Spam

[Roland Perry]

In message <FMEFLOMOCGIMKOKKKLFIMEAFCGAA.oml@sysrx.uk.com>, Owen Lewis
<oml@sysrx.uk.com> writes

>> Indeed, but there is significant work (or indeed intellectual property)
>> in collecting all that public information into a digestible and
>> correlated report.
>
>What, all two of them :-)

I think you'll find there are rather more than two courts at which you
need to trawl through all their case reports! Organisations that produce
a commercial product from the results deserve some recognition for the
IPR.

>Joking aside, were one to summon up the interest, a request to one's MP
>would produce the required information. I simply wouldn't bet the ranch on
>the future value of the relevant IPR.

Yes a good strategy, but officials (who write the replies) are non
omniscient. If you asked "how many one legged men have been arrested but
not tried for shoplifting" you might well get a response that statistics
aren't kept regarding the legged-ness of offenders, let alone of cases
not brought to court.

> Now if *some* MP's were told that that
>this information was being provided by the police (or whomsoever in public
>service) only under NDA, I do believe it would increase their fervour - nay
>delight - in jumping up and down all over the matter in hobnailed boots.

I'm not sure why this is relevant. In any case, MPs are told lots of
things in confidence.

>Confidences when accepted are to be respected
>without exception. The converse of this is that confidentiality should not
>be unreasonably demanded - though it sometimes is.

In this instance, after a long face to face meeting with the folks
concerned, I am convinced. As you may surmise, there is considerable
public (and indeed at least one MP) demand for ISPs to do something
about 419 spam. It's important that I'm able to put the matter into its
complete perspective. One very important aspect being, as I have
explained, that because it's a *confidence* trick, the more that is
known about the policing process the more likely the tricksters will
actually use that information to assist them. Oddly, when the Post
Office started stamping 419 letters with a warning (they aren't allowed
to not deliver them unless they have forged postage stamps, which some
do), the take-up *increased*.

>Then you can cite a case of cases in which it has been publicised? One notes
>that the several paid-up journos here are remarkably silent ;-)

Someone posted one yesterday.

>If one looks at the abduction and killing of children where there is no
>extortion of ransom, then the police record is woefully short of 100%.

Although none of the recent cases I can think of are in the Met's area
(except perhaps that torso in the Thames, which they are very publically
following up with great vigour).

>This
>is not a criticism of the police; they are not omnipotent. In such cases,
>they are deprived of the most powerful tools that can come into play only
>when ransom is demanded.

Yes, the problem seems to be that missing teenagers aren't normally
pursued for up to 14 days, whereas the moment there's a ransom demand
it's immediate action stations. [Sarah Payne is perhaps the exception
here]. What's even more interesting is why only a small percentage of
such missing teenagers hit the news - one suspects that as with many
crimes it depends how well dressed the person reporting it is.

>However, it is also reasonable to expect that there are kidnappings where a
>ransom is paid, the kidnappee returned and the kidnapper home free - all
>without the police being informed. Naturally, such matters can't affect the
>boast of 100%, can they??

Statistics always include only what they include.
-- 
             Roland Perry | tel: +44 20 7645 3505 | roland@linx.org
Director of Public Policy | fax: +44 20 7645 3529 | http://www.linx.net
 London Internet Exchange | mbl: +44 7909 68 0005 |       /contact/roland