I don’t want to get off on a rant here (with apologies to Dennis Miller), but I feel compelled to say a few words about SPAM. I’m not talking about the all-purpose food from the fine folks at Hormel, nor am I making a Monty Python reference. No, gentle reader, I’m talking about unsolicited email, and nefarious bastards that are behind the practice. Unlike the Feds “we don’t know how to define spam, but we’ll know it when we see it,” I can define it. It is the moral equivalent of 4th class advertising. Unsolicited, unwanted, and unnecessary. Ever wonder why you get so many unsolicited ads in your (snail) mail box? Because they are A) cheap to send, and B) work.
Pause with me for a nanosecond.
eMail Spam exists because it’s A) cheap to send and B) it works.
When I say “it works,” what I mean is that there are just enough pinheads that respond to this dreck to make it financially economical to continue sending it out to the muddled asses yearning to be free of spam. Since it is as likely to get said pinheads to stop responding to Spam as it is for them to stop responding to solicitations to forward chain emails (and, no, sending pull tabs from drink cans will NOT save anybody’s life, thank you very much), I have modest two-part proposal that I think will stop Spam forever. Seriously.
I’m NOT kidding. And I’m NOT engaging in hyperbole.
Think of it this way. When the Minutemen (God bless ’em!) went to Arizona, all they had to do was to watch the border and report violators via cell phones. Illegal immigration fell to ZERO. And all they did was WATCH. If we passed a mandatory death penalty for spammers, I guaran-damn-tee you that, once one or two of these jerks were strung up, you’d see a lot fewer of them willing to risk their own necks to tick off the rest of us.
If the company that’s paying for the spam had to pay, lets say, $100K per violation (that’s per NAME they send to), I think you’d see a lot fewer companies willing to risk their whole bankroll on spamming. Make it expensive enough, and risky enough, and you’d have fewer spammers willing to take that risk. Add to the idea that spammers would essentially be supporting the Federal government with BIG money, and you’re helping ease the Federal deficit, too.
Stopping spam is simply another case of asking the populace, “are you willing to make the hard choices, and do what it takes to end this problem, once and for all.” Right now, I think (sadly) the answer is “no.” When we reach the tipping point on spam, and enough people are fed up to the point where they are willing to take drastic steps to solve this problem, things will change. Until then, pass the Spam.
Leave a Reply