FC: John Gilmore replies to "a cautionary tale about spam"

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Sat May 31 2003 - 23:00:56 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Mirror of essay that Florida judge banned from the Internet"

    Previous Politech message:
    "Charles Platt: 'A cautionary tale about spam'"
    http://www.politechbot.com/p-04784.html
    
    ---
    
    To: declanat_private, politechat_private, gnuat_private
    Subject: Re: FC: Charles Platt's nonobvious conclusion
    In-reply-to: <5.2.1.1.0.20030528112840.048a4090at_private>
    Date: Thu, 29 May 2003 17:36:34 -0700
    From: John Gilmore <gnuat_private>
    
     > My autoreply from panix.com now sends a message telling people my phone
     > number and asking them to call me to get my new email address. This seems
     > a safe strategy because of course phone calls actually cost money (unlike
     > email which is virtually free), and consequently telephone spam is much
     > less of a problem.
     >
     > The conclusion is obvious.
     >
     > --CP
    
    Perhaps I'm dense.  The conclusion is that we should not continue to
    reduce the cost of communicating?  Or that we shouldn't be teaching
    computers to handle audio easily?  Nor teaching them to speak and
    understand speech?
    
    AT&T just called me up today (unsolicited bulk calling) to let me know
    that I could get nationwide local and long distance service from them
    for a flat monthly rate of $48.95.  I declined because I already have
    such a service from MCI.
    
    Should we keep phone service on a per-minute basis?  Should we prevent
    phone companies from lowering that monthly rate to $30, to $20, to
    $10, to $2?  The conclusion is obvious?
    
    I can see it now -- college students all over the country will get
    software that lets them make $1000 a week by dialing out to random
    phone numbers and offering various amazing promotions.  Be the first
    in your area code, and we'll throw in free email for life!
    
    (If the post office wasn't run by a government monopoly, postal costs
    would also be dropping rather than rising.  The price and speed of
    moving freight and express packages has been dropping for centuries.
    And nanotech assemblers will cause the price of duplication of
    physical objects to drop like the price of duplication of data, in a
    decade or two.)
    
    The conclusion is not obvious.  The obvious conclusion is that
    communication costs are going to continue to drop -- as are the costs
    of physical transportation of objects -- and that this is a GOOD
    thing.  But that doesn't tell society how to handle unwanted letters,
    unwanted calls, unwanted emails, unwanted magazines, unwanted
    communications, unwanted packages, unwanted medicines, unwanted free
    clothing, cars, and furniture, all arriving at your door or phone or
    mailbox.  And any policy that purports to tell you how to handle
    such "unwanted" things will burden the "wanted" emails, phone calls,
    magazines, and medicines.
    
    If Bill Gates made 6 billion doses of AIDS vaccine and mailed one dose
    to every person on earth, should we tell him he's not allowed to?  If
    Richard Stallman made 6 billion copies of a totally free and cool
    operating system and emailed one to every person on earth, should we
    tell him that treating your brother as you yourself would like to be
    treated is a crime?  If Ted Fang could make more money selling ads
    than it takes him to print and distribute his newspaper, what cop
    sworn to uphold the First Amendment will haul him off to jail if he
    delivers a free copy to every door?  If Rev. Jerry Falwell discovered
    the ten-word magic prayer that really, truly, does cure cancer, who
    among us will cast the first stone if he phones it to every cancer
    patient in the country?  If George Bush the Tenth wants to be
    President because nine generations of his forefathers were all
    president too, can he not send every voter a chicken in every pot?
    
    George W Bush actually *did* call every Republican or independent
    voter in Nevada shortly before the Nov 2002 election.  He merely asked
    them all to get out and vote.  His recorded voice, and some computers
    somewhere on the telephone network, encouraged enough Republicans to
    vote, so that the Nevada marijuana legaliation initiative got a
    stinging defeat.  (Republicans tended to oppose it, Democrats tended
    to favor it.)  Shouldn't he be able to suggest that people vote
    Republican?  Even if the cost of those calls is low or free?
    
    	John
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    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/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat May 31 2003 - 23:56:29 PDT