"Stupid.. Stupid for reporting every little SCO quote. Stupid for thinking courts can allow such lawsuits.. and how in hell can SCO afford all this crap anyway? Stupid..."
Didn't SCaldera just have a "profitable" quarter on the back of a HUGE Microsoft license purch... uhh... License to spread FUD?
Take the blinders off...
This is MICROSOFT versus Linux. SCaldera is just the intermediary.
"Instead of fighting the good fight here, the best thing to do is let this dying ember peter out on its own. Forcing spammers to use more drastic tactics just results in them doing more harm in the long run. If there had been no resistance at all, we'd probably be seeing a much more mature and respectable online advertising industry instead of the random, haphazard, and very annoying multitude of spam king wannabes downloading their spam kits and setting up shop."
MATURITY? From people that send me dozens of "enlarge your penis NOW", "Firm D cup tits in 2 weeks" (great research there), etc crap??!
Fact is, MATURE, repsponsible businesses dont' ADVERTISE in ways that obstruct and annoy their prospective clients.
Note the high regard that telemarketers are held in. And they are 10 to the power of 90 more "mature" than the spammers...
Not fighting spam would lead to more spam.
Fighting spam leads to more spam.
Why? Because the spammers themselves are inmature ASSHOLES who care more about making a fast buck than they do about the rest of humanity. Fighting spam at least makes it HARDER for them to do so, and costs them money. It's about the ONLY way to cost them money, as already their victims bear most of the cost of their shit.
"The day the Internet died. Sure, it will be more "efficient" then. No spam. But it won't be free.
Don't cry about it. It happens to all technology. Those who need anonymous communications will just move to something else. Maybe web-based discussion, for example. Just no more truly private, truly anonymous, or truly free e-mail. "
Why? People can communicate more or less anon they way I have been FORCED to communicate already (since my e-mail account is virtually useless)...
"One of the tools, Reverse MX, is expected to be in place in several months. It would allow the receiving mail server to query a domain to determine if the sending server is allowed to send on its behalf."
This would more or less force spammers to send from their own domains... Or from ISP's that are spam friendly.
It might not STOP spam (though blacklisting would be easier), but it'd make it traceable...
Which would make it easier to file complaints under the anti spam laws.
"The problem with this is that forcing SCO to disclose evidence in a civil trial before the appropriate time will harm their ability to make their case against IBM in court. Now, I assume that SCO has sued IBM in the US, but that this action is happening in Germany, but I would imagine treaties between the US and Germany would prevent a German court from doing anything that harms SCO's case in the US."
Why? How would disclosing the "evidence" in advance damage their case? If they have allegations and evidence to BACK IT UP, it will not be changed by public exposure. Even if there were infringing code in the kernel that were disclosed by SCO and changed tomorrow, there'd still be evidence that it WAS there.
Indeed, Caldera has to disclose their evidence IN ADVANCE to the defendants anyway, it's called discovery.
The ONLY way advance disclosure would "harm" Caldera is IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, that all their case is are lies, inuendo, smoke and mirrors. Which I suspect that it is. Disclosing REAL evidence of infringing code in public would only STRENGTHEN their case, and put pressure on IBM and others to buy them out.
No, the purpose of this suit is to keep the "facts" secret as long as possible to drag it out as long as possible to cause economic damage to Linux and businesses that do business in Linux so as to put pressure on them to buy out Caldera.
"Same thing happened to my husband. He was at his company for two years. They came out with this non compete in their employee manual which everybody had to sign. Besides him not being able to go to another ISP anytime soon, his spouse couldn't work for a competitor either. So essentially, they limit who I can work for as well... He didn't want to sign it, but they were going to blacklist anybody who didn't. We both know that was intimidation and he'd have grounds to fight... neither of us have any ability to afford a lawyer though."
THAT clause sounds like a criminal act to me. I'd send it to your state Attorney General. Pushing a noncompete on someone with threat of loss of job is duress. Pushing conditions that apply to a family member who DOES NOT WORK for them is even worse. They aren't compensating you, so they don't have any standing to enter into a contract. Not to mention they don't have YOUR signature.
