Sorry, but Sygate has one major problem - it does not attempt to intercept and filter traffic over the loopback interface (127.0.0.1). This means that if you are running any proxy software that uses this address (e.g. Proxomitron, WebWasher, Naviscope, MailWasher) then any and every application on your system can access the Internet using the rules you have set up for the proxy. See the loopback vulnerability thread from the Sygate forums for more detailed information.
This is also a problem for the firewall I use, Outpost since it has a default System rule of "Allow Loopback" - however this can be removed, fixing the problem. You then need (and will be prompted) to create separate rules for each application that needs access via the proxy software.
That's about as secure as you can make an average home users computer without uberexpensive corporate solutions
I'm going to disagree with you again here...running anti-virus software is still a necessity and if you download a lot from "questionable" sources (IRC, P2P, Usenet), then Anti-Trojan software is strongly recommended. The best here appear to be TDS-3 and TrojanHunter. Also, running an application firewall (one that intercepts calls between Windows applications) like System Safety Monitor can do a lot to prevent malware from getting started on your system.
Sygate has one major problem - it does not attempt to intercept and filter traffic over the loopback interface (127.0.0.1). This means that if you are running any proxy software that uses this address (e.g. Proxomitron, WebWasher, Naviscope, MailWasher) then any and every application on your system can access the Internet using the rules you have set up for the proxy. See the loopback vulnerability thread from the Sygate forums for more detailed information.
This is also a problem for the firewall I use, Outpost since it has a default System rule of "Allow Loopback" - however this can be removed, fixing the problem. You then need (and will be prompted) to create separate rules for each application that needs access via the proxy software.
If you liked AtGuard, then check out Outpost Firewall. Version 1.0 is free while version 2.0 (better against leaktests, new logging system) has a 30-day trial. This allows you to craft specific rules (direction, protocol, port, IP address) for each application and has a number of plugins for other tasks (ad-filtering, activex/java/script/cookie control, DNS cache). There's an online guide and a user-run support forum.
For anti-virus software, have a look at Grisoft AVG. It's free for personal use, though you need to supply a valid email to get a registration code.
Pardon me - I took the first two sentences in your previous comment to be a rant at SpamCop as a power-abuser! (given the number of pro-spammer comments this thread is attracting, hopefully an understandable error...)
The problem with a whitelist is that it removes the ability to receive email from anyone (which is an important ability for some and required for others, e.g. support addresses).
Bayesian filters have the downside that spammers will eventually craft emails so bland that they cannot be filtered without tagging a lot of legitimate email.
The problem with spam is that it combines 2 qualities - it is in bulk and it is unsolicited. If senders of unsolicited email could be restricted in quantity (to, say, a couple of thousand emails a day) then the spam problem would disappear.
The most effective method in my view, would be to create a separate protocol for bulk email (to cover legitimate senders like newsletters and list servers) where the following process would occur:
sender applies for a "bulk ID" from a bulk server, providing verifiable details (like source IP address) and publicises this ID on their web page;
prospective recipients submit their address with this bulk ID to indicate they want to recieve emails from this source; this information is kept on the bulk server and not made available to the sender (except perhaps for statistical information);
sender sends email to bulk server which then forwards a copy to each recipient;
if emails from a list are no longer desired, the recipient sends an unsubscribe message to the bulk server.
As the bulk server stores recipient addresses and does the sending, this prevents a spammer from emailing directly. The bulk servers could use SMTP to send emails (with ISPs maintaining a whitelist of legitimate ones to prevent spammers from setting up their own bulk server) to maintain compatibility with existing email clients.
For unsolicited emails, stick with SMTP (too much work to switch to a new protocol) but add measures to cut the bulk (since we no longer have to worry about newsletters and legit bulk senders). The easiest would be to impose rate limits on mail received from other SMTP servers (e.g. 10 emails/second) and adding extra delays in response times for those servers that do not supply a confirmation key for each message (this key being computationally expensive to derive but quick to verify). This would require changes to mail server software (far easier than getting every user to upgrade their client) and could be rolled out gradually. Bulk servers would have to be supplied and maintained by ISPs (much like email/news servers are currently) but this could be financed by charging business users.
Someone has to protect the public from the people who regularly misuse their power online. To this day, that was Spamcop.
Do you really have a clue as to how Spamcop works? It takes emails submitted by users and finds the sending server (as well as the ISP for any webpages spamvertised therein). If you've had a false complaint from SpamCop then your beef is with the submitter, not SpamCop itself - and you should contact SpamCop to take that account offline.
the anti-spam and anti-virus corporations profit from buggy Microsoft software
Anti-virus companies yes - but most anti-spam bodies are volunteers who are sick of seeing their inboxes stuffed with crap. I am sure that they would be delighted (as would most people online) to see spam and spammers go for good - your police analogy (which already breaks down somewhat given the consequences of drugs, i.e. armed gangs fighting for control over areas) is completely off the mark.
While most P2P apps are riddled with the stuff (kudos to Shareaza and MLDonkey for steering clear of it), malware can crop up in some surprising places. I once downloaded a Windows Theme from DebbiesThemes. It came packaged in an.exe file - when running this it offered to install TopText, then silently (and without asking) tried to install the following:
Using an application firewall like System Safety Monitor can help limit these (it intercepts calls between applications and allows you to permit or deny them) but this does require an experienced user.
Spammer ahoy! Lock up your open relays! Ready your blocklists!
In case you didn't bother reading the article, it mentioned that the volume of spam was doubling every 10 weeks. This is nothing short of a threat to the viability of email itself. Would you even bother opening your inbox, if you knew that you would have to delete several thousand irrelevant, unwanted and (in many cases) fraudulent emails just to get to the 10 or 20 useful ones from friends and family? Spammers are intensely selfish - being quite happy to abuse the network infrastructure provided and paid for by others for their own gain.
Your statement about the meaninglessness of the internet shows that you haven't a clue (outside of those spam-rimmed spectacles) what the Internet is about. People do not wish to be deluged with unsolicited junk any more than the likes of Alan Ralsky likes receiving tons of junk snail mail.
Of course, you can try to prove me wrong - post your email and real address and let's see if you can swallow your own medicine.
A number of Psion users agree with you and have created an online petition to have the Symbian/EPOC (not Sybian you perverts!) OS as an option (as used in Psion's previous NetBook, 5/5Mx and Revo/Mako).
A NetBook Pro forum has been set up at PDAStreet/Psionplace to discuss this - with plenty of posters bemoaning the lack of EPOC.
You do not need a domain from your ISP - just use throwaway email addresses from sites like SpamGourmet or SneakEmail.
However, these will only address the issue of a website or online store passing your email address around when they shouldn't (or idiots like Lycos and Yahoo who think sending emails to registered users is cool even when they have not opted in for any). It will not cope with the hardcore spammer who uses spiders to pull addresses from webpages/usenet postings or those that use random-garbage@yourdomain.com (I have been seeing a couple of these). It also does not address the waste of bandwidth/mailserver storage space imposed by delivering unwanted spam (which means higher access fees for everyone). For these, blacklisting is the only palliative - and the fact that spammers are now resorting to DDoSing the blacklist servers should be the best testament to how effective they have been (not to mention some of the pro-spammer AC postings here).
Ultimately, the only long-term solution is to make spam unprofitable - and given that most of it is generated by US businesses (as covered in this MSN article), this would be best done by imposing heavy fines on companies using, or profiting from, spam.
Okay, this is a marketroid troll - and possibly a spammer also... but I'll bite this one.
SPAM is a form of direct marketing... and The main problem with SPAM is that it is undirected. Nice, contradictory start. And wrong to boot - the main problem with spam is scale. A dozen companies sending an email a month may be tolerable to many - several hundred thousand doing so is not. And on the Internet, every company can spam, almost regardless of geography or budget making the problem several orders of magnitude worse than postal mail. The lower cost of entry also makes it easier for the real scams and frauds to join the party too.
if there would be no customers reacting to the offers, then the advertisement would be useless Spam is cheap - the article gave rates as low as $25/million emails. That means that even a 0.01% response rate (which would kill any other marketing medium) covers the outlay. And rather more than 0.01% of people could be classed as "got into the gene pool when the lifeguard wasn't looking" - believing even the most seemingly obvious scams.
So we should strive to increase the database quality of the advitisers. This can be done by creating a national/global database were everybody enters his preferences/hobbies and other personal data. No thanks - my personal data is just that, personal. You seem to labour under the delusion that all consumers welcome marketing "information" and just want a way to be able to have the choicest pieces delivered to their door. In reality, the majority of consumers find most advertising a waste of resources and something to be tolerated at best and would not be prepared to disclose personal data just for the dubious privilege of receiving "targetted" junk. Why do you think the Do Not Call list gained 50 million entries? This isn't expressing a preference for marketing, this is a rejection of it completely.
The idea that people should have to submit all their personal details just to have "high quality" marketing is the typical view of the professional marketer who cannot accept the simpler truth that most people would rather do without them completely. If someone wants a product or service, they should make that decision on their own initiative, do research to find the best price/make and then make a purchase. Advertising simply increases the price, promotes presentation over quality of product and, psychologically adds a great deal of stress to most people's lives since it tries to "create" a need by promoting feelings of inadequacy. Feel intimidated on the streets? Get some Nike trainers! Can't pull the opposite sex? This new aftershave/perfume/car will!
self appointed privacy advocates come into play. With their zealot mission to destroy any storage of data of customers or citizens, these people effective block the road to the SPAM solution Quite a statement given that you haven't yet provided a solution. In any case, privacy advocates are about "freedom of choice" - you do know what that is, right? Most databases are assembled without the knowledge, let alone the consent of those included and most only find out about them when incorrect data causes problems (like with identity theft). There are occasions where data does need to be stored - I want to be able to see my bank account transactions or utility bills for the last month. However, I do not want this information then sold on to all and sundry and this is where legislation is needed. In the US, this approach is currently piecemeal (with over 90 separate pieces of legislation covering areas such as health, biometrics and children - a more detailed comparison between the US and EU can be found in this PDF) while the EU has a single directive.
In Europe their lobbying pressure got even "privacy bills" issued which make any high quality direct marketing
A couple of years ago, I was on a flight from Manchester, UK to Brussels, Belgium with Sabena (who have since gone bust). On that flight I took a Gateway Solo 9100 latop (with a built-in DVD player). The onboard instructions did warn against using CD-players, but as I did not intend to use the DVD (just leave it empty), I asked the stewardess if I could use the laptop and she said yes. A few minutes later, she came back saying there was a problem and asked me to switch it off. I did so and removed the DVD player - when I tried again (after letting her know), no further problems occurred.
It was only at the end of the flight when she told me that the pilot had lost contact with ground control - all because of an empty DVD player. I was able to use the laptop on other aircraft (British Airways specifically) without further incident - but this does suggest that some (older) planes are extremely vulnerable to interference.
I would not see a threat here to the GPL - it is generally a permissive rather than a restrictive license (granting users rights over and above the legal minimum rather than trying to take them away) - whatevery SCO and Microsoft would like others to believe. Also, as the GPL requiring more action from the user (distributing the software rather than waggling their index finger), this should differentiate it from the click-throughs also.
Your "all or nothing" statement about accepting implicit licenses seems to overlook the test of reasonableness. Should Microsoft be able to access your computer and disable programs in exchange for supplying you with a (critical) security update for Windows Media Player? Or access confidential data in exchange for Windows 2000 Service Pack 3? There are clauses that one can reasonable expect (limitation of liability) but the above examples and the lack of choice for the non-technical consumer are issues that should be overturned.
