Selling Your Attention to Spammers

Dotnaught writes "Can the free market stop spam where technology has failed? As described in InformationWeek, Professor Marshall Van Alstyne of Boston University School of Management has co-authored a soon-to-be-published paper that proposes an "attention bond" -- money put up by email senders that recipients collect only if they consider the message a waste of time. Supposedly, this market-based filter performs better than a perfect technology-based solution, with no false positives or negatives. A company called Vanquish already has a working model. Is selling one's attention the answer to spam?"

Comments

Can they really afford my time?

[Rude Turnip]

I bill triple digits per hour (but still less than a phone sex operator at $4.99/min). Doctors and lawyers charge even more. Unsolicted messages are an uncompensable waste of time and a theft of network resources.

Re:Automated Spam Response

[Anonymous Coward]

I never see people complain about dupe comments...

In Soviet Russia, people pay attention.

Re:Automated Spam Response

[booch]

If you're going to fill out the form, please fill it out CORRECTLTY:

Your post advocates a

( ) technical ( ) legislative (*) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(*) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
(*) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
(*) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(*) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
(*) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
(*) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
(*) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
(*) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(*) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

(*) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
(*) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
(*) Sending email should be free
(*) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

( ) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(*) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!

Re:The problem with spam is weak enforcement

[SirSlud]

[sarcasm]In fact, I advocate taking anybody working on anything deemed less bad than child pornography and put them on it. In fact, we should not be working on anything except for child pornography. Actually, there are some dudes working on petty things like identity theft, corperate misdeeds, murders, grand theft auto, etc .... [/sarcasm]

why does the casual observer allow objectivity and reasonable thought to fall by the wayside when dealing with the very things that require them the most?

I was a sexual abuse victim when I was young, and I dont see whats so bad about the parent post. Child pornography department just fills in the vacant slot or two and the experts train the newbies. Thats how it should be done .. let the domain knowledge permeate the entire law enforcement departments that deal with online crime. You're not dismantling the original group, you're just letting them share some of their expertise with other departments that so clearly need them .. expertise they had no choice in gaining from working in such an important field.

There doesn't seem to be much motivation to put that kind of knowledge on spam enforcement, but I think the parent poster is right: why isn't there? Obviously spam isn't nearly as bad as child pornography, but judging by some of the porn sites they advertise via unsolicited spam, the industries certainly intertwine. Its not like a potential victim becomes a stupid slut who made her own decision to sell her body the second she goes from non-legal to legal age. I've seen enough stuff in my lifetime to know that claiming you're a consentual adult isn't exactly 100% true if somebody is pulling your strings.