[thelist] The Spam Argument [long] (was: Hiveware email address encoder)

[Kelly Hallman]

On Fri, 25 Jul 2003, Frank wrote:
> >The only methodology that will work is source reduction.
> 
> I agree.
> 
> >One we raise the cost of spam to the point that there is no profit to be
> >had, we can get back to the business of webdesign.
> 
> I don't agree at all. Again, you are trying to stop people who have a 
> vested interest in gaining the benefits from their activities.

Frank, I think your argument here is duplicitous.  How can you agree that
source reduction is the answer but disagree that trying to reduce the
source is the right thing to do?

> I can appreciate that, but then again, you're subscribing to the same
> tactic that has failed since the beginning- you are attempting to make
> someone stop something that is of benefit to them. ... People will do
> what they will do because they perceive it to be to their benefit.

I don't understand the mentality that says, if you can't completely 
eliminate a problem, it's better to take no action.  Actually, I do 
understand it; it's usually a smokescreen defense used by those who don't 
really want to stop something (i.e. an NRA member arguing that because you 
can't stop gun deaths completely, gun control is absolutely pointless).

> Why does no one ever assign responsibility to the correct people: those
> who support spammer by buying their product?

You no doubt also advocate tracking down and incarcerating drug users, 
while letting the drug dealers go free... after all, it's their customers 
that are to blame for their existence, and once you dry up their market, 
they will have no choice but to move onto some other sleezy activity.

Even there, the laws of supply and demand are evident. Source reduction
(which you claim to support) is about eliminating the supply, not the
demand.  An argument that there is any demand for spam lacks merit.

I don't know who clicks on spam.  I do know that (clickers or not) most 
of those people, if given a choice, would probably rather not get spam.  
So it's a weak deflection to blame these folks, or suppose that because 
they've been suckered before, spam is something people want to receive.

> Spam exists, because it works. It's all too Darwinian. To kill it off, we 
> have to alter the environment that it lives by removing its source of food, 
> rather than hunting down the individuals. Right now, it's merely adapting. 
> And I don't think it'll ever stop.

Well, I'd bet the second your friend thinks she might be slapped with a
$10,000 fine for sending a spam, she will stop.  Legislation killed junk
faxes.  Legislation seems poised to kill telemarketing.  Tell your friend
she better start thinking about a legitimate means of supporting her kids.

Or, there's always drug dealing or prostitution. As long as there's a
market for what she's doing, and her kids are fine, it's all good, right?

-- 
Kelly Hallman
http://wrack.org/