R. J. Reynolds provides "Camel Product Quality" line

Question:

Gee, I hope the PDFA is aware of the monster they have created. I guess they didn’t realize that once the puritan genie of prohibition (and distrust of pleasure and profit) is out of the bottle he won’t be satisfied until he prohibit everything that might bring pleasure or profit. Criminalize tobacco? You gotta be kidding! Do you really expect assent to this screwball scheme in a newsgroup that generally favors decriminalization of heroin and cocaine? Cross posting alt.drugs messages to alt.activism promises to be more amusing even then cross-posting to misc.kids. The person we are after is the pusher, the heads of the RJR’s and Phillip Morris’s. We’re not out to get the user, the user is a victim.

I love this guy. He is using the ol’ " the user is an automaton with no free will" argument that the PDFA uses against cocaine. Perhaps this guy isn’t the clueless ingenue he appears to be but instead is subtly giving a "reductio ad absurdum" argument against the War-on-Some-Drugs. Tobacco would be illegal if it was introduced as a new substance in today’s society. The only reason it isn’t is because the industry is so large–

Yeah, don’t forget this line of reasoning Mr. Corporate sponsor the next time the PDFA comes around looking for a donor. Let’s see, I hope Pastor Niemoller doesn’t mind if I do some violence to his poem: First they came for the Medellin Cartel but I wasn’t making MY profits from cocaine so I didn’t speak up. Then they came for the Tongs but I wasn’t making MY profits from China white so I didn’t speak up. Then they came for the Mexican mafia but I wasn’t makeing MY profits from marijuana so I didn’t speak up. Then they came for Johnny Walker but I didn’t make MY profits from booze so I didn’t speak up. Then they came for Ol’ Joe but I wasn’t makeing MY profits from tobacco so I didn’t speak up. When I finally woke up and realized that it was profit that they wanted to stamp out, there was nobody left to speak up for me. You know, the neat thing about this guy is that if his mis-guided thinking were more universal, the corporate forces that support the PDFA would be sending Paul Hager gigabucks to put the prohibitionist genie back in the bottle. Can’t you see it now- – - The Partnership for a Free-Drug America. Geeze Paul, I think it is time you started hitting up Phillip Morris for contributions to the cause. ;-) smg

Response:

You neglect the fact that I’m arguing against MARKETING not USE. I actually suggested two alternatives, both of which would be fought by the tobacco companies tooth and nail: either make cigarettes available by prescription, or continue to allow them to be sold but without advertising. The interesting things is that respondents reply with tired arguments vis a vis individual liberty when prohibiting Joe the Camel is NOT, by any stretch of the imagination, an attack on individual liberty. Ok, if prescription would create a black market, and if that’s bad, then allow continued sale but without advertising. Quite frankly, I’d rather create an opportunity for the smalltime black marketeer than continue to make R. J. Reynolds rich. But the important issue is the ability of the public to regulate advertising.

Response:

– Ah … the "Body Nazis" march again. Where is the end of your – condecending paternalistic hallucination ? How many activities – do *you* indulge in that *might* be deemed ‘hazardous’ in – the future ? Perhaps we smokers should call-in on the "Green – Giant Bean-sprout quality hotline" or something similar. – In simple language … you are not my keeper. Fuck-off or I will – kick your scrawny bean-sprout sucking little ass (collectively – speaking). If there is such a thing as a ’sin’ anymore it is – that of minding other peoples business. I would rather see every – youth in America smoking Camels than to see your ilk running – riot over the concept of individual choice. Where the hell do – you get this self-righteous attitude from ? Piss-off and die – from intestinal parasites – Fascist pigs ! it’s people like you whose second-hand smoke i have to breathe in. if you wish to kill yourself slowly, please do it in the great outdoors so none of us "body nazis" (obviously those who care about our bodies) will have to inhale your by-product. smoke in your own house, in your own backyard, anywhere where we who choose not to pollute our bodies to the extent that you do. your attitude shows me that smokers are hopelessly addicted to the view that the non-smoking world (the majority) should put up with their crap. that’s not only childish, it’s immoral. go kill yourself in your own airspace, not in ours. thank you. — alex harden | "one morning walking down the street where nobody

Response:

I’ll believe it when I see it.. more likely on the order of 100-1000, given extremely generous range…the day the net mobilises 100,000 people, to subversive revolutionary acts especially, i’ll be surprised to see… James

James: it is, first of all, interesting that something that is AT MOST an attack of corporate profits is "subversive" and "revolutionary" and your language shows how far corporations are able to dominate thought processes. For subversion and revolution used to mean an attack on government, not private interests. I am aware of how private megacorporations can highjack government but there used to be a pretense of some sort of division. Secondly, I suggest nothing subversive or revolutionary even if the interests of government and corporation coincide. I suggest that people use the "Camel Product Quality Hotline" as directed, to comment on the quality (hack wheeze cough hemorraghe expire) of Camel cigarettes.

