Seemed to be the most interesting of the comments so modded, but looking at the thread leads me to conclude you're just arguing with a clever, possibly even witty, troll.
Whenever someone drags Hillary or REAL President Obama into a defense of Trump, you know (1) They are trying to change the subject because their own position is untenable, and (2) They are trapped in a paradox of attributing superpowers and supervillainy to someone who, if the attributions were correct, would have long since used those superpowers to dispose of the moronic puppet that is Trump
(I'm actually searching for comments offering a better analysis than my comment in the poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap judgment, but so far... In short, I concluded that Assange is stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments.... )
I'm missing the basis of the funny mod, even after digging back into the thread. It may be because I'm confused whether you mean "not guilty of any crime" versus "not guilty of all of the crimes in the set of accusations". Which is it? Or some other meaning? Or is it irrelevant to the joke, whatever that is?
(However I'm actually searching for comments offering a better analysis than my comment in the poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap judgment, but so far... In short, I concluded that Assange is stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments.... )
I agree with you [MobyDisk] most strongly at the end, about the technology being morally neutral. I also think you touch on several significant issues, but I just wrote a longer comment (above) on the abuse of anonymity, so I'm not going to repeat it here. I'll just say that I think you are letting Facebook off much too lightly.
I don't think I've ever supported the EFF, though I was once a card-carrying member of the ACLU (and I'm confident the worst of the cops know and hold it against me, too (if they care at all)). However I used to know the EFF's main lawyer...
Your [alvinrod's] brief comment just barely manages to tangentially touch the edge of the underlying problem. For that you got an insightful mod?
The underlying problems are the abuse of anonymity and our silly human tendency to be too trusting of strangers, even without the candy. It's greatly exacerbated by two aspects: (1) The Internet scales up the problem of encountering strangers beyond human capacity (Dunbar's number around 150) and (2) Facebook has abused the word "friend" to death. I would argue that "Facebook friend" may be the most oxymoronic term in any language.
Now about those solutions... Yeah, I know that's a silly notion on a spleen-venting website like Slashdot, but I can't help myself.
Simple solution is a kind of challenge-and-response approach to friending. I actually have a notice to this effect on my now dormant Factbook account. A large reason for the dormancy is the inability to implement it more effectively. Here's a summary of what the notice says:
(1) If you're an old friend (which is extended to include coworkers, teachers, and students), I'm eager to get back in touch. However I'd like you to send me a token of authenticity to assure me that you really are who you say you are (and not a cop pretending to be an old friend, in the context of this story), and you should ask me for a return token. My suggestion is some question you think only I can answer.
(2) If you have some other concrete reason for wanting to link to me (and it should NOT be limited to "friend", whatever TH that means on Facebook), then say what it is. Clearly and briefly.
(3) If you are any kind of spammer, then I will do anything I can to nuke your account unless I can get you arrested. (Returning to the context of this story, I wish the police were arresting more spamming scammers.)
Of course the saddest part is that Facebook should help with (3) but they never will. Engagement is their only goal, and the spammers and scammers are more engaging than the average bear. (Ranger Smith is my favorite relatively harmless kind of fuzz?)
There's also a more complicated solution involving a proper ontology of "friendship", but even the google couldn't handle those complexities. At least I think that was the main factor that killed Google Plus.
In solution terms, it would be nice if we were allowed to retain possession of our own personal data, or at least specify where it is being held and who is allowed to make permanent copies. Or at least give us a cut of the loot.
As things now stand, the only response is "Surrender, Dorothy!"
I urge you [brunes69] to consider the Categorical Imperative, especially from the perspective of someone who thinks the number of his "trustworthiness" ought to be higher. Alternatively, I'd ask you to consider what happens when complex multidimensional concepts are reduces to singular values.
My longer thoughts are in my initial reaction to this story, but I'm reacting to your comment based on the heavy positive moderation that it received. However, I will add that as part of MEPR, I think the reputation f the evaluators should be taken into account, even on a per-dimension basis. Symmetry is important.
For whatever being a human being is worth these days.
