E.U. Employers To Be Held Liable For Porn Spam?

Grok Headline matches for E.U. Employers To Be Held Liable For Porn Spam?

Europe: Employers liable for porn spam

Europe: Employers liable for porn spam 04/27/2004 11:29 AM
ZDNet Apr 27 2004 3:14PM GMT

Employers could be sued for porn spam
(Reuters)

Employers could be sued for porn spam
(Reuters) 04/27/2004 08:47 AM
Reuters - E-mail porn spam in the workplace could land European employers in court for fostering a hostile work environment, a Dutch researcher says.

Credit Card Companies Cannot Be Held
Liable

Credit Card Companies Cannot Be Held
Liable 08/16/2004 11:46 PM

Direct and Related Links for 'Credit Card Companies Cannot Be Held Liable'

“In a ruling the Electronic Frontier Foundation hailed as a step forward, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ruled today that Visa and several other credit card companies would not be held liable for the copyright infringements of its business customers. The case was brought by Perfect 10, an adult website that accused several credit card companies of copyright infringement because they were providing financial transaction services for sites containing…

French Employers Who Provide Staff with
Internet Access Are Held to the Same
Data Retention Obligations as ISP

French Employers Who Provide Staff with
Internet Access Are Held to the Same
Data Retention Obligations as ISP 03/29/2005 04:43 PM
Mondaq Mar 29 2005 8:16PM GMT

Finance Spam Passing Drug Spam While
Porn Spam Is Washed Up

Finance Spam Passing Drug Spam While
Porn Spam Is Washed Up 05/24/2004 05:37 PM
The latest study on spam trends appears to show that financial spam is outpacing pharmaceutical spam - though, honestly, so much of both is coming out that it's really hard to imagine that this matters at all. Meanwhile, it seems that porn spam is increasingly less interesting to spammers as the numbers have been on a noticeable decline for quite some time. No matter what, though, it appears that CAN-SPAM has done absolutely nothing to slow down the amount of spam sent.

Four held in NI internet child porn
inquiry

Four held in NI internet child porn
inquiry 06/18/2004 02:35 PM
Irish Times Jun 18 2004 6:48PM GMT

Porn Spam

Porn Spam 05/19/2004 01:40 PM

Porn Spam Is So 2003

Porn Spam Is So 2003 12/29/2004 01:55 PM
Late last year, we noted that porn spam seemed to be on the decline according to various studies, as things in the "healthcare" (defined very loosely) were becoming more popular among spammers. This year, porn spam tried to make a comeback, but couldn't seem to hold out against other types of spam, including the ever-present Rolex spam. In the end, it appears that porn spam is on the decline. A year end report notes that barely any porn spam made it onto the list of top junk email for 2004. According to the article, part of the reason is that spam filters have become much better at filtering out the pron spam (though, for some reason, the article suggests that the filters couldn't stop "HOT LESBIAN ACTION" from getting through to many inboxes). Right at the top of the list, however, were spam promising prescriptions for Vioxx -- which makes me wonder if most of those came before or after Vioxx was banned from the market.

Porn spam must now be labeled

Porn spam must now be labeled 05/20/2004 09:45 PM
New labels are required for sexually oriented email, but the new rule may do nothing to decrease the amount of sexually explicit emails from reaching inboxes.

Porn spam increases by 350 percent

Porn spam increases by 350 percent 08/16/2004 10:06 PM
ZDNet Australia Aug 17 2004 1:49AM GMT

AOL: Vioxx spam unseats porn

AOL: Vioxx spam unseats porn 12/29/2004 04:39 PM
CNN Money Dec 29 2004 6:56PM GMT

FTC orders porn spam label

FTC orders porn spam label 04/14/2004 07:55 AM
ZDNet Apr 14 2004 12:49PM GMT

FTC Porn Spam Regulation Now in Effect

FTC Porn Spam Regulation Now in Effect 05/20/2004 01:15 PM

FTC Legalizes Porn Spam - Expect Plenty

FTC Legalizes Porn Spam - Expect Plenty 04/13/2004 02:10 PM
The latest move by our government to legitimize spam by simply adding rules that tell you how to spam properly, is this decision by the FTC that all porn spam must be labeled to say "SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT" (capital screaming required?). Also, such spam cannot contain "graphic material." In other words, porn spammers have just been told it's okay to spam. This should pretty much guarantee that we all start receiving a lot more pornographic spam - though, easily labeled so that anyone glancing over your shoulder (assuming you don't use filters) to check out your inbox will immediately see "SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT" everywhere. I'm a bit surprised they're doing this, considering the recent ridiculous crackdown on "indecency." Not that I have a problem with anyone viewing whatever porn they want - but it should be their choice, and not forced upon them by spammers.