Response:

No critic of the obscene profits American tobacco companies make by marketing an addictive and hazardous drug, filled with additives that do not have to be disclosed to the public because of trade secret legislation, would take your smokes away. The most radical of us would prohibit advertising of the substance but permit its release to the existing addicts (yourself included) in tightly regulated forms. For example, you could obtain cigarettes at your local pharmacy using a prescription. Or, the United States could follow the lead of more enlightened societies and allow merchants to peddle tobacco but with no ads. Tobacco criticism is criticism of corporate behavior, not individual behavior. Got it? Good lad.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Ah … the "Body Nazis" march again. Where is the end of your condecending paternalistic hallucination ? How many activities do *you* indulge in that *might* be deemed ‘hazardous’ in the future ? Perhaps we smokers should call-in on the "Green Giant Bean-sprout quality hotline" or something similar. No critic of the obscene profits American tobacco companies make by marketing an addictive and hazardous drug, filled with additives that do not have to be disclosed to the public because of trade secret legislation, would take your smokes away. The most radical of us would prohibit advertising of the substance but permit its release to the existing addicts (yourself included) in tightly regulated forms. For example, you could obtain cigarettes at your local pharmacy using a prescription. Or, the United States could follow the lead of more enlightened societies and allow merchants to peddle tobacco but with no ads. Tobacco criticism is criticism of corporate behavior, not individual behavior. Got it? Good lad.

Dear Condecending Body-NAZI Pig … How marvelous that you might permit us nicotine addicts to still purchase our favored substance from regulated pharmacies. How convienent for you to be able to classify us all safely into a nice cozy category you can use for propaganda purposes. Well, personally, I am not going to be satisfies with anything less than the ability to purchase my favored weed from any of 1001 assorted vendors anywhere I damned-well chose without having to be labled as a deviant individual. Should you think you will be allowed to pidegonhole me and mine in any way you so wish you are gravely mistaken. There are far too many of you self-righteous prohibitionistic assholes around already. Your present efforts have only resulted in crime, violence and dispair. Learn to stay within your bounds. You have no rights to interfere with us at this level. To assume otherwose is to assume we all are simply misguided children who will eventually see the light under your guidance. This is the very worst of fascism and Big-Brotherism. Piss-off or we will make you piss-off. Have no doubts. — Jim Mason : Standard Disclaimers — Freedom is Risk

Response:

Note the amazing similarity to the way that German Jews were slowly restricted and then slowly relocated and then finally it was argued that so many were already re-located that it was reasonable to just move all the rest out to some nice safe place in the countryside. The moral is that through a sequence of steps, each seeming reasonable and unobtrusive in and of themselves, the sum-total result can be monsterous.

First of all, let’s nuke this idiot and insulting parallel between smokers and Jews. Hitler’s anti-Semitic policy did not allow one to choose whether or not one was a Jew and Hitler defined the German "Volk" using a strict bloodline test. Although smoking is addictive, rendering cessation difficult, cessation is not logically impossible whereas in Hitler’s Reich being a Jew was intended to be indeed a logial impossibility in a Europe "free of Jews." As to the argument of the "slippery slope", a critic of corporate behavior is not on the same slope as one who would control the behavior of another person in the provacy of the latters’ own home. Plus, I just can’t *stand* these annoying busybodies that imagine their destiny on earth is to run everyone elses lives down to the n-th detail. The trouble with such ‘do-gooders’ is that there is just no *end* to doing good (para from a film I saw once).

Ah yes, the good old American critique of "do-gooders", a line of blackguards including the Abolitionists (scalawags who would prevent white men from enslaving black people), Progressives (ripscallions who would not see children working a twelve-hour day), demonstrators for civil rights and against the Vietnam war. Much better to leave the American land to the tender mercies of slave drivers, Posse Comitatus, tobacco merchants, and Don Trump.

