RE: [dvd-discuss] EFF opposes blacklisting spammers

[Jeme A Brelin <jeme(at)brelin.net>]

On Wed, 24 Oct 2001, Bryan Taylor wrote:
> --- Jeme A Brelin <jeme@brelin.net> wrote:
> > If you want to control who sends you mail, setup authentication at
> > your mail daemon or filters in your transfer agent.  Other than that, 
> > you get what you get.
> 
> No one has ever answered why Tom Brokaw can hire people to filter his
> mail, but I can't hire an ISP based on their use of filtering rules.
> As long as they clearly state what their filtering service is, they
> filter with the authority of their willing clients.

I absolutely answered that question.

You can setup your mail daemon with filters or authentication.  If someone
else manages your mail daemon, they can do it for you.  If you pay them
for that service, so be it.

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

> If the situation gets to the point where nobody offers unfiltered
> email, then there should be antitrust issues,

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

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.  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.

> 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.

> I simply do not agree that your free speech right limits my ability to
> contract with my ISP to help me exercise my free speech right to
> discriminate as to what I receive.

I think you invented this limit.  I don't think anyone suggested that a
mail system couldn't offer optional mail filtering services.

> In fact, since the ISP is a private party, I'm not sure why the 1st or
> 14th amendments provide any legal basis for relief at all.

A carrier is not like other kinds of services.  We, as a society, have
decided that carriers must have special restrictions because of the power
they wield over personal communication.

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.

J.
-- 
   -----------------
     Jeme A Brelin
    jeme@brelin.net
   -----------------
 [cc] counter-copyright
 http://www.openlaw.org