Spam is not new: it is a symptom of society's tolerance of unsolicited communication generally rather than any fault with email per se, though its prominence (and thus nuisance value) owes something to email being the Internet's killer app. Put simply, it is an invasion of privacy conceptually no different to junk mail or unsolicited sales pitches by telephone. None of these unwanted intrusions can simply be ignored: all require active intervention just to get rid of them. In this way they differ significantly from advertisements on billboards or magazines (just look away or skip over them) or even on radio or TV (go and make a cup of tea, or just wait & it will soon be over).
So I find myself somewhat out of sympathy with a recent whine about email marketing being stopped by spam filters. "Now, after finally figuring out how to make e-mail work for them, marketers have found that the rules have changed. Their legitimate messages are being blocked by a new breed of super-aggressive spam filters; their good names are turning up on anti-spam blacklists; and they're being forced to devote time, energy, and in many cases, a good outlay of cash to keep their e-mail marketing efforts out of hot water."
Oh dear oh dear! It is the word legitimate I take exception to. What gives these folk the right to invade privacy in this way?
If society doesn't want spam it needs first to consider its attitude to privacy generally. Simply legislating against ISPs or attacking the technology won't help.
