Prosecuting anti-spam and anti-spyware laws

Great Debates
1

In a couple of recent threads ** prisoner6655321** asked whether certain activities on the Internet should be illegal.

Shouldn’t spam designed to bypass spam filters be illegal?

Should spyware/adware/crapware that tricks you into loading it be illegal?

In each of those threads an argument was made (not by prisoner) that enforcement of anti-spamming or anti-spyware laws would be difficult if not futile, therefore no effort should be made to create such laws. (Admittedly, the conclusion of the argument was implied more than stated.)

I think that argument is bunk on two counts. First of all, I don’t think that the difficulty of enforcing a law should carry any weight in deciding if something is illegal. Secondly I’m not convinced that such laws would be especially difficult to prosecute. I recognize that the Internet spans international borders, but so do any number of illegal activities, so we have international laws treaties and organizations to address them.

So in this thread I want to debate if it is futile to attempt to prosecute anti-spam or anti-spyware laws, and if so, should we not even bother with passing such laws.

2

Oh, I didn’t ask about spyware. But I did take part in the spyware discussion. I asked about spam.

I totally agree with you bnorton. Enforcement of any law is difficult. But that shouldn’t stop the law, if it is a just law.

Another argument went something like: “get a decent OS and browser”. Just because someone leaves their car unlocked doesn’t make stealing their stereo legal.

Simply having the law in both of these cases is a message to all concerned that it is considered by the government to be “bad form”. Even if the government has difficulty enforcing the law, the idea that it is wrong should at least be spread, so, for example, people in polite company will not likely say proudly “I develop spyware.” They should be ashamed of what they do, even if they make lots of money at it. They should be too ashamed to admit what they do, at the least.