Post by Tar A on Feb 24, 2004 19:13:27 GMT -5
This issue is new and has a few typos which I took it upon myself to correct.
(Dilemma #94) - "Computer Users Fed Up With Heaps of Spam!"
The Issue
A survey citing a tremendous increase in unsolicited emails has added fire to the subject of what many view as a scourge of the Internet.
The Debate
(Dilemma #94) - "Computer Users Fed Up With Heaps of Spam!"
The Issue
A survey citing a tremendous increase in unsolicited emails has added fire to the subject of what many view as a scourge of the Internet.
The Debate
- Option 1: "The spam problem is out of control," states anti-spam advocate Beth Mombota. "I get at least fifty spam e-mails a day. That isn't even counting the spam people are posting to my newsgroup and to my messageboard. This junk is a waste of time in that I have to delete it and a waste of my money in that I have to buy anti-spam programs-which hardly work anyway. People get swindled by this stuff- it should be a crime just like regular fraud."
- Option 2: "A ban on all spam is a restriction on our freedom of speech and on freedom of the press!" screams Aaron Spirit, president of Citizens for Internet Freedom. "What is the government to say what is and isn't commercial spam? Could they haul charity representatives off to jail for seeking donations? Could they jail politicians for using e-mail to try and gain votes? Could they arrest me if I accidentally send my erotic novel-in-progress to the wrong address? Seriously, spamming is a subjective offense and as such should not be considered a crime."
- Option 3: "Both sides are wrong," grumbles Al Mombota, Prime Minister of The New Pacific Order. "Spam is definitely a problem, yet so is the restriction on freedoms which some draconian anti-spam codes would impose. I propose a ban on overtly fraudulent spam, and a tax on more legitimate businesses that rely on spam as an advertising method, and a strict legal definition of spam that would ensure no innocent person was prosecuted or taxed."