By Stephen Brennan
In the last few weeks, I have noticed an increase in tools ormethods devised exclusively to fight the Spam fight. I applaudthe originators ideals and their ingenuity, but I must voice myconcern about the way in which such concepts can often backfire,sometimes in the nastiest of ways.
I abhor spam. I hate it with a vengeance and would do ALMOSTanything to rid the Internet of it entirely. The worldwidefinancial consequences alone run into billions of dollarsannually.It is comparable to the disruption that the propagationof viruses causes and is responsible for creating a completelyindependent niche market for the sale of tools and softwareprograms designed simply to combat it. Although, I would imaginethat even those engaged in this area of marketing would alsowelcome it's demise, however unlikely it might seem at themoment.
The latest is a web page that we are all being asked to link towhich, as I understand it, will result in the email addresseslisted on that page, which are 'known' spam originatingaddresses, being inundated with so much spam, generated by theirown 'spiders' (entities which crawl the Net looking for emailaddresses) that their data will be effectively useless due tothe spider being effectively sent on an endless 'loop'. A simplebut brilliant little idea - But is it safe?
What if an innocent email address should find it's way onto thatweb page? What if one is maliciously placed there? Does thatemail address get caught up in the vicious circle of unsolicitedemail? Maybe not, but even if the method precludes thisparticular 'backfire', more to the point, is it right to spamthe 'spammer'? If you rob a thief, doesn't that make YOU a thieftoo, regardless?
The fact remains also, there hasn't been a means of stoppingspammers that has worked yet. Will they be somehow able to turnthis idea around and use it against the Internet population?
I can understand the anger, frustration and the sometimes, sheerdesperation that some may feel after having been an especiallybadly 'bashed' spam victim, but doesn't this type of 'payback'solution smack of 'Internet vigilantism' or 'taking the law intoone's own hands' (something that is wrong and dangerous, nomatter how justified and tempting it may seem to be)?
Apart from the obvious 'dragging down to their level' in whichthis method results, isn't it illegal? Are the people who haveput together this web page and promoted it's use in danger ofthe authorities deciding that they too, are contributing to thedaily plague of spam? I do hope not, as I know their intentionsare based in a sense of fighting a huge, common evil.
I heard that the first 'high profile' case against a spammer inthe U.S., resulting in a hefty jail term, concluded only lastweek. I know that the wheels of 'justice' do turn slowly, inalmost everything but I believe the reason for that is so thatmistakes and more injustices do not result.
That is my concern with Internet citizens deciding to, as Isaid, take the law into their own hands and perhaps overlookingwhere their actions may backfire, or worse, give the spammer aneven more powerful tool with which to assault their victims. Ishudder to think what spammers, especially those who fall victimto this new idea, might do if they find the identity or emailaddresses of the devisor/s of this idea.
We have relatively new laws to deal with spam and it'sperpetrators. As I said, there has been, to my knowledge onlyone 'notable' and 'highly publicized' instance of the law atwork, where the Internet community has been able to feel a senseof 'justice' and, yes......payback, revenge, whatever. Give theLaw a chance.
Again, I do understand the need for action and I know exactlyhow people feel about those who would spoil one of thecommunication, information and media marvels of this, and thelast century. However, I think we need to, at least, give thelaw a chance to make a difference before we even think aboutresorting to such means to dissuade spammers from plying theirtrade. If to no one else, we owe it to ourselves
Article Source: www.ArticlesBase.com