The GPL is not an appropriate example to choose for this - it only applies to those distributing the code and acceptance is assuming on distribution only, not use.
Given that most software licenses are drawn up in advance by a company with a (presumably) well-funded legal department, Joe Consumer is placed in a very weak position in terms of fully understanding the implications of every clause. A reasonable court should take this into account, especially with pre-supplied software where the consumer is given no choice (Dell without Windows anyone?) will most likely be ignorant of the (open source) alternatives.
Product Activation is not about preventing piracy - it's about enforcing obsolescence. If Symantec bring out a new version, they can then force existing users to upgrade by no longer issuing keys for their current software (even if the software still works, customers have to consider the possibility of a required reinstallation if their Windows setup gets hosed).
With Symantec, their flagship product is SystemWorks - yet this has had features gradually stripped out of its core components (e.g. application Transport in CleanSweep, DiskEditor in Utilities) so current users have little incentive to "upgrade" otherwise.
Build it yourself and you can be (resonably) certain of there being no "surprise" features like sending data back to the AOL Mothership, or a DRM "upgrade" deciding that you should no longer be able to play back previous recordings. Given the extent to which some Linux distros have improved in ease of installation, it shouldn't be too much longer before a bootable CD-ROM with a complete Freevo setup becomes available.
You should care. Any data collected is going to be sold on to other "personal information" companies. This will not simply be for targeted advertising (and bear in mind that advertising is there to get you to spend money - targeted advertising aims to be more effective at this!) but to find out what you really want so they can charge you more for it. Watch Star Trek/Babylon 5 obsessively? Then they can double your subscription for the Sci-Fi Channel. Keen on American football? Premium price for live Superbowl coverage!
Combine this with other companies' data and you then get some real commercial opportunities - if you eat pizza frequently how do you fancy seeing "targeted" Domino's ads before a feature film, and then being offered a "special bundle" meal offer (available via the "Buy now!" button on the remote) that costs 30% more than what the standard customer pays? Since you mentioned "ashamed", how about receiving a trial issue of PlayDude (with a special, not to be repeated 10% surcharge on their standard subscription!) just because you switched to the wrong channel?
Of course, it is those who will be so forgoing of their privacy who will ultimately be subsidising goods and services to the more cautious - so perhaps I should be encouraging you... Go out and buy those RFID tagged Nikes, order all your books through your Amazon "personalised account", have your data marketed and mined for fun and profit! The new American economy depends on you, citizen!
When trying to assess privacy threats, you need to not only consider current uses, but also future ones. Now - RFID tags are being promoted for supply chain management (as if stores do not already know what is going where) and much has been made of the limited (2 metre or so) range that a reader can pick them up at. So what could happen?
A store installs RFID readers at all entrances/exits ("to detect and deter shoplifters").
This scheme is expanded to cover all branches of that chain ("if a shoplifter enters another of our branches, we'll get 'em!") - data is then used to track repeat visitors and note their spend per visit.
Data is shared with other stores ("if anyone shoplifts, we'll all get 'em!") - data collected can then applied to calculate shoppers' movements. This can be linked with credit/store card information to tie movements to individuals - providing past shopping habits, a customer's complaints record (return too many items as faulty and you may no longer be served) and giving stores important information on how to increase impulse purchases.
This data is then passed on to third party marketing firms to collate with other personal information. Your shopping movements are now sold with details of your credit history, employment record and medical information. "Shopaholics" can be identified and either have their credit cut or offered incentives to patronise particular stores (depending on who uses this information). Police are provided with access in order to "cut crime" but are also able to track people for other purposes (e.g. automatic parking fines - "Sorry ma'am, according to your RFID record you spent 40 minutes in the town centre while only paying for 30 minutes of parking").
