Spam and privacy

[Joe Isom]

I'll take a shot at this. I know what anonymous EMAIL is, but I've never
received any.  If I did, I would consider it no different than the spam
I receive -- I would delete it without even looking at.

I work in a job where we often receive information anonymously.  It has
always been in the form of phone calls or letters, and we are required
to investigate any information provided anonymously.  My experience has
been that, when the writer or caller knows he is totally anonymous and
cannot be challenged on, or held accountable for the information he is
providing, he will, almost all of the time, greatly embellish the
information or testimony he is offering.  In other words, it has been my
experience that most people who write anonymously do it because they
know they are serving up a big load of crap, not because they are
sticking their neck out.

Also, it's not too enjoyable to be the subject of an anonymous EMAIL and
have outright lies told about you in an effort to trash your reputation
and character.  Therefore, I would treat any anonymous EMAIL just like I
do spam -- hit the delete key without even opening it.

Joe Isom

On Fri, 2003-06-27 at 18:12, Asheville Joe wrote:
> Spam is a hassle to everybody, but I'm wondering if the problem will be 
> used as an excuse to eliminate another aspect of privacy - anonymous email.
> I may be reading this too broadly, but Billy's remarks (along with 
> Palladium, etc.) make me a little sensitive on this issue.
> 
> > http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/execmail/2003/06-24antispam-print.asp
> 
> 
> I have had occasion to send comments or opinions to controversial sites 
> which I did not want traceabe back to me.  I have used anonymous 
> emailers to do this. (I'm sure there's a way to do this in Linux, but 
> technical issues are not the point here.)  I think it's important to 
> maintain this ability as part of free speech and because it enables 
> people who stick their necks out to get feedback from those who have 
> something to say, but are unwilling to take the associated risk of 
> public disclosure of their identities.
> 
> What do you think?
> 
> Joe
>