Spam

[Roland Perry]

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

>>Organisations that produce
>> a commercial product from the results deserve some recognition for the
>> IPR.
>
>Perhaps. It depends on the market value of the product.

Lawtel seem to make a living at it.

>[Requirement for NDA]

>What we are discussing are statistics for
>charges, prosecutions and convictions.

[..]

>In
>this instance and from what has been put here, you accepted this information
>under NDA so that you may profit from a resulting IPR.

I'm not sure why you draw that (incorrect) conclusion. A lot of
information was discussed, a very small part being the prosecution
statistics that seem to give you so much trouble. Meanwhile, it's at my
discretion what portions of the conversation I reveal to which
audiences, and it's never on a commercial basis.

The reference to IPR was simply that if *you* were to "do a Lawtel" and
gather up a large amount of raw data from the courts and publish an
indexed summary, then there'd be value in the result (and that it would
be a very considerable amount of work, albeit bashing what's
fundamentally public data).

I have no interest in performing such an exercise (nor the funds to
subscribe to Lawtel).

>The nagging question remains though, what do you give, or
>are perceived to give in trade for the value received?

For the entirety of the information? A better understanding between law
enforcement and the ISP industry about the real nature of the 419
problem, so we can work together to combat it, rather than making
unwarranted assumptions about one another.

>I come from just reading that a man had an expensive motorbike stolen from
>his doorstep. He reported the theft within minutes of its occurrence. It was
>24 hrs before the police (Met) could bother to take a statement of the
>facts. After four more days of apparent police inaction, he decided to
>search for the machine himself. He found it after just five hours of
>enquiries on a local estate (stripped of over £1K of accessories). He
>photographed those doing the stripping and paid a 'ransom' for to take the
>machine away. The police recognised the individuals in the photos but have
>taken no statements nor made arrests. A suggestion that the bike be
>finger-printed was met with comment that it was a 'low priority'.

Yes, the police have such a scale of priorities. Their resources are not
endless. I come from reading (on teletext) that there are about 80
children a year murdered by their parents. Notwithstanding that only one
or two a year seem to be reported in the news. Or should we accuse the
NSPCC of lying with statistics, just because of the paucity of news
reports?

> And you
>fancy the Met cleaning up Nigerian Scam?? I have not your faith (or
>whatever).

I'm not sure they would claim to "clean up" very much at all. Just
constantly investigate and prosecute. A bit like the child murders - how
could they ever "clean that up"?

>David Biggins did indeed. However as a UKP 0.5M 'advance fee' hit, it does,
>I think not belong in the same category as the average Nigerian Scam.

It is exactly in that category. You must be as naive as their victims if
you think that these folks stop at the initial 10K they ask for.

>> 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.
>
>Roland, that is so lame it *has* to have a police PR source. Wake up and
>smell the coffee :-)

Um, it's a matter of fact that someone is not officially a "missing
person" until they've been gone 14 days. Far too many turn up after a
day or two for the police to be very interested straight away (and even
if they are, the first thing they do is search outbuildings and other
places the kids might be hiding). On the other hand, once a ransom
demand is received, you know they've not just wandered off. I'd like you
to explain what's so "police PR" about this.

>> Statistics always include only what they include.
>
>And hence the saying that there are 'Lies, damned lies and statistics'. You
>may take your pick in which of these categories you believe the '100%
>success rate in kidnapping' properly belongs.

I take my understanding of statistics, where I can, by talking at length
to the people directly involved. By such means I get to judge whether
they are real or not. Whether you've talked to me enough to get a
feeling that what I say is true, is another matter. Even so, some claims
are bold enough that the risk of being caught out makes them more likely
to be true.
-- 
             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