The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery. It seems to me that many noncompetes, PARTICULARLY the one you just describes are a violation of that.
"t has been discussed before on Slashdot, but I feel the need to bring it up again. This is a perfect example of why there should be a union for tech workers. The fact that employers continue to treat tech workers in this manner, even though these are the highly skilled people who create and maintain the products they sell, is ample proof that the balance of power is distinctly "off kilter". "
The only reason why noncompetes and H1B workers exist is for employers to get away with paying below market rates for skilled labor.
The fact is, there is STILL a great shortage of GOOD IT workers, hence they'd not NEED to use such things. The late 90's produced a lot of wannabes who got in it for the money, and they are now being shaken out of the tree. This will be good for the rest of us, ultimately, who have been in IT since before the bubble, and are in it for life.
I will never be in favor of a ALF-CIO type union for IT, but I do think we need our own version of the EFF, some kind of organization or "guild" of professional IT workers, that would keep lawyers on retainer for use by members IN such situations.
And to lobby against the H1B and noncompetes in legislatures in the first place.
But I DO NOT favor a union and "collective bargaining" and the lowest common denominator pay and working conditions that creates.
"My wife went straight from college to mothering, and has never worked, so has few job skills. The company for whom I work (who shall remain nameless) just sold my position to a contracting company, with one weeks' notice. Despite their company policy, they are not giving me any severance whatsoever if I don't take the job with the contractors. The contractors *require* a two-year NCA, and stated unequivocally that anyone who would not sign would lose their job immediately. The contracting company is *huge*, and it is quite likely that any potential job I get may conceivably compete with them somehow. "
Sign it. Then start saving money for a lawyer to use when the economy rebounds and you decide to move on.
IANAL mode on:
It doesn't matter what the change, you are STILL working in the same place and the same job. Forcing you to sign something like that, giving up rights in exchange for NO GAIN of NEW benefits is not a contract. It's coercion and can be fought in court on that basis.
Few courts actually uphold noncompetes, IF you have a lawyer and fight it. It's fundamentally NOT in the State's interest for you to be unemployed (and not paying taxes)when you could be. If you have any kind of an argument (and the manner in which they are forcing this on you is certainly a winning one) the court is NOT going to side with the company.
But again, SAVE money for that lawyer. You will ultimately need him.
"Actually, things like welfare and universal health coverage are good for the economy. The former does things like flatten out the business cycle by increasing spending counter-cyclicly (to people who will spend all the money on goods and services instead of saving it) and the latter reduces costs to the overall economy by improving health standards (it's cheaper to prevent illness than cure it)"
And everyone starts going to the emergency room for a hangnail, (because it's "free") which overloads the system, which causes the government to start RATIONING it.
Which is what they do in Canada. Why do so many Canadians have surgery in the US? Because they can GET it done when it NEEDS to be done.
The government has done such a BANG UP job with the "war on drugs" and "war on poverty", and man, Social Security and Medicare are SO solvent, why would anyone in their RIGHT MIND turn over 1/5th of the economy to them?
A more Constitutional function for government wouldn't be providing "free" healthcare, but would be provding more oversight on employer/employee CONTRACTS...
I've worked as a contractor before, at IBM. It's not really all that bad, as there are certain standards IBM has for the contract companies they work with.
And they work with several, so you can ask around and find out who is the best one, then go with them. Generally, the larger operators are the better ones, avoid the "small" contracting firms at ALL COSTS.
Most companies the size of IBM use contractors to avoid adding more HR bureaucracy. Contractors there generally are as permanent as regular employees, though of course you don't get the same benefits.
But you do generally have the opportunity to move up and become a permanent employee.
