4 ms·
> The last time I checked my ethics and fundamental laws, the burden of the proof was on the accuser, and the doubt was with the defendant That is the case whe
by rogerbinns 13y ago
> The last time I checked my ethics and fundamental laws, the burden of the proof was on the accuser, and the doubt was with the defendant
That is the case when there is punishment available, and both parties are acting in good faith. When the defendant is a "spammer" then there isn't really any punishment available: eg suing them would be extremely expensive and unlikely to succeed for logistical reasons. And a spammer isn't acting in good faith - they are poisoning the well. If you tell them exactly how your "poison" detector found what they were doing, then you've just told them how to work around it so the arms race escalates with the spammer getting a head start.
- nraynaud 13y agoThis is close to the "terrorist argument", the idea that some kind of actions warrant the suspension of due process. Holding strongly to your values is holding due process in the face of exceptional circumstances. Otherwise you're just getting down to your enemy's level, hence not doing better that spammers. Spammers clog the pipes, drown relevant information under irrelevant one and hinder the free-flowing business of innocents, so we are creating procedures that clog the pipes, suck people's focus away and hinder the free-flowing business of innocents. And that get people used to arbitrary decisions and based on no due process.
- rogerbinns 13y agoWhile there are similarities to the "terrorist argument", note that punishment/justice is available in that case. Terrorists are also extremely rare.