Electronic Frontier (Fraud?) Foundation two-faced about "spam" emails
-- from an unsolicited email advertising herbal penis-enlargement pills. The subject line of the email was, "How would you like to be hung like a Rhino?" The reference to rhinos could be an allusion to the belief that rhino horn is an aphrodisiac because of its resemblance to a hyper-erect penis. However, a webpage titled "Penis Enlargement Products Come Up Short" says that these pills are worthless.
A webpage of the Electronic Frontier Foundation says,
Fundamentally, EFF believes that email recipients should control when and how they receive their mail. To the greatest extent possible, anti-spam measures should be controlled by end users, and any measure for stopping spam must ensure that all non-spam messages reach their intended recipients. . When antispam measures prevent activists and nonprofits from sending and receiving bulk noncommercial mail, EFF considers this a problem commensurate with the problem of spam itself.
I am an "activist" who has been emailing the EFF staff "bulk noncommercial mail" about issues of direct concern to the EFF. Despite the EFF policy statement above, Kevin Bankston (email@example.com), an unscrupulous EFF staff attorney, asked me to stop sending emails to all EFF staffers and to just send the emails instead to a "legal intake coordinator," Julie Linder (firstname.lastname@example.org), for pre-screening. In other words, instead of just letting other EFF staffers decide for themselves whether my email is of interest to them, this "legal intake coordinator" would make that decision for them. He even had the gall to call my emails "spam" and threatened to put me in the EFF's "spam filter," and he had the presumptuousness of pretending to speak for the other EFF staffers. Meanwhile, the EFF staffers of course expect me to read all the emails that they send to me.
Let's cut the malarkey and get to the point. Email has to a great extent replaced postal snail-mail for communication. If you block the delivery of snail-mail to the intended personal addressees, you go to jail and they throw away the key. It should be the same for thugs who block the delivery of emails to the intended personal addressees.
Go ahead and ignore or filter out my emails, EFF staffers -- then you won't know what others are reading here about your disgraceful practices and policies.
The methods of blocking and filtering "spam" include IP address blocking, which as I pointed out is illegal in the UK and possibly elsewhere in Europe (see this and this), and IMO is also illegal in California (more about that later).
I think that the biggest reason why there is an email spam non-problem is that there are too many lazy bums out there who are too slothful to hit the "delete" button to get rid of unwanted emails. In fact, if they are lazy enough, they don't even have to do that much -- they can just ignore the unwanted emails. This degree of torpor makes a sloth (maximum ground speed about 5 feet/min.) look like a cheetah at full sprint. At least the orthodox Jews who don't want to push street-crossing buttons on the Jewish Sabbath have an excuse -- it is against their religion (for this reason, some places have automatically-timed traffic lights on the Jewish Sabbath). I have been on the Internet for many years and have never had a big problem with spam emails.
The most annoying spam emails are those without descriptive subject lines, so that they need to be opened to see if the contents are of interest. At least the above spam email advertisement of herbal penis-enlargement pills had a descriptive subject line: "How would you like to be hung like a Rhino?"
A law called the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 has some restrictions on commercial and pornographic spam emails. If your emails are noncommercial and nonpornographic, there are apparently no restrictions on "spamming." Anyway, my emails to the EFF were not "spam" -- they were on subjects of direct concern to the EFF.
Here are some ideas:
(1) If one is on a list to receive emails that are on a subject of direct interest or concern to one's occupation or organization, requesting removal from the list should be considered to be rude. If you were on such a snail-mail list, would you bother asking a sender to be removed from the list? Not likely. Handgun Control Inc. once sent me five identical snail-mail letters -- with envelopes that said, "At last! Your first real chance to tell the NRA to go to hell!" -- in the space of about a month, and I never bothered to ask them to stop.
(2) As a courtesy, the subject line of your email should be as descriptive as possible. That will often save the recipient the trouble of opening the email to see if the subject is of interest.
(3) Use the same email address in sending emails to the list. Then the recipient can ignore the email if it is from an undesired sender. As for myself, if an email is on a subject of interest to me, I will not cut off my nose to spite my face by ignoring it just because I dislike the sender.
(4) It is a bad idea to threaten senders that you are going to ignore or filter out their emails. If the threat makes them mad enough, they may try to confuse you or bypass your spam filter by using different email addresses under the same ISP, using an email forwarding service, or using non-descriptive subject lines.
I previously reported that on the subject of blogs, the Electronic Fraud Foundation is concerned only with the rights of BVD-clad bloggers and is not at all concerned with the rights of blog commenters. The EFF wants BVD-clad bloggers to have special privileges without any responsibilities. Old organizations like the EFF tend to become big, fat, and smug. Well, borrowing the words of Handgun Control, Inc., here at last is your first real chance to tell the EFF to go to hell! Below are the EFF's email addresses:
email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org
Labels: Internet censorship (new #1)