Fighting Fire With Fire Won't Douse The Fire

In the last few weeks, I have noticed an increasespam victim, but doesn't this type of 'payback'
in tools or methods devised exclusively to fightsolution smack of 'Internet vigilantism' or 'taking
the Spam fight. I applaud the originators ideals andthe law into one's own hands' (something that is
their ingenuity, but I must voice my concernwrong and dangerous, no matter how justified
about the way in which such concepts can oftenand tempting it may seem to be)?
backfire, sometimes in the nastiest of ways.Apart from the obvious 'dragging down to their
I abhor spam. I hate it with a vengeance andlevel' in which this method results, isn't it illegal?
would do ALMOST anything to rid the Internet ofAre the people who have put together this web
it entirely. The worldwide financial consequencespage and promoted it's use in danger of the
alone run into billions of dollars annually.It isauthorities deciding that they too, are contributing
comparable to the disruption that the propagationto the daily plague of spam? I do hope not, as I
of viruses causes and is responsible for creating aknow their intentions are based in a sense of
completely independent niche market for the salefighting a huge, common evil.
of tools and software programs designed simplyI heard that the first 'high profile' case against a
to combat it. Although, I would imagine that evenspammer in the U.S., resulting in a hefty jail term,
those engaged in this area of marketing wouldconcluded only last week. I know that the wheels
also welcome it's demise, however unlikely itof 'justice' do turn slowly, in almost everything but
might seem at the moment.I believe the reason for that is so that mistakes
The latest is a web page that we are all beingand more injustices do not result.
asked to link to which, as I understand it, willThat is my concern with Internet citizens deciding
result in the email addresses listed on that page,to, as I said, take the law into their own hands
which are 'known' spam originating addresses,and perhaps overlooking where their actions may
being inundated with so much spam, generated bybackfire, or worse, give the spammer an even
their own 'spiders' (entities which crawl the Netmore powerful tool with which to assault their
looking for email addresses) that their data will bevictims. I shudder to think what spammers,
effectively useless due to the spider beingespecially those who fall victim to this new idea,
effectively sent on an endless 'loop'. A simple butmight do if they find the identity or email
brilliant little idea - But is it safe?addresses of the devisor/s of this idea.
What if an innocent email address should find it'sWe have relatively new laws to deal with spam
way onto that web page? What if one isand it's perpetrators. As I said, there has been, to
maliciously placed there? Does that email addressmy knowledge only one 'notable' and 'highly
get caught up in the vicious circle of unsolicitedpublicized' instance of the law at work, where the
email? Maybe not, but even if the methodInternet community has been able to feel a sense
precludes this particular 'backfire', more to theof 'justice' and, yes......payback, revenge, whatever.
point, is it right to spam the 'spammer'? If youGive the Law a chance.
rob a thief, doesn't that make YOU a thief too,Again, I do understand the need for action and I
regardless?know exactly how people feel about those who
The fact remains also, there hasn't been a meanswould spoil one of the communication, information
of stopping spammers that has worked yet. Willand media marvels of this, and the last century.
they be somehow able to turn this idea aroundHowever, I think we need to, at least, give the
and use it against the Internet population?law a chance to make a difference before we
I can understand the anger, frustration and theeven think about resorting to such means to
sometimes, sheer desperation that some maydissuade spammers from plying their trade.
feel after having been an especially badly 'bashed'