More Rules On How To Spam... This Time
For Porn Spammers

More Rules On How To Spam... This Time
For Porn Spammers 01/29/2004 02:49 AM
Wait just a second. A month ago, we were hearing stories from our elected officials about how spam was supposed to be dead dead dead by now, thanks to the "CAN SPAM" law which would make it illegal to spam. Of course, as we all know, the law wasn't really intended to stop spam at all, but rather to give instructions on how you can spam. Further evidence of that comes today as the FTC is actually releasing new rules for porn spammers on how to spam. They're telling them they need to include a special label. In other words, they can just keep on spamming - as long as they include that one little label. Great way to "stop" spam, huh?

Porn Spam Makes A Triumphant Return

Porn Spam Makes A Triumphant Return 02/01/2005 09:43 PM
It's getting tough to tell who you can actually trust when it comes to the various spam surveys about what spam is out there -- as they seldom seem to agree with each other. Just a month ago we were writing about how porn spam clearly seemed to be on the decline, while a new report suggests the amount of porn spam has tripled. Indeed, the studies might agree, as the new one says that porn spam tripled in January from December (when we had noted it slowed). So, apparently, porn spammers suddenly felt that January was the right time to start blasting porn spam again, while financial spam suddenly seemed to be less exciting. On the "always popular" list, "health" or "medical" spam (again, extremely loosely defined) seems to always be in fashion.

Vioxx Replaces Porn as Spam King

Vioxx Replaces Porn as Spam King 12/30/2004 08:05 PM

Top Spam For The Year: Viagra, Mortgages
And Porn

Top Spam For The Year: Viagra, Mortgages
And Porn 12/31/2003 07:16 PM
Well, what better way to close out the year than a post about spam? AOL has released their list of "top" spam messages from 2003 which represent the subject lines of the spam they found most often in 2003. At the top of the list, of course, is any subject pitching Viagra. Next up are spam for low mortgage rates, and coming in third is the ever popular porn spam. AOL claims they blocked 500 billion spam messages - an average of about 40 per day per user.

Porn Spam Makes A Comeback For The
Summer

Porn Spam Makes A Comeback For The
Summer 08/17/2004 01:29 PM
Last year at about this time, we noted that porn spam seemed to be on the "decline" relative to "healthcare" (read: Viagra) spam. However, this year, the latest study says that porn spam shot up this summer. Who knew these things were seasonal? Actually, this report claims the same thing happened last summer, which goes against what we reported back then (and, yes, it's the same company's study). The discrepancy in the claims may be due to the difference between relative and absolute numbers. The percent of overall spam that was porn may have declined, while the actual number of porn spam may have increased, since other forms of spam increased at an even faster rate. Honestly, though, at this point, when something like 80% of all email is spam, does it really matter how much is porn vs. gambling vs. phishing vs. drugs?

Porn virus targets spam stoppers

Porn virus targets spam stoppers 12/03/2003 09:50 AM
BBC Dec 3 2003 9:18AM ET

Fabulous celebrity nightmare porn spam
specimen

Fabulous celebrity nightmare porn spam
specimen 07/22/2004 12:52 AM
This was the most spectacularly surreal piece of sex spam I'd received in a long time. Since it involved a misspelled celebrity menage a trois that never was (thank heavens), I felt obligated to share it with these folks. And if you think that's special, oh, just you wait for the Japanese live eel porn video link.

Porn Rewards Users To Get Past Anti-Spam
Captchas

Porn Rewards Users To Get Past Anti-Spam
Captchas 01/28/2004 10:17 AM

Who's liable?

Who's liable? 03/28/2005 01:42 AM
USA Today Mar 28 2005 4:51AM GMT

Two cos. not liable for copyright abuses

Two cos. not liable for copyright abuses 08/20/2004 12:32 PM
Boston Globe Aug 20 2004 4:17PM GMT

Who'll Be Liable for Options?

Who'll Be Liable for Options? 07/12/2004 12:30 PM
A new proposal adds a dynamic twist to expensing stock options.

