Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

[Bryan Taylor <bryan_w_taylor(at)yahoo.com>]

--- 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