Comments on: Spam is not marketing, it’s a crime against humanity

By: Re:Generator Magazine » Blog Archive » The boredoms

Re:Generator Magazine » Blog Archive » The boredoms — Tue, 29 Jan 2008 23:28:48 +0000

[...] Is spam (the junk mail, not the pseudo-meat) a crime against humanity? [...]

By: Allen

Allen — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:57:48 +0000

Speaking of dopes, I hope there really isn’t a website called that (cheapcondoms)! I made it up. With my luck I just advertised a spammer! You may edit as needed.

By: Allen

Allen — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:53:45 +0000

One way to do enforcement (and we should not have to) is PEER PRESSURE. People must be buying goods and services that are spamertised. (spam + advertised) Do you know anyone who has — get on their case! Make it clear to your friends and associates that anyone buying goods and services that are advertised in spam is wrong.
I agree that the laws are on the books and not enough is done in enforcement BUT you can’t live by laws alone — you can’t control say, theft, by laws it needs at the same time, social disapproval and children brought up correctly! Laws are to control normal people at weak moments and to control psychopaths. QUick justice based on existing laws would help a lot. But there are not enough police or jail cells to control a society — I know this is a scary though for the law-and-order crowd but we are not actually held together mainly by laws. You also can’t run a society without penalties for offenders. But, when employing THE LAW: The quicker and the more certain the justice, the more effective it is.

By: Allen

Allen — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 11:41:16 +0000

This is not a free speech issue. Free speech is a constitutional issue involving, in my case anyway, freedom from the actions of the US government if I communicate something they do not like. That is important and serious right under our Bill of Rights. I still don’t have the right to demand that say, The New Yorker Magazine, publishes one of my stories or run an ad for free. Some of you people are just dopes.
Here’s another way that idiots wrongly and commonly complain that their so-called lack of “free speech.”:
I once talked to some odious guy at the DMV, a retired pastor (he claimed) who, in earshot of a black woman, complained loudly that his “free speech” was threatened because he had to be too careful about what he said about African Americans. In fact, it is not the government that is giving him the pressure, it is other people in society — he has no freedom either from people giving him bad looks if he picks his nose in public.
So, you dopes. A bunch of scoundrels are making a buck off you and me. This is not a “free speech” issue any more than if I demand the right to tatoo an ad for http://www.cheapcondoms on your forehead! Holy F***ing God, put down the frigging bong and think!

By: Rich Kulawiec

Rich Kulawiec — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:43:02 +0000

First, as I’ve said in other contexts, spam is not speech, just as a brick with an attached note thrown through a window is not publication. It’s abuse — as we’ve known for roughly 25 years at this point.

Second, while the economic costs are obviously enormous, there are also
human costs. For example, the time required to access, read and dispose of spam might only be a few seconds per spam — but multiply by the total volume of spam evading blocks/filters, and even conservative estimates indicate that a single medium-volume spam run consumes more than the equivalent of a human lifetime. For another example, poorly-designed and poorly-implemented anti-spam measures (which covers a LOT of ground,
unfortunately) impose delays on non-spam traffic, lose some of it, “quarantine” some of it, redirect some of it, and so on. And for yet another example, some *very* poorly-designed anti-spam measures (e.g., challenge/response,
callbacks) actually make the spam problem much worse — consuming
still more precious human time.

It really is a pity that there are still people who don’t recognize this, and
who don’t recognize the close connections between spam, spyware, adware,
viruses, worms, phishing, identity theft, and other abuses. I can only
hope that they manage to properly educate themselves before they’re
the victims of some of these more serious problems.

By: abraham

abraham — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:56:21 +0000

Legislation to make it a federal crime? FUCK THAT. We already have laws on the books. How about ENFORCEMENT?

Make it legal to declare open season on spammers and post a bounty on their heads (I realize the irony that this will require a new law despite what I said above but, you know…)

Every year, we’ll have duck season, deer season, and the Wily Spotted Spammer season. Go out, get your tags, grab your semi-automatic rifle and go a sportin’ and a firin’!

Track down those pesky spammers, fill them up with lead, and then bring them to the local paper to get a photo of you posing with your dead spammer carcass for the proper accolades.

Spam problem gone.

By: Lucian

Lucian — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:15:12 +0000

And the $390 billion that you’d save by ending spam would just go to increasing CEO salaries as usual. The US economy is not about bettering humanity, it’s about making the rich richer, and the powerful more powerful, because they own the economy and we are the surfs.

By: Lucian

Lucian — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 00:09:48 +0000

Are you people crazy ? Spam should never be a crime. It’s speech. If you outlaw spam you are against free speech and that in itself is a crime against humanity.

By: admin

admin — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:43:14 +0000

There’s a bit of irony here – this post has already attracted a larger number of comment and trackback spam than the average S&R post.

By: Brian Angliss

Brian Angliss — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:26:07 +0000

According to Sophos Labs (via InfoNIAC), 28.4% of all spam came from the U.S., 5.46x the next closest country for spam volume, South Korea. This is because we have a VERY permissive regulatory environment, with opt-out requirements instead of opt-in, “free speech” issues that are wrongly applied to spam, and lax enforcement.

This is one of those areas where I just don’t understand why the country doesn’t get it. It’s not like spammers are “entrepreneurs” – they’re nearly all criminals. And even the “clean” ones are only clean by U.S. standards – why aren’t the EU nations demanding we extradite spammers? And if they are, why the hell aren’t we complying?

I can’t imagine that spammers have enough economic heft to offset the political might of the software industry, the aerospace industry, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, et al.

By: Dr. Slammy

Dr. Slammy — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 22:09:51 +0000

I think I’d vote for a presidential candidate who promised to push legislation making spam a federal crime, with a first offense resulting in a year of hard time. Then propose how we;re going to handle the stuff originating overseas. I have ideas, but I may not be the most level-headed guy on the subject. I mean, if you proposed the death penalty you might talk me into it…

By: Support this story on Stirrdup

Support this story on Stirrdup — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:16:37 +0000

Spam is not marketing, itÂ’s a crime against humanity…

This story has been submitted to Stirrdup. Your support can help it become hot….

By: www.buzzflash.net

www.buzzflash.net — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 20:08:09 +0000

Spam is not marketing, it’s a crime against humanity…

Spam increased dramatically in 2007, both in total spam per day and as a percentage of all emails sent. At this point, spam is costing the country and the world so much in lost revenue and productivity that it so far beyond grand theft that it’s very…