Response to e-mail spam

Awestruck that Sgt. Tony Brown immediately dismissed the threatening e-mails as “spam” (especially with the security issues of modern society) and discouraged those who receive similar threatening messages from reporting them, I find myself wondering whether or not Sgt. Brown actually knows what typical spam involves.

From my experience, spam is usually composed mainly of chances to win free vacations (which will probably never be won), offers for Viagra (which will probably never be received), and other life-improving wonders (which will probably never work).

I am not fully aware of steps that have been taken by the University Police Department to look into these situations, but if the e-mails were sent through a personal computer (rather than at a public terminal), then they should be able to be traced back to the computer, therefore determining the identity of the offender. If they were sent on a University computer, then the offender should have had to log in with personal information to access the computer and the Internet.

It seems unreasonable that the University Police Department is unable to identify the offender(s) with today’s technologically advanced resources.

Last time I checked, my junk mail folder did not contain any threats on my life, but if it did, I would seriously look into it, as opposed to disregarding it as the typical spam mail.

I believe that all students who receive such threats should definitely report them to the local authorities. If anything, it will alert the police department of the severity of the situation. If the University Police Department does not feel that life threats are urgent enough to report, then what does it feel is urgent?

Loren Burton

Freshman in Engineering