The funny part is that I sort of agree with the idea, but not with the dimensionality or the secrecy. I even agree that many of the criteria they are considering should be considered, but I'm an advocate of MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) that is based on the personal data and actions that you choose to disclose and which should be subject to your own review. That includes allowing you to review how the values of each dimension are calculated, but going beyond that, you should be able to determine how the MEPR scores you use are calculated (for example by tilting the weights), you should be able to challenge bad data, you should have a right to audit any uses of your MEPR scores, and you should even have the option to withdraw your MEPR scores from public view (along with clear explanations of the ramifications).
Near as I can tell, the reputation of Sift should be about 2 points out of 100. I think that's more than a minor clash of principles.
I think this is the first time I've heard of Sift, but I am NOT at all surprised by any aspect of it. However I would be shocked if there were any way to opt out of being judged in this secret Star Chamber.
I think that by now we should have learned that there are no limits to what Trump is willing to do, no barrel big enough to keep him from crashing through the bottom. Also, no matter what sort of idiot he is (and I often doubt if he rises to the level of useful idiocy), he is easily manipulated by some quite nasty and cunning people, not even starting with all those criminals whose money he's been laundering for so many years. I think Trump's mental condition goes ALL the way back to his infancy, when he was raised as a minor tool for dodging taxes. Trump has NO memories of childhood innocence.
The theory is that Trump cannot pardon state-level crimes, but there are lots of theories that Trump has blown through. The obvious "solution approach" (for quite evil values of solution) is to figure out new ways to convert the state crimes into federal ones so as to bring them within the scope of Trump's pardons. There are various ways to give the federal courts jurisdiction over crimes that originated in lower course. I'd even say that most of them have been legal. In the past. In Trumpistan, the definition of "legal" is merely "can I get away with it" and the only residual problem is how slow the courts tend to be.
I've already thought of an obvious one, based on the "unitary executive" insanity. Just claim that any crime involving the president is automatically elevated to the federal courts because he is a federal officer. As long as the Supreme Court (sans Merrick Garland) agrees with 5 votes, the "deal" is done.
A less obvious approach would involve appealing to the verdict of the Civil War. My own view is that the War Between the States effectively overturned the 2nd and 10th Amendments, though some people might think it's merely a YUGE cloud of confusion (and Trump's puppeteers and minions (and possibly even henchmen) LOVE confusion).
However I agree with you [sfcat] that the proposed solution of greater standardization of the user interface is misdirected.
I think it would be better to look at alternative financial models. For example, I think the main problems with Windows and OS X are both due to the focus on profit maximization and cost minimization, resulting in, among other flaws, an actual fear of innovations that might reduce profits. Ubuntu Linux is crippled by its big-donor financial model, making it too dependent on one donor's imperfect decisions.
My own favored solution approach would involve a different financial model focused on cost recovery and fair compensation for work performed. If a particular user interface attracts enough small-donor support to cover it's costs, then that's fine. If not, then the people who want to use that interface will have to look at alternatives, such as a different interface or trying to encourage more people to support the interface to cover the costs.
Mostly for time but also because I've said all of this before at excessive length, for now I'm just going to big you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Interesting comment, and I guess that I'd moderate it that way if I ever had a mod point to give. I think you raise a number of interesting points, and I like your style, though (on the premise you are fuzzily and indirectly defending Assange) I still mostly disagree, especially about this one:
Fark that misogynist racist nepotistic asshole Trump for flip-flopping and hanging Julian out to dry.
While I think your characterization of Trump is much too kind, I'm actually predicting that Trump is about to pardon Assange. Details of my crazy conspiracy theory are already in the related poll, so I'm just going to link rather than repeat: https://slashdot.org/comments....
However, my theory hinges on the cat, and this story casts further doubt on Assange's loyalties. I really doubt Trump has the guts to pardon Assange without insurance against more bad journalism with Trump in the sights.
On reflection, I better add one more point of clarification: I think Assange is just a pawn in the plot of Conway and Miller to have puppet Trump campaign in 2020 by focusing on the Department of White Homeland Security. They probably have additional plans for how to use Assange after he's pardoned...
If I ever got a mod point to give, I'd give this one an interesting, but...
Anyway, I'm mostly disagreeing with you, but beyond the Comment Subect: line I'm only going to refer to my longer comment in the related poll: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Presumably you mean "character assassination", but it's really hard to see much insight there. My new theory is that the real reason for the first-post frenzy is in quest of the easy "insightful" mod that is frequently given to an early comment. Yet another aspect of the broken moderation.
