>-----Original Message----- >From: Nick Arnett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Friday, February 11, 2005 6:46 AM >To: Killer Bs Discussion >Subject: Re: SpamAdaption > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >> Nick, perhaps the solution is to use the technology to >"paint scarlet >> letters" on people who respond and buy goods via spam. These are the >> people that deserve scorn. Forget the spammers, fight the consumers! > >I couldn't disagree more. > >If I understood correctly, this sounded to me like justifying >spam because it's profitable and holding only the "users" >(people who buy) responsible. To me, the same argument could >be made for selling heroin. Setting aside the question of >whether or not these things should be illegal, I absolutely >believe that like the heroin dealer, the spammer's behavior is >grossly unethical. I don't think that the two are very >different -- people can be addicted to spending.
I suppose that I am bothered by spam, but I cannot judge whether or not it is unethical. You also do not address whether or not corporate America participating in legitimate spamming practices are considered unethical. Is it truly a question of intent, or the technique involved that determines its ethicalness. It's a real fine line. Its like porn, there are degrees in which porn becomes offensive to everyone. Is it when spam becomes offensive that is unethical? Is it when false information is provided in the Spam? You are very close to this issue, because you manage mail servers. What seems like a barrage or attack that costs you time and money can be frustrating and costly. > >But perhaps we agree that passing laws against either one is >fairly useless, perhaps counter-productive. Cool. How about a plan of multiple Spam nexus (nexi?) where registered spammers can send mail to their recipients. People can then decide to reject all spam if it does not come from a specific or registered nexus. But then who would voluntarily submit to accepting mail from a nexus? Who wants to be sold? Like the insurance business, Insurance is sold not bought. There are no good solutions until the market decides to categorically reject spam. I doubt this will happen, because as the interest in spam wanes, the more honey will be added to the message to entice consumers. If you support free markets, you have to accept spam as a legit way of doing business. In the same way you cannot resist looking at the flashing advertising road signs, you also can't resist spam. You and a lot of people may feel its unethical, its obvious most don't, or at least they give it little thought. Certainly raising awareness of the detrimental costs to business may get a few people thinking. Spam fuels trade in the technology sector. There is little incentive right now to get rid of this scourge. Sure it costs companies to shovel the shit up and out of the barn. It has to be added to the cost of doing business. I consider many laws to be unethical, but I am not doing a lot about it. I go about my business. I delete the spam when I see it. I use mail services the filter most of it out. I live with it and move along. It's the cost of doing business. I truly sympathize with your plight, and empathize with your anger toward Spam. But the world is not ready yet collectively battle spam. By definition in a free market, it probably creates more industrial wealth, than it costs. Strange as that may be. Software has to be written to combat spam, servers have to be bolstered against it, network bandwidth increased, people hired to manage mail and the illnesses they contract, and so on. So you can mark down my vote as undecided as to whether or not its unethical. In the bigger picture it generates wealth. Then again, so does heroin sales. Nerd From Hell > >Nick > >_______________________________________________ >http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l > _______________________________________________ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
