as though their medical records and bank statements were sent to their insurance companies. This doesn't even come close to the ChoicePoint and Lexis-Nexus debacles. Finally, two old clichés ring even truer on the internet: "Caveat Emptor" "If it sounds too good to be true...." (Completion is an exercise left to the reader.) “Gratis, based in Washington, D.C., did not immediately respond to requests for comment….” I assume there’s a nexus to New York State, otherwise we’d all have to put up with what are considered “appropriate” standards for publishing material on the internet in each of the 46 states, 4 commonwealths, the District of Columbia, and territories.

If they only harvested e-mail addresses and sold them, it’s unlikely that rises to the level of criminal fraud. If they collected information beyond just e-mail address, there is likely an issue. If they did not give away the prizes promised on the website, then that is definitely fraud.

As is the usual case with stories like this, those who have been inconvenienced by some SPAM, are being portrayed as pathetic ‘victims’ of a “massive privacy violation.” It wasn’t as though their medical records and bank statements were sent to their insurance companies. This doesn’t even come close to the ChoicePoint and Lexis-Nexus debacles.

Finally, two old clichés ring even truer on the internet:

“Caveat Emptor”

“If it sounds too good to be true….” (Completion is an exercise left to the reader.)

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8313#comment-36551 Reader's Write Sat, 25 Mar 2006 07:39:44 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/8313#comment-36551 Good for Spitzer!!! Kick their ass!!!! Good for Spitzer!!! Kick their ass!!!!

]]>