The cat is actually more significant than you seem to understand, per my longer comment on the associated poll: https://slashdot.org/comments....
This story casts doubt on Assange's love of the cat. If Assange actually doesn't care about the cat, how can Trump play Conway's newest game? They need some form of insurance to keep Assange in line when they pardon him, but they can't take the cat hostage if Assange doesn't even care about the cat.
I think we're in completely new territory now. It's sort of conceivable that they were willing to "invest" $4 billion in getting Assange. Trump really is such a lousy negotiator, especially since it isn't his own money. He's actually rather skilled at getting his own cut up front while gambling with other people's money, and now he has the entire federal budget to play with.
We've actually reached the insane point where Trump is actively encouraging crimes and promising pardons to criminals for crimes that have not yet been committed. The pardon of Joe Arpaio now looks like a trial balloon and proof of concept. What's to keep Trump from now making a deal with a skilled murderer: "I'll pardon you for your last murders if you promise to kill Nancy Pelosi and I'll pardon you for that murder, too."
I think it's relevant to consider that Assange is not a pure-hearted useful idiot. He was also motivated by spite and anger. I think the funny part is that Obama was pursuing Assange for making Dubya look bad. Most of the current mess in the Middle East is Dubya's fault (though it was Cheney's decisions), but when you bring that up now, the usual reaction is "Dubya who?"
I can really see Trump pardoning Assange and proclaiming himself the defender of non-fake journalism. The problem is that Assange is not reliable and he might have another spasm of bad journalism, with Trump as the new target. I was only partly joking when I suggested taking Assange's cat hostage.
I largely agree with you, but I'm seeing things differently after getting some more input on it.
My current theory is that they deliberately trumped up a ridiculous charge against Assange so that it will look relatively innocuous when Trump pardons Assange and proclaims himself the champion of free speech and non-fake journalism. Not actually Trump's idea. Nowhere near smart enough, but I think it's right in Kellyanne Conway's line of confusion. If so, the pardon might come out as soon as they Assange lands in the States (though Trump could not care less about any effects on the election in that shithole country Australia).
The only residual problem is if Assange does more bad journalism, but this time against Trump. On that theory they might be holding the cat hostage.
I do think Assange is pretty much worthless as a journalist. He made himself into the story, mostly in search of more money. However bad journalism is not a crime.
Too bad I didn't see the story until it was about to die. I'd have like to throw in my two-cents worth. However as it stands, the discussion is already falling off the front page, and there is no mention of "filter", the key to making it useful.
Yep, I didn't realize it was a dupe either, but I'll repost the same comment:
As usual, the technology remains morally neutral, but another technical bandage is NOT a real solution. Just another flavor of "Live and let spam", and the REAL objective of such weak-@ssed technical approaches is to deny liability for any harms done.
The specific aspect of spam that bugs me most is the time wasted. If the google was liable for all the time wasted by their support of spam, I think they'd be bankrupt, even at minimum wage rates. Other people might be more annoyed by the abuse of corporate reputations. Or maybe you're annoyed by the abuse of personal information? Or the entry-level-crime argument, especially for phishing and identity theft?
Anyway, I always want to see the solutions. So what am I doing on Slashdot these years?
My favored solution approach is to go after the spammers' business models. There's even an obvious proof of concept. Where is all your pump-and-dump stock-scam spam? Gone, gone, gone. Because they went after those spammers' business model--though only after several research papers proved that the scam worked so well it was like printing money.
Why aren't such approaches being adopted? My theory is because they'd have to work with us. To really fight the spammers effectively they'd need to collaborate with the potential victims. One part of it is that we are the only ones who know our side of the targeting. It doesn't matter how good the spam looks if I actually know that I've never done business with that bank, eh? But the bigger part is that they don't want to reveal how much of our personal information they are already holding. They don't have to ask me for such categories of information because they probably have all the details already. Probably even the account numbers.
Slashdot Mirror
Seemed to be the most interesting of the comments so modded, but looking at the thread leads me to conclude you're just arguing with a clever, possibly even witty, troll.
