EFF speaks out against MAPS

Control-Z has brought our attention to the latest EFF newsletter which speaks out against MAPS ^? and ineffective spam legislation. According to the EFF: "The rights of users to send and receive email must not be compromised for quick and dirty ways to limit unsolicited bulk email. Neither misguided and ignorant legislation, nor collusive, high pressure protection schemes, have a legitimate function or place in our online future " The EFF is reminding us that freedom isn't always easy. I feel much worse for those who haven't figured out procmail yet though.

Comments

EFF is misguided in this

[gorilla]

Your right to send mail stops at my mail server, I can refuse to accept mail based upon anything I feel like, including irrational reasons.

MAPS is not the problem

[ethereal]

...lack of notification that your ISP uses MAPS is the problem. Any ISP that uses MAPS without saying so should be sued for fraud; since they're not providing the complete connectivity that they advertise. ISPs should just put their MAPS usage in their TOS, or even (if possible) allow the user to choose MAPS or not for their email accounts. Some ISPs could advertise that they use MAPS and are spam-safe; others could advertise that they don't use MAPS and are freedom-enabled (or something like that).

As long as there is sufficient notification and user choice, then there's nothing wrong with MAPS. It's only when their somewhat strong-arm tactics are combined with ISP coercion that the user really has a problem.

What's wrong with voluntary collective solutions?

[vees]

It's a shame to see MAPS and collective protection schemes dumped into this list of "bad things." Like most geeks, I don't like everything that MAPS does and I'll admit that I've even been on the wrong side of the ORBS cluestick in the past. However, I believe the concept of collective protection is a good one. If there's a problem with ISPs using systems like that to block legitimate mail, then customers who want to receive said mail won't be with them for long. There are natural market pressures at work to provide what the most important people (the end users like our friends and family) want.

Like most of you, I have a pretty potent procmail script, but I have to say I've probably invested an absurdly significant amount of time in my labor of love getting it just right. If I were less of a geek, I might tend towards finding a group of like-minded mail readers and collecting our resources together. If evantually our creation became a widely recognized and used method of mail filtering, great! Then that's the choice of every sysadmin and every participant (by the merits that they all pay his/her salary) to be behind that shield. Nobody else has the right to tell me I have to accept socket connections from them if I don't want to.

Right to send email?

[Rombuu]

Since when does anyone, anywhere have the right to send email? Since when does anyone have the right to have their data go over a network that they don't own? If someone wants to drop the letter 'P' from every packet that goes over their network, last time I checked, they still have that right. And if they don't want to carry your email, for whatever reason, last time I checked, they have that right.

And the EFF wants to get rid of your rights... sigh..

The Internet is a free-market information service

[isdnip]

EFF has it wrong this time. They make the statement that e-mail is "protected speech". That's a legal issue in the USA, which means that the government doesn't have the right to block it. But private parties are also not required to pay to relay it.

The Internet is not regulated as a telecom service. The FCC doesn't regulate ISPs, just the telecom services they buy. Nobody regulates mail servers. It's a free market, and it works. Now in a free market, you have competition. If your ISP uses MAPS and you don't like it, then you're free to go elsewhere. If your ISP is RBL'd, you're free to go elsewhere. There are lots of free e-mail services out there. See for instance http://www.emailaddresses.com/ . Now I wish my own "primary" e-mail provider, the one I ping many times a day, used one of these services, because I'm spammed to death and sick of it! If somebody couldn't get through, they almost certainly would find another way to reach me. Like I have a phone too, not to mention other e-mail addresses.

So given the fact that there is no anti-spam legislation, and negligible likelihood of effective anti-spam legislation within the next few years, then the free market approach (you know, the one the spammers cite to block anti-spam legislation) is to allow anti-spam filters at the ISPs. The ISPs will install them if it's good for business, and block spammers if being blackholed is bad for business.

Indeed one of the reasons that the Internet is not regulated as a "telecommunications service" is that it does not offer to provide transport of information "without change in form or content" -- an ISP may change things, of which blocking spam is one example. It would be quite a different story if a telecomm provider attempted to do the same thing -- their mission is to pass the bits unchanged, down there below layer 3.

And please don't tell me how easy it is to build an anti-spam filter on your private mail server. 99.9% of end users do no not run mail servers; ISPs, who have full-time bandwidth, run them for us.

Spam is one of the most complex issues

[btempleton]

It sits at the intersection of property rights, free speech and communications rights and privacy rights.

Amazingly, because of this, many of the people writing here with opposite positions may both be right.

I've written extensively on this and have a collection of essays on my web site, though they are not all endorsed by fellow EFF people. As you might expect, with such new and contentious issues, no group, not slashdotters and certainly not the EFF, finds itself of a single mind.

Those who have written that the first amendment applies only to government action are correct. However, the principles of free speech apply universally, if you defend them. Private actors do have their right to block speech, but this does not make such actions immune from criticism by free speech advocates.

Instead, I look to define good principles by which we private actors might govern ourselves. There are many good lessons in the free speech principles to which we have held governments.

Amongst the principles (not just in free speech) is the protection of the innocent. That you don't punish the bystanders to get at the guilty. Private actors usually have the right to do that, but it need not be lauded.

Unfortunately, and I think this sits at the soul of problems with MAPS, blacklists tend to operate that way. I know many are aware of this, but have dedided that blacklists are the only way, and so a few innocents must be punished to stop spam.

This is of particular concern when the area is communication.

People do have the right not to listen to any communication, but this is a very simple statement about a complex issue. There is much to be said about how they should exercise that right.