Question About Privacy At R2R

[EeyoreIsMySpiritAnimal]

Well actually, that's called a "merge and dismiss". where they might drop several lesser charges and only pursue the main infraction. Beat that one charge and all are dropped.

You seem to have significant knowledge about this subject... lol

 

[VintageReefer]

I have yet to see a law that has been broken. A subsection of a fraud law is not applicable without the parent charge and there was no fraud or history of fraud

 

[BeanAnimal]

Wait, everyone hasn't? :oops:

Shhh - the great bacon heist of 198x was to be expunged from my record.

 

[Reefering1]

You seem to have significant knowledge about this subject... lol

I've learned some lessons the hard way :confused-face:

 

[Mschmidt]

I suggest reading the entire law and not the snippet posted. I don’t feel this applies at all

(2) Requirements​

In carrying out this subsection, the Sentencing Commission shall consider providing sentencing enhancements for-

(A) those convicted under section 1037 of title 18 who-

Pause - to have this be applicable the offender needs to be convicted of 1037 title 18, a fraud crime

(i) obtained electronic mail addresses through improper means, including-

(I) harvesting electronic mail addresses of the users of a website, proprietary service, or other online public forum operated by another person, without the authorization of such person; and

(II) randomly generating electronic mail addresses by computer; or


(ii) knew that the commercial electronic mail messages involved in the offense contained or advertised an Internet domain for which the registrant of the domain had provided false registration information; and


Pause here - you need 1 AND II or
1 AND ii

(B) those convicted of other offenses, including offenses involving fraud, identity theft, obscenity, child pornography, and the sexual exploitation of children, if such offenses involved the sending of large quantities of electronic mail.


This law seems to be a additional thing they tack on in cases where there is a fraud crime being committed.

None of this is applicable in any way in this situation

I did read the whole thing. That's where I got the snippet I quoted. I however don't know how laws are structured, in fact they seem to me to be intentionally convoluted.

Shhh - the great bacon heist of 198x was to be expunged from my record.

Would that be 301 status?

 

[Fish Fan]

Was posting in the thread considered “entering the contest” ?

Then completely separate and unrelated - visiting the website generated the email

Yes. Someone else tagged me in the contest post, and I simply replied that I did NOT want to be in the contest, but good luck. That post "won" me the gift card. I now see where everyone who posts on the thread "wins" a gift card.

I should have let it go, but I never win anything, so I asked for the gift card via R2R, which was provided to me. I then went to the SBB site, looked around for a few, and left. From just that, they got my email and signed me up for their mailing list.

And remember, when I started this thread there was a real concern that my info had been obtained through R2R, which it did not. After that, this thread has kind of devolved into what it is now. But my original concern I believe was valid, and I'm still not happy with SBB and the whole Opensend thing, though I get that's life on the internet now.

 

[Fish Fan]

Well actually, that's called a "merge and dismiss". where they might drop several lesser charges and only pursue the main infraction. Beat that one charge and all are dropped.

But that's a prosecutor's prerogative and gamble, that's not saying those lesser laws should not be observed.

 

[VintageReefer]

I did read the whole thing. That's where I got the snippet I quoted. I however don't know how laws are structured, in fact they seem to me to be intentionally convoluted.

Would that be 301 status?

They are structure in sections and those sections have subsections. In this case this is a subsection. It has a requirements section. So for this to apply, it has to meet the requirements. This is a “sentencing enhancement” - ie it’s tacked on another crime, and makes the penalty of the original crime more severe.

The first requirement is that it must meet section A or section B. Section A further has sub rules for it to apply

This is a very specific subsection / enhancement and is only applicable in certain situation of fraud or some other crimes.

I make an motion for this to be removed from the record of this thread !

 

[Reefering1]

But that's a prosecutor's prerogative and gamble, that's not saying those lesser laws should not be observed.

