<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:admin="http://webns.net/mvcb/"
	xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
	<channel>
		<title>Rich Kulawiec &#45; CircleID</title>
		<link>http://www.circleid.com/</link>
		<description>Postings from Rich Kulawiec on CircleID</description>
		<dc:language>en</dc:language>
		<dc:rights>Copyright 2012, unless where otherwise noted.</dc:rights>
		<dc:date>2004-07-19T14:08:18-08:00</dc:date>
		

		
		<item>
			<title> 10 Reasons Why Involving Government in Spam Control is a Bad Idea (Featured Blog)</title>
			<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.circleid.com/posts/10_reasons_why_involving_government_in_spam_control_is_a_bad_idea</guid>
			<link>http://www.circleid.com/posts/10_reasons_why_involving_government_in_spam_control_is_a_bad_idea</link>
			<description><![CDATA[1. Many jurisdictions already have laws which cover abuse of computer systems and networks -- and spam is of course abuse. These laws are only sporadically enforced, however, usually when a sufficiently visible/powerful entity is the aggrieved party. Adding more laws (a) is redundant and (b) does not increase enforcement.  2. Laws are only enforced as law enforcement has resources available. Spam/abuse is not a high priority unless a sufficiently visible/powerful entity makes it so, and those cases are rare. <a href="http://www.circleid.com/posts/10_reasons_why_involving_government_in_spam_control_is_a_bad_idea">More...</a>]]></description>
			<dc:date>2004-07-19T14:08:18-08:00</dc:date>
		</item>
		
	</channel>
</rss>
