It seems a lot of this controversy has to do with the litigation-happy society we find ourselves living in these days. As the network admin for my company, I have used WebSense, and the risk that it might block something legitimate is negligible compared to the risk we, as a company, face if we are presented with a harassment lawsuit as a result of something we DIDN'T block. I guess it all comes down to each individual company or network. I certainly don't want to have my home use of the internet blocked or monitored in any way, but when at work, it should be expected that an employee should be WORKING rather than surfing the net, unless it is directly related to their job. It would seem that an additional step on the part of management to, not KEEP you from surfing, but just to restrict any objectionable (or anything that could possibly be construed as such) material is just an honest attempt to prevent some po'd employee from having an excuse to take money from the company. This is specifically true in the case of small to mid size companies who might REALLY be hurt by such a lawsuit. In fact, we at my company ditched the filtering method altogether, and set our firewall to block all web access with the exception of a whitelist of sites which our employees need access to for the performance of job duties. To my way of thinking, since the company owns the network, and is therefore liable for what goes on thereon, it is the company's perogative to take whatever precautions fit their specific needs.
Free speech doesn't include STEALING! Effectively, spammers STEAL directly from their recipients. We all pay some fee or another for access to the Internet. ISP's must pay their employees and purchase equipment and bandwidth. As more and more human and electronic resources must be dedicated to the stopping of SPAM - including the upgrading and installation of gear to filter the stuff, or simply to handle the traffic, expansion of bandwidth resources to keep themselves above the threshold of that used by SPAM coming in, increased customer support due to the onslaught - ISPs have to increase their rates. This is the simple way to look at this. SPAM costs ME money, while spammers themselves have little or no expense from actually sending the stuff - and are, in fact, usually MAKING tons of money sending it.
This is not to mention the time we spend dealing with the SPAM that constantly takes more and more of our mailbox space.
There is a difference between soapbox orators, in the park speaking to those who will listen about whatever they feel is important, and those people who are invading my privacy with their offensive smut. The difference is that in the first case, I can walk away. In the case of SPAM, it is becoming more and more difficult to simply walk away. These folks do anything in their power to evade blocking, deceive you into reading their junk, and hit you with as much SPAM as they possibly can. So long as the guy isn't committing a crime, the government is, and should remain, powerless to keep him from expressing what he wants, no matter how offensive it may be. However, if the guy on the soapbox kicks in your front door or follows you to work, all the while screaming in your ear at the top of his lungs, you'd have the bastard arrested, right? A good restraining order might be in order. This is because he'd then be committing a criminal act of harrassment. This is akin to how SPAM affects us. Then, if the soapbox guy starts taking money out of your wallet, you'd have him locked up for a while, right?
Free speech: the right to express one's opinions publicly.
Yes, but when free speech crosses the line and starts impinging upon other rights, it is no longer free speech. People who riot and loot in protest to something, the speech may be protected on its own, but the crimes comitted result in jail time. Once you've stomped on someone's right to life, liberty or property - or in the case of SPAM, the right to privacy - it ceases to be free speech, and becomes something different.
Think of what would happen if you approached a kid on the street and yelled "Want free sex?" You'd be hauled off to jail quicker than you can say "Oh, shit." Spammers indiscriminantly send much the same message to any mailbox they find. Many of these are accounts used by kids. How come they aren't held by the populous to the same standard?
Then there's the argument by the Direct Marketing Association that Spam is no different from direct marketing through postal mail. First, postal junk mail costs me nothing, period. The time it takes for me to sort through my postal mail and separate the junk is barely equivalent to the time it takes me to walk from the mailbox to the trash can (my mailbox hangs right outside my door, and there are about 10 steps from there to my PC room, the nearest can). Further, the US Mail regulates what can be on the outside of the envelope. I don't have to worry that my kid (I don't presently have one, but hypothetically) will grab the mail from the box and see "sex," "Viagra," "Huge BOOBS" of other, more vulgar expressions printed on an envelope. The same doesn't hold true for SPAM. The subject lines of an email can contain whatever a spammer wishes.
The mass sending of faxes is regulated in a way that protects businesses and individuals from having to bear the expense of mass faxing. Why isn't email regulated in a similar fashion? The costs to the end recipient are certainly real enough.
Slashdot Mirror
It seems a lot of this controversy has to do with the litigation-happy society we find ourselves living in these days. As the network admin for my company, I have used WebSense, and the risk that it might block something legitimate is negligible compared to the risk we, as a company, face if we are presented with a harassment lawsuit as a result of something we DIDN'T block.
I guess it all comes down to each individual company or network. I certainly don't want to have my home use of the internet blocked or monitored in any way, but when at work, it should be expected that an employee should be WORKING rather than surfing the net, unless it is directly related to their job. It would seem that an additional step on the part of management to, not KEEP you from surfing, but just to restrict any objectionable (or anything that could possibly be construed as such) material is just an honest attempt to prevent some po'd employee from having an excuse to take money from the company. This is specifically true in the case of small to mid size companies who might REALLY be hurt by such a lawsuit. In fact, we at my company ditched the filtering method altogether, and set our firewall to block all web access with the exception of a whitelist of sites which our employees need access to for the performance of job duties. To my way of thinking, since the company owns the network, and is therefore liable for what goes on thereon, it is the company's perogative to take whatever precautions fit their specific needs.
Don't get me started on this...
Free speech doesn't include STEALING! Effectively, spammers STEAL directly from their recipients. We all pay some fee or another for access to the Internet. ISP's must pay their employees and purchase equipment and bandwidth. As more and more human and electronic resources must be dedicated to the stopping of SPAM - including the upgrading and installation of gear to filter the stuff, or simply to handle the traffic, expansion of bandwidth resources to keep themselves above the threshold of that used by SPAM coming in, increased customer support due to the onslaught - ISPs have to increase their rates. This is the simple way to look at this. SPAM costs ME money, while spammers themselves have little or no expense from actually sending the stuff - and are, in fact, usually MAKING tons of money sending it.
This is not to mention the time we spend dealing with the SPAM that constantly takes more and more of our mailbox space.
There is a difference between soapbox orators, in the park speaking to those who will listen about whatever they feel is important, and those people who are invading my privacy with their offensive smut. The difference is that in the first case, I can walk away. In the case of SPAM, it is becoming more and more difficult to simply walk away. These folks do anything in their power to evade blocking, deceive you into reading their junk, and hit you with as much SPAM as they possibly can. So long as the guy isn't committing a crime, the government is, and should remain, powerless to keep him from expressing what he wants, no matter how offensive it may be. However, if the guy on the soapbox kicks in your front door or follows you to work, all the while screaming in your ear at the top of his lungs, you'd have the bastard arrested, right? A good restraining order might be in order. This is because he'd then be committing a criminal act of harrassment. This is akin to how SPAM affects us. Then, if the soapbox guy starts taking money out of your wallet, you'd have him locked up for a while, right?
Free speech: the right to express one's opinions publicly.
Yes, but when free speech crosses the line and starts impinging upon other rights, it is no longer free speech. People who riot and loot in protest to something, the speech may be protected on its own, but the crimes comitted result in jail time. Once you've stomped on someone's right to life, liberty or property - or in the case of SPAM, the right to privacy - it ceases to be free speech, and becomes something different.
Think of what would happen if you approached a kid on the street and yelled "Want free sex?" You'd be hauled off to jail quicker than you can say "Oh, shit." Spammers indiscriminantly send much the same message to any mailbox they find. Many of these are accounts used by kids. How come they aren't held by the populous to the same standard?
Then there's the argument by the Direct Marketing Association that Spam is no different from direct marketing through postal mail. First, postal junk mail costs me nothing, period. The time it takes for me to sort through my postal mail and separate the junk is barely equivalent to the time it takes me to walk from the mailbox to the trash can (my mailbox hangs right outside my door, and there are about 10 steps from there to my PC room, the nearest can). Further, the US Mail regulates what can be on the outside of the envelope. I don't have to worry that my kid (I don't presently have one, but hypothetically) will grab the mail from the box and see "sex," "Viagra," "Huge BOOBS" of other, more vulgar expressions printed on an envelope. The same doesn't hold true for SPAM. The subject lines of an email can contain whatever a spammer wishes.
The mass sending of faxes is regulated in a way that protects businesses and individuals from having to bear the expense of mass faxing. Why isn't email regulated in a similar fashion? The costs to the end recipient are certainly real enough.
Sorry for the tirade...