FC: Politech debate on spam: Paul Bissex vs. Sonia Arrison (resend)

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Mon Apr 23 2001 - 20:11:48 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Progressive Review tells of battle with filtering company N2H2"

    [Looks like I got the order of the messages wrong in the earlier debate 
    post. This should be correct. --Declan]
    
    *********
    
     >Declan/Sonia,
     >
     >Really, though, what does this have to do with the spam problem as most
     >people experience it? Responsible corporations violating contracts aren't
     >the worst offenders. They'll learn to avoid spamming through customer
     >feedback and action. OTOH I've got no contracts with the originators of
     >the hundreds of unsolicited commercial messages I get each week. Perhaps
     >"the market" has a solution for this, but it sure isn't opt-out agreements.
     >
     >pb
    _____________________________________________________
    
    From: Sonia Arrison <sarrisonat_private>
    To: Paul Bissex <pb@e-scribe.com>
    Cc: "'declanat_private'" <declanat_private>
    Subject: Re:FC: Canning spam through contracts instead of federal regulati
              ons
    Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 18:59:40 -0700
    
    Hi Paul,
    
    Below are some responses to your comments.
    
    Cheers,
    Sonia
    ----------------------------------------------
    
      >Really, though, what does this have to do with the spam problem as most
      >people experience it? Responsible corporations violating contracts aren't
      >the worst offenders. They'll learn to avoid spamming through customer
      >feedback and action.
    
    Indeed, it's true that responsible corporations aren't the worst offenders,
    but this example shows that when a corporation doesn't respond to consumer
    pressure, it still has to respond to the contract it made with its customers
    and various state laws.  New federal government regulations are *not* needed
    and might be detrimental.  Imagine if the FTC were to step in (as they did
    in the Toysmart case). They might decide to negotiate a deal where Kozmo can
    send mail to people who opted out if it fits certain FTC guidelines (similar
    to the deal they cut with Toysmart - allowing the company to sell data it
    said it wouldn't if it followed FTC preferences).
    
    OTOH I've got no contracts with the originators of
      >the hundreds of unsolicited commercial messages I get each week. Perhaps
      >"the market" has a solution for this, but it sure isn't opt-out
    agreements.
    
    There is a possible market solution for the problem of unsolicited
    commercial mail - start charging people for sending you mail.  I can easily
    see the day where someone writes a program that allows users to set
    parameters where:
    
    1) mail from family and friends can be sent to them free
    2) anyone you don't know has to pay a small amount (say, using Paypal -
    their already 7 million membership would skyrocket)
    3) any known spammers would be charged an outrageous amount.
    
    This type of solution would not only stem the spam problem, it might make
    you some money too.
    
    -Sonia
    
    ___________________________________________________________
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Paul Bissex [mailto:pb@e-scribe.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 10:45 AM
    To: Sonia Arrison
    Cc: 'declanat_private'
    Subject: Re:FC: Canning spam through contracts instead of federal
    regulati ons
    
    
    Sonia,
    
    I think we're 90% in agreement.  Alas, no fireworks for the list!
    
    It was the subject line's reference to spam together with your claim
    that "the market is working" that raised a flag for me. On reflection
    it seems likely that the subject line was Declan's and that your
    claim was primarily about consumer privacy after all.
    
    Still, I've added a few comments below.
    
    best
    
    pb
    
    
    At 6:59 PM -0700 2001-04-20, Sonia Arrison wrote:
     >Hi Paul,
     >
     >Below are some responses to your comments.
     >
     >Cheers,
     >Sonia
     >----------------------------------------------
     >
     >>Really, though, what does this have to do with the spam problem as most
     >>people experience it? Responsible corporations violating contracts aren't
     >>the worst offenders. They'll learn to avoid spamming through customer
     >>feedback and action.
     >
     >Indeed, it's true that responsible corporations aren't the worst offenders,
     >but this example shows that when a corporation doesn't respond to consumer
     >pressure, it still has to respond to the contract it made with its
    customers
     >and various state laws.  New federal government regulations are *not*
    needed
     >and might be detrimental.  Imagine if the FTC were to step in (as they did
     >in the Toysmart case). They might decide to negotiate a deal where Kozmo
    can
     >send mail to people who opted out if it fits certain FTC guidelines
    (similar
     >to the deal they cut with Toysmart - allowing the company to sell data it
     >said it wouldn't if it followed FTC preferences).
    
    I think you're making a valid point here, and the Kozmo story is
    important -- but consumer privacy infringements by such corporations
    do not begin to account for the majority of spam  people I know
    receive.  For a year or two I archived every piece of spam I got; the
    portion originating from reputable, accountable corporations was, and
    I think will continue to be, vanishingly small.
    
    It's not that I don't think there's a threat of junk e-mail glut from
    established corps, but the spam problem extends far beyond that.
    
     >OTOH I've got no contracts with the originators of
     >>the hundreds of unsolicited commercial messages I get each week. Perhaps
     >>"the market" has a solution for this, but it sure isn't opt-out
    agreements.
     >
     >There is a possible market solution for the problem of unsolicited
     >commercial mail - start charging people for sending you mail.  I can easily
     >see the day where someone writes a program that allows users to set
     >parameters where:
     >
     >1) mail from family and friends can be sent to them free
     >2) anyone you don't know has to pay a small amount (say, using Paypal -
     >their already 7 million membership would skyrocket)
     >3) any known spammers would be charged an outrageous amount.
    
    This is a good idea. IIRC, programmer Jef Poskanzer has been
    proposing something similar for several years -- a sort of electronic
    postage which is redeemed at the option of the receiver.  You waive
    the charge for legitimate correspondents, while putting the economic
    screws to spammers by cashing their tokens.
    
    Of course, writing "a program" wouldn't suffice -- this would have to
    be embedded in the relevant protocols, and/or adopted by an
    overwhelming majority of users, in order to exert the intended
    leverage. And it seems likely that regulatory force would be called
    on to give "the market" a hand with enforcement and collections.
    
    pb
    _______________________________________________________________
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Sonia Arrison
    Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 3:18 PM
    To: 'Paul Bissex'
    Cc: 'declanat_private'
    Subject: RE: FC: Canning spam through contracts instead of federal
    regulati ons
    
    
    Thanks for your comments, Paul.  We are almost in agreement (sadly, for
    politech!), but I would take issue with the idea that we need government
    regulation before people can charge for spam.  People already install
    filters for e-mail - all they need now is an added function on the filter
    that sends a message back to spammers saying that if they want their mail to
    go through, they have to pay Pay Pal acct #12345 25 cents. Yes, I know that
    breaks one of the golden rules of avoiding spam,(never respond to spam or
    they'll know your address actually exists), but just imagine if a bunch of
    people using computer programs started spamming the spammers back!  hahaha!
    Now *that* would be justice.
    
    Maybe the spammers would go for it, and you'd be paid.  Or, they wouldn't,
    but they'd recognize after a few attempts that your address is useless to
    them, and annoying if they have a real return address.  Or, maybe the
    address you reply to doesn't exist - but if someone is using a fake address,
    a law requiring them to use a real one won't help - they'd likely skirt the
    law anyway.
    
    The idea that people wouldn't use this type of system until the government
    sanctions it is kind of like thinking that no one would have used e-bay
    until the government got involved (the argument would have been: how would
    you ensure that you actually got the products you paid for?)  And, yes, I
    know that e-bay isn't perfect, but many people do use it with happy results.
    Do we get to fireworks here?
    
    Best,
    Sonia
    
    ________________________________________________
    ---------------------------
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Paul Bissex [mailto:pb@e-scribe.com]
    Sent: Monday, April 23, 2001 5:16 PM
    To: Sonia Arrison
    Cc: declanat_private
    Subject: RE: FC: Canning spam through contracts instead of federal
    regulat i ons
    
    
    OK, maybe we're 70% in agreement. The thing is, spam that arrives with a
    real, deliverable address in the From: or Reply-To: headers is extremely
    rare, not just a "maybe." These guys send out millions of messages and they
    don't want  bounces or flak. So they're never going to get any little
    auto-reply invoice.
    
    Minus that element, the proposal becomes simple spam filtering. Not too
    hard to do right now. Lots of people do it. Spammers know people do it.
    Tens of millions of spams go in the bit bucket unread.  Has this deterred
    spammers on the whole?  No.
    
    I do agree that a user movement powered by a micropayment protocol could
    conceivably have an effect on *some* spammers. For instance, let's say a
    Eudora plugin exists that checks message headers for either 1) a known
    "friendly" address or 2) sign of a verified payment, whether that's a
    DigiCash-type token or a digitally signed affidavit from e.g. Paypal
    confirming a deposit.  Great!  You're right, there's no special regulatory
    role needed for this (though thorny infrastructural questions abound).
    
    However, while it might create some interesting new markets, and perhaps
    change the direct-email strategies of some responsible companies, there's
    no way such a thing would make a dent in the daily flow of spam. IMO
    spam-fixing models that put their faith in enlightened self-interest are
    fatally flawed.  A single idiot running an automated spam program can reach
    huge numbers of people. A dozen such idiots could probably annoy nearly
    every e-mail user on the planet.
    
    Therefore, you still need perfect filtering to keep out the idiots.  And
    once you have perfect filtering, I would argue, you've already created a
    technical solution to the problem and the invisible hand is superfluous.
    
    I think I'm nearly done talking about this, simply because I feel at this
    point I'm marking an unoriginal path on well-traveled ground.
    
    pb
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if it remains intact.
    To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon Apr 23 2001 - 19:39:13 PDT