Crime prevention stepped up - RFID readers placed at strategic public locations (street corners, crossings) to allow for easier tracking of reported criminals. Activated tags included in Internet/mail order purchases in order to gain subsidies from third party marketeers who now have a substantial stake in "growing" the RFID database. Businesses pay for real-time access (funding the network's expansion) in order to be able to flash special offers to selected customers' mobile phones when they get close to a branch.
Microsoft introduce an OS for RFID chips - mass chip failures and security breaches then cause the whole scheme to fall apart and RFID is abandoned as an ignominious failure (OK, I'm making this bit up).
Keeping your number secret doesn't protect you from the random number diallers. While I have had no SMS spam yet, I did receive a marketing phone call where the caller said that their computer had generated mobile numbers at random. This was an attempt to promote Orange's mobile network - and I was considering moving to Orange at the time. I wrote a letter of complaint to Orange and moved to Virgin Mobile instead.
Personal SMS "firewalls" allowing people to reject messages except those meeting specific criteria would seem the best solution here - after all there should be less scope for forging sender ID (SMS gateways excepted, but these should still be blockable).
P2P networks are like web sites - they offer content which you elect to download or visit. Spam is "push" content which is delivered to you regardless of your preferences - this is the major difference.
As for targetting cellular phone companies, they can wield far greater control over their networks than ISPs can over the Internet - and can eliminate the threat of SMS spam simply by ensuring that any and every sender pays a "per message" fee.
Sounds like a good way to get onto some spam lists...."We have a job offer from the son of a former Nigerian dictator who needs some herbal viagra to expand his...".
Further, if it's an obvious fake job then the recruiter is probably going to be stiffing both you and any employer. Worst case, the recruiter could be the sort who spams employers with resumes/CVs, and this could result in you losing potential jobs (there are employers who blacklist applicants who are presented by multiple agencies).
All the outsourcing examples given share one common requirement - the need for reliable, high-speed Internet connections between central HQ and the workhou^H^H^H^Hsatellite offices. While a lot of network management can be done remotely, there is still a need for a physical presence - even if only to check that the cables haven't come loose...
That means even more work - for 300-400 users (say) who wants to collect all those MAC addresses? Not to mention having to enter them all onto the server! *shudder* (this reminds me of a major network which used MAC address filtering to limit WAN access - anyone needing to send data between sites had to have their MAC address entered on several routers and bridges. And yes, these had a horrid CLI where you could not even view the existing several thousand entries of the MAC address table!)
While there are ways to automate the process, these rely on using DHCP to assign a "probationary" IP address so that users can visit a special web page, register their MAC there and then receive a "full" address. This effort makes sense on a college campus concerned about controlling access for a term/semester - but not for a weekend event...
Slashdot Mirror
This is also a problem for the firewall I use, Outpost since it has a default System rule of "Allow Loopback" - however this can be removed, fixing the problem. You then need (and will be prompted) to create separate rules for each application that needs access via the proxy software.
That's about as secure as you can make an average home users computer without uberexpensive corporate solutions
I'm going to disagree with you again here...running anti-virus software is still a necessity and if you download a lot from "questionable" sources (IRC, P2P, Usenet), then Anti-Trojan software is strongly recommended. The best here appear to be TDS-3 and TrojanHunter. Also, running an application firewall (one that intercepts calls between Windows applications) like System Safety Monitor can do a lot to prevent malware from getting started on your system.
This is also a problem for the firewall I use, Outpost since it has a default System rule of "Allow Loopback" - however this can be removed, fixing the problem. You then need (and will be prompted) to create separate rules for each application that needs access via the proxy software.
My understanding was that Playboy featured interviews with politicians, making it (at least in part) more of a cerebral workout.
Hmmm...politicians...maybe it should be banned!
