Incoming from Robert Toole: > http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/12/27/spam_punishment_too_harsh/ > > I agree wholeheartedly with the author's opinion, and would like to add > a comment: > > This is yet another example of how we have allowed our democratic system > to be corrupted by corporate self interest.
Where the heck did that come from?!? Your personal ideology doesn't have a great deal of bearing in the matter. > While annoying and fraudulent, spam harms the big corporations far more > than the individual... Imagine an Email system with 30,000 mailboxes ... But a corporation has far more and better resources with which to combat it. They're also passing all their cost of doing so onto myself and their other customers, and we certainly don't have anyone willing to accept our passing them on again. I've expended a lot of time and effort in the war on spam, and the only compensation I get for that is a usable email system and a little hands on knowledge. > Does that seem fair? It does if you are a big fortune 500 company whose > only moral commitment is to the shareholders. Perhaps not, but is the solution easier sentences for net abuse, or harsher penalties for real crimes? With good behaviour, Spammy is very unlikely to do anywhere near those nine years. Part of sentencing is intended to provide deterrence. If they can't wake up and see the coffee, that they WILL be brought to justice and stopped and pay a heavy penalty, the solution is to raise the deterrence factor until they do. -- Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling Please don't Cc: me. - - _______________________________________________ clug-talk mailing list [email protected] http://clug.ca/mailman/listinfo/clug-talk_clug.ca Mailing List Guidelines (http://clug.ca/ml_guidelines.php) **Please remove these lines when replying
