On Thu, 2 Dec 2004, Kenneth Porter wrote: > > If we are to claim moral superiority to spammers, we can't sink to > > their level. IMO, the Lycos tactic is unethical. Vigilanteism > > is never the right answer.
> While most of your arguments make sense, the last sentence is questionable. > Vigilanteism is no more or less moral than having representatives apply a > policy democratically. We differ on that, I guess. I believe in the rule of law, and vigilanteism weakens the rule of law. > It's only a problem if the vigilante is unqualified to objectively > identify the criminal and apply the policy. Not true. It is wrong for even a supremely qualified person like a policeman or a judge to punish a criminal without doing it through the justice system. > If Lycos is unqualified, then who is? Microsoft? Hotmail's certainly way larger than Lycos. Hands up everyone who thinks Microsoft should embark on vigilante action... > (Every one of us is a vigilante when we run MD, protecting our users > without the aid of organized law enforcement.) No. When you run MD, you're not attempting to interfere with systems you don't control (unless you have a very peculiar filter!) Regards, David. _______________________________________________ Visit http://www.mimedefang.org and http://www.canit.ca MIMEDefang mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.roaringpenguin.com/mailman/listinfo/mimedefang
