Re: Rage against spammers and telemarketers

["Tomas L. Byrnes" <tomb () byrneit net>]

From: funsec-bounces () linuxbox org [mailto:funsec-bounces () linuxbox org] On Behalf Of David M Chess
Sent: Thursday, July 23, 2009 7:07 AM
To: funsec () linuxbox org
Subject: Re: [funsec] Rage against spammers and telemarketers


> According to court documents, Charles W. Papenfus, 43, allegedly  
> told a sales representative during a May 18 telephone call that he  
> would burn down the building and kill the employees and their  
> families. He was indicted for making a terrorist threat, a Class D  
> felony; and he could be sentenced to up to four years in prison if  
> convicted. 

Maybe I'm overlooking something key, but I'm finding the reactions on the thread here sort of puzzling.  I mean, if 
threatening to burn down a building and kill the occupants and their families isn't a terrorist threat, I don't know 
what is.   

Presumably he didn't say it in order to make the person at the other end of the line feel *more* secure in life and 
property, and to calm their fears... 

Now maybe he didn't mean it, maybe he was just upset and speaking without any actual intent, and if so great he can use 
that in his defense at trial, and maybe he'll be acquitted as a result. 

But really, if I yell into a phone that I'm going to burn down a building and kill a company's employees and their 
families, I would hope I *would* get to spend a little time in a quiet place, thinking about whether that was really a 
wise thing to say... 


Not the kind of thing this left-libertarian usually finds himself writing to mailing lists, 
DC 

[TLB:] There's nothing more libertarian than holding people accountable for their actions towards other people. The 
basic premise of libertarianism is that the fundamental human right is the right to be free from coercion. Threats are 
one of the strongest forms of coercion, because the threatened has only one viable option if they believe the threat is 
real, which is to immediately terminate it (acquiescing to threats usually leads to more extortion), thereby placing 
themselves in physical danger, and running the risk of being found liable for their physical acts.
One of the oldest crimes is Assault, and it should continue to be taken seriously. Now, expanding that into some 
special category of "Terrorist Threat" is another manner. Any threat should be taken seriously, and the penalty related 
to the seriousness of the threat.

On the other hand, if I threaten to go back in time and kill your ancestors, I should be given a psych eval, assuming 
the arresting officer has no sense of humor, not thrown in jail.

Last, but by no means least, by some of these metrics, most inhabitants of the British Isles are terrorists. Except 
it's the tradition of "Slagging" or "taking the piss". (The is very different from a.)
 
I prefer to use Pythonesque insults when dealing with recalcitrant or malingering customer service agents, they humor 
sometimes makes them realize how silly they are being. Better yet, I just hang up and call back hoping to get someone 
else.

_______________________________________________
Fun and Misc security discussion for OT posts.
https://linuxbox.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/funsec
Note: funsec is a public and open mailing list.