Whenever someone drags Hillary or REAL President Obama into a defense of Trump, you know (1) They are trying to change the subject because their own position is untenable, and (2) They are trapped in a paradox of attributing superpowers and supervillainy to someone who, if the attributions were correct, would have long since used those superpowers to dispose of the moronic puppet that is Trump
(I'm actually searching for comments offering a better analysis than my comment in the poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap judgment, but so far... In short, I concluded that Assange is stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments.... )
I'm missing the basis of the funny mod, even after digging back into the thread. It may be because I'm confused whether you mean "not guilty of any crime" versus "not guilty of all of the crimes in the set of accusations". Which is it? Or some other meaning? Or is it irrelevant to the joke, whatever that is?
(However I'm actually searching for comments offering a better analysis than my comment in the poll a few days ago. I'd like to think that should be easy, especially since that was a kind of snap judgment, but so far... In short, I concluded that Assange is stupid to the point of being dangerous, but basically innocent by "reason" of stupidity compounded by insanity. Or shoudl it be the other way round? Which came first, the insanity or the stupidity? https://slashdot.org/comments.... )
Z^-12
Z^-11
Z^-10
I agree with you [MobyDisk] most strongly at the end, about the technology being morally neutral. I also think you touch on several significant issues, but I just wrote a longer comment (above) on the abuse of anonymity, so I'm not going to repeat it here. I'll just say that I think you are letting Facebook off much too lightly.
I don't think I've ever supported the EFF, though I was once a card-carrying member of the ACLU (and I'm confident the worst of the cops know and hold it against me, too (if they care at all)). However I used to know the EFF's main lawyer...
Your [alvinrod's] brief comment just barely manages to tangentially touch the edge of the underlying problem. For that you got an insightful mod?
The underlying problems are the abuse of anonymity and our silly human tendency to be too trusting of strangers, even without the candy. It's greatly exacerbated by two aspects: (1) The Internet scales up the problem of encountering strangers beyond human capacity (Dunbar's number around 150) and (2) Facebook has abused the word "friend" to death. I would argue that "Facebook friend" may be the most oxymoronic term in any language.
Now about those solutions... Yeah, I know that's a silly notion on a spleen-venting website like Slashdot, but I can't help myself.
Simple solution is a kind of challenge-and-response approach to friending. I actually have a notice to this effect on my now dormant Factbook account. A large reason for the dormancy is the inability to implement it more effectively. Here's a summary of what the notice says:
(1) If you're an old friend (which is extended to include coworkers, teachers, and students), I'm eager to get back in touch. However I'd like you to send me a token of authenticity to assure me that you really are who you say you are (and not a cop pretending to be an old friend, in the context of this story), and you should ask me for a return token. My suggestion is some question you think only I can answer.
(2) If you have some other concrete reason for wanting to link to me (and it should NOT be limited to "friend", whatever TH that means on Facebook), then say what it is. Clearly and briefly.
(3) If you are any kind of spammer, then I will do anything I can to nuke your account unless I can get you arrested. (Returning to the context of this story, I wish the police were arresting more spamming scammers.)
Of course the saddest part is that Facebook should help with (3) but they never will. Engagement is their only goal, and the spammers and scammers are more engaging than the average bear. (Ranger Smith is my favorite relatively harmless kind of fuzz?)
There's also a more complicated solution involving a proper ontology of "friendship", but even the google couldn't handle those complexities. At least I think that was the main factor that killed Google Plus.
Z^-9
Z^-8
Z^-7
In solution terms, it would be nice if we were allowed to retain possession of our own personal data, or at least specify where it is being held and who is allowed to make permanent copies. Or at least give us a cut of the loot.
As things now stand, the only response is "Surrender, Dorothy!"
I urge you [brunes69] to consider the Categorical Imperative, especially from the perspective of someone who thinks the number of his "trustworthiness" ought to be higher. Alternatively, I'd ask you to consider what happens when complex multidimensional concepts are reduces to singular values.
My longer thoughts are in my initial reaction to this story, but I'm reacting to your comment based on the heavy positive moderation that it received. However, I will add that as part of MEPR, I think the reputation f the evaluators should be taken into account, even on a per-dimension basis. Symmetry is important.
For whatever being a human being is worth these days.
The funny part is that I sort of agree with the idea, but not with the dimensionality or the secrecy. I even agree that many of the criteria they are considering should be considered, but I'm an advocate of MEPR (Multidimensional Earned Public Reputation) that is based on the personal data and actions that you choose to disclose and which should be subject to your own review. That includes allowing you to review how the values of each dimension are calculated, but going beyond that, you should be able to determine how the MEPR scores you use are calculated (for example by tilting the weights), you should be able to challenge bad data, you should have a right to audit any uses of your MEPR scores, and you should even have the option to withdraw your MEPR scores from public view (along with clear explanations of the ramifications).
Near as I can tell, the reputation of Sift should be about 2 points out of 100. I think that's more than a minor clash of principles.
I think this is the first time I've heard of Sift, but I am NOT at all surprised by any aspect of it. However I would be shocked if there were any way to opt out of being judged in this secret Star Chamber.
I think that by now we should have learned that there are no limits to what Trump is willing to do, no barrel big enough to keep him from crashing through the bottom. Also, no matter what sort of idiot he is (and I often doubt if he rises to the level of useful idiocy), he is easily manipulated by some quite nasty and cunning people, not even starting with all those criminals whose money he's been laundering for so many years. I think Trump's mental condition goes ALL the way back to his infancy, when he was raised as a minor tool for dodging taxes. Trump has NO memories of childhood innocence.
The theory is that Trump cannot pardon state-level crimes, but there are lots of theories that Trump has blown through. The obvious "solution approach" (for quite evil values of solution) is to figure out new ways to convert the state crimes into federal ones so as to bring them within the scope of Trump's pardons. There are various ways to give the federal courts jurisdiction over crimes that originated in lower course. I'd even say that most of them have been legal. In the past. In Trumpistan, the definition of "legal" is merely "can I get away with it" and the only residual problem is how slow the courts tend to be.
I've already thought of an obvious one, based on the "unitary executive" insanity. Just claim that any crime involving the president is automatically elevated to the federal courts because he is a federal officer. As long as the Supreme Court (sans Merrick Garland) agrees with 5 votes, the "deal" is done.
A less obvious approach would involve appealing to the verdict of the Civil War. My own view is that the War Between the States effectively overturned the 2nd and 10th Amendments, though some people might think it's merely a YUGE cloud of confusion (and Trump's puppeteers and minions (and possibly even henchmen) LOVE confusion).
Z^-6
Z^-5
However I agree with you [sfcat] that the proposed solution of greater standardization of the user interface is misdirected.
I think it would be better to look at alternative financial models. For example, I think the main problems with Windows and OS X are both due to the focus on profit maximization and cost minimization, resulting in, among other flaws, an actual fear of innovations that might reduce profits. Ubuntu Linux is crippled by its big-donor financial model, making it too dependent on one donor's imperfect decisions.
My own favored solution approach would involve a different financial model focused on cost recovery and fair compensation for work performed. If a particular user interface attracts enough small-donor support to cover it's costs, then that's fine. If not, then the people who want to use that interface will have to look at alternatives, such as a different interface or trying to encourage more people to support the interface to cover the costs.
Mostly for time but also because I've said all of this before at excessive length, for now I'm just going to big you ADSAuPR, atAJG.
Interesting comment, and I guess that I'd moderate it that way if I ever had a mod point to give. I think you raise a number of interesting points, and I like your style, though (on the premise you are fuzzily and indirectly defending Assange) I still mostly disagree, especially about this one:
Fark that misogynist racist nepotistic asshole Trump for flip-flopping and hanging Julian out to dry.
While I think your characterization of Trump is much too kind, I'm actually predicting that Trump is about to pardon Assange. Details of my crazy conspiracy theory are already in the related poll, so I'm just going to link rather than repeat: https://slashdot.org/comments....
However, my theory hinges on the cat, and this story casts further doubt on Assange's loyalties. I really doubt Trump has the guts to pardon Assange without insurance against more bad journalism with Trump in the sights.
On reflection, I better add one more point of clarification: I think Assange is just a pawn in the plot of Conway and Miller to have puppet Trump campaign in 2020 by focusing on the Department of White Homeland Security. They probably have additional plans for how to use Assange after he's pardoned...
If I ever got a mod point to give, I'd give this one an interesting, but...