"There are some companies out there, that have a policy of initially contesting every unemployment claim in order to keep their experience rating "good" and reduce the amount of money they pay into the unemployment fund. "
The bastard company I work for does this. They fired our other veteran Systems and Networks guy last November. To make matters worse, they fired him to bring in another H1B (45K salary vs 21K), but unfortunately there is NO enforcement of this.
The company slandered my friend and appealed, just to stall the award of unemployment. By the time the company exhausted it's appeals, he had another job.
It's hard to hire a lawyer and fight your ex-employer when not only are you unemployed, but being denied unemployment...
As a sidebar, THIS is yet another good reason why an IT employee association, or "guild" needs to be formed, which we pay reasonable dues to for protection in just that kind of situation...
We also have a noncompete (doesn't cover working for other companies, covers you from STARTING a competing company), that has never stood up in court. Recently, the boss tried to foist a far stricter one on us.
Particularly, they wanted it on me, as I'm the only qualified network/systems guy left and over a million dollars in business depends on them not losing me (which doesn't cause them to pay me what I'm worth, of course).
I stood right in front of the boss in the staff meeting, and stated that I thought noncompetes were "unamerican" and that as long as the company retains the right to fire people if it's to it's advantage (this was not long after they hired my friend), I retain my right to "fire" the company if it's to my advantage.
I furthermore said that I'd be willing to sign a nondisclosure, but noncompete, never. The matter dropped.
Companies that try to use onerous and one sided contract clauses like noncompetes are, in effect, INCREASING the liability of their unemployment insurance.
So, like someone with a DUI on their driving record, they should pay "fuck me" premiums since they are taxing the system more.
"This law, and laws like it, are a waste of government time and money. State laws will only make the spammers operate from other states. Federal laws will only make the spammers operate from other countries."
In order for spam sent to Americans to be profitable (else why do it), at some point, MONEY has to change hands between an American citizen and a spamvertiser.
And I'd bet that most spamvertisers are American, even if a lot of spam is originating overseas.
It's not hard for an American to buy webhosting and e-mail services in China, for example, run a pr0n site, etc.
What the FTC can do is confiscate all monies being transacted to those outfits to pay the fines. And they'd have the power to do it, as the money is in US Dollars, and must pass over US borders.
Ultimately, anti-spam laws HAVE to sanction the spamvertiser to be effective.
"Hence the fight over this. Can you image if Challenge Response were part of say, outlook or built into Longhorn or WebTV, and no-one lese could use this fundmental approach? very valuable indeed."
WHY would Microsoft do this? They are the company (only company that I can think of) that makes a web browser that makes your desktop the bitch of every shyster pop-up ad scheme in existance... And through ActiveX (which thank GOD only IE supports!) people can even play with your OS...
I'd imagine that MS probably makes some money through spam. Or wants to.
If Outlook does anything it will be to BREAK 3rd party spam filters, CR schemes, etc.
"I have been using the excellent utility ASK (Active Spam Killer). This uses the challenge response technique. It's blocked 670 SPAM messages in the last 10 days. It's been around for a while. I thought that an idea had to be "non-obvious" to be patentable. Lots of people comming up with an idea thats not obvious."
Obviously that which to a person with a pulse is obvious isn't very obvious to our obviously "fine" public servants at the USPTO.
"From this number, would I be wrong in assuming that there are many people besides spammers themselves who have no problem at all with spam remaining legislation-free? I had no idea anti-spam was such a lucrative business, and I suspect many others hadn't either."
Yeah, just like the anti-virus vendors... Some of whom have been caught playing both sides... Mcafee, etc.
Just as AV companies "allow" certain virus-like programs/trojans, etc to sit undetected (keyloggers, spyware planted by the government, etc), it stands to reason that commercial anti-spam vendors will do the same. Accept a little kickback from Ralsky, but block spammers that don't pay up...
Which is why I use Popfile. It's GPL, and over 99% effective, and my mail accounts get HUNDREDS of spams a day.
An industry "standard" can't BE a standard unless anyone in the industry can use it.
