Re: opt-out registry comments
Graham Leggett <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.org.operators.ioz |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On 02 Aug 2011, at 1:59 PM, Ant Brooks wrote: > I am afraid that I am not convinced that the action of sending > unsolicited commercial bulk mail meets the *legal* definition > of "theft". I think "theft" is the wrong angle to take. We have laws against antisocial behaviour. Play music loud enough to annoy your neighbours for just a single hour on some random wednesday morning at 3am and the law, and the police, will be on your side. While you might argue that your 3am party is a once off and get off with a warning, spammers send their noise continuously, in an automated fashion, 24 hours a day and have been doing so for years. If you want a basis for comparison, take the average person's inbox, and calculate the average amount of legitimate mail to the average amount of spam to get a signal to noise ratio. I have had people complain to me they get 10 times more spam than email, and that's the spam that gets past the spam filters. That, to me, is like the noisy neighbour. Sending spam constitutes antisocial behaviour, and I believe that is probably the most solid basis on which you can argue against it should you want effective laws. Regards, Graham -- _______________________________________________ IOZ mailing list [email protected] http://lists.internet.org.za/mailman/listinfo/ioz