Response:

You don’t understand: we don’t want to criminalize tobacco usage, we want to criminalize tobacco *sales* to people who aren’t addicted (e.g. new subscribers), and not all of us even want to do that. Gee, I hope the PDFA is aware of the monster they have created. I guess they didn’t realize that once the puritan genie of prohibition

Criminalise tobacco SALES Criminalise tobacco SALES Criminalise tobacco SALES …to people not already addicted. Jesus Jumping Christ in a sidecar, when will you guys get it through your head? (and distrust of pleasure and profit) is out of the bottle he

As an ex-smoker, I did not take pleasure in smoking. At best, it was an anodyne for stressful situations…including wondering whether or not I was going to have pissed-off Viet Cong shooting at me. As to profit, you must tell me how R. J. Reynolds’ profits benefit ME.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – The moral is that through a sequence of steps, each seeming reasonable and unobtrusive in and of themselves, the sum-total result can be monsterous. This process seems to be going-on about tobacco. No single new restriction seems that much worse than how things were before but the end-result is going to be the criminalization of a whole new large group of people based solely on an irrelevant personal habit. You don’t understand: we don’t want to criminalize tobacco usage, we want to criminalize tobacco *sales* to people who aren’t addicted (e.g. new subscribers), and not all of us even want to do that. The person we are after is the pusher, the heads of the RJR’s and Phillip Morris’s. We’re not out to get the user, the user is a victim.

So let me get this straight. I am not a tobacco addict in any way, but about 70-80% of the people I know smoke. I like to have a cigarette every now and then because they are relaxing. I would smoke now and again at work if I could but not smoking there doesn’t bother me too much. Are you saying that it should be legal for my friends to buy cigarettes but that it should be illegal for me to because I am not addicted? What a load of crap. scott p.s. instead of all this banning smoking in the workplace, why don’t we push to have more windows installed in office buildings. Then we could smoke in our offices. Or develop more air cleaner machines. Or what ever happened to smokeless cigarettes? I notice that this government isn’t piling money into research towards useful things like that…. — Scott J.M. Campbell The truth hurts… Oh sure, maybe not as much as Skypod Communications Inc. jumping onto a bicycle with the seat missing… Toronto, Ont. (416) 924-4059 ..but it hurts.

Response:

No its not. If you’re going to make it script, you are then going to have to make it illegal for an *individial* to obtain it without a script. And you are instantly going to provide for a black-market in cigarrettes, particularly targeting high schools, and lower class neighborhoods I imagine… — University of Washington, Seattle. Disc: if UW ever finds out what I post… alt.drugs FTP site: milton.u.washington.edu[128.95.136.1] dir:/public/alt.drugs For quotes and other useless info see my .plan

Response:

The moral is that through a sequence of steps, each seeming reasonable and unobtrusive in and of themselves, the sum-total result can be monsterous. This process seems to be going-on about tobacco. No single new restriction seems that much worse than how things were before but the end-result is going to be the criminalization of a whole new large group of people based solely on an irrelevant personal habit.

You don’t understand: we don’t want to criminalize tobacco usage, we want to criminalize tobacco *sales* to people who aren’t addicted (e.g. new subscribers), and not all of us even want to do that. The person we are after is the pusher, the heads of the RJR’s and Phillip Morris’s. We’re not out to get the user, the user is a victim. Tobacco would be illegal if it was introduced as a new substance in today’s society. The only reason it isn’t is because the industry is so large– heck, we even pay taxes to subside tobacco farmers (just like we do for farmers who grow other things like vegetables). I would like to see tobacco require a perscription, so it would be harder for new people to become addicted. If your health insurance pays for perscriptions, you’d save a non-trivial amount of money on that deal, though they might change their rules to pay for all non-tobacco perscriptions and raise premiums for smokers. The point is that the smoker is the victim of an addicting substance that kills the user when used as intended. Plus, I just can’t *stand* these annoying busybodies that imagine their destiny on earth is to run everyone elses lives down to the n-th detail. The trouble with such ‘do-gooders’ is that there is just no *end* to doing good (para from a film I saw once).

Exhaled tobacco smoke contains hundreds of known carcinogens, some in rather high concentrations even after mixing with other air in a room. And smoking- related illnesses cost taxpayers billions of dollars in Medicaid expenses, not to mention how much it cost the economy in reduced worker productivity (due to absences, which smokers statistically have more of due to more illnesses). The point is that your smoking has an adverse impact on nonsmokers, both in terms of health and economically. If you can find a way to smoke without having any significant adverse impact, then we will be all too happy to have you do it and tell others how they can do it. If you want to ruin your life, that’s your business, but don’t bring ours down with you. — Jim Mason : Standard Disclaimers

Response:

There are far too many of you self-righteous prohibitionistic assholes around already. Your present efforts have only resulted I work at a School of Art. This is an institution which is extremely protective of personal freedoms. Yet, since a majority of the faculty/ staff don’t smoke they recently decided to make it a non-smoking building. We already had extensive non-smoking areas. The only thing this move did was to prevent a teacher from having a cigarette in his/her office with the window open where it would not cause second hand intake. We’re talking control here, and everyone loves it when it involves them pushing the buttons. I’m a non smoker, so this is not about smoking, it’s about personal choices.

