[PLUG] Using spamassassin's tagging...

[Jeme A Brelin]

On Fri, 17 Oct 2003, AthlonRob wrote:
> On Fri, 2003-10-17 at 11:39, Jeme A Brelin wrote:
> > This is wrong on so many levels.
>
> Is it?

Ayup.

> Wow.

Indeed.  Mind-blowing, isn't it?

> Do you agree there are 'bad guys' out there on the Internet?

I don't believe there are 'bad guys' or 'good guys'.  There's just a bunch
of guys.

Do you really believe there are bad guys?  Can you just pick them out of a
line-up and dispose of them or do we have somehow winkle them out with
bait so we can end their miserable lives?

Life sure would be good if there weren't other people with conflicting
desires messing things up for me!  Let's put together some more prisons.
Surely that'll solve the problem.  After all, the United States has more
people in prison per capita than any other industrialized nation, so our
crime rate is the low... oh, wait.

> People who do things they shouldn't?

Everyone does things they shouldn't; by other people's standards and even
their own.

> Or are you saying there *isn't* anything bad you can do on the Internet?

I got all kinds of ideas of bad things a person can do on the internet.

Is doing something bad the only requirement to being a 'bad guy'?  If so,
then everyone's a 'bad guy'.  Who's got the black hats?

> If you can spread a worm or virus, or emailbomb somebody, that's ok,
> there's nothing wrong with it?

There's nothing wrong with being able to spread an emailbomb or a virus or
a worm.  There is something wrong with actually doing it.

> If we were all open relays somebody could, with virtually no effort at
> all, email bomb somebody quite effectively.

With closed relays, it's still quite effective.

And making it more difficult to do doesn't solve the problem.  The problem
isn't it happening, the problem is people wanting to make it happen.
Solve the root problem and you don't have to worry about whether or not
it's possible.

You don't bring down the murder rate by taking away the weapons.  You
bring down the murder rate by teaching people to respect others' lives.

(Or do you favor gun control?)

> The spreading of viruses and worms among Windows users would be able to
> happen a lot quicker.

Do you have any idea how Windows worms and virii are spread?  They use the
system default SMTP server.  Presumably, a person is allowed to send mail
through their own default SMTP server.  A compromised system almost ALWAYS
has a place to relay mail.

> Spam could increase exponentially, clogging down mail servers
> everywhere.

It is not in the interest of spammers to clog down the entire mail system.
It will not happen because they would all go out of business long before
it got that bad.

> No, not everybody deserves forgiveness or kind, dignified, respectful
> treatment.

This, to me, is axiomatic.  There is no basis for debate.  Either you
respect people or you spread misery and make war.

> Punishment is necessary in the world... but I don't think we want to get
> too far into that discussion, we'll get way further off topic.

It's all the same topic.  It's about respecting people and giving them
everything you can.

> You seem to trust everybody not to harm you.

I do, but I think you might not understand what that means.  I trust
everybody to not harm me, but I don't believe nobody will.

People react much better to trust than suspicion.  People act more
responsibly when given real responsibility than when left to their own
whim and wimsy.  This is Psych 101.  Ask any parent.

Who was it that wrote "Unix doesn't prevent you from doing something
stupid because that might prevent me from doing something clever"?  I
think it relates here.  You have to give people power in order for them to
do great things.

> I don't have such faith in the world.

There really isn't any choice.  The alternative is so unpleasant.  The
only viable alternative to a social structure of mutual trust and respect
is one of totalitarian control through violent coersion.  This is
essentially the difference between the progressive and the conservative.

I believe every crime can be traced back to someone who doesn't know how
to respect other people... and that, barring physiological mental illness,
is always the way they were taught to live, either explicitly or by
example.

It's an oft-used cliche (and I guess it wouldn't be a cliche if it wasn't
oft-used), but we have to break the cycle.  It will probably take a
hundred generations of very hard work before it is the norm everywhere,
but it's worth it... and if we don't start now, it will be AT LEAST one
more generation away.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme at brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org