Slashdot Mirror
UK To Hold Public Enquiry On Spam
feepcreature writes "Is something going to be done about email spam at last? In the UK, the All Party Parliamentary Internet Group is to hold a public enquiry into spam. These politicians seem to understand the scale of the spam problem, and they are considering a new global level organization to deal with the Internet, as well as new laws, inter-government action and technical solutions.
But will more international bodies help? Would laws work?"
Would laws work?
You can make something illegal, but you can't make it unpopular.
Wheeeee
I think a pay-per-view model like the one IBM described, available here would somewhat alleviate the problem. I'd be happy to accept spam if I was paid, say, $0.01 per email received. Perhaps something like a tax on the ISPs, so Joe's ISP can send out 100 emails a day per user, any more is taxed at $0.01 per email. So each user gets the 100, if they need more, then they either pay a little bit, or maybe even get a license for unlimited. I wouldn't mind paying a TINY bit for a solution to the spam problem. As long as these fucktards use open relays (run by fucktards), I'm never going to be able to tell the penis enlargement mailing lists I REALLY sign up for from the spam.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
Self-regulation has largely failed, so I really don't see why not. Because of the actions of a few (in Internet scale), the rest of us must pay.
But the question is not really "would the law work". It's "would it be enforceable?", and "at what cost?". And "cost" is not only monetary...
Even if this first move by the UK government comes to not very much, it's an encouraging sign that parts of the government is becoming aware of the problem and has at least expressed an interest in resolving it.
This stance at least sends a message to companies who so far have had a broad tolerance to spam (cable ISPs who don't care about security, companies running open relays, etc.) - I honestly believe they often have this "it's not important" attitude out of pure ignorance.
Governements saying "this matters" may encourage a few of them to pick up their act. Piece by piece we will make a move towards a more securable mail infrastructure - it won't happen overnight, it won't happen by bigh bang, it'll come small step by small step, and as such moves like this should be neither ridiculed nor raved about, but gently welcomed and encouraged.
All IMHO
I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. - George Best
If there's even one country with no anti-spam laws, people will just go there to spam. Sure, there're technical ways to deal with that, but given how easy it is to "acquire" new IP address space most of them are doomed to failure.
"God, root, what is difference?" - Pitr, userfriendly
The spam issue has some interesting parallels in the models of the new economy. Just like in other industries like healthcare and pharmacuticals, the major players are not interested in a "cure". That's not profitable for them. A more appealing approach for them is some method of "treatment", preferably something that obligates the user to continually do business with them in perpetuity in order to maintain their spam-free condition.
Efforts to regulate the content of spam messages, inconsequential civil penalties, client side filtering, and any system which filters mail based on content caters to this impotent approach to addressing the spam problem. It offers no cure. It does nothing to reduce spam; it does nothing to discourage spammers; it does nothing to address the most serious problem of spam, which involves unfair and often illegal exploitation of resources.
Maybe this is the new way. We don't actually solve any problems. We just put bandaids on them and allow them to consume more wasted resources, and the demand for more resources, hardware and bandwith is what drives the new economy.
Call me idealistic, but I think it sucks. I am appalled that so many people will settle for such shallow and ineffective approaches to these problems. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Most of these people profit from the existence of spam so why bite the hand that feeds them on a major artery when you can collect some bucks and merely trim their nails?
If spamming is outlawed, only outlaws will spam?
Mmmm......sacrelicious.
"HMTL laden" - Osama's techie brother? ;)
;)
Broadband (when BT finally get their arses into gear and install it) will lessen the effect of the issue, but it's still there. It may be trivial to download the spam, but you still have to wade through the stuff trying to find real mails.
I don't think laws can really help either? I doubt most of these spammers (at least the ones that seem to spam me) really care about the law!
Perhaps the best way to kill off spammers for good would be for Microsoft to build bayesian filtering (which seems *very* reliable) into Outlook Express 7 and slap one of their nice friendly wizards on it. It sounds dire I know, but perhaps MS could have their uses after all
Well, yes and no.
In the UK, an enquiry is a question, and an inquiry is an investigation.
The linked article uses "inquiry" correctly (it is a UK site).
It's acceptable for a US writer to change this to "enquiry" in the link, although I don't see why that's necessary unless US English really prefers it that way. I don't know, I don't speak US English. Well, I dabble.
I've always held the viewpoint that creating legislation to handle spam is a Bad Thing (TM). Unfortunately, such laws tend to be badly written, and get out of control quickly.
How do you define spam, in legal terms? If a random user sends you an unsolicited email for ANY purpose, can you declare his message illegal? Imagine the havoc.
Systems like ORBS were on the right track (though they're hardly the perfect solution) - let us, the users of the 'net, regulate spam. Unfortunately, due to sue-happy spammers, such systems are now being rendered ineffective (why does it seem that wherever the courts get involved, matters just get worse and worse...?).
Legislation is not the answer. If the courts would only throw such frivolous lawsuits out, we *could* take care of the problem ourselves.
How many of you still get junk faxes? I still get several a day (business fax of PhantomCow.com) -- and I call every one of them back to get "removed" off thier list!! There is a law in place that will let me sue a junk faxer for $500, but it has to be a second offense, and you have to document everything.
Just because you have a law, and give people the right to sue a company for spam, or whatever, it is still a hassle for the average Joe, and he won't do anything about it -- execept hit the delete key!
Newt-dog
My Doctor prescribed daily nasal saline irrigation, hehe
without loosing all the freedom we now enjoy.
How do you find out where the spam originated?
Who do you sue, the spammer or the company the spammer is trying to make you a customer of?
How do you prevent abuse?
The only way to stop it is to make everyone log on with a unique authentication, and track that authentication. something I'm not interested in. thats for sure.
Now who would be interested in knowing what anybody does on the internet at any given time?
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Don't worry about the "HTML laden" pun... I was only making a joke, not judging your English :)
The fact that I quoted the "HMTL" only comes from me being a lazy git using copy+paste.
On filtering, perhaps you missed my point... I actually use POPFile myself. What I'm suggesting here is exploiting Microsoft's dominance. After all, almost everyone except hobbyists (meaning the usual Average "how do i get the internet" Joe) use Outlook/O.Express. Many I talk to don't even know that other email clients exist, let alone know about filtering. Those people are the majority. I know of a few of those who do fall for spam... it's usually me who has to educate them afterwards, and of course remove viruses on occasions.
But no, it doesn't help when it comes to downloading... as you said yourself, that's where broadband will (eventually!) help. I guess what I'm saying is that we need as many weapons as possible, and Microsoft is like a weapon of mass destruction.
Why does there need to be a law?
Let each ISP decide for itself whether it wants to take the responsibility of allowing anonymous customers. And let them decide how many emails those anonymous customers are allowed to send.
That's ok, we've tossed freedoms and ideals out the window thousands of times before in the tradition of this country. God damnit, if we can do it one more time (and I assure you, we'll do it not one but thousands more times) then let it be to stop the greatest threat and menace that faces modern times!!! SPAM!!
The main effect of these anti-spam laws will be to make pink contracts invalid and unenforcable, as well as help prevent mozilla being forced to remove baysean filtering because of lawsuits. If a spammer wishes to sue his/her ISP for terminating their service in violation of a pink contract, they have to rely on the courts. If a spammer wishes to sue earthlink or mozilla to stop anti-spam technology, they also have to use the court system. As any contract involving illegal activities is not enforcable, anti-spam laws will help considerably with pink contract spammers. Of course, spammers who use throwaway accounts won't be affected, though credit card fraud laws might help with those who use stolen credit cards.
Well, why do we need any laws anyway?
Less is more !