Nato warns of strike against cyber attackers
owen at delong.com
Wed Jun 9 16:59:00 CDT 2010
On Jun 9, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Larry Sheldon wrote:
> On 6/9/2010 15:56, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Jun 9, 2010, at 8:26 AM, Brielle Bruns wrote:
>>> On 6/9/10 6:27 AM, Jorge Amodio wrote:
>>>> Going back then to a previous question, do we want more/any regulation ?
>>> Laws and regulation exist because people can't behave civilly and be expected to respect the rights/boundries/property others.
>>> CAN-SPAM exists because the e-mail marketing business refused to self regulate and respect the wishes of consumers/administrators
>> Which is good, because it certainly eliminated most of the SPAM. -- NOT!
> It is actually an outstanding example of something of something I spoke
> of here earlier.
> Without any exception that I know of, regulations are written to protect
> the entrenched. CAN-SPAM was written to protect spammers, not to
> prevent anything important to them.
Actually, as much as it would make so much more sense if that were the
case, it simply isn't true. CAN-SPAM was written to be a compromise that
was supposed to allow consumers to opt out of receiving SPAM and
prevent SPAMMERs from sending unwanted messages.
Sadly, of course, it hasn't done either one.
> Somebody should have said:
> A democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner.
> Freedom under a constitutional republic is a well armed lamb contesting
> the vote.
> Requiescas in pace o email
> Ex turpi causa non oritur actio
> Eppure si rinfresca
> ICBM Targeting Information: http://tinyurl.com/4sqczs
More information about the NANOG