Spam, spam, spam, spam ... Canada
targets unwanted email (AFP)

Spam, spam, spam, spam ... Canada
targets unwanted email (AFP) 05/12/2004 04:17 AM
AFP - Canada unveiled a new action plan to combat unsolicited commercial e-mail, nicknamed spam, which jams inboxes and clogs Internet traffic worldwide.

Court: Cos. Not Liable for Online Abuses

Court: Cos. Not Liable for Online Abuses 08/20/2004 02:31 PM
AP via Los Angeles Times Aug 20 2004 7:13PM GMT

Who's liable for actions of people who
share?

Who's liable for actions of people who
share? 03/28/2005 03:22 AM
USA Today Mar 28 2005 8:04AM GMT

Viruses on Rise, But Are Companies
Liable?

Viruses on Rise, But Are Companies
Liable? 05/31/2004 11:15 AM

Court Says Former Yahoo Exec Not Liable

Court Says Former Yahoo Exec Not Liable 04/06/2005 06:23 PM
AP via Los Angeles Times Apr 6 2005 9:59PM GMT

Court: Grokster, StreamCast Not Liable

Court: Grokster, StreamCast Not Liable 08/19/2004 07:11 PM
Grokster and StreamCast Networks are not legally responsible for the swapping of copyright content through their file-sharing software, a federal appeals court rules in a blow to movie studios and record labels.

Can Employers Own Your Thoughts?

Can Employers Own Your Thoughts? 08/18/2004 05:22 AM
Salon is running a very good wrap-up of the case Evan Brown lost to Alcatel, concerning whether they owned the rights to an idea he developed on his own time. The article, while sympathetic to Brown, does cover the issues on both sides of the case, suggesting that Brown made some mistakes in dealing with the situation -- though, all of those appear to be honest mistakes almost anyone might make. Still, with so many people working on random side-projects all the time, does it put employees at risk of somehow being stuck with the company they currently work for to avoid having to deal with a lawsuit? The article offers some suggestions for anyone else in a similar situation, but the best one might be what a number of readers here suggested last year when a similar case (involving Apple) came to light: when you're offered an employment contract cross out the section that says they own anything you create while employed there.

U.S. Employers Add 248,000 New Jobs in
May (AP)

U.S. Employers Add 248,000 New Jobs in
May (AP) 06/04/2004 08:25 PM
AP - U.S. employers hired almost a quarter-million new workers in May, swelling payrolls by nearly 1.2 million for the year so far in a jobs market steadily gaining steam ahead of November's presidential election.

U.S. employers add 248,000 new jobs in
May

U.S. employers add 248,000 new jobs in
May 06/06/2004 12:13 AM
Seattletimes.nwsource.com - Sat Jun 5, 06:41 am GMT

Canadian ISPs not liable for content
royalties

Canadian ISPs not liable for content
royalties 07/01/2004 06:55 AM
Providers judged to be 'common carriers'

"Top court rules ISPs not liable for
royalties"

"Top court rules ISPs not liable for
royalties" 06/30/2004 09:14 PM

Should Parents Be Liable For Their Kids
RIAA Misadventures?

Should Parents Be Liable For Their Kids
RIAA Misadventures? 08/03/2004 12:32 PM
There are times when parents are considered somewhat liable for illegal actions by their kids, but in most cases, the kids themselves take responsibility. So, why is that not the case in a situation where the RIAA and music sharing is involved? In a story about a husband and wife being charged for "downloading," the couple admits that it was their two teenagers who did the downloading, but a lawyer is still telling them to pay up the $3,000 the RIAA wants. There are all sorts of problems with this. First, no one was sued for "downloading," but for sharing unauthorized music (two very different things). However, more importantly, the fact that this couple has no clue how to download music shows exactly the main weakness of the RIAA's case. They're suing people without any evidence that the people they're suing committed the crime. But, the way the system works, it's cheaper to pay up than to fight the bogus claims.

Jury: Bertelsmann liable in AOL Europe
suit

Jury: Bertelsmann liable in AOL Europe
suit 12/12/2003 10:26 AM
CNET Dec 12 2003 8:41AM ET

Employers can check on you via your
mobile

Employers can check on you via your
mobile 09/27/2004 12:44 AM
ZDNet Australia Sep 27 2004 4:40AM GMT
Grok Description matches for E.U. Employers To Be Held Liable For Porn Spam?
GrokA matches for E.U. Employers To Be Held Liable For Porn Spam?

E.U. Employers To Be Held Liable For Porn Spam?

The following phrases have been identified by the grok system as matching this entry: