Mailing bot illegal? [Social Experiment] Hope I am in the right place for this type of question. I am a developer that would like to start up a little project that is kind of a social experiment. The idea is that I setup a mailing bot with a list of emails (say a few million from a online email dump). This bot will send an email that is somewhat misleading, maybe notifying the user they may have won a prize with a link to collect it. The idea being that I can notify the user once the link is clicked that this was a fake mail designed to spread awareness of scam emails/virus emails and how easy it is to be tricked. I would also like to collect this information and display on a webpage how many emails are sent out and how many people have clicked the link. With the information I could collect it anonymously (not linked to the email address) but it would be better to put it against the email so they can visit the site later and see more stats about the project/social experiment. So the overall question is... Is this possible to do without being in any sort of trouble with laws etc? This will be a worldwide project and poses no threat other than being classed as a spam email.
In the US, your experiment is problematic in several respects according to the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 - Wikipedia. You can legally send unsolicited email, as long as you have an unsubscribe link in the message, and you have obtained those email addresses in a legal manner. Your project is problematic because 1) you using emails from an online dump, which more than likely came from a spam harvester, and those emails were probably not legally obtained. 2) the subject lines (and content) of the emails you send will be deceptive, because you are trying to get people to click on the link to give you data on the people who respond while not telling them the true nature of the email. 3) you will be displaying your collected data in a public manner related to those personal email addresses, after deceiving those people to the nature of your emails, and this could possibly be illegal in terms of privacy outside of the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003. Beyond the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003, in order to send all of those emails in the US, you will need to use internet service provider, which will either be a commercial business, a government entity, or and an NGO. All of those will have terms of service which probably restrict sending mass unsolicited emails using their services. This will be a worldwide project and poses no threat other than being classed as a spam email.... Wrong. You will more than likely be violating many email and privacy laws and those of many interest service providers in all of those jurisdictions, and will open yourself up to both civil and criminal liability.
The lawyer referred to in that article is suing in his capacity as the recipient of spam emails under California's anti-spam law. Not every jurisdiction has a law like this. I'm from Australia. In Australia, when we make laws prohibiting something, the law usually appoints a government agency to administer the law and bring prosecutions under it, and fines are paid to the government. In contrast, America has a lot of these laws where affected individuals can sue and collect the fines personally. So under the Californian law, you can get $1,000 per email for particular kinds of spam even if you haven't actually suffered any real damage: California Business and Professions Code s 17529.5(b)(1)(B)(ii). How? You need to work out who sent the spam, get evidence to prove it, and file a claim in a Californian court. Apparently you can sue in small claims court, which saves you on filing fees. It helps if you have many email accounts, because then you will receive many emails and therefore can collect many fines. One of that lawyer's wins was in Balsam v Trancos (2012) in the Californian Court of Appeal. Another example of a judgment discussing the Californian anti-spam law is Bontrager v Showmark Media.
IANAL, and as @GeorgeBailey suggests, you should ask one. That said, some aspects of your question are directly addressable with what we know. Does US law states anything about this? Yes. Federally this falls under the Wiretap Act, 18 U.S.C. §2511. Workplace monitoring generally falls under either the "System Administrator Exception" or under Consent. In general, continuing past a banner constitutes consent. Does company policy enforcement with such a warning over ride the right to not be subject to surveillance? In general, yes. You don't need to use the companies network if you don't want to consent - and they don't need to hire you if you don't want to use their network. But it's their network, and their rules apply. There are some nuances, and courts have found that the wording of the notice has made a difference in some cases, but overall, if the systems are properly posted with banners, then the employer may capture communications. See the "Bannering and Consent" section of this article from cybertelecom.org, e.g.: Even if no clicking is required, a user who sees the banner before logging on to the network has received notice of the monitoring. By using the network in light of the notice, the user impliedly consents to monitoring pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2511(2)(c)-(d). Note that stored data is covered by different laws than communications. It's a nuance. Is it ethical to sniff all the data without giving any other warning than the logon banner? "Ethical" is a very different question than "Legal", and largely more subjective. Most employers require signed consent for monitoring as a condition of employment, and use banners thereafter. That is ethical by my definition, in that it meets or exceeds the requirements of the law, and does not mislead or use subterfuge. The tone of your question suggests you find it distasteful, and therefore probably it violates your personal code of ethics.
A translation is a devivative work - the copyright owner has the exclusive right to these So, yes, translation is prima facie copyright infringement. Strictly speaking, if you translate it, it's a derivative work because you exercised creativity in making the translation; what Google translate does is not a derivative work, it's a copy because there is no creativity. Either way, only the copyright owner can do (or authorise) this. Whether it's legal or not depends on if what you are doing falls within one of the exceptions to the applicable copyright law such as fair use or fair dealing. Attributing the original author does not, of itself, allow translation. Additionally, I'm not able to find the copyright documentation for the site link I provided above. What is "copyright documentation"? Copyright exists the moment a work is created and no further documentation is required. Essentially, I could translate the whole documentation by myself to avoid this problem. No, you can't - see above. If copy-pasting the google translate is illegal, then exactly how much must I edit, move around sentences, change words, and such until the text is no longer plagiarized? All of it. If you were, based on your own knowledge of the software, to write a manual without any copying o the existing manual, that would not be copyright infringement. Is this plagiarism or copyright infringement? It's copyright infringement - plagiarism is an academic misconduct issue not a legal one. where can I check the copyright for the above link? The site you linked has "Copyright © 2020 Acquia, Inc. All Rights Reserved" in the bottom left corner which identifies the copyright holder, the date and prohibits all copying ("all rights reserved"). This isn't necessary but it is helpful. If you really want to do this, contact Acquia, Inc and ask for permission.
What you are doing is commonly referred to &quot;web scrapers&quot; and they are legal in the EU. What you cannot do is extract personal data. Since the data you are aggregating is non-personal data, whether or not a chat button is available, it should be fine. EDIT As some of the commenters said - it's legal, but many websites detect scrapping. To (try to) avoid being blocked by the server, make it act human. Something like. I check once every 15 minutes with 3 minutes +/- is probably enough. That also is probably what a human would do using the website so it should strengthen your argument the website is unavailable.
Is blocking certain people while allowing everybody else to view some content discrimination Yes. and violate anti-discrimination laws Probably not, at least in the US. There is no federal law prohibiting "discrimination" in general. There are specific laws regarding discrimination against certain groups in certain contexts. They would probably not apply to an individual determining who is allowed to view their social media posts. That said, there are some specific contexts where this might be illegal. They would generally involve non-personal use of the account. The courts recently ruled that Donald Trump may not block people on his Twitter account, because he's using it in an official presidential capacity rather than just his individual capacity. Also, racial discrimination in housing is illegal, so if you're selling your house and you block all black people from viewing your house photos, that would probably be illegal as well. Also is not being able to consume information available on a public platform a violation against right to freedom. I'm not sure what you think a "right to freedom" would entail. But I don't think you have the right to demand that a person allow you to access their social media accounts.
You did not mention the country where you are, but this sounds like a very bad idea. Any working &quot;glitter bomb&quot; will be a low-grade bomb and setting one of those is extremely illegal. If you know when the next parcel will arrive, my advice would be to arrange for a credlible witness and to take pictures of the parcel before you open it any further. Then report the damage to the sender. If it was a commercial parcel, ask for a full refund. Enough of that and the postal inspectors will wonder why their machines are &quot;damaging&quot; so much mail.
How come this is viable? Because it’s legal. What if people use their service to commit crimes? What if people use a Ford in a bank holdup? Or a Glock in a murder? Or the US Postal Service in a Nigerian letter scam? If the goods or services are legal and not provided for an obviously illegal purpose, nothing happens.