If Michael Sims accuses me of "stalking", does
that mean:
1) I can NEVER write an article proposal to his
employers?
2) If I do, it constitutes "harassing" to discuss
a serious legal concern of mine based on Michael Sims' actions?
Really, I'm curious, I'll pay the karma here.
Read the issues I outline. Am I wrong?
Frankly, the proposal seemed like a clever idea
to me to solve my legal-risk problem and
what damage Michael Sims might do in such
a situation.
Remember, for revenge,
he posted an extensive legally-sensitive message from Censorware
Project attorney James Tyre, detailing EVERYTHING
I did in terms of decrypting censorware, great
stuff for
any censorware company to use if they wanted to
sue me.
But do you think I'm in the wrong for
bringing up this action
as a part of why I'm worried in doing legally-risky work? It's "harrassing email"? What
Michael Sims did in breaching the trust the lawyer placed
in him
is... what? