Sunday, October 26, 2003
SPAM at the Door
So it is just too hard to pass on the opportunity to give you conservatives the old jibe on this one. Principles for the current group of conservatives seem to be very much tied to the whims of the focus groups. This law, and the very related do not call lists, would actually fly in the face of many conservative thoughts. And they have so few.
It is first and foremost a restriction on commercial activity. You've probably already heard the stories of mass marketing exec's crying about the jobs that will be lost in the industry. The SPAM industry has workers, though not as labor intense as most phone marketing. These laws will have a real financial impact.
There is a real correlation between this and the issue of gun ownership in that it seeks to restrict behavior instead of assuming equitable social behavior amongst all parties concerned. I don't honestly think that the message will be lost on callers when they disrupt dinner and get a testy response. After all, they are seeking a favorable reception on the other end. The solution seems as simple as saying there's no way in the world I'd bite now that you've disrupted my meal.
It is restrictive. It seeks to legislate when solutions exist. The idea that these technologies are intrusive doesn't hold up. Municipalities have had only limited success in limiting Jehovah Witness's knocking on your door. There are some exemptions in the do not call lists for these activities (political, religious and non-profit), but are not any reason to forget a basic conservative principle. That a commercial endeavor can carry as much importance as any ideological one. That economic and political freedoms go hand in hand.
These industries are outgrowths of technological ability and the economics of demographics. Technology and that same economics of demographics would seem to drive possible solutions. There is caller identification (and the related "zappers") and SPAM filtering software. Many ISP's are instituting limits on e-mail traffic. It eats up bandwidth and resources.
I've seen the studies that say SPAM is such an onerous burden in terms of cost and time. It all kinda registers on the whose-ox-is getting-gored meter. Statistics can lie. And I am sure that some idiot mofo has bit on that penis enlargement solution. It all seems to be driven with just a little bit too much currency. There appear to be social and technological solutions to address the issue that would make legislation unnecessary.
For the politicians, they get to be heroes. It some short-sighted way, people get the feeling that something is being done about the burdens of technologies in their lives.
¶ 10/26/2003 01:48:00 PM
It is first and foremost a restriction on commercial activity. You've probably already heard the stories of mass marketing exec's crying about the jobs that will be lost in the industry. The SPAM industry has workers, though not as labor intense as most phone marketing. These laws will have a real financial impact.
There is a real correlation between this and the issue of gun ownership in that it seeks to restrict behavior instead of assuming equitable social behavior amongst all parties concerned. I don't honestly think that the message will be lost on callers when they disrupt dinner and get a testy response. After all, they are seeking a favorable reception on the other end. The solution seems as simple as saying there's no way in the world I'd bite now that you've disrupted my meal.
It is restrictive. It seeks to legislate when solutions exist. The idea that these technologies are intrusive doesn't hold up. Municipalities have had only limited success in limiting Jehovah Witness's knocking on your door. There are some exemptions in the do not call lists for these activities (political, religious and non-profit), but are not any reason to forget a basic conservative principle. That a commercial endeavor can carry as much importance as any ideological one. That economic and political freedoms go hand in hand.
These industries are outgrowths of technological ability and the economics of demographics. Technology and that same economics of demographics would seem to drive possible solutions. There is caller identification (and the related "zappers") and SPAM filtering software. Many ISP's are instituting limits on e-mail traffic. It eats up bandwidth and resources.
I've seen the studies that say SPAM is such an onerous burden in terms of cost and time. It all kinda registers on the whose-ox-is getting-gored meter. Statistics can lie. And I am sure that some idiot mofo has bit on that penis enlargement solution. It all seems to be driven with just a little bit too much currency. There appear to be social and technological solutions to address the issue that would make legislation unnecessary.
For the politicians, they get to be heroes. It some short-sighted way, people get the feeling that something is being done about the burdens of technologies in their lives.
¶ 10/26/2003 01:48:00 PM
