If elected officials want to know how you feel, they can poll their constituents, or use polls done by others.
Our government is run by a small fraction of the population chosen through popular vote. If they govern according to their own views(as they do now), we have a democratic oligarchy. If they figure out the views of their constituents, and govern based on that, we would have a
Representative democracy.
We elect people who do not promise to govern according to constituent's views(they may say "interests" instead). If an official wanted to do so, they could poll constituents instead of only giving weight to those with the time to write in.
If that's what we collectively wanted, we could require accurate representation from candidates and elected officials. We don't, and so shouldn't complain when a "representative" governs how THEY see fit and ignores our views. That's the arrangement we've chosen.
Anonymity is generally undesirable, since our relationships with others require that our family, friends, and acquaintances recognize us for ourselves.
Privacy means I don't have to show you my medical records. Secrecy, to me, means trying to keep information from someone affected by that information, such as hiding a crime you committed. A right to privacy doesn't mean a right to keep secrects, or you would have a right to halt police investigations of your actions. Likewise, I don't see a basis for a right to anonymity.
If anything, most beneficial relationships understandably forbid anonymity. Trust requires repeated experiences over time with an identifiable individual.
DOS attacks, spam, terroristic threats, and other forms of network abuse require anonymity to avoid accountability. Lack of anonymity makes it difficult to abuse a network more than once. I have difficulty imagining a situation where someone would need to contact me anonymously. I would be willing to do without such communication. I don't ever want to be anonymous myself, either. I want the benefit of being known by my past actions.
(I think ACs on Slashdot are a reasonble kind of exception, although abuse may still need to be controlled.)
Publishing On Demand, or POD, is based on this idea.
A short article in a recent TIME attributed this to:
New printing technology it described as a machine that looks like 12 copy machines in one.
Amazon.com and other online book merchants, which reduce marketing costs and bring your book to a wide audience.
One service, for example, charges about $900 for set-up, but hard copies of your book can then be ordered on a single-item basis for pricing comparible to standard publishing methods. (Here I refer the reader to http://www.trafford.com/).
If anyone has expeience with this, please post. I can get into hard copies so much easier than reading a monitor. You can't curl up on a sofa with the monitor.
If I couldn't read a guy's resume online, I would go to my boss to use a machine without cyberpatrol blocking. Why even mention it to the resume's author, when you know the resume is not pornographic?
Incidentally, I have a program which blocks all hatred and bigotry, and is 100% effective. It does so by blocking 100% of the internet -- but it works!
His ISP said he needed a 2 terabyte mailbox to accept all the return-to-sender email*. They only sell that size mailbox by the year, so he was looking at a $20,000 start-up cost. He couldn't afford it...the days of cost-shifting were gone.
(The ISP explained that all POP servers only accept email with a valid reply-to address, which they querey. After the first thousand recipients send your spam back, as either return-to-sender, requests for more info, or mailbombs, your box is full. The other POP servers refuse to handle any more mail since the reply-to is no longer valid, and no other spam gets delivered.)
Who was the ISP? Any ISP of the future. This is an example of how this problem could be solved without any new legislation(although it may help in the interim). Holes in the email system need to be addressed so it's on par with ground mail. The problem with legislation that "requires" spammers to tag their spam is with enforcement. Spammers are already sending illegal pyramid schemes and violating their ISP's acceptable-use policies. Prevention is the better way to go here.
*Yes, if there was a way to return spam to the sender you could use the analogy of comparing it to junk (ground) mail. But since spam is defined by it's inability to be returned, that comparison doesn't holds.
"Posted by CmdrTaco on Tuesday April 20, @10:59AM EDT, from the this-ought-to-get-interesting dept.
Stephen writes 'UK ISP Virgin Net is suing a former subscriber for loss of business caused by his alleged spam'...I personally think that we should legalize spam, but require the word 'SPAM' or 'AD' to appear in th subject so we can procmail it out. Or just set our sendmails up to discard it. And I think failure to clearly label spam should be punishable by death."
Even the above would not cover "joe-ing", or the disparaging of another's reputation through false headers...what just occured here at slashdot.
If false headers and false reply-to addresses were not allowed, because mail relay protocols couls somehow intercept them, spam would cease to exist.
When protocols are in place that require a genuine reply to and headers, they can be used whether they are required by law or not. After all, there is no law that specifically protects the right to use false headers and false reply-to addresses.
I'm thinking here returning any email without a verifiable reply-to, and RBL(blacklist) the source of any any email without valid headers. The reply-to address could be queried somehow, such as when a large mailing is detected...there are probably other, better ideas how to implement this, but it would not require any new legislation. Just a consensus.
