Olivier Nicole wrote:
It's not a matter of cultural imperialism, if that's what you're getting at.
It's an acknowledgment of the importance of the "rule of law" in cyberspace.
Except that I don't think it is anything close to a rule of law, but
rather a sign of short view.
As I said, I doubt you ever got any spam from my organisation (either
originated from, or relayed).
So, what are you saying? One well behaved citizen obviates the need for
laws for all others?
It doesn't work that way.
Some countries enforce anti-spam, anti-trespass laws. Others lack them
or don't enforce them.
The attitude goes by organisation, not by country.
Organizations don't make laws. Countries do.
When these countries put some teeth into the enforcement of their laws,
then they will stop being blacklisted.
Plus if we would to ban the oginating country for 50% of spam (not my
figure), USA should be banned.
Do the math. 50% of the spam (if that is indeed the case) is very low,
considering that the US generates a much larger percentage of the total
Internet traffic than just half.
In any case, you might get spammed from the US, but I don't: it would
be too easy for me to make a complaint against the spammer and have them
be charged, shut down, and fined.
That's what effectively laws, properly enforced, do.
But hey, that is a too big cut from Internet, so in some way it is
cultural imperialism.
Bests,
Olivier
That's a fairly specious argument.
-Philip
