>> and violation of California law
The dangerous thing that spammers are causing is the possible demand for
active government intervention. We must recall that it is technically
possible for a government to require all network providers to block any
traffic to or from a particular network. Case in point - Bosnia. NATO
pondered whether to block Bosnian traffic, decided finally to let it
continue. Almost as easy would be to block, for example, all egroups traffic
from California.
Anger at SPAM could increase to the point where people forget the
implications of blocking others' speech and demand a law that requires
network providers to block traffic from organizations that break California
law against SPAM. Maybe that's a reasonable penalty. But what if California
passes a law to block traffic from radical (pick YOUR cause) groups that use
violent means? Down the slope we go.
People tend to forget that despite the illusion of anonymity and free
access, the structure of the net is such that it is not hard to figure out
who, where and what you are when enough resources are thrown at the problem.
You'll note how fast a couple of recent virus perps were tracked down.
