Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

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

There are two sides of this issues.

On the network, ISP side, spammers  waste resources and users time.  They 
are a type of DoS attack.

On the user side, what is spam to me may not be spam to you just as  in 
telemarketing. 

So what is spam? Without a good definition, only nonsensical laws can be 
written (BTW- our lawmakers need to allow more things to be civil matters. 
It's pretty stupid to have RICO be a civil offense and copyright piracy a 
criminal one). Aso for ISPs determining what is spam the EFF is quite 
right. They shouldn't be. As an example, our corporate network nitwits had 
an open relay (ahhhh the good old days of Vax780s running unix....before 
the nitwits ). The public access network that my cousin uses would not 
deliver email to her from me because of that and kept sending me nasty 
notes back about being a spammer. Of course, the automated server of the 
service the public network used to identify spammers just sent back notes 
telling me I was a bad little spammer and that I was on their list and 
that I needed to force our nitwits to fix the relay.

So.... I think the EFF is right on that ISPs should not be identifying 
spammers but I should be. Now what I want with spammers is about the same 
as with telemarketers "do not send me anything again or else pay a fine to 
ME for wasting my time and resources" but I don't want an ISP deciding 
that for me. Computers are stupid and only do what they are told so it 
should be possible to figure out how to set up antispam protocols from 
users and have ISPs be required to enforce them. (OTOH- maybe the internet 
should consider doing what the USPS does with bulk mail and put a spam tax 
on it)(




Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor@yahoo.com>
Sent by: owner-dvd-discuss@eon.law.harvard.edu
10/18/01 06:26 PM
Please respond to dvd-discuss

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


Slightly off topic, but this will probably interest people here.

The EFF came out with its position on anti-spam blacklisting:
http://www.eff.org/effector/current.html#II

"Email is protected speech. There is a fundamental free speech right to be 
able
to send and receive messages, regardless of medium. Unless that right is 
being
abused by a particular individual, that individual must not be restricted. 
It
is unacceptable, then, for anti-spam policies to limit legitimate rights 
to
send or receive email. To the extent that an anti-spam proposal, whether 
legal
or technical, results in such casualties, that proposal is unacceptable."

"But blacklisting is interfering with the delivery of a significant amount 
of
non-spam email. Systems administrators who will not adopt the suggested
anti-spam policies find themselves unable to deliver their non-spamming 
users'
mail to recipients who are on systems that participate in blacklisting. 
This
blocking is being done at too high a cost. Ultimately, civil rights and 
the
ability of non-spammers to communicate cannot be sacrificed to serve the 
goal
of blocking unsolicited bulk email."

I think this is a really odd position, and it's the first one I can think 
of
where I think the EFF is badly off base. I really don't see how voluntary
action by ISP's to screen email from reaching recipients is a bad thing. 
The
right to free speech does not imply a right to my attention, and I can 
employ
whatever method I wish to dole out that attention, including outsourcing 
the
decision making to my ISP. 

The anti-blacklist argument seems to be based on a non-existent right to 
not be
ostrasized by private entitites.

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