, 2004-12-27
Expand all |
Post comment
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime
2004-12-28
Anonymous (2 replies)
Anonymous (2 replies)
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime
2004-12-28
Repoman (4 replies)
Repoman (4 replies)
Spam Punishment Doesn't Fit the Crime
2004-12-28
Mark Bryant (2 replies)
Mark Bryant (2 replies)

I believe restitution is a good idea if you are looking for proportional punishment. Restitution would have to be enforced to be effective. Spam demonstrably costs: money, time, bandwidth, and some spam does damage. That's theft. It's like telemarketing. I pay for the phone for my benefit, not theirs. The e-mail is for my convenience, not theirs. Even the unsolicited snailmail junk I get costs time, handling, and disposal. I'd like to bill them ALL. I'd like to charge a fee for all unsolicited contacts coming to my home or place of business. Maybe I'd waive the fee if I liked what somebody had to say.
Oh, and to those who think there is no comparison between death and spam-type-theft: premeditated murder is the ultimate theft -- of something that cannot be returned. Unpremeditated or accidental death, while still grievous, isn't theft so much as irreparable loss.
[ reply ]
Link to this comment: http://www.securityfocus.com/comments/columns/287/29740#29740