At 12:00 AM +0000 3/19/03, Claus Färber wrote:
Matt Sergeant <msergeant(_at_)startechgroup(_dot_)co(_dot_)uk> schrieb/wrote:
Criminalising spam would have the effect of stopping the mainsleaze
spammers, while giving you an extra weapon in your battle against the
underground spammers.
The main advantage of crimilalisation is that a public prosecutor, who
has more investigative powers, would have to fight spam.
The main disadvantage is that they to be interested in doing so. The
fact that criminal activity is taking place does not automatically
mean that the government will chase after it. In the long list of
things to prosecute I suspect spam would be *way* down on the list.
Unless of course you can make it a guaranteed profit center for the
prosecution--like speeding tickets. But somehow I can't see spam
being that simple to prosecute. (And as Barry Shein is fond of
saying--why should we expect the government to chase after spammers
when we won't let them tax the internet to support such things?
(Rhetorical question--I do *not* want an answer.))
--
Kee Hinckley
http://www.puremessaging.com/ Junk-Free Email Filtering
http://commons.somewhere.com/buzz/ Writings on Technology and Society
I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg