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
NetInfo connection failed for server 127.0.0.1/local
Rejoice and run to the streets, freedom from spam is near!!!
Ignore the "p2p is theft" trolls, they're just uninformed
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...
If you ask me, spam is a good reason to get broadband. I'm tired of trying to download 25+ bloated, HMTL laden, emails every day over my sub-56K connection.
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 spam is really a problem with the fundamental flexability of the smtp system, I do not see that politicians will have much success controlling it. It seems to me that the only really successful campaigns against offensive internet use are grass-roots based, starting with end users becoming genuinely fed up and accepting new (possibly painfully new) techniques, instead of just being annoyed, but unwilling to take the next step. Perhaps ./ should have an article examining the current alternatives to smtp and easy ways ./ readers can make it a part of their companies, and homes.
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 spam is outlawed, only outlaws will get YOUNG HOT SLUTS!!! AND VIAGRA NOW!!
Best Windows Freeware
Paramilitary instead of Parliamentary?
For a second there, I was thinking to myself "Man, those Brits take spam SERIOUSLY."
"Look! There! Evil, pure and simple from the Eighth Dimension!" --Buckaroo Banzai
Well, OK, spam isn't a "sausage" but if sterile canning systems had been around in abundance equal to that of instestines when people were first thinking up sausage, do you think anyone would quite recognize the difference? Go with sausage, just for a minute.
;))
... still true?); I don't want little pink stamps of inspection / taxation on all my emails.
... the U.S. Postal Service) reminded me of what sort of people, if not which people per se, will increasingly hold power to approve email as any such laws click into bureaucratic place.
Despite being of a basically liberal bent, I have at times so despaired of spam that even *new laws* sounded attractive. Various anti-spam measures (I like the *potential*-payment plan of pennyblack, mentioned on Slashdot at least once before), including of late vastly improved spam-filtering methods, I think are a better solution. (Yes, Declan McCullagh has made this argument better than I am ready to right now
Even though it sounds nice to say that we should "ban spam," unless all email is routed through a big Spam Whittler, any such ban is no better than just enforcing property rights laws re: trespass etc. In Italy, CDs are all stamped with a little pink stamp of government approval / taxation (at least 10 years ago there were
A visit today to a franchise location of the U.S. Postal "Service" (remember, "dot-com, not dot-gov" since [hold the guffaws in the rear] they're not a government agency, according to so high an authority as
timothy
jrnl: http://tinyurl.com/c2l8yr / foes: http://tinyurl.com/ckjno5
Just tell us who to invade and we'll be right on it!
I'm not in the UK, so I can't tell my story there, but spam has ruined my life!
First of all, it's almost impossible to answer all of it! But that's just the beginning of the problem.
At first, I thought it was great. I got tons of credit, a new mortgage at 0%, and a fat check from some guy in Nigeria. But now my 'manhood' and my wife's breasts are so huge that neither of us can move or even feed ourselves.
If we didn't have the army of hot teenage sluts to take care of us, we'd be dead by now.
I hope they will put an end to spam before any more innocent people suffer this horrible fate.
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
- to accept email only with correct (recognized and traceable) e-signature;
- to give (for free!) e-signing software (for example GPG) to all POP customers;
- to give (for free!) e-signing forms for all web-mail customers;
Then:- all email will be traceable;
- therefore many temporary spam agents will afraid to spam as they know they are easier to be found and punished;
- it will be much easier to implement more robust black and white lists;
- therefore, many spam sources will cease their spam operations (and perhaps look for alternative ways to make money) as the spam will be very ineffective na d most likely unprofitable;
Conclusion: e-signature and PKI - that's the only way to clean Internet from spammers!Less is more !