Michael --
...and then Michael said...
%
% > I've debated whether or not to jump into this conversation, and I just
% > had to. My answer is NO.
% >
% > Taking on some of the arguments presented, I say it's not free speech
% > because your right to swing your fist ends at my nose, and, similarly,
% > your right to talk ends at my cost to receive and/or process your message.
% > I don't particularly care that it costs the spammer little or nothing to
% > send (a side effect of technology that makes it cost little for me to
% > send and receive my messages) and care only a little that it takes up
% > general bandwidth ('cuz lots of other stuff does, too); I do care that
% > I have to spend MY bandwidth to receive it and, worse yet, that I have
% > to spend the time to processs it.
% >
% > If this were such an OK thing, spammers would be skulking around using
% > free AOL accounts and hijacking others and painstakingly finding ISPs
% > that are "bulk email friendly" and so on. Now, perhaps that's just a
% > sign of the current mania and it *should* be OK, but not as it currently
% > stands because too much other crap, like misleading Subject: lines and
% > coyly familiar greetings, goes on as well. Creating an attractive (ie
% > revenue-generating) message is a science, not just chance, and it's a
% > devious method.
% >
% > I have no problem with direct mail marketing, interestingly enough. It
% > doesn't cost me a thing to receive it, and it's easy to recognize as
% > something to throw away. Furthermore, I have my mail receiving agent
% > toss what little I get for me so that I don't have to be bothered --
% > akin to the "filter it out" or "block it at the ISP level" arguments,
% > but one that is an optional add-on not required just to survive.
%
% It's a spammers right to send email, it's my right to block their email.
Is it someone's right to stand on your private property and shout at your
window? [I say no.] What about on the public street? [I say yes.]
I shouldn't have to block the email; that's the problem.
% It should be my right to charge them for any costs incurred in this
If there were a way to do this then I'd happily go that route.
Unfortunately, I don't think there is; it leads to identification and
loss of anonymity, for how can we tell the difference in the oppressed
dissident (from whom I want no spam, either!) or the real spammer?
% process. I find spam snail mail much more annoying as there is no easy way
I've never had any problem; just about anything that's bulk mail,
plus just about any postcard, plus things incorrectly addressed
(snail-spammers can never get a "c/o" or "in care of" down properly),
gets tossed. Quicker than my fighting my way through spam, for sure.
% to filter it out and it pollutes. I'm in favor of taxing spammers.. online
Sure, it pollutes. So do other things, and spammers have to pay to send
the mail just like anyone else; that's at least a bit more fair.
% or physical for the resources they waste be it network bandwidth or paper
% and plastic that end up in landfills. I also think all snail mail should
% be barcoded with sender and recepient information so it can be filtered by
I agree with the benefits, but that goes back to the anonymity argument
above. [Yes, I realize that it's a very slim position; it's just to
illustrate the point and not to begin a debate on anonymity.]
% computer more easily. Of course you still have to worry about spam from
% outside the US but that isn't to hard to filter for.
:-D
--
David T-G * It's easier to fight for one's principles
(play) davidtg at justpickone.org * than to live up to them. -- fortune cookie
(work) davidtgwork at justpickone.org
http://www.justpickone.org/davidtg/ Shpx gur Pbzzhavpngvbaf Qrprapl Npg!
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/chat/attachments/20020106/aa7c6aae/attachment.pgp>