The flood of angry replies would serve as a kind of DOS attack/mailbomb of any spammer's mailbox. The trafic would help shift the cost of spam back to the sender, and eliminate the profit motive. I guess a full mailbox would have to count as a false reply-to, and halt any further relaying of a given spam mailing. So once you get 5megs of replies, the spam stops...or you have to pay for a bigger and bigger mailbox (5 gigs+?).
Support UserFriendly Website - I AM NOT IN ON IT
on
Web Sites Shut Down
·
· Score: 1
1. Legal reason for not naming the third party: it would be libelous since the whole thing is a prank, i.e. not obvious satire or parody. 2. Reason for not simply announcing on their home page "This is no prank": it is a prank. If this were legit, they could name the party involved openly, and declare it's not related to April 1st. They have conspicuously not done so. It's a good prank, but maybe not so funny.
We write concerning your site, SEGFAULT.ORG, which we recently visited. While we appreciate the humor, and the backhand compliment, we have an obligation to protect the distinctive nature of our client's trademarks. As we are certain you can appreciate, our clients have expended substantial time and resources in developing the considerable recognition and goodwill associated with their names and marks.
We understand and appreciate that parody is intended, and that parody is permitted under the trademark laws. Nevertheless, we believe that your use of our client's trademarks on your web site is against the spirit of this allowance.
In the interest of cooperation, we would appreciate it if you could remove the stories containing offending remarks against our clients, or alter them to portray our clients in a more positive light.
I will look forward to receving your reply by March 27, 1999. Thank you in advance for your understanding of our need to protect our client's rights.
And here's the letter from http://www.jokewallpaper.com/letter1.htm:
Dear Mr. Kremer,
We write concerning your NETSCRAPE NEGOTIATOR web site, which we recently visited. While we appreciate the humor, and the backhanded compliment, we have an obligation to protect the distinctive nature of the NETSCAPE trademark, logo and interface. As we are certain you can appreciate, Netscape has expended substantial time and resources in developing the considerable recognition of and goodwill associated with the NETSCAPE name and mark.
We understand and appreciate that parody is intended, and that parody is permitted under the trademark laws. Nevertheless, we believe that your use of our logo and a similar name creates a possibility of confusion and dilutes the distinctiveness of our marks.
In the interests of supporting humor on the Internet, but at the same time protecting our rights, we would be willing to grant you a short-term, three month non-exclusive license to use the mark and logo, as long as you are willing to remove the confusing materials at the end of the three month period.
I will look forward to receiving your reply by June 18, 1996. Thank you in advance for your understanding of our need to protect our trademark rights.
Sincerely, Mitchell Baker Associate General Counsel
-end letter-
This solves the mystery, then, except for who the sender is.
Slashdot Mirror
Our government is run by a small fraction of the population chosen through popular vote. If they govern according to their own views(as they do now), we have a democratic oligarchy. If they figure out the views of their constituents, and govern based on that, we would have a Representative democracy.
We elect people who do not promise to govern according to constituent's views(they may say "interests" instead). If an official wanted to do so, they could poll constituents instead of only giving weight to those with the time to write in.
If that's what we collectively wanted, we could require accurate representation from candidates and elected officials. We don't, and so shouldn't complain when a "representative" governs how THEY see fit and ignores our views. That's the arrangement we've chosen.
Anonymity is generally undesirable, since our relationships with others require that our family, friends, and acquaintances recognize us for ourselves.
Privacy means I don't have to show you my medical records. Secrecy, to me, means trying to keep information from someone affected by that information, such as hiding a crime you committed. A right to privacy doesn't mean a right to keep secrects, or you would have a right to halt police investigations of your actions. Likewise, I don't see a basis for a right to anonymity.
If anything, most beneficial relationships understandably forbid anonymity. Trust requires repeated experiences over time with an identifiable individual.
DOS attacks, spam, terroristic threats, and other forms of network abuse require anonymity to avoid accountability. Lack of anonymity makes it difficult to abuse a network more than once. I have difficulty imagining a situation where someone would need to contact me anonymously. I would be willing to do without such communication. I don't ever want to be anonymous myself, either. I want the benefit of being known by my past actions.
(I think ACs on Slashdot are a reasonble kind of exception, although abuse may still need to be controlled.)
Publishing On Demand, or POD, is based on this idea.
A short article in a recent TIME attributed this to:
One service, for example, charges about $900 for set-up, but hard copies of your book can then be ordered on a single-item basis for pricing comparible to standard publishing methods. (Here I refer the reader to http://www.trafford.com/).
If anyone has expeience with this, please post. I can get into hard copies so much easier than reading a monitor. You can't curl up on a sofa with the monitor.
Incidentally, I have a program which blocks all hatred and bigotry, and is 100% effective. It does so by blocking 100% of the internet -- but it works!
(The ISP explained that all POP servers only accept email with a valid reply-to address, which they querey. After the first thousand recipients send your spam back, as either return-to-sender, requests for more info, or mailbombs, your box is full. The other POP servers refuse to handle any more mail since the reply-to is no longer valid, and no other spam gets delivered.)
Who was the ISP? Any ISP of the future. This is an example of how this problem could be solved without any new legislation(although it may help in the interim). Holes in the email system need to be addressed so it's on par with ground mail. The problem with legislation that "requires" spammers to tag their spam is with enforcement. Spammers are already sending illegal pyramid schemes and violating their ISP's acceptable-use policies. Prevention is the better way to go here.
*Yes, if there was a way to return spam to the sender you could use the analogy of comparing it to junk (ground) mail. But since spam is defined by it's inability to be returned, that comparison doesn't holds.
Even the above would not cover "joe-ing", or the disparaging of another's reputation through false headers...what just occured here at slashdot.
If false headers and false reply-to addresses were not allowed, because mail relay protocols couls somehow intercept them, spam would cease to exist.
When protocols are in place that require a genuine reply to and headers, they can be used whether they are required by law or not. After all, there is no law that specifically protects the right to use false headers and false reply-to addresses.
I'm thinking here returning any email without a verifiable reply-to, and RBL(blacklist) the source of any any email without valid headers. The reply-to address could be queried somehow, such as when a large mailing is detected...there are probably other, better ideas how to implement this, but it would not require any new legislation. Just a consensus.
The flood of angry replies would serve as a kind of DOS attack/mailbomb of any spammer's mailbox. The trafic would help shift the cost of spam back to the sender, and eliminate the profit motive. I guess a full mailbox would have to count as a false reply-to, and halt any further relaying of a given spam mailing. So once you get 5megs of replies, the spam stops...or you have to pay for a bigger and bigger mailbox (5 gigs+?).
1. Legal reason for not naming the third party: it would be libelous since the whole thing is a prank, i.e. not obvious satire or parody. 2. Reason for not simply announcing on their home page "This is no prank": it is a prank. If this were legit, they could name the party involved openly, and declare it's not related to April 1st. They have conspicuously not done so. It's a good prank, but maybe not so funny.
Here is the letter to segfault:
Dear Mr Remnant,
We write concerning your site, SEGFAULT.ORG, which we recently visited.
While we appreciate the humor, and the backhand compliment, we have an
obligation to protect the distinctive nature of our client's trademarks.
As we are certain you can appreciate, our clients have expended
substantial time and resources in developing the considerable recognition
and goodwill associated with their names and marks.
We understand and appreciate that parody is intended, and that parody is
permitted under the trademark laws. Nevertheless, we believe that your use
of our client's trademarks on your web site is against the spirit of this
allowance.
In the interest of cooperation, we would appreciate it if you could remove
the stories containing offending remarks against our clients, or alter
them to portray our clients in a more positive light.
I will look forward to receving your reply by March 27, 1999. Thank you in
advance for your understanding of our need to protect our client's rights.
And here's the letter from http://www.jokewallpaper.com/letter1.htm:
Dear Mr. Kremer,
We write concerning your NETSCRAPE NEGOTIATOR web site, which we recently visited. While we appreciate the
humor, and the backhanded compliment, we have an obligation to protect the distinctive nature of the NETSCAPE
trademark, logo and interface. As we are certain you can appreciate, Netscape has expended substantial time and
resources in developing the considerable recognition of and goodwill associated with the NETSCAPE name and mark.
We understand and appreciate that parody is intended, and that parody is permitted under the trademark laws.
Nevertheless, we believe that your use of our logo and a similar name creates a possibility of confusion and dilutes
the distinctiveness of our marks.
In the interests of supporting humor on the Internet, but at the same time protecting our rights, we would be willing to
grant you a short-term, three month non-exclusive license to use the mark and logo, as long as you are willing to
remove the confusing materials at the end of the three month period.
I will look forward to receiving your reply by June 18, 1996. Thank you in advance for your understanding of our need
to protect our trademark rights.
Sincerely,
Mitchell Baker
Associate General Counsel
-end letter-
This solves the mystery, then, except for who the sender is.
-Chris
http://www.usinternet.com/users/c.gregerson/