I am reminded here of land-development schemes that evolved to skirt environmental regulations. The idea is to get a waiver so that "one little development" can be placed within a protected area. This one project is then used as presedent to justify others. Eventually someone come-in and argues to the DNR that this protected land is now so broken-up that it really is not a viable wildlife habitat (overlooking the fact that they are the ones that caused this condition to begin with) and that the remaining acreage should be re-designated as commercial. Note the amazing similarity to the way that German Jews were slowly restricted and then slowly relocated and then finally it was argued that so many were already re-located that it was reasonable to just move all the rest out to some nice safe place in the countryside. The moral is that through a sequence of steps, each seeming reasonable and unobtrusive in and of themselves, the sum-total result can be monsterous. This process seems to be going-on about tobacco. No single new restriction seems that much worse than how things were before but the end-result is going to be the criminalization of a whole new large group of people based solely on an irrelevant personal habit. As with the prohibition of other drugs, a vast underground market – replete with smugglers, bribery and gang murders – is going to spring-up around tobacco. These are all very, very bad things … far worse than any damage tobacco consumption has ever caused and wasting more public money than was ever lost to smokers hack. Plus, I just can’t *stand* these annoying busybodies that imagine their destiny on earth is to run everyone elses lives down to the n-th detail. The trouble with such ‘do-gooders’ is that there is just no *end* to doing good (para from a film I saw once). — Jim Mason : Standard Disclaimers — Freedom is Risk

Response:

There are far too many of you self-righteous prohibitionistic assholes around already. Your present efforts have only resulted

I work at a School of Art. This is an institution which is extremely protective of personal freedoms. Yet, since a majority of the faculty/ staff don’t smoke they recently decided to make it a non-smoking building. We already had extensive non-smoking areas. The only thing this move did was to prevent a teacher from having a cigarette in his/her office with the window open where it would not cause second hand intake. We’re talking control here, and everyone loves it when it involves them pushing the buttons. I’m a non smoker, so this is not about smoking, it’s about personal choices. — * bob church * * D-8195 NFS #27 *

Response:

(BTW: I’m not advocating doing anything this guy suggests. THIS MUST BE DONE FROM A PAY PHONE OR SOMETHING NOT TRACED TO YOU! ’Tis a beast known as ANI. —

Response:

Anti-smoking activists take note: R. J. Reynolds company, pushers of the addictive substance tobacco and marketeers to young children, provide a "Camel Product Quality Hotline" 800 number on the side of their product. It’s 1-800-334-3157

NOT. I posted the incorrect number. The correct number is 1-800-334-8157. The above number is the number of a travel agency in San Jose. Please do not call it. Now, remember that everything in this article is entirely hypothetical, and I’m not suggesting that anyone actually *TRY* anything suggested in this article.

And at the end of the article, you reveal that you believe in something called our "freedom" to smoke. A bit dishonest. One of them is to increase the long distance and labor costs of such a company by generating a large volume of spurious calls. If 10,000 netheads call such a number 10 times a day each, wait for an answer and hang up, this will generate 100,000 calls, each of which might cost the company 30 cents for telecommunication charges. A such, this would sap $30,000 a day out of such an operation. This could cost such a company nearly $1,000,000 a month. In addition, this would probably have additional costs to the company. This would put wear and tear on their phone system and employees who answer the phone. Increased labor costs, etc. Also, it would prevent the service from being used for it’s intentional service. Harassment at this level could be done entirely from pay telephones, so the perpetrators of such a crime would be nearly impossible to catch.

You suggest as an agent provacateur that people concerned about corporate abuse of children’s health commit a crime. My original post suggested no such action: I suggested only that antismoking activists use the line AS ENCOURAGED BY R. J. REYNOLDS: to comment on the quality of a product which kills its user. Because this is a serious threat to corporate America and our way of life, this message should be made availible to all people on the net who would be concerned. I cannot condone the actions of people who do something like this. This message can be mailed and cross-posted to make it availible to people who are concerned about abuses of telecommunications and our freedom to smoke. Thank you for your concern.

