Karl Auerbach wrote:
On 01/17/2010 07:58 PM, John R. Levine wrote:
What I object to is the leaping to the conclusion that someone is a criminal and thus, without any process or third party review, stripping that person of fifth, sixth, and fourteenth amendment protections.
So, just so I understand, you think that there is a non-zero chance that pillz spam is advertising legal prescription drugs, and 419 spam is offering a legitimate business opportunity?
If a situation seems obvious then it ought to be easy to prove by evidence before an impartial trier of the fact. Judges and juries aren't so blind that they would take a great deal of time to bring a guilty verdict.
So why the rush to condemn on mere accusation?
And who's going to pay the court costs? Does LE react to each and every spam/scam? No. The simple reality is than from a law enforcement perspective the people are an amoebic mass and only the worst cases are investigated as permitted by resources and funding. Add to that the jurisdiction issue. The issue does not always end on the shores of the USA. It is extremely easy to sometimes trace the perpetrators sitting safely in another country. In fact they brazenly advertise on the net (and no, it's not a joe job). You could argue the brand owners must press charges. But then once again they may or may not chose to do so. However where does that leave me as an individual? Do I have no right? Could I suggest we pass ten spams and/or scams to you and you show us how you handle it as per your processes and then we measure it's effectiveness?