The attitude that if you aren’t a computer expert then you should get the hell off the internet just chafes my ass. My mom shouldn’t have to know the arcane inner workings of her computer when she just wants to send me an email or research her trip to Ireland.
As for my spam hatred: I have two email addresses with my ISP – a “family” one that our friends and relatives know about and one that I use solely to email things to and from my office. I’ve never shared that address with anyone. And two weeks ago it got inundated with spam. Pissed me off to no end.
:smack: So speaks the master of the internet. A macho asshole who struts about his OS and doesn’t like the idea of ordinary people, who don’t know how to configure a firewall, living in his world. Tell us what it’s like in the ruff’n’tuff wild frontier of internet conectivity Read_Neck? Ya gotta know where your perl scripts are to survive out there, don’tcha Read_Neck? Well, if you can’t cut it, then you shouldn’t be out here in the lawless cyberspace, where the real men are!
Lest you be in any doubt, pinhead, I was on the internet when it was a frontier. And the idea back then was to make it habitable for everyone rather than a hostile playground for criminals, frauds and insecure geeks whose computer-literancy is the only place they have to act like tough guys.
Read_Neck, from one Linux user to another, shut your fucking hole, you idiotic asswipe. You are NOT helping your case, and you are NOT painting me in a good way.
It’s bad enough we have Ballmer calling us a cancer and anti-American, we don’t need you running around and telling people that they’re idiots for not knowing how to filter spam.
Ahem.
Spam is not a free-speech issue. It does not concern content, it concerns method. An example is in order:
[ul]
[li]Content issue: I start a LiveJournal that expresses anti-war opinions. I call Rumsfeld a cowering simp afraid of human sexuality and I call Bush a moronic chickenhawk terrified of being seen as weak. The FBI raids me and shuts me down.[/li]
That was about content: I expressed certain opinions and got slapped down for my troubles. I expressed them in a nonviolent, nonconfrontational way, as nobody is forced to read LiveJournal entries. I am protected by the First Amendment in this case, as the government does not have the right to censor content.
[li]Method issue: I begin breaking into houses to spread my opinions. I lie outright to homeowners and defeat locks to achieve this end. The local police arrest me for burglary and criminal tresspass and fraud and possibly other things, too.[/li]
That was about method: I acted in a highly illegal way, no matter what opinions I raved as I was being dragged off. The police couldn’t have cared less about my ravings, they were interested in my housebreaking and my outright deceit. As well they should have been.
[/ul]Spam falls squarely into the second realm. You pay for bandwidth, you pay for disk space, and you pay for your ISP to pay for both. Spam wastes both bandwidth and disk space, and so steals from you. Steals money. Not to mention the fact it defeats security countermeasures and uses systems that expressly disallow spam, therefore coming under tresspass laws. Add to that the often illegal things spam advertises and you have a massive illegality that needs to be corrected for the good of the Internet.
I think the best argument we can use to find a way to make spam illegal is to sue spammers for using my storage space without my permission. If a telemarketer calls me, it doesn’t cost me anything. If I get a lot of junk mail, it doesn’t cost me anything, and if my mailbox is full the post office will hold my other mail for me for free. If a spammer sends me unsolicited emails, he is taking up server space that I am paying for, and reducing the value of my leased internet property by reducing the size of files I can receive there. It’s the same thing as soliciting via fax or cell phone, and I don’t see why there isn’t more done to stop it.
Curiously, it was this sort of argument that worked against the fax broadcast folks way back when. Sending junk mail through the USPS doesn’t cost the recipient anything expect a few seconds. But sending a fax costs the recipient toner and paper.
Derleth’s analogy is perfect! I see spamming and telemarketing as the same thing. It is an attempt to have me provide a service (advertising) to someone who is not paying the provider (me) for that service. Actually, my new spiel for when I get a telemarketing call is:
I’m having good luck with that line!
Badtz Maru: I think that the call from the telemarketer does cost something: after all, I’m the one paying for my telephone line. I’m also paying for my newspaper, but the advertisements–which the advertisers pay for–also pay for the bulk of that same paper. I have no problem with those. Spamming and telemarketing, IMHO, are unethical.