If you liked AtGuard, then check out Outpost Firewall. Version 1.0 is free while version 2.0 (better against leaktests, new logging system) has a 30-day trial. This allows you to craft specific rules (direction, protocol, port, IP address) for each application and has a number of plugins for other tasks (ad-filtering, activex/java/script/cookie control, DNS cache). There's an online guide and a user-run support forum.
For anti-virus software, have a look at Grisoft AVG. It's free for personal use, though you need to supply a valid email to get a registration code.
Pardon me - I took the first two sentences in your previous comment to be a rant at SpamCop as a power-abuser! (given the number of pro-spammer comments this thread is attracting, hopefully an understandable error...)
Bayesian filters have the downside that spammers will eventually craft emails so bland that they cannot be filtered without tagging a lot of legitimate email.
The problem with spam is that it combines 2 qualities - it is in bulk and it is unsolicited. If senders of unsolicited email could be restricted in quantity (to, say, a couple of thousand emails a day) then the spam problem would disappear.
The most effective method in my view, would be to create a separate protocol for bulk email (to cover legitimate senders like newsletters and list servers) where the following process would occur:
- sender applies for a "bulk ID" from a bulk server, providing verifiable details (like source IP address) and publicises this ID on their web page;
- prospective recipients submit their address with this bulk ID to indicate they want to recieve emails from this source; this information is kept on the bulk server and not made available to the sender (except perhaps for statistical information);
- sender sends email to bulk server which then forwards a copy to each recipient;
- if emails from a list are no longer desired, the recipient sends an unsubscribe message to the bulk server.
As the bulk server stores recipient addresses and does the sending, this prevents a spammer from emailing directly. The bulk servers could use SMTP to send emails (with ISPs maintaining a whitelist of legitimate ones to prevent spammers from setting up their own bulk server) to maintain compatibility with existing email clients.For unsolicited emails, stick with SMTP (too much work to switch to a new protocol) but add measures to cut the bulk (since we no longer have to worry about newsletters and legit bulk senders). The easiest would be to impose rate limits on mail received from other SMTP servers (e.g. 10 emails/second) and adding extra delays in response times for those servers that do not supply a confirmation key for each message (this key being computationally expensive to derive but quick to verify). This would require changes to mail server software (far easier than getting every user to upgrade their client) and could be rolled out gradually. Bulk servers would have to be supplied and maintained by ISPs (much like email/news servers are currently) but this could be financed by charging business users.
Do you really have a clue as to how Spamcop works? It takes emails submitted by users and finds the sending server (as well as the ISP for any webpages spamvertised therein). If you've had a false complaint from SpamCop then your beef is with the submitter, not SpamCop itself - and you should contact SpamCop to take that account offline.
the anti-spam and anti-virus corporations profit from buggy Microsoft software
Anti-virus companies yes - but most anti-spam bodies are volunteers who are sick of seeing their inboxes stuffed with crap. I am sure that they would be delighted (as would most people online) to see spam and spammers go for good - your police analogy (which already breaks down somewhat given the consequences of drugs, i.e. armed gangs fighting for control over areas) is completely off the mark.
- iGetNet
- Bonzi Buddy
- Lycos Sidesearch
Using an application firewall like System Safety Monitor can help limit these (it intercepts calls between applications and allows you to permit or deny them) but this does require an experienced user.Spammer ahoy! Lock up your open relays! Ready your blocklists!
In case you didn't bother reading the article, it mentioned that the volume of spam was doubling every 10 weeks. This is nothing short of a threat to the viability of email itself. Would you even bother opening your inbox, if you knew that you would have to delete several thousand irrelevant, unwanted and (in many cases) fraudulent emails just to get to the 10 or 20 useful ones from friends and family? Spammers are intensely selfish - being quite happy to abuse the network infrastructure provided and paid for by others for their own gain.
Your statement about the meaninglessness of the internet shows that you haven't a clue (outside of those spam-rimmed spectacles) what the Internet is about. People do not wish to be deluged with unsolicited junk any more than the likes of Alan Ralsky likes receiving tons of junk snail mail.
