Date: Fri, 15 Jan 1999 15:32:58 -0800 From: Jamie Lawrence <jal@ThirdAge.com> To: jbryant@unix.tfs.net, Don.Lewis@tsc.tdk.com (Don Lewis) Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Forward all spam to UCE@FTC.GOV Message-ID: <4.1.19990115143915.03abd400@mail.thirdage.com> In-Reply-To: <199901151011.EAA08250@unix.tfs.net> References: <199901150810.AAA28286@salsa.gv.tsc.tdk.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-hackers trimmed] I've tried to stay out of this one, but this message put me over the edge. I think it complete folly to ask for regulation of spam. It simply isn't that big of a deal. Yes, I say that as a professional sysadmin, although don't mistake that for speaking for my company. >a lot of talk about integrity going on right now, unfortunately, we >have the most corrupt congressional majority of the 20th century that >just got re-elected. let's hope people have now waken up, as THE >RECALL VOTES ARE A DONE DEAL. once the current anti-enforcement >majority is out, we can have effective laws with bite. we can also >organize and ratify international treaties dealing with the REAL >problem issues. You admit that they're a bunch of self serving losers, and you want to hand them the power to regulate the content of your email? >unsolicited commercial email should have been made a felony, just like >junk faxing is. it's only a matter of time before it is, because of >the fact that the ftc has better things to do than deal with spam >scams constantly. if effectively applied the current spam law will >cost more money in taxes for enforcement than making it a felony would >have ever cost with an effective opt-in law. Why stop there? Let's make it a crime to say mean things on mailing lists, too. 5 years and $50,000 seems about right for profanity. >they want fraudlant spam sent to them... by my experience and all >those around me, 99.99% of all spam IS fraudlant. I assume you've tried them all to see and kept records to that precision? >since internet regulation is only a matter of time, it's best that >they understand the problem at the extent that it exists, so that >intelligent regulation can be done. the sheer volume of what they are >asking for will overwhelm them. it will only serve one purpose, to >create new EFFECTIVE regulations that can deal with the problem, both >domestically and internationally. What it will do it ban anonymous communications and tighten the noose around free speech, all in the name of saving the wear and tear on your 'd' key. Way to go. >if you are not supporting people that want the problem solved once and >for all, then you are part of the problem. Well, then so be it. I support free speech. If you can't be bothered to do your own filtering, I think you're as much a problem as the petty moralists trying to force libraries to filter Internet access so that they don't have to watch their children themselves. >to disagree with this is to admit that self-policing the internet [or >anything else for that matter] is an utterly sophistic concept that >needs to be relegated to the status of fairie tale. which, by the way >is a circular concept anyhow, since to agree with my reasoning is to >admit the same. at least i have enough moral character to admit it. What? You're not making any sense. The net is built on collaboration and self regulation. What are you trying to say? That the inconvenience spam poses to you should bring the regulators (who of course will have no idea what they're regulating, but the voters want it, so so be it) running to regulate speech? -j To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?4.1.19990115143915.03abd400>