Re: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

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

--- Michael.A.Rolenz@aero.org wrote:
> 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. )

I think it's very important to distinguish email filtering of spam from website
filtering. My principle says that in each case it is the recipients ultimate
call on what gets through, and that the government cannot constitutionally
engage in content based filtering. A library webpage filter is clearly
unconstitutional it seems to me.

> 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. 

If they say we filter according to MAPS as defined at http://blah-blah-blah
then I think that is sufficient. That is enough to let the market decide. 



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