Of course, that is contrary to the trend, which is to closed "standards" even blessed by the Feds. For instance: IBOC digital AM/FM radio, adopted by the FCC, and something ALL stations will have to eventually install... It's owned by ONE company, iBiquity, and stations have to pay ROYALTIES to use it.
Insurance companies have their fingers in MANY places in their desire to rape more dosh from the consumer...
Insurance companies buy SCORES of laser and radar guns for police departments...
They also have been BIG lobbyists in favor of banning radar/laser detectors.
Why? Because a speeding ticket is an excuse to charge higher rates to an otherwise safe driver. Speed (alone) does not kill, it just funds police and insurance company coffers.
"I don't think they can. Unless the insurance company can prove statisticaly that cars equipped with black boxes cause less damages they can not arbitrarily set the rates up for others. Insurances must maintain a balance between rates and damages which they can adjust at the policy holder only by statistical information as for example type of car and behaviour as for example prior incidents or limited mileage."
Sure they can... They offer a "discount" for having the device. Then, oops, rates just went up! But if you have this installed, you get a discount that coincidentally gives you your old rate...
Insurance companies, ever seeking more money from people's pockets are likely behind this.
Indeed, given that insurance companies can JACK UP your rates beyond your means if you refuse to have one of these things, and auto insurance is REQUIRED BY LAW in most states, one must wonder if the insurance companies are becoming "de facto" government actors?
Slashdot Mirror
"Stupid..
Stupid for reporting every little SCO quote. Stupid for thinking courts can allow such lawsuits.. and how in hell can SCO afford all this crap anyway?
Stupid..."
Didn't SCaldera just have a "profitable" quarter on the back of a HUGE Microsoft license purch... uhh... License to spread FUD?
Take the blinders off...
This is MICROSOFT versus Linux. SCaldera is just the intermediary.
Captain Love, there's a GASH in the hull! Red ink is flooding all compartments!
Ransom Love: Don't just stand there, stuff it with lawsuits!
If Linus needs a legal defense fund, count me in. I'll kick in dosh until it hurts.
I owe that much to Linus, if it weren't for him, I doubt I've have ever gotten into Unix-flavored OS's.
Look at the contrast... Lunus wrote a Unix kernel... Gave it away to the wold. Scaldera? SUE all the world!
Methinks it's time for Linus Torvalds to sue SCO for defamation given Novell's revalation.
It'd be the dumbest thing they could do... Linus is an ICON to geeks. Fuck with Linus and we will make SURE our bosses don't buy SCO.
Ooops, I forgot, one one IS buying SCO, that's why they are filing bogus lawsuits!
"Instead of fighting the good fight here, the best thing to do is let this dying ember peter out on its own. Forcing spammers to use more drastic tactics just results in them doing more harm in the long run. If there had been no resistance at all, we'd probably be seeing a much more mature and respectable online advertising industry instead of the random, haphazard, and very annoying multitude of spam king wannabes downloading their spam kits and setting up shop."
MATURITY? From people that send me dozens of "enlarge your penis NOW", "Firm D cup tits in 2 weeks" (great research there), etc crap??!
Fact is, MATURE, repsponsible businesses dont' ADVERTISE in ways that obstruct and annoy their prospective clients.
Note the high regard that telemarketers are held in. And they are 10 to the power of 90 more "mature" than the spammers...
Not fighting spam would lead to more spam.
Fighting spam leads to more spam.
Why? Because the spammers themselves are inmature ASSHOLES who care more about making a fast buck than they do about the rest of humanity. Fighting spam at least makes it HARDER for them to do so, and costs them money. It's about the ONLY way to cost them money, as already their victims bear most of the cost of their shit.
"The day the Internet died. Sure, it will be more "efficient" then. No spam. But it won't be free.
Don't cry about it. It happens to all technology. Those who need anonymous communications will just move to something else. Maybe web-based discussion, for example. Just no more truly private, truly anonymous, or truly free e-mail. "
Why? People can communicate more or less anon they way I have been FORCED to communicate already (since my e-mail account is virtually useless)...
Message Boards
Instant Messenging, etc.
"One of the tools, Reverse MX, is expected to be in place in several months. It would allow the receiving mail server to query a domain to determine if the sending server is allowed to send on its behalf."
This would more or less force spammers to send from their own domains... Or from ISP's that are spam friendly.
It might not STOP spam (though blacklisting would be easier), but it'd make it traceable...
Which would make it easier to file complaints under the anti spam laws.
"The problem with this is that forcing SCO to disclose evidence in a civil trial before the appropriate time will harm their ability to make their case against IBM in court. Now, I assume that SCO has sued IBM in the US, but that this action is happening in Germany, but I would imagine treaties between the US and Germany would prevent a German court from doing anything that harms SCO's case in the US."
Why? How would disclosing the "evidence" in advance damage their case? If they have allegations and evidence to BACK IT UP, it will not be changed by public exposure. Even if there were infringing code in the kernel that were disclosed by SCO and changed tomorrow, there'd still be evidence that it WAS there.
Indeed, Caldera has to disclose their evidence IN ADVANCE to the defendants anyway, it's called discovery.
The ONLY way advance disclosure would "harm" Caldera is IF THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, that all their case is are lies, inuendo, smoke and mirrors. Which I suspect that it is. Disclosing REAL evidence of infringing code in public would only STRENGTHEN their case, and put pressure on IBM and others to buy them out.
No, the purpose of this suit is to keep the "facts" secret as long as possible to drag it out as long as possible to cause economic damage to Linux and businesses that do business in Linux so as to put pressure on them to buy out Caldera.
"Same thing happened to my husband. He was at his company for two years. They came out with this non compete in their employee manual which everybody had to sign. Besides him not being able to go to another ISP anytime soon, his spouse couldn't work for a competitor either. So essentially, they limit who I can work for as well... He didn't want to sign it, but they were going to blacklist anybody who didn't. We both know that was intimidation and he'd have grounds to fight... neither of us have any ability to afford a lawyer though."
THAT clause sounds like a criminal act to me. I'd send it to your state Attorney General. Pushing a noncompete on someone with threat of loss of job is duress. Pushing conditions that apply to a family member who DOES NOT WORK for them is even worse. They aren't compensating you, so they don't have any standing to enter into a contract. Not to mention they don't have YOUR signature.
The 13th Amendment outlaws slavery. It seems to me that many noncompetes, PARTICULARLY the one you just describes are a violation of that.
"t has been discussed before on Slashdot, but I feel the need to bring it up again. This is a perfect example of why there should be a union for tech workers. The fact that employers continue to treat tech workers in this manner, even though these are the highly skilled people who create and maintain the products they sell, is ample proof that the balance of power is distinctly "off kilter". "
The only reason why noncompetes and H1B workers exist is for employers to get away with paying below market rates for skilled labor.
The fact is, there is STILL a great shortage of GOOD IT workers, hence they'd not NEED to use such things. The late 90's produced a lot of wannabes who got in it for the money, and they are now being shaken out of the tree. This will be good for the rest of us, ultimately, who have been in IT since before the bubble, and are in it for life.
I will never be in favor of a ALF-CIO type union for IT, but I do think we need our own version of the EFF, some kind of organization or "guild" of professional IT workers, that would keep lawyers on retainer for use by members IN such situations.
And to lobby against the H1B and noncompetes in legislatures in the first place.
But I DO NOT favor a union and "collective bargaining" and the lowest common denominator pay and working conditions that creates.
"My wife went straight from college to mothering, and has never worked, so has few job skills. The company for whom I work (who shall remain nameless) just sold my position to a contracting company, with one weeks' notice. Despite their company policy, they are not giving me any severance whatsoever if I don't take the job with the contractors. The contractors *require* a two-year NCA, and stated unequivocally that anyone who would not sign would lose their job immediately. The contracting company is *huge*, and it is quite likely that any potential job I get may conceivably compete with them somehow. "
Sign it. Then start saving money for a lawyer to use when the economy rebounds and you decide to move on.