No smiley after "our freedom to smoke" so I will assume that you are serious. The only freedom R. J. Reynolds is interested in is its freedom to pile up obscene profits. Furthermore I must object strongly to your entire methodology. You suggest a number of illegal actions IN PLACE of the perfectly legal action which I suggested: that citizens concerned about smoking use the Camel line as directed…to comment on the quality of Camel cigarettes. Your purpose is to plainly marginalize and indeed criminalize ANY actions that would question corporate power.

Response:

) ) )Let us suppose that the net can mobilize a large number of )people (on the order of 10,000 to 100,000) to actually take some kind of )action against a company running something such as the "Camel Product I’ll believe it when I see it.. more likely on the order of 100-1000, given extremely generous range…the day the net mobilises 100,000 people, to subversive revolutionary acts especially, i’ll be surprised to see… James Globe: 45 31 25 N 122 40 30 W - J. Edgar Hoover Unity not uniformity | NBC = GE "Reading musses up my mind." – Henry Ford

Response:

Let us suppose that the net can mobilize a large number of people (on the order of 10,000 to 100,000) to actually take some kind of action against a company running something such as the "Camel Product Quality Hotline". [phone terrorism accounts deleted...]

Then I imagine the company could have the applicable sections of the RICO Act applied to the organizers. BTW: I’ve kept a copy of your posting handy… MD — — Michael P. Deignan, KD1HZ / — UUCP: …!uunet!rayssd!anomaly!kd1hz / I hate everyone. — Telebit: +1 401 455 0347 /

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – ) ) )Let us suppose that the net can mobilize a large number of )people (on the order of 10,000 to 100,000) to actually take some kind of )action against a company running something such as the "Camel Product I’ll believe it when I see it.. more likely on the order of 100-1000, given extremely generous range…the day the net mobilises 100,000 people, to subversive revolutionary acts especially, i’ll be surprised to see… James Globe: 45 31 25 N 122 40 30 W - J. Edgar Hoover Unity not uniformity | NBC = GE "Reading musses up my mind." – Henry Ford

Response:

Let me get this straight…. RJR sets up a 1-800 number for people to call to talk about the quality of their products. People use the number for this purpose–i.e. they call to bitch about the lack of quality designed into them and you want to PROSECUTE them? BTW: I’ve kept a copy of your posting handy…

What an asshole. -Ekr — Yale University Department of Chemistry We hack anything. Golden Anniversary: It’s bad beer, but it’s beer.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anti-smoking activists take note: R. J. Reynolds company, pushers of the addictive substance tobacco and marketeers to young children, provide a "Camel Product Quality Hotline" 800 number on the side of their product. It’s 1-800-334-3157 Now, remember that everything in this article is entirely hypothetical, and I’m not suggesting that anyone actually *TRY* anything suggested in this article. Let us suppose that the net can mobilize a large number of people (on the order of 10,000 to 100,000) to actually take some kind of action against a company running something such as the "Camel Product Quality Hotline". I can imagine two sorts of operations that could

Ah … the "Body Nazis" march again. Where is the end of your condecending paternalistic hallucination ? How many activities do *you* indulge in that *might* be deemed ‘hazardous’ in the future ? Perhaps we smokers should call-in on the "Green Giant Bean-sprout quality hotline" or something similar. In simple language … you are not my keeper. Fuck-off or I will kick your scrawny bean-sprout sucking little ass (collectively speaking). If there is such a thing as a ’sin’ anymore it is that of minding other peoples business. I would rather see every youth in America smoking Camels than to see your ilk running riot over the concept of individual choice. Where the hell do you get this self-righteous attitude from ? Piss-off and die from intestinal parasites – Fascist pigs ! — Jim Mason : Standard Disclaimers

Response:

ANTI-TOBACCO COMPANY ACTIVIST ALERT! The number above, spelled out in phone letters, is 1-800-KIL-KIDS ! Well, actually it isn’t, but wouldn’t it be funny if it were? —

Response:

Description of "Camel cigarette product quality hotline" with INCORRECT 800 number; a poster has written me advising that 1-800-334-3157 is incorrect. It should be 1-800-334-8157. The former number is the number of a travel agency in San Jose. I apologize to the net for any confusion this may have caused. I have sent a cancel request for the original post, and I shall be reposting it in its entirety, with the corrected 800 number, for I remain convinced that people should let R. J. Reynolds know that it is pushing an addictive substance to children in marketing Camel cigarettes. Edward G. Nilges

Response:

