Slashdot Mirror
Inappropriate Spam Reaching Children?
peeweejd writes "Wired has an article stating that four out of five children receive inappropriate spam e-mail touting get-rich-quick schemes, and almost half receive spam linking to pornographic materials. Should spammers be held responsible for the spams they send out? Can someone sue a spammer for offering to sell 'adult only' items/services to children?" There are more details from survey originator Symantec's press release - and yes, Symantec does sell mail filtering software.
I agree.
I mean really, if the corner gas station attendent was selling cigarettes, beer, or pornagraphy to underaged children, would he be held responsible? The obvious answer is yes, he would. So, why would we treat spammers any differently?
...interesting if true.
It doesn't matter that you didn't know that girl was only 15, you're going to jail for statutory rape. (You may have an out if she *said* she was 19, but that's acting in good faith, not ignorance).
It doesn't matter that you didn't know "soccrkid95" was only 8, you're going to jail for child abuse through exposure to images.
If you want to avoid going to jail, check ID. In other words...Opt-IN.
It's just *snapping fingers* that easy
@localhost would be even better. If the address is invalid and the spammer is using particularly crappy mail software, you might get the bastard's machine stuck in a mail loop with itself...one less spammer disturbing the rest of us.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.