IANAL mode on:
It doesn't matter what the change, you are STILL working in the same place and the same job. Forcing you to sign something like that, giving up rights in exchange for NO GAIN of NEW benefits is not a contract. It's coercion and can be fought in court on that basis.
Few courts actually uphold noncompetes, IF you have a lawyer and fight it. It's fundamentally NOT in the State's interest for you to be unemployed (and not paying taxes)when you could be. If you have any kind of an argument (and the manner in which they are forcing this on you is certainly a winning one) the court is NOT going to side with the company.
But again, SAVE money for that lawyer. You will ultimately need him.
"Actually, things like welfare and universal health coverage are good for the economy. The former does things like flatten out the business cycle by increasing spending counter-cyclicly (to people who will spend all the money on goods and services instead of saving it) and the latter reduces costs to the overall economy by improving health standards (it's cheaper to prevent illness than cure it)"
And everyone starts going to the emergency room for a hangnail, (because it's "free") which overloads the system, which causes the government to start RATIONING it.
Which is what they do in Canada. Why do so many Canadians have surgery in the US? Because they can GET it done when it NEEDS to be done.
The government has done such a BANG UP job with the "war on drugs" and "war on poverty", and man, Social Security and Medicare are SO solvent, why would anyone in their RIGHT MIND turn over 1/5th of the economy to them?
A more Constitutional function for government wouldn't be providing "free" healthcare, but would be provding more oversight on employer/employee CONTRACTS...
I've worked as a contractor before, at IBM. It's not really all that bad, as there are certain standards IBM has for the contract companies they work with.
And they work with several, so you can ask around and find out who is the best one, then go with them. Generally, the larger operators are the better ones, avoid the "small" contracting firms at ALL COSTS.
Most companies the size of IBM use contractors to avoid adding more HR bureaucracy. Contractors there generally are as permanent as regular employees, though of course you don't get the same benefits.
But you do generally have the opportunity to move up and become a permanent employee.
"There are some companies out there, that have a policy of initially contesting every unemployment claim in order to keep their experience rating "good" and reduce the amount of money they pay into the unemployment fund. "
The bastard company I work for does this. They fired our other veteran Systems and Networks guy last November. To make matters worse, they fired him to bring in another H1B (45K salary vs 21K), but unfortunately there is NO enforcement of this.
The company slandered my friend and appealed, just to stall the award of unemployment. By the time the company exhausted it's appeals, he had another job.
It's hard to hire a lawyer and fight your ex-employer when not only are you unemployed, but being denied unemployment...
As a sidebar, THIS is yet another good reason why an IT employee association, or "guild" needs to be formed, which we pay reasonable dues to for protection in just that kind of situation...
We also have a noncompete (doesn't cover working for other companies, covers you from STARTING a competing company), that has never stood up in court. Recently, the boss tried to foist a far stricter one on us.
Particularly, they wanted it on me, as I'm the only qualified network/systems guy left and over a million dollars in business depends on them not losing me (which doesn't cause them to pay me what I'm worth, of course).
I stood right in front of the boss in the staff meeting, and stated that I thought noncompetes were "unamerican" and that as long as the company retains the right to fire people if it's to it's advantage (this was not long after they hired my friend), I retain my right to "fire" the company if it's to my advantage.
I furthermore said that I'd be willing to sign a nondisclosure, but noncompete, never. The matter dropped.
"...is higher unemployment insurance rates."
EXCELLENT point!
Companies that try to use onerous and one sided contract clauses like noncompetes are, in effect, INCREASING the liability of their unemployment insurance.
So, like someone with a DUI on their driving record, they should pay "fuck me" premiums since they are taxing the system more.
"This law, and laws like it, are a waste of government time and money. State laws will only make the spammers operate from other states. Federal laws will only make the spammers operate from other countries."
In order for spam sent to Americans to be profitable (else why do it), at some point, MONEY has to change hands between an American citizen and a spamvertiser.