Anyway, I'm mostly disagreeing with you, but beyond the Comment Subect: line I'm only going to refer to my longer comment in the related poll: https://slashdot.org/comments....
Presumably you mean "character assassination", but it's really hard to see much insight there. My new theory is that the real reason for the first-post frenzy is in quest of the easy "insightful" mod that is frequently given to an early comment. Yet another aspect of the broken moderation.
The cat is actually more significant than you seem to understand, per my longer comment on the associated poll: https://slashdot.org/comments....
This story casts doubt on Assange's love of the cat. If Assange actually doesn't care about the cat, how can Trump play Conway's newest game? They need some form of insurance to keep Assange in line when they pardon him, but they can't take the cat hostage if Assange doesn't even care about the cat.
I think we're in completely new territory now. It's sort of conceivable that they were willing to "invest" $4 billion in getting Assange. Trump really is such a lousy negotiator, especially since it isn't his own money. He's actually rather skilled at getting his own cut up front while gambling with other people's money, and now he has the entire federal budget to play with.
We've actually reached the insane point where Trump is actively encouraging crimes and promising pardons to criminals for crimes that have not yet been committed. The pardon of Joe Arpaio now looks like a trial balloon and proof of concept. What's to keep Trump from now making a deal with a skilled murderer: "I'll pardon you for your last murders if you promise to kill Nancy Pelosi and I'll pardon you for that murder, too."
Z^-4
I think it's relevant to consider that Assange is not a pure-hearted useful idiot. He was also motivated by spite and anger. I think the funny part is that Obama was pursuing Assange for making Dubya look bad. Most of the current mess in the Middle East is Dubya's fault (though it was Cheney's decisions), but when you bring that up now, the usual reaction is "Dubya who?"
I can really see Trump pardoning Assange and proclaiming himself the defender of non-fake journalism. The problem is that Assange is not reliable and he might have another spasm of bad journalism, with Trump as the new target. I was only partly joking when I suggested taking Assange's cat hostage.
I largely agree with you, but I'm seeing things differently after getting some more input on it.
My current theory is that they deliberately trumped up a ridiculous charge against Assange so that it will look relatively innocuous when Trump pardons Assange and proclaims himself the champion of free speech and non-fake journalism. Not actually Trump's idea. Nowhere near smart enough, but I think it's right in Kellyanne Conway's line of confusion. If so, the pardon might come out as soon as they Assange lands in the States (though Trump could not care less about any effects on the election in that shithole country Australia).
The only residual problem is if Assange does more bad journalism, but this time against Trump. On that theory they might be holding the cat hostage.
I do think Assange is pretty much worthless as a journalist. He made himself into the story, mostly in search of more money. However bad journalism is not a crime.
Too bad I didn't see the story until it was about to die. I'd have like to throw in my two-cents worth. However as it stands, the discussion is already falling off the front page, and there is no mention of "filter", the key to making it useful.
Yep, I didn't realize it was a dupe either, but I'll repost the same comment:
As usual, the technology remains morally neutral, but another technical bandage is NOT a real solution. Just another flavor of "Live and let spam", and the REAL objective of such weak-@ssed technical approaches is to deny liability for any harms done.
The specific aspect of spam that bugs me most is the time wasted. If the google was liable for all the time wasted by their support of spam, I think they'd be bankrupt, even at minimum wage rates. Other people might be more annoyed by the abuse of corporate reputations. Or maybe you're annoyed by the abuse of personal information? Or the entry-level-crime argument, especially for phishing and identity theft?
Anyway, I always want to see the solutions. So what am I doing on Slashdot these years?
My favored solution approach is to go after the spammers' business models. There's even an obvious proof of concept. Where is all your pump-and-dump stock-scam spam? Gone, gone, gone. Because they went after those spammers' business model--though only after several research papers proved that the scam worked so well it was like printing money.
Why aren't such approaches being adopted? My theory is because they'd have to work with us. To really fight the spammers effectively they'd need to collaborate with the potential victims. One part of it is that we are the only ones who know our side of the targeting. It doesn't matter how good the spam looks if I actually know that I've never done business with that bank, eh? But the bigger part is that they don't want to reveal how much of our personal information they are already holding. They don't have to ask me for such categories of information because they probably have all the details already. Probably even the account numbers.