Spam

[Owen Lewis]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> [mailto:ukcrypto-admin@chiark.greenend.org.uk]On Behalf Of Roland Perry
> Sent: 11 October 2002 12:46
> To: ukcrypto@chiark.greenend.org.uk
> Subject: Re: Spam
>
>
> In message <FMEFLOMOCGIMKOKKKLFIAEABCGAA.oml@sysrx.uk.com>, Owen Lewis
> <oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes
>
> >My enquiry was as to the number of prosecutions per year you know to have
> >been brought. Say in each of the last three years?
>
> I have already explained why this is a sensitive area, and the
> information I have was supplied under NDA.

I think my left leg has just got a little longer. Unless and until the Star
Chamber is reintroduced to this country, prosecutions are a matter of public
record. So is their outcome, both in matters of finding and sentence.

Still, its remarkable what some will volunteer to sign away when asked to do
so.


> >Thus, 'more than 365 scams a
> >year' seems a sensible first approximation to the occurrences of
> such scams
> >in the UK.
>
> If "one batch of spam" is how you define "a scam", then I'd estimate
> there were a lot more than 365 a year. Some people would define each
> receipt of a spam as an individual "attempted scam".
>
> >> >I believe that the Met's average
> >> >detection rate is about 8%.
>
> This varies from crime to crime. They have a 100% rate for Kidnapping,
> for example.

An average does not vary 'according to crime'. It is an average - of 8% - we
are told. Ergo, 100% on kidnapping (one on 10 years?) means that the
detection rate is less that 8% for some other crime. Nigerian Scams,
perchance?
>
> >That logic comes close to re-inforcing my view that the police do not, in
> >fact, bring charges against these people.
>
> Then you would be completely wrong.

In what? That the 'logic' of suppressing a detection rate does not
re-inforce a view that that detection rate is appalling? This is the natural
meaning of your response but, surely, you cannot have meant it? Or did you..

Owen