Lessig On Bounties For Spamhunters

An anonymous reader submits: "Digital rights (as in yours, not the RIAA's) guru Lawrence Lessig comes up with a Swiftian idea of how to fight spammers -- $10,000 for the first ubergeek to hunt the offender down. The column is at CIO Insight. Wonder if it'll reach its audience there."

Comments

well, it's a start

[Em Emalb]

but it will only catch the stupid ones. The "smarter" ones, and I use the term loosely, will endure.

Re:well, it's a start

[Vinum]

Hmm... that kind of gave me a crazy idea.. but I am sure a lot of these spammers are also into credit card fraud. A corporation like VISA could collect spam and use a dummy credit card number that would validate normally... except that instead of them getting a check with money at the end of the month... the companies ability to clear cards through visa would be revoked. Furthermore, if the government would just make spam a freaking crime... this would be a nice way to bust the people doing this stuff..

Because face it, most of these spammers are located in America even if they are going through Chinese relays and such.

I am sure someone will reply to this and give me 10 reasons why this will never work. But either way, its fun for discussion. :)

The opposite is needed

[PD]

For a period of one month, all filters on spam and spam hunting should be suspended. Part of the problem is that anti-spam activities are masking the true magnitude of the problem. A wake-up call is needed. When people realize just how much spam is being sent out, the villagers will take to the streets with pitchforks and torches.

uhh, missing something here

[Telastyn]

from the article:

But at least with the spam problem, there is a much simpler solution that, so far, Congress has failed to see. Imagine a law that had two parts--a labeling part and a bounty part. Part A says that any unsolicited commercial e-mail must include in its subject line the tag [ADV:]. Part B says that the first person to track down a spammer violating the labeling requirement will, upon providing proof to the Federal Trade Commission, be entitled to $10,000 to be paid by the spammer.

From California Spam law:

(g) In the case of e-mail that consists of unsolicited advertising material for the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any realty, goods, services, or extension of credit, the subject line of each and every message shall include "ADV:" as the first four characters. If these messages contain information that consists of unsolicited advertising material for the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any realty, goods, services, or extension of credit, that may only be viewed, purchased, rented, leased, or held in possession by an individual 18 years of age and older, the subject line of each and every message shall include "ADV:ADLT" as the first eight characters.

and

(f) (1) In addition to any other action available under law, any electronic mail service provider whose policy on unsolicited electronic mail advertisements is violated as provided in this section may bring a civil action to recover the actual monetary loss suffered by that provider by reason of that violation, or liquidated damages of fifty dollars ($50) for each electronic mail message initiated or delivered in violation of this section, up to a maximum of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000) per day, whichever amount is greater.

Very similar...

Re:This problem cannot be solved!

[Alsee]

The problem with spam is that the cost is basicly zero per-message. $X to send Y pieces of spam, X divided by Y works out to zero point zero cents per spam.

The only way to make it die is for people to stop buying from it

Not possible. Spam works at a response rate of 1 in 10,000. The general population contains a far higher rate of mental illness, senility, and retardation, not to mention just plain gullibility and stupidity.

To to missquote something P.T. Barnum never said,
The internet: a million suckers log on every minute.

It seems to me that the only solution will come by a switch over to a new E-mail system that can link a non negligible co$t to all E-mail, or just to offending E-mail. This could be done with crypographicly signed "stamps".

Would you be willing to attach 2 cents to each E-mail where the recipient of the mail gets the money? Send mail to your friend and he gets 2 cents, he send you mail and you get the 2 cents back.

The other proposal I saw has much more expensive stamps, from 32 cents up to a few dollars. In that plan you you can keep re-using your stamps unless the recipient "redeems" the stamp. The idea is that it is generally "rude" to redeem a stamp. If you get legitimate mail from a friend or stranger you do nothing and it costs the sender nothing, if you get spam or otherwise offensive mail you click a button to redeem the stamp and the sender is out the money.

-