…wrong. The net, like Borges’ Library of Babel, is guaranteed to contain information and disinformation in equal measure but I regret adding to it anyhow. I have decided to minimize the disinformation caused by my erroneous posting of the above number as much as is possible. The number is: 1-800-334-8157 It remains a good idea to use R. J. Reynolds’ "product quality hotline" to comment on the fact that their product when used as directed kills its users. Edward G. Nilges

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Anti-smoking activists take note: R. J. Reynolds company, pushers of the addictive substance tobacco and marketeers to young children, provide a "Camel Product Quality Hotline" 800 number on the side of their product. It’s 1-800-334-3157 ANTI-TOBACCO COMPANY ACTIVIST ALERT! The number above, spelled out in phone letters, is ….wrong. The net, like Borges’ Library of Babel, is guaranteed to contain information and disinformation in equal measure but I regret adding to it anyhow. I have decided to minimize the disinformation caused by my erroneous posting of the above number as much as is possible. The number is: 1-800-334-8157 It remains a good idea to use R. J. Reynolds’ "product quality hotline" to comment on the fact that their product when used as directed kills its users. Folks is you are going to call 1 800 numbers be aware of the following:

1. ANI(Automatic Number Identification) is used by a lot of these companies. This means that your name, phone number, and other information about you are being collected by the company. I think street address is also included, but I am not sure. 2. ANI cannot be blocked. 3. The information collected is then sold to other telemarketers, credit bureaus and I am sure in this case insurance companies will pay top dollar for a list of names of people who called this number. 4. If you want to call this number, DON’T DO IT FROM YOUR HOME PHONE. Use a pay phone, your boss’s phone, or some phone that is relatively safe and can’t be linked to you. This may seem paranoid to you, but it’s not. It’s reality in the 90’s. "Any kind of machinery used for shortening labour-except used in a cooperative society like ours- must tend to less wages, and to deprive working men of employment and finally either starve them or compel them to emigrate." –Manifesto Cooperative Community County Clare Ireland, 1883 on the introduction of the reaping machine. April 11, 1992: Thousands of IBM workers were declared "surplus" and told to get another job within IBM or get severance pay.

Response:

Now, remember that everything in this article is entirely hypothetical, and I’m not suggesting that anyone actually *TRY* anything suggested in this article. Let us suppose that the net can mobilize a large number of people (on the order of 10,000 to 100,000) to actually take some kind of action against a company running something such as the "Camel Product Quality Hotline". I can imagine two sorts of operations that could be attempted with very different goals. One of them is to increase the long distance and labor costs of such a company by generating a large volume of spurious calls. If 10,000 netheads call such a number 10 times a day each, wait for an answer and hang up, this will generate 100,000 calls, each of which might cost the company 30 cents for telecommunication charges. A such, this would sap $30,000 a day out of such an operation. This could cost such a company nearly $1,000,000 a month. In addition, this would probably have additional costs to the company. This would put wear and tear on their phone system and employees who answer the phone. Increased labor costs, etc. Also, it would prevent the service from being used for it’s intentional service. Harassment at this level could be done entirely from pay telephones, so the perpetrators of such a crime would be nearly impossible to catch. More daring netheads could program computers to generate 10,000 or more spurious calls a day. This is very easy to do, but the company will have access to ANI records that could be traced to the perpetrators. Wise hackers and phone phreaks will know many methods that can screen their location for a short time. Many college systems do not record calls to 800 numbers. One underground computer system could rob a company of $3,000 a day. Were 100 people to unite in such an effort, the total cost would be $300,000 a day. A MORE LIKELY scenario is this: on some hypothetical date and time, let us say 10:00 AM EST (Wise netheads of course would convert this into an appropriate local time), Tuesday, April 28, 1992. (Of course this could be any date and time, but this is a good example) tens of thousands of netheads pounce on dormitory, public, and office phones and dial 1-800-334-3157. This causes a local overload of the phone network in the area, possibly resulting in the disabling of the service for some time. This also alienates the telephone company and the service provider. If further such events were to occur periodically, every day at the same time, this could cause some pain the company and actually get media coverage for a new kind of activism. Because this is a serious threat to corporate America and our way of life, this message should be made availible to all people on the net who would be concerned. I cannot condone the actions of people who do something like this. This message can be mailed and cross-posted to make it availible to people who are concerned about abuses of telecommunications and our freedom to smoke. Thank you for your concern. —

Response:

Filed under: Media activism

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

TrackBack URL | RSS feed for comments on this post.

Activism Change

Learn, read, react :: Activism