When we're on the discussion on SPAM, I have to admit that I'm a big sceptic. I can understand an advertising company willing to pay someone a cent an address that he sends an advertisement to, but in no way would
benefit that company to have this person harrass their upcoming customers. It's like with pr0n, they don't benefit from ruining your computer ...
Örn Hansen
does not make buisness for them.
Whome do I see benefiting? I see people, who want to be able to legislate the internet so that they have the ability to monitor whatever traffic
If they didn't perceive it as beneficial, they wouldn't be doing it. Nearly every customer of any size (and some small ones) I have wants to stop all their spam, but they ALL want to be able to do "email marketing". What's the difference? Everything that anyone else sends them they don't like is spam. Their own stuff is "Marketing". It's easy to rationalize this. We sell commercial-level spam filters, and I can go into the queues, and do searches for a couple of email marketing firms I know, and their name shows up all over the place, sending email on the behalf of other customers. Going to send them mail? These people can literally send millions of mail messages an hour, and you think that some traffic you might send them is going to bother them? there
is on it, without any respect to individual privacy. And they are the only ones who benefit from this activity ... no one else benfits. And I mean no one else.
Those are my prime suspect, as they're religious fanatics who believe
the end justifies the means, and thus "any" means are ustifyable. And
probably why we haven't seen any stop for the spam yet. We won't, until
Don't mean to be rude, but you're being more than a little paranoid here. The people who send the spam benefit because they make money. The people who pay them believe they're doing what they have always done - marketing. The US passed crappy laws because they're ignorant and because they were lobbied heavily by industry. Only way that will change is if many many people call their own representatives and tell them they're not going to vote for them anymore, but it isn't the biggest issue for people. that that's the
legislation has completely removed all our rights on the internet.
"Religious fanatics" and "end justifies the means" - sounds like marketing people to me. This has little to do with government. It has more to do with "marketing" as I've stated. People who do it make very good money at it. No one likes telemarketers, but that certainly hasn't stopped them in the last 15 years, has it? What is it that there's always some vast conspiracy involved? There's none needed.
Mvh, Örn
PS. I agree with Benjamin Franklin, or wasn't he who said that anyone
who
sacrifices his freedom for security deserves neither.
Jon Johnston Creative Business Solutions IBM, Microsoft, Novell Consultants http://www.cbsol.com 952-544-1108 Blog: http://bingo.cbsol.com