Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF
On 16 Oct 95 at 10:19, bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:
Me thinks that this is yet one more short sighted view of the Internet.
Bill, all very good points, indeed. But while the US-centric issues are not lost on me, it certainly seems that the majority of spammage originates from US ISPs. Perhaps this is based in some way on the free-wheeling entrepreneurial nature of US commerce or on the increasing tide of social indifference. But I digress... I am talking very specifically about US federal law, applicable to US citizens. The Internet is indeed a global phenomenon but when one leads, others may surely follow. I am not advocating laws which restrict uses of commercial networks. I am advocating restraint over those things that others can do to me which cost me money and thus, are theft. Federal law already (I believe) restricts what use others may enjoy of my resources without my permission. FAX and cellular phones cannot be used for purposes of advertising. Finally, what I am suggesting is perhaps a little more subtle than grotesque legal bludgeoning. Consider the potential impact that highly visible federal law would have on those who would consider this an effective means to market to others using resources for which they do not pay. One argument I have seen is that all we need do is get a single AUP to which all ISPs will adhere. When such a thing comes into existance, I believe it will be far too difficult to read the wonderful news, amid the 5000 spams waiting in my mail queue. I believe the chestnut about herding cats might have originated with the idea that we can get all ISPs to agree on any one thing. </rr> -- The Internet Company - info@internet.com We Bring Only Value to the Global Internet
On 16 Oct 95 at 10:19, bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:
Me thinks that this is yet one more short sighted view of the Internet.
Bill, all very good points, indeed.
But while the US-centric issues are not lost on me, it certainly seems that the majority of spammage originates from US ISPs. Perhaps this is based in some way on the free-wheeling entrepreneurial nature of US commerce or on the increasing tide of social indifference. But I digress...
..seems..(to).. originates from US (sites)... And where do you get your data? Domain Names? Not a real good measure. IP addresses? Better, but only slightly so. Email origin? Ever hear of email spoofing? John Currans earlier note was very concrete here. You have no data that back your assertion that the problem is US based.
I am not advocating laws which restrict uses of commercial networks. I am advocating restraint over those things that others can do to me which cost me money and thus, are theft. Federal law already (I believe) restricts what use others may enjoy of my resources without my permission. FAX and cellular phones cannot be used for purposes of advertising.
So internetMCI, Sprintlink, PSI, UUnet, MSN, and all existing ISP's networks are not going to be bound by your proposed legislation? While I can't say wrt cellular actions, I know my fax machine (and PO box, and home answering machine) get all sorts of unsolicited dreck. Whats the law that I can use to protect myself?
Finally, what I am suggesting is perhaps a little more subtle than grotesque legal bludgeoning. Consider the potential impact that highly visible federal law would have on those who would consider this an effective means to market to others using resources for which they do not pay.
Most folks that I know think that "highly visible federal law" often equates to "grotesque legal bludgeoning".
</rr>
--bill
participants (2)
-
bmanning＠ISI.EDU -
Robert Raisch, The Internet Company