Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!uunet!zaphod!ub!dsinc!casbah.acns.nwu.edu!accuvax.nwu.edu!nucsrl!telecom-request
From: gast@cs.ucla.edu (David Gast)
Newsgroups: comp.dcom.telecom
Subject: Re: My Apologies, If You Were Bombed
Message-ID: <16040@accuvax.nwu.edu>
Date: 14 Jan 91 09:37:16 GMT
Sender: news@accuvax.nwu.edu
Organization: TELECOM Digest
Lines: 62
Approved: Telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Submissions-To: telecom@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Administrivia-To: telecom-request@eecs.nwu.edu
X-Telecom-Digest: Volume 11, Issue 36, Message 2 of 11


The Moderator wrote:

> A large number of readers -- primarily those who had posted here in
> recent weeks -- were subjected to a 'bombing run' on Friday. The
> person simply collected up all the names and sites he could find, by
> copying the address information in messages here, and sent out a mass
> mailing.

> From time to time, the network is misused in this way, with anonymous
> postings and mass-mailings sent through other than the normal mailing
> list channels.

I find this posting rather curious because many of us have complained
in this forum and elsewhere about corporations buying and selling our
names and about information gathered for one purpose being used for
another purpose.  The Moderator has responded that by voluntarily
putting information in the public arena, we should not complain when
it is used.  He has noted that he has an unlisted telephone number and
a PO Box for an address.

Now it seems to me that we are not forced to post to the TELECOM
Digest, that we do so of our own free will and that by the logic
above, we should not complain when it is used by someone else.  Why
should junk mail or junk phone calls be considered acceptable
behavior, but junk e-mail messages be unacceptable behavior?  (Cost
considerations aside since we can debate all today over who subsidizes
whom).

In fact, I would argue that his action was less offensive than junk
mail or junk phone calls for the following reasons:

1) I have expressed some interest in telecom issues.  I have not, for
   example, expressed any interest in the {Mercury News}.  Yet I should be
   polite to the cretin that calls?

2) Neither the TELECOM Digest nor the sender of the messages recieved any
   renumeration for selling information about me and no commercial
   soliciation was done.

3) Only my name and e-mail address was used; there was no attempt to
   determine income, political affiliation, buying patterns, race, sex,
   or other demographic data.

4) The sender explicitly stated that anyone who did not wish to receive
   future mailings from him would be taken off the list.  (In fact, the
   entire list has ceased).  The {Mercury News}, for example, refuses to
   take names off its list even when explicitly requested to do so.


David Gast        gast@cs.ucla.edu  
{uunet,ucbvax,rutgers}!{ucla-cs,cs.ucla.edu}!gast


[Moderator's Note: Well, you raise some good points and I haven't much
argument with them except to note that on this net at least, I thought
there had always been an implied understanding that that sort of thing
was not acceptable. No such understanding or agreement exists with the
{Mercury News} that I know of. So it is not so much a matter of using
informaiton publicly available (which I still say is basically okay
even though I find a lot of it in bad taste myself) as it is violating
the so-called 'net etiquette' here.  PAT]