RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

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

--- Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net> wrote:

> But that ISP should be required to offer unfiltered mail as well and that
> should be the default configuration, lest the ignorant get screwed.

"Should be" and "is" are worlds apart. Congress could legislate that ISP's are
required to offer unfiltered email, and if its availability every got to be a
problem, I might even support it. But Congress hasn't done so, so no barrier to
offering filtered only email exists besides the Deceptive Trade Practices Act.

> ALL public mail systems should offer unfiltered mail and a mail system MAY
> offer filtered mail to those who would like it.

Obviously, customers who contract with an ISP that openly says it always
filters based on MAPS "would like it". They can speak for themselves, and are
adequately protected under the law. 

> Otherwise, you end up in a situation where an ISP offers some great
> service (like specialized content or a kick-ass newsfeed), but filters all
> your mail in some undisclosed way.  

Failure to disclose that filtering is occuring, or the rules about which sites
will be filtered, is, in my opinion, a deceptive trade practice banned under
existing laws.

> [...] A person would have to make a decision
> between two unrelated things.  And the IMPORTANT distinction is that the
> mail filtering is done IN ADDITION to the regular service and requires
> more time and effort on the part of the ISP than not filtering.  That is
> to say, they're going out of their way to do it.

An ISP is free to offer multiple unrelated things in a package deal. That's a
silly point. There is no right to be offered exactly what you want.

> > but until/unless that happens, the only question is: can you hire
> > people to do things for you who can do it more efficiently.
> 
> Absolutely.  But the default should be no filtering.  And with the
> exception of services that ONLY offer mail filtering (and no other
> services; no web hosting, no dial-up accounts, nothing), all systems
> should be required to offer an unfiltered mailbox.

As long as somebody offers unfiltered email, I don't see a problem. 

> An ISP is a common carrier, like your local telephone exchange carrier or
> mail service.  Because of the service they provide to society, they must
> respect the freedoms of the individuals in that society.  A phone company
> can't block calls without your explicit permission nor can they
> discriminate who gets service by the content of their traffic.

I believe that an ISP is not a common carrier under the law. If I am wrong,
please provide some legal citation. I'm not interested in "should be" arguments
on this point. 


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