The ethics of spam

During the past few weeks I have written more forcefully than ever about ethics and attitudes in connection with Internet and PC use. What got me focused on these topics are the increasing levels of media piracy, the enormous increase in spam and the observation that digital ethics isn't getting much attention.

The spam problem has entered a whole new dimension with scores of newbie online businesses -- often extensions of existing business operations -- getting hold of lists that they are told consist of (and naively believe to be) real double opt-in addresses.

I've recently called many of the obviously naive spammers (real businesses with real Web sites and real toll-free numbers) and discussed with them the errors of their ways.

In most cases, these people just don't understand the storm of ordure that is about to land on them. One can only feel pity -- particularly for those who have shelled out hundreds or thousands of dollars for a list that could get them dumped by their ISPs and added to the MAPS Real Time Black Hole List.

Of course, there are still those simpletons who think that because spam isn't illegal, they should be allowed to send unsolicited commercial e-mail without hindrance or any kind of comment from anyone.

By way of example, I got a message from one Parker Byron offering me the opportunity to advertise on his company's Web site, www.johnsoncounty.com, and inviting me to call him so he could pitch me.

This site bills itself as an online directory of businesses in Johnson County, Kansas (obviously completely relevant to me). The offer was sent to every publicly used e-mail address in the gibbs.com domain, including the addresses for Gearhead and Backspin. Blatant, barefaced spamming!

I called Byron to warn him what he was doing was a bad idea. He arrogantly told me that there was nothing to prevent him from spamming because it wasn't illegal. He wouldn't reveal the name of his ISP (gee, it took such a long time to find out afterward -- PlanetKC.com,which was very responsive) and said he'd carry on.

Byron is apparently related to the principals of a Kansas realty company named Team Byron, and when I called its toll-free number to find out whether the company supported his position, I was amused to find Byron answering the telephone.

But here's where this all gets interestingly philosophical: Just because Byron behaved in a way that the majority of informed Internet users apparently consider unacceptable, was he being unethical? Is he actually morally wrong? And if he is morally wrong, is it a minor lapse or a major transgression?

After all, it was just a stream of bits. The real cost to me was nanocents in both resources and time (and I got a column out of the whole sorry mess). But his arrogance -- in the face of knowing that spam is disapproved of by the Internet community -- shows incredible guts or complete ignorance. Either way, it makes his position look weakly considered.

And there's no doubt that he's contravened the acceptable use policy of his ISP in principle, although whether the ISP took or will take any serious action against his company, beyond telling it not to do it again, is unknown.

And if his spamming was via, say, a Hotmail account, would his ISP have any grounds for action on a purely ethical basis or in terms of its acceptable use policy?

» posted by ITworld staff

Network World

Sign up for ITworld's Daily newsletter
Follow ITworld on Twitter @IT_world

• Email
• Print
• Share
  • Slashdot
  • Digg
  • Stumble
  • Reddit
  • Newsvine