Warnings: 1) IANAL. 2) This is quote, interspersed with rebuttal. 3) Although it involves no directly technical issues, it is an operational issue none the less. If you doubt it, ask yourself this question: would you rather spend your time fixing network problems, or monitoring content and appearing in court? 4) This post is somewhat lengthy. David Stoddard wrote: <snip>
Based on these statements, I can only conlude you have a huge problem with the capitalistic system, and that you favor the elimination of private property in order to foster your "freedom". That is the same argument Fidel Casto uses on the people he suppresses, and was the common theme among communist countries before the fall of the Berlin wall. Joseph Stalin shared your views on private property. I don't. As a capitalist, I find your ideas offensive and misguided.
As a capitalist, here's something you should find even more offensive and misguided: Since you've volunteered to monitor content, the government is likely to require that you do. Read further.
Paul Vixie and his team of "RBL finks" are to be commended on the excellent job they have done in stopping the poisonous assult of pornographic filth, fraud, and manipulation that spam brings to people everyday. And for people that want to take the RBL even further, we provide a list via autoresponder at spamlist@us.net that blocks even more of this crud. And here is the best part -- its up to the FREEDOM of the individuals that use these resources to determine if and how they want to use them.
There are no "inalienable rights and freedoms" that give spammers unrestricted access to the Internet. Even the courts have upheld the right of ISPs to block and filter spam -- see the URL http://www.aclu.org/issues/cyber/updates/nov13clu.html#cyberpromo
Of course they did. Think about it. You just volunteered to monitor content for an industry which the government is busy wringing its hands over. The intrinsic difficulty in analyzing packet-switched traffic for violations of the law has stymied law enforcement agencies ever since the Internet became an issue. That doesn't play well on the nightly news, when the blubbering-mother-of-the- week pisses and moans on TV about how her precious little Johnny got kidnapped, buggered, and slaughtered by some cretin "on the Internet" who knows how to use IRC and was able to give her kid a plane ticket while she was busy watching "Jerry Springer" reruns instead of asking what the hell her kid was doing on the computer. "Sorry, it just isn't possible to do anything about it, we don't have the capability to monitor it" isn't what the general public wants to hear, and the LEAs and politicians have been tying themselves up in knots over it. About this time, along comes a Crusade, one which is worthy of legend. On the one side is Spamford Wallace and his crew of misbegotten miscreants, and on the other, Paul Vixie and his band of righteous merry men. (I have chosen Spamford and Paul as the figureheads for their respective movements, actual history notwithstanding...) So Paul decides that, to battle the forces of Spam, he shall create a list of those who sin against the Internet at large, and propagate it to others. Both these points are important. If Paul wants to play God with his little corner of the Internet, no problem. Unfortunately, he's not going to be able to step down from that position on a whim. (Ain't that a bitch - Crusaders can't stop Crusading because their feet get tired or because they're getting shot at. Aww.) What does this mean? The next time something originating from or coming into Paul's network is deemed offensive, a waste of money/bandwidth/time/etc, unethical, or any other negative adjective, it will not be the U.S. Government who is put in the position of regulating it - it will be Paul. You see, Paul has assumed the position of "Being On Top Of It". Even if Paul doesn't feel that way, even if he feels that regulating that particular content will be detrimental to the Internet at large, even if he strenuously objects and says that "it's not his job", he will be put in that position, because _he volunteered for the job_. Precedent will have been set, and although IANAL, I know enough about the law to know that precedent is a bitch to break with. The government and regulatory agencies will simply allow and "encourage", through the promise of jail time, copious fines, and multimillion dollar civil lawsuits, "self-policing" of the Internet by the administrators, all the while wiping the sweat from their brow and congratulating each other on having dodged another bullet. In addition, when the system fails - and as I and all other sysadmins know, all systems fail - it won't be the U.S. Government on the hook for screwing it up. It'll be you, because _you volunteered for the job_. Oh yeah. The other important thing - pick up "Paul" and put down your first name, because everyone who subscribes to the RBL will be doing exactly the same thing. There's a reason that the phone companies are common carriers - it's because it relieves them of a massive amount of liability. The telcos do some things right on occasion, ya know. This is not to say that I believe that spam is a Good Thing, or that the RBL is a Bad Thing. I hate Spamford for what he has wrought, and I believe that the RBL is a natural and necessary response to it. I do, however, suspect that the trouble that Spamford and his ilk have caused, which has long since been dealt with, is nothing compared to the trouble which has now been assumed by the sysadmins and network operators. Congratulations. The Chinese have a saying about being careful what you wished for...
If you want to use your time and resources to foster and promote the activites of people that prey upon society at large, go right ahead -- that's "freedom", and it is your "right" to do so. I have always found it interesting that the people the scream the loudest about their rights do it in the context of denying others their rights. As an ISP, I have the right to choose. And I choose not to do business with spammers.
I wonder if you'll be so cavalier when the blubbering-mother-of-the-week is busy suing your arse off for not protection her little kid from: a) pedophiles b) bomb-making instructions c) satanic song lyrics d) pork (the other white meat) e) Chevrolet f) anything else deemed offensive. Tell me, what would you "choose" to do should one of your customers send back, stapled to their usage contract, a list of content they find objectionable and ask you to filter it? Suppose you can't, don't, or won't? How about if you screw it up and some gets through? Power comes with responsibility. Responsibility carries with it liability. Are you prepared to assume the liability that comes with "choosing" to selectively block content? -- Szechuan Death, AKA Theron Bair, sysadmin, net tech, student, etc. sdeath@ackphft.matsu.alaska.edu