[11990] in Commercialization & Privatization of the Internet
Green Card Incident
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Barry Shein)
Thu Apr 28 23:46:25 1994
Date: Thu, 28 Apr 1994 20:42:15 -0400
From: bzs@world.std.com (Barry Shein)
To: mlavelle@cap.gwu.edu
Cc: com-priv@psi.com
In-Reply-To: "Marianne P. Lavelle"'s message of Wed, 27 Apr 1994 10:14:39 -0400 (EDT) <Pine.3.07.9404271039.C2319-a100000@cap.gwu.edu>
The major difference is one of passive vs active.
To access a WWW server a person has to type in some commands and
specifically access it. Like dialing a telephone to request
information about a product or service.
In contrast, what these green card lawyers did was "active", they
posted their ad to thousands of unrelated discussion groups causing
thousands of copies of their ad to appear on tens of thousands (at
least) of computer systems. This is more analogous to auto-dialers
which would ring everyone's phone at home over and over again.
No doubt it did not help their image that the lawyers almost
immediately became litigious towards the service they were using when
the service halted their account in what appeared to be an effort to
deal with the thousands and thousands of pieces of hate mail coming in
which was disrupting their ability to provide service to their other
customers (they claimed at one point that the incoming mail flood had
crashed their system 15 times.)
Most people (perhaps other than lawyers) view such legal tactics as
bullying of the worst and most despicable kind.
Particularly when it's fairly evident that what the lawyers did
initially was provocative, callous and disruptive. Most human beings,
upon finding out that they had disturbed tens of thousands of people
and disrupted a business which was giving them service would feel some
sort of remorse and perhaps even be apologetic.
That the attorneys then appeared in the NY Times not only unrepentant
but apparently bragging about what clever fellows they were (which I
assume was only bolstered by their litigious behavior) only confirms
the general public's absolute darkest views of attorneys.
I suppose then attorneys wonder why most people (in particular
businesses like myself) would rather be cornered by a rabid animal
than have any dealings with attorneys. Ah well, it's attorneys that
are hurt most by this behavior as their image sinks ever lower and
lower.
>I'm a writer for The National Law Journal, a newspaper for lawyers. Can
>anyone on this list suggest an expert to talk to on this issue: Why did
>the lawyers who sent the Green Card advertisement to all Usenet Groups
>cause such a ruckus, when other law firms/lawyers engage in more subtle
>forms of advertising on the Net. For example, one big law firm has runs a
>World Wide Web server. Is it just a question of the WAY the immigration
>lawyers advertised, the fact that they generated enough hate mail to crash
>their system, etc.? Thank you so much for your help. If possible, could
>you reply directly to my personal e-mail address?
-Barry Shein
Software Tool & Die | bzs@world.std.com | uunet!world!bzs
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 617-739-0202 | Login: 617-739-WRLD
