Wednesday, November 20, 2002
Spam is something that most people, including myself, have strong, "anti" feelings about. It is quite interesting, therefore, to read a profile of two real spammers - and in particular, how such a person justifies conduct which offends one of the basic tenets of communal living: shitting in the co-owned nest.
As it turns out, sending spam is quite lucrative (one spammer/small businesswoman quoted earns about $A400k annually), and is self-righteously churned out from the heart of middle America. Ethical issues, like recipient permission and falsifying "From" headers, are addressed by the spammers, but in the most hollow, internally contradictory way.
Such arrogant vapidity! No prizes, then, for guessing the merry spammers' demographic - baby boomers. The first generation to actually risk drowning themselves (along with everyone else, of course) in their own shit.
But judge their guilt for yourself, I say. Here's the link:
http://afr.com/it/2002/11/15/FFX9WFFJH8D.html
As it turns out, sending spam is quite lucrative (one spammer/small businesswoman quoted earns about $A400k annually), and is self-righteously churned out from the heart of middle America. Ethical issues, like recipient permission and falsifying "From" headers, are addressed by the spammers, but in the most hollow, internally contradictory way.
Such arrogant vapidity! No prizes, then, for guessing the merry spammers' demographic - baby boomers. The first generation to actually risk drowning themselves (along with everyone else, of course) in their own shit.
But judge their guilt for yourself, I say. Here's the link:
http://afr.com/it/2002/11/15/FFX9WFFJH8D.html
