Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

[Michael.A.Rolenz(at)aero.org]

I'll agree on the government involvement but the government involvement is 
often done in subtle ways. They'll give  grant to the public libraries to 
put in internet service but the requirement for filtering to protect the 
eyes and ears of the little children (and I don't have a problem that if 
libraries want to block sites on public terminals and not others where 
only adults are allowed-this is a problem the  federal government need not 
get involved in when the librarians can deal with it at a local level. )

As for the ISPs. Sure, they can have a policy but that does not translate 
into telling me what is filtered. If I send out and get nothing back then 
I have no knowledge and their action is covert. If they block incoming 
without notifying me again, that's covert. Without performing some 
positive notification, it is covert and is blacklisting and that is 
undesirable. 

The problem with SPAM is that it has two effects. One is the DoS aspects 
on the network and the ISPs. The other is the headache of dealing with it 
on the users. I don't think that ONE solution is desirable or even 
possible. Rather than looking forr ONE SINGLE solution to the problem that 
works all the time, a series of solutions that can be implemented would be 
 a better approach. e.g., antispam mail clients with automatic logging. 
put some penalties in spamming as with telemarking. If an ISP gets flooded 
with email of the type AAAAAA@aol.com, AAAAAB@aol.com let them stop is as 
a DoS attack. But the quick fix isn't here and when congress keeps looking 
for it they create more trouble than solving it.




Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/19/01 12:03 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

 
        To:     dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
        cc: 
        Subject:        Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers



--- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> I don't have the references but I have seen some proposals that ISPs be 
> forced to use MAPS. [...]

Well, I strongly object to that. If that is really what the EFF is saying, 
then
shame on them for not being clear. There is a HUGE difference between
government action and private action. In fact, since there is a 
fundamental
right to petittion the government, I would say that the government cannot 
use
MAPS or an ISP that uses MAPS. 

> [...] But the problem with your statement that "if the EFF
> wants the government to force ISP's not to use MAPS, then this 
> also violates free speech (their client's right to select what speech is 

> received)." is that when the ISPs use maps their clients (ME) don't get 
the
> right to  recieve what speech is recieved. Neither does the ISP ever 
tell 
> me when it  makes changes in what MAPS sites it blocks. (although the 
> alternative of  having the ISPs provide user MAP lists at their servers 
> doesn't look like a viable alternative). 

As long as (1) a basic free market exists and (2) ISP have to state their
filtering policy in detail, then you do choose what you recieve by 
contracting
with the ISP. 

If all the ISP contract says is that you get email service, then that 
should
mean that there is no filtering. I think we can all agree that covert 
filtering
when the recipient has no way to determine what will or won't be allowed 
is not
desireable. I'd call it a deceptive trade practice, which is regulated by
federal law.

As long as there is a real market alternative that offers unfiltered 
email,
then let the market work. There is no reason to get the government 
involved. 




__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Make a great connection at Yahoo! Personals.
http://personals.yahoo.com