Of course, you can try to prove me wrong - post your email and real address and let's see if you can swallow your own medicine.
A number of Psion users agree with you and have created an online petition to have the Symbian/EPOC (not Sybian you perverts!) OS as an option (as used in Psion's previous NetBook, 5/5Mx and Revo/Mako).
A NetBook Pro forum has been set up at PDAStreet/Psionplace to discuss this - with plenty of posters bemoaning the lack of EPOC.
However, these will only address the issue of a website or online store passing your email address around when they shouldn't (or idiots like Lycos and Yahoo who think sending emails to registered users is cool even when they have not opted in for any). It will not cope with the hardcore spammer who uses spiders to pull addresses from webpages/usenet postings or those that use random-garbage@yourdomain.com (I have been seeing a couple of these). It also does not address the waste of bandwidth/mailserver storage space imposed by delivering unwanted spam (which means higher access fees for everyone). For these, blacklisting is the only palliative - and the fact that spammers are now resorting to DDoSing the blacklist servers should be the best testament to how effective they have been (not to mention some of the pro-spammer AC postings here).
Ultimately, the only long-term solution is to make spam unprofitable - and given that most of it is generated by US businesses (as covered in this MSN article), this would be best done by imposing heavy fines on companies using, or profiting from, spam.
SPAM is a form of direct marketing... and The main problem with SPAM is that it is undirected.
Nice, contradictory start. And wrong to boot - the main problem with spam is scale. A dozen companies sending an email a month may be tolerable to many - several hundred thousand doing so is not. And on the Internet, every company can spam, almost regardless of geography or budget making the problem several orders of magnitude worse than postal mail. The lower cost of entry also makes it easier for the real scams and frauds to join the party too.
if there would be no customers reacting to the offers, then the advertisement would be useless
Spam is cheap - the article gave rates as low as $25/million emails. That means that even a 0.01% response rate (which would kill any other marketing medium) covers the outlay. And rather more than 0.01% of people could be classed as "got into the gene pool when the lifeguard wasn't looking" - believing even the most seemingly obvious scams.
So we should strive to increase the database quality of the advitisers. This can be done by creating a national/global database were everybody enters his preferences/hobbies and other personal data.
No thanks - my personal data is just that, personal. You seem to labour under the delusion that all consumers welcome marketing "information" and just want a way to be able to have the choicest pieces delivered to their door. In reality, the majority of consumers find most advertising a waste of resources and something to be tolerated at best and would not be prepared to disclose personal data just for the dubious privilege of receiving "targetted" junk. Why do you think the Do Not Call list gained 50 million entries? This isn't expressing a preference for marketing, this is a rejection of it completely.
The idea that people should have to submit all their personal details just to have "high quality" marketing is the typical view of the professional marketer who cannot accept the simpler truth that most people would rather do without them completely. If someone wants a product or service, they should make that decision on their own initiative, do research to find the best price/make and then make a purchase. Advertising simply increases the price, promotes presentation over quality of product and, psychologically adds a great deal of stress to most people's lives since it tries to "create" a need by promoting feelings of inadequacy. Feel intimidated on the streets? Get some Nike trainers! Can't pull the opposite sex? This new aftershave/perfume/car will!
self appointed privacy advocates come into play. With their zealot mission to destroy any storage of data of customers or citizens, these people effective block the road to the SPAM solution
Quite a statement given that you haven't yet provided a solution. In any case, privacy advocates are about "freedom of choice" - you do know what that is, right? Most databases are assembled without the knowledge, let alone the consent of those included and most only find out about them when incorrect data causes problems (like with identity theft). There are occasions where data does need to be stored - I want to be able to see my bank account transactions or utility bills for the last month. However, I do not want this information then sold on to all and sundry and this is where legislation is needed. In the US, this approach is currently piecemeal (with over 90 separate pieces of legislation covering areas such as health, biometrics and children - a more detailed comparison between the US and EU can be found in this PDF) while the EU has a single directive.