And I'd bet that most spamvertisers are American, even if a lot of spam is originating overseas.
It's not hard for an American to buy webhosting and e-mail services in China, for example, run a pr0n site, etc.
What the FTC can do is confiscate all monies being transacted to those outfits to pay the fines. And they'd have the power to do it, as the money is in US Dollars, and must pass over US borders.
Ultimately, anti-spam laws HAVE to sanction the spamvertiser to be effective.
"Hence the fight over this. Can you image if Challenge Response were part of say, outlook or built into Longhorn or WebTV, and no-one lese could use this fundmental approach? very valuable indeed."
WHY would Microsoft do this? They are the company (only company that I can think of) that makes a web browser that makes your desktop the bitch of every shyster pop-up ad scheme in existance... And through ActiveX (which thank GOD only IE supports!) people can even play with your OS...
I'd imagine that MS probably makes some money through spam. Or wants to.
If Outlook does anything it will be to BREAK 3rd party spam filters, CR schemes, etc.
"I have been using the excellent utility ASK (Active Spam Killer). This uses the challenge response technique. It's blocked 670 SPAM messages in the last 10 days. It's been around for a while. I thought that an idea had to be "non-obvious" to be patentable. Lots of people comming up with an idea thats not obvious."
Obviously that which to a person with a pulse is obvious isn't very obvious to our obviously "fine" public servants at the USPTO.
"Why can't it be that the penis enlarger companies are the ones that are suing each other into bankruptcy over patent infringement?"
;)
I don't know... Go file for a patent for selling sugar pills on the internet. The USPTO should grant that in lightspeed, and you can sue them
That the USPTO will grant a patent for ANY idea that exists and has existed for DECADES if you just add "on the internet" to it?
Go figure...
"From this number, would I be wrong in assuming that there are many people besides spammers themselves who have no problem at all with spam remaining legislation-free? I had no idea anti-spam was such a lucrative business, and I suspect many others hadn't either."
Yeah, just like the anti-virus vendors... Some of whom have been caught playing both sides... Mcafee, etc.
Just as AV companies "allow" certain virus-like programs/trojans, etc to sit undetected (keyloggers, spyware planted by the government, etc), it stands to reason that commercial anti-spam vendors will do the same. Accept a little kickback from Ralsky, but block spammers that don't pay up...
Which is why I use Popfile. It's GPL, and over 99% effective, and my mail accounts get HUNDREDS of spams a day.
An industry "standard" can't BE a standard unless anyone in the industry can use it.
Of course, that is contrary to the trend, which is to closed "standards" even blessed by the Feds. For instance: IBOC digital AM/FM radio, adopted by the FCC, and something ALL stations will have to eventually install... It's owned by ONE company, iBiquity, and stations have to pay ROYALTIES to use it.
One other thing...
Insurance companies have their fingers in MANY places in their desire to rape more dosh from the consumer...
Insurance companies buy SCORES of laser and radar guns for police departments...
They also have been BIG lobbyists in favor of banning radar/laser detectors.
Why? Because a speeding ticket is an excuse to charge higher rates to an otherwise safe driver. Speed (alone) does not kill, it just funds police and insurance company coffers.
"I don't think they can. Unless the insurance company can prove statisticaly that cars equipped with black boxes cause less damages they can not arbitrarily set the rates up for others.
Insurances must maintain a balance between rates and damages which they can adjust at the policy holder only by statistical information as for example type of car and behaviour as for example prior incidents or limited mileage."
Sure they can... They offer a "discount" for having the device. Then, oops, rates just went up! But if you have this installed, you get a discount that coincidentally gives you your old rate...
That is the key word...
Insurance companies, ever seeking more money from people's pockets are likely behind this.
Indeed, given that insurance companies can JACK UP your rates beyond your means if you refuse to have one of these things, and auto insurance is REQUIRED BY LAW in most states, one must wonder if the insurance companies are becoming "de facto" government actors?