Users are Ignorant, Badly Behaved, and the Leading Cause of Spam - 1,320 Views, 4 Comments
|
Previous Article « TiVo Emails Sweet Deal to Journalists for New TiVo Humax
Read Next Article » Reader Has Novel Idea - Poll: Could it Work?
According to an analyst at Radicati, and related reports by InformationWeek and the BBC, “user ignorance” and “bad behaviour” is the leading cause of spam. According to Marcel Nienhuis, an analyst with Radicati, “Major advancements in technology approaches that routinely achieve 90%-plus catch-rates are becoming widely available, yet no technology in the world can protect an organization if users exercise bad E-mail behavior.” InformationWeek’s headline on the story reads “User Ignorance To Blame For Spam” and the BBC explains that “The ‘bad behaviour’ of e-mail users is helping to sustain the spam industry.” I dunno. Isn’t that a little like blaming the victim? The old “she asked for it”? Now Aunty is the first to agree that, as a user, if you aren’t part of the solution, you’re part of the problem, but Aunty is also pretty sure that it isn’t the users who are pressing “send” and injecting the spam into the Internet stream. Aunty is pretty sure that it’s the spammers. I mean, we don’t blame the drug users for the existence of the drug market. Or do we?
Follow Anne on Twitter
Friend Anne on Facebook
Users are Ignorant, Badly Behaved, and the Leading Cause of Spam
Twitter Explained in Plain English
Previous Article « TiVo Emails Sweet Deal to Journalists for New TiVo Humax
Read Next Article » Reader Has Novel Idea - Poll: Could it Work?
Read more:
» News Site Blames Spam on “Email Retards”
» AOL Sues Instant-Message Spammers (with Apologies to Dr. Seuss)
» AOL Sues Instant-Message Spammers (with Apologies to Dr. Seuss) [Repost]
For additional similar stories check out our archives on Spam
NOTE: We never, ever, ever will recommend any product or service on this site that we have not regularly used ourselves and do not wholeheartedly believe in. That said, in some cases after being very pleased with a product or service, we may enter into a relationship with the provider of that product or service such that if someone purchases that product or service based on our recommendation, we may get a small payment. Such payments go towards the upkeep of the Internet Patrol.
If people wouldn’t reply to the messages, or worse, BUY THEY’RE SELLING, then there wouldn’t be much spam. So, to that extent I would blame the users, just like with drugs.
Comment by Gary and the Samoyeds — 3/25/2005 @ 5:12 am
Actually, we do blame drug users for the market… eliminate the demand, the supply dies a quiet death (which is the point of all “just say no” type programs).
In the case of Spam, though… I’d blame user ignorance more than the users themselves. Since users have technology thrust on them that they don’t (and won’t) understand, the responsibility for educating and protecting users (from each other) should fall on the ISP.
Comment by Jonathan Murray — 3/25/2005 @ 8:23 am
It’s only blaming the victim if you consider all users to be the same. Really there are two groups: those who accept spam (buying from it, clicking on links they shouldn’t) and those who reject it (deleting, filtering, complaining, stalking, whatever). But for the most part, it’s easier for spammers to ignore the difference and treat them as one group.
It’s like being back in high school gym class, where one goof-off does something stupid, but everyone has to run laps.
Comment by Kelson — 3/25/2005 @ 9:28 am
Drug users/drug market really isn’t a fair analogy. After all, ‘if users didn’t buy, the drug market wouldn’t exist’, but would spam stop if people didn’t buy? The cost (near $0) and the reach (near universal - Internet universe, anyway) make SPAM an excellent medium for more than commercial messages.
This is different than the drug market. (Besides, no human society has ever eliminated drugs; any society can eliminate SPAM - just turn off the ‘net or its equivalent.)
Comment by Mad Eye — 3/29/2005 @ 11:32 am