🚀 go-pugleaf

  The letter I wrote to the Post turned out like this:


Letters To The Editor
The Washington Post
1150 15th Street NW
Washington, DC  20071

Editor, Washington Post:

	John Burgess' article "Who'll Make 'the Net' Gain" (April 26, Business
section) overlooks the main reasons for the widespread indignation by Usenet
readers against Canter & Siegel.  The issue is not, as much of the article
implies, electronic advertising per se.  The issue is abuse -- abuse of public
Net resources, abuse of private computers connected to the Net, and abuse of
the trust which sustains the Net community.
	Canter & Siegel's mass posting to thousands of Usenet newsgroups did
not merely create an nuisance for readers who encountered off-topic
advertising.  As a result of the method Canter & Siegel chose to use (sending
thousands of separate copies of their text, instead of the standard procedure
of sending one copy cross-indexed to each destination), each computer system
that received a standard Usenet data feed wasted five megabytes of storage
space.  This caused five megabytes worth of relevant Usenet postings (the
equivalent of several thousand pages of text) to be prematurely purged from
storage to make room for all those copies of the Canter & Siegel posting.
Naturally, the originators of such mass postings are about as popular as
the creators of computer viruses.
	Also, Canter & Siegel's $250,000 lawsuit against Internet Direct arose
out of an attempt by the former to evade the anti-abuse regulations of the
latter.  Upon obtaining an account from Internet Direct, Canter & Siegel
received a copy of Internet Direct's Net access guidelines, which clearly
prohibit such mass postings and warn that violations may result in account
termination.  Canter & Siegel claim to be exempt from these guidelines on
the ground that they did not sign their copy.  Evidently, they subscribe to
a legal doctrine that would permit them to eat at a diner barefoot if they
did not personally sign the "No Shoes, No Shirt, No Service" notice on the
front door, and do not care that such self-serving quibbling brings discredit
upon the legal profession generally.
	Finally, it should be noted that Canter & Siegel have done similar
things, though on a smaller scale, on two previous occasions.  They received
many complaints, and are surely aware of the reasons why such mass postings
are not acceptable.  However, they chose to repeat their computer abuse, and
evidently intend to repeat it yet again when and if they discover someone
unwise enough to sign them up for a new Net access account.

	Sincerely,

	Stephen Brinich


 Steve Brinich              | If the government wants us to respect the law, |
 <steve-b@access.digex.net> |         it should set a better example.        |
 PGPPrint (finger for key)   BB 5E 1E 3D D4 72 52 3A  F8 9C 00 00 41 0D 65 65