Quote:
Originally posted by FuqALot
Ah so you're the type of person that if someone says don't do it, you don't do it.
|
Don't diminish the source. It's not 'someone' saying "don't do it", it's a law saying "don't do it".
If one chooses to ignore that law, one should be prepared to accept the consequences. I might ignore speeding laws but you're unlikely to find me selling heroin. The potential consequences vary a bit. I prepared to accept the consequences for a speeding ticket, but not prepared for a distribution of heroin charge. Ultimately a society determines the consquences based on priorities. Spamming has reached epidemic levels and continues to escalate. Society is responding, or so it would appear.
Quote:
Originally posted by FuqALot
So just because the law says lock people up, you don't understand that maybe it's wrong to lock people up just because they send some email. Because that's what this is about, not wether they do know it's illegal or not.
|
Again, don't trivilize. It's not quite so benign as "they send some email". They send millions upon millions of emails carefully crafted to bypass filters, blacklists and a email user's own decision (how many "Account Past Due" spams have you received?). They're not sending some email, they're making deliberate and conscious efforts to intrude upon users who clearly seek to avoid these intrusions.
Back to your question... you'll no doubt find a range of opinions on what is and is not acceptable consequences. That will be the case with almost any law. My personal opinion is I have no sympathy whatsoever towards spammers. I loathe them for their greed and arrogance. I couldn't possibly be less concerned with what happens to them so long as what does occur to them ensures less spam in my inbox.