one-to-many messaging

[PeteM]

Roland Perry wrote  on 7-04-08 09:49:
> In article <036301c897ef$fda906b0$1601010a@neos.tv>, Tom Thomson
> <cmt@btinternet.com> writes
>> rolannd wrote
>>> After all, a high percentage of the spam I receive  seems to qualify
>>> under unreliability[1], and all of it modifies data on  my PC; but no-
>>> one cares.
>> And there we don't agree, I don't for a moment believe that most spam is
>> intended to damage your machine
> 
> Not even the spam that's carrying a virus? Or the phishing ones, which
> seem to me to be exactly as much about forgery and placing inaccurate
> data on my PC. [No, my Paypal account hasn't been closed, you liar].
> 

You may be right that phishing or viral spam is intended to damage your 
machine and that the perpetrators (the ones with intent anyway) are 
therefore committing an offence under CMA. However that doesn't mean 
"no-one cares"; it just means we can't prosecute them under CMA, since 
they are usually outside UK jurisdiction.

In all other respects I absolutely agree with Tom. One only has to 
perform a simple act of introspection. Suppose someone is deliberately 
blocking your messages to a third party, and modifying your computer to 
deceive you into believing that this third party did not exist. Would 
*you* regard this as an "authorised modification" of your computer? Of 
course you wouldn't. It is preposterous to suggest otherwise.

-- 
Pete Mitchell