But for every law, there are technicalities and loopholes that a good lawyer can exploit. Right or wrong, without widespread complaint, I can't imagine anything going very far. Just a "pass the buck" blame game.
Maybe r2r( @revhtree ) can "pressure" sbb into dropping the "personal information skimming programs"

 

[Fish Fan]

But for every law, there are technicalities and loopholes that a good lawyer can exploit. Right or wrong, without widespread complaint, I can't imagine anything going very far. Just a "pass the buck" blame game.
Maybe r2r( @revhtree ) can "pressure" sbb into dropping the "personal information skimming programs"

I'd like to see that very much, but I don't see R2R getting involved on that level.

 

[billyocean]

 

[VintageReefer]

Why would R2R tell another company how to run their business, especially when they are following the laws and not breaking rules

 

[Reefering1]

You get it!!

 

[mycoralswontgrow]

So I don’t like how invasive this software seems, but acting like Sbb is the only one using such a software is ridiculous.

Most online vendors use something, maybe not the same thing, or maybe they’ve also set theirs not to include certain people in email blasts based on X circumstances.

R2r can’t single out one vendor to force to stop this, without hitting all of them. Asking all the vendors to not use marketing software in the digital age we live in would never fly.

What I hope is after Sbb realizes the extent that this software does data grabbing, he will change to something else.

 

[Reefering1]

So I don’t like how invasive this software seems, but acting like Sbb is the only one using such a software is ridiculous.

Most online vendors use something, maybe not the same thing, or maybe they’ve also set theirs not to include certain people in email blasts based on X circumstances.

R2r can’t single out one vendor to force to stop this, without hitting all of them. Asking all the vendors to not use marketing software in the digital age we live in would never fly.

What I hope is after Sbb realizes the extent that this software does data grabbing, he will change to something else.

All of them, it is!!

 

[Reefering1]

 

[Fish Fan]

Why would R2R tell another company how to run their business, especially when they are following the laws and not breaking rules

I disagree with that. I have always been told a company cannot (legally) add an email to their marketing without permission, whether or not an opt-out is available (which it has to be). And from what I can see when I look now, that appears to be true. And certainly at the least, it's unethical, but no, I don't see how or why R2R gets involved here.

 

[mycoralswontgrow]

I disagree with that. I have always been told a company cannot (legally) add an email to their marketing without permission, whether or not an opt-out is available (which it has to be). And from what I can see when I look now, that appears to be true. And certainly at the least, it's unethical, but no, I don't see how or why R2R gets involved here.

To be devils advocate here, you realize this could be automated, with no direct input? Simply a setting to only include emails identified when typed into the website would make this so you never even knew about it.

Take the below:

Company a says - we will help increase your marketing base by 30% and manage your email campaigns to hit the broadest audience.

Company b - dang that sounds great, and online research shows company a seems to comply with legal laws etc etc. sure let’s do it.

Company a - activates its marketing tool and here we are 14 pages later.

Just food for thought when vilifying someone for something that can be completely AI driven.

Still don’t like the software which is why I don’t use any non work stuff on my work computer, as you never know what’s out there.

 

[Fish Fan]

To be devils advocate here, you realize this could be automated, with no direct input? Simply a setting to only include emails identified when typed into the website would make this so you never even knew about it.

Take the below:

Company a says - we will help increase your marketing base by 30% and manage your email campaigns to hit the broadest audience.

Company b - dang that sounds great, and online research shows company a seems to comply with legal laws etc etc. sure let’s do it.

Company a - activates its marketing tool and here we are 14 pages later.

OK, but what about that makes it right? Most here in this thread agree that what they are doing is at the least unethical.

And I'm just talking and typing here lol! If the thread is getting too long it's only because it keeps getting replies, including yours :)

 

[Reefering1]

Why would R2R tell another company how to run their business, especially when they are following the laws and not breaking rules

Maybe they might want to, at least try, help mold the community into one that respects its members. They might not have to, many don't care, but what if they did? That would get my respect(for whatever that's worth) and business. It could be one step in the right direction, for a hobby so far from what it was