In Europe their lobbying pressure got even "privacy bills" issued which make any high quality direct marketing
It was only at the end of the flight when she told me that the pilot had lost contact with ground control - all because of an empty DVD player. I was able to use the laptop on other aircraft (British Airways specifically) without further incident - but this does suggest that some (older) planes are extremely vulnerable to interference.
Your "all or nothing" statement about accepting implicit licenses seems to overlook the test of reasonableness. Should Microsoft be able to access your computer and disable programs in exchange for supplying you with a (critical) security update for Windows Media Player? Or access confidential data in exchange for Windows 2000 Service Pack 3? There are clauses that one can reasonable expect (limitation of liability) but the above examples and the lack of choice for the non-technical consumer are issues that should be overturned.
The GPL is not an appropriate example to choose for this - it only applies to those distributing the code and acceptance is assuming on distribution only, not use.
Given that most software licenses are drawn up in advance by a company with a (presumably) well-funded legal department, Joe Consumer is placed in a very weak position in terms of fully understanding the implications of every clause. A reasonable court should take this into account, especially with pre-supplied software where the consumer is given no choice (Dell without Windows anyone?) will most likely be ignorant of the (open source) alternatives.
With Symantec, their flagship product is SystemWorks - yet this has had features gradually stripped out of its core components (e.g. application Transport in CleanSweep, DiskEditor in Utilities) so current users have little incentive to "upgrade" otherwise.
Just like Microsoft with Windows XP...
Build it yourself and you can be (resonably) certain of there being no "surprise" features like sending data back to the AOL Mothership, or a DRM "upgrade" deciding that you should no longer be able to play back previous recordings. Given the extent to which some Linux distros have improved in ease of installation, it shouldn't be too much longer before a bootable CD-ROM with a complete Freevo setup becomes available.
Combine this with other companies' data and you then get some real commercial opportunities - if you eat pizza frequently how do you fancy seeing "targeted" Domino's ads before a feature film, and then being offered a "special bundle" meal offer (available via the "Buy now!" button on the remote) that costs 30% more than what the standard customer pays? Since you mentioned "ashamed", how about receiving a trial issue of PlayDude (with a special, not to be repeated 10% surcharge on their standard subscription!) just because you switched to the wrong channel?
Of course, it is those who will be so forgoing of their privacy who will ultimately be subsidising goods and services to the more cautious - so perhaps I should be encouraging you... Go out and buy those RFID tagged Nikes, order all your books through your Amazon "personalised account", have your data marketed and mined for fun and profit! The new American economy depends on you, citizen!
Send back some white powder instead...that should liven up their day.
Personal SMS "firewalls" allowing people to reject messages except those meeting specific criteria would seem the best solution here - after all there should be less scope for forging sender ID (SMS gateways excepted, but these should still be blockable).
As for targetting cellular phone companies, they can wield far greater control over their networks than ISPs can over the Internet - and can eliminate the threat of SMS spam simply by ensuring that any and every sender pays a "per message" fee.
Further, if it's an obvious fake job then the recruiter is probably going to be stiffing both you and any employer. Worst case, the recruiter could be the sort who spams employers with resumes/CVs, and this could result in you losing potential jobs (there are employers who blacklist applicants who are presented by multiple agencies).
All the outsourcing examples given share one common requirement - the need for reliable, high-speed Internet connections between central HQ and the workhou^H^H^H^Hsatellite offices. While a lot of network management can be done remotely, there is still a need for a physical presence - even if only to check that the cables haven't come loose...
While there are ways to automate the process, these rely on using DHCP to assign a "probationary" IP address so that users can visit a special web page, register their MAC there and then receive a "full" address. This effort makes sense on a college campus concerned about controlling access for a term/semester - but not for a weekend event...