Previous Politech message: "Will Larry Lessig's proposed anti-spam law make spam... worse?" http://www.politechbot.com/p-04355.html --- From: [deleted per request --DBM] To: declan Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:26:33 -0500 Hi Declan - I wanted to express my keen interest in this issue and these responses in particular. I work for Congress, and know that there are Members who are very aware of the problem of spam, and are interested in doing something about it. Though there aren't specific bills ready to be introduced yet, I thought Politechnicals might be interested to know that Larry's idea of the ADV: tag is one of the main ones being considered, and stands a good chance of being introduced. I also wanted to respond to Jim's and Chip's comments. -- >From: "Jim Harper" <jim.harperat_private> > >Lessig's bet is nearly risk-free. "ADV:" legislation >is very unlikely. >More importantly, though, it's ham-handed. > >Along with reducing spam, why not rate spam law on >whether it preserves free speech rights? If you're >not sympathetic to free speech, how about how well >a spam law protects communications that consumers >want and need (some of which are ADV:'s)? Has Lessig >considered whether his proposal thwarts small >business participation and competition in the online >medium by creating disproportionate litigation risk? > >If there's going to be good spam law - not a foregone >conclusion - it will come from considering all the >interests at stake. > >Jim --- Jim, all the interests at stake are being considered. As I understand it, one of the major benefits of Larry's proposal is that it doesn't -criminalize- excess unwanted spam (as some recent bills have done). Rather, it would, as Chip noted, created a much better method of filtering. The belief is that adding a simple tag to the subject line would not create an undue burden on small business (even -I- can type ADV: in just one second). --- >Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:15:15 -0600 >From: Chip Rosenthal <chipat_private> > >I'm going to take the position that the law Larry >proposed may make spam >levels *worse*. > >Here's why: data indicate a significant rise in spam >levels over the past year. (I'm currently crunching >some numbers, hoping I can measure this effect.) I >believe there are two reasons for this. One is the >recession. The other is due to the increasing >effectiveness of filtering. > >As filters get more effective, spammers pump out more >and more messages, trying to push their crap through >the shrinking sieve. Labelling may provide for the >most effective filtering yet, driving spammers to >flood at levels unimagined. > >So while Larry's proposal may reduce what lands in >your inbox, the servers are going to *choke*. That's >because the SMTP mail protocol requires that the >server receive the complete message before it can be >inspected for tags. So servers will be driven into >the ground accepting and discarding millions of >messages a day, all with proper spam labels. > >Here is the flaw in Larry's propsal: it assumes >reasonable, rational people. As effectiveness of spam >decreases, the less likely a reasonable, rational >person would use it. > >The problem is that people who advertise by spam >aren't reasonable, rational people. They are morons >who believe in work-at-home pyramid scams and that >apricot seeds cure cancer. They don't do efficacy >calculations. They just look at the cost. They don't >care if spam has a 1/1mil capture rate, just so long >as it's cheap. And with its nearly-zero marginal >cost, they'll just adjust their spam levels upwards >as necessary. --- Chip, I hope you're not forgetting the other part of Larry's proposal - the bounty on noncompliant spammers. Ideally, most would follow the rules and put on the tags. But we're realistic, and we know that many won't. It seems that the most effective method of enforcement is giving the Federal Trade Commission to fine each infringment, and giving good and industrious people on the net the opportunity to track down the infringers, pass the info along to the FTC, and collect a "bounty" from the FTC after they recover the fine from the infringer. Is it perfect? No, obviously not. But, in my opinion, it's about as close as we're going to come to a real solution. --- >I think legislation is the right solution, but >labelling isn't it. Spam represents pollution of a >public resource, and we need regulations and >financial penalties appropriate for protecting that >endangered resource. --- Any suggestions for improvements or changes are welcome, of course. :) I'm no member of Congress, and I'm not under the illusion that I have all the right answers. That's why Larry's idea is great - it's a fresh new approach to a thorny problem. Regards, [deleted --DBM] ------------------------------------------------------------------------- POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice. To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/ Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/ ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/ Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan -------------------------------------------------------------------------
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Thu Jan 23 2003 - 10:50:54 PST