> I really hate spam, but I'm wary of entrusting our legislatures with
> regulating communication on a content basis, because the same rationales
> can be used to regulate content in ways we don't want.
No need to mention content. Get rid of the idea that it's the
commercial aspect that's offensive. I'm just as offended by
anti-aspartame crusaders and others with a bone to pick or push.
The only reason we tend to mention "commercial" in the same
breath with "spam" is that those looking to make a buck are the
ones pushing the limits of the system. The crusaders will follow
with email spam when it becomes easy enough, just as they did
with Usenet spam.
What's offensive is "unsolicited bulk email". "Unsolicited email"
is unambiguous. "Bulk" can if necessary be disambiguated. Twenty
seems to be a popular number. It's much clearer in email than in
Usenet: with email, more than two or three recipients of a
personal note is uncommon, but less than tens of thousands of
recipients of bulk email is uncommon.
This definition does not mention content.
> [broaches possibility of one free spam]
I would strongly oppose this. In fact, I've seldom received more
than one mailing from a given mailer, since most are tossed by
their ISPs and many learn from the opprobrium. We can be easily
overwhelmed by one-time spammers. No tolerance for *any*
unsolicited bulk email.
> 2. Having a national registry of email addresses specifically requesting
> no spam, and requiring spammers not to send email to addresses on that
> list.
I'd make it a positive-option list: register if you want to
receive unsolicited bulk email. Otherwise every newcomer to the
net will be inundated before they learn how to stop it. This
will not only turn many people against the net, but will change
the net climate deleteriously as people come to accept such
behavior.
Any legislative solution will have to require ISPs to positively
identify new users, and perhaps to establish credit lines. This
will inhibit new use, and to me is a far more detrimental result
of legislation than the actual regulation of use. On the other
hand, requiring ISPs to positively identify users will address a
lot of abuse problems.
Another problem with legislation is that the net is
international. US legislation would curb most present email
spam, but how long will that last? Will we have to embody the
regulations in treaties? Will countries be required to ratify
these treaties as a condition of connection to the Internet? Or
will informal sanctions be enough to force countries to control
spam? If Liberia refuses, will spammers just rent accounts from
a Liberian ISP and run their spam from there?
Legislation is truly problematic, but I still don't see any other
approach that will come close to stopping abuse.
> Outside of the spam issue, I would really approve of legislation that
> prevented the sale of mailing lists (whether email or snail mail, or
> telephone numbers). Itd' never happen, though, because politicians rely
> on such lists for fund-raising contacts.
Easy, just make an exception for political fund raising. Then
the politicians will support it. Hmm -- on the other hand, then
what's the point ...
Edward Reid <edward@paleo.greensboro.fl.us>
[
Usenet Hypertext FAQ Archive |
Search Mail Archive |
Authors |
Usenet
]
[
1993 |
1994 |
1995 |
1996 |
1997
]
© Copyright The Landfield Group, 1997
All rights reserved