Ironically one of the first recognizable spam campaigns was perpetrated by lawyers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
Ironically one of the first recognizable spam campaigns was perpetrated by lawyers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurence_Canter_and_Martha_Sie...
On the flip side, the lawyers that represented the big tech firms at the time were some of the most impressive people I've ever met.
You could speak to them as a peer when it came to technical issues or system architecture AND they were experts in technology law. Especially impressive given that anti-spam was still in it's infancy and rapidly evolving.
Yeah, I didn't mean to slight lawyers in general, some of my best friends are lawyers (one of them even convinced me to switch to Signal before it was cool).
When I was a lawyer my selling point was exactly that I knew tech deeply, coming from a dev background, and was current as I read Slashdot daily compiled my own Linux kernels etc. It allows punters trust you & is a rainmaking skill.
On par, a large part of that professional cohort has its entire career made by abusing rules intended to prevent abuse of rules.
It's a self-perpetuating monster that breeds attitudes and behaviours that maximise antisocial and exploitative behaviour by the system's design.
just look at what was done to copywrite, designed to protect inventors from cororates and related abuse, now unweildly for individuals and largly serves corporate interest more than the individuals it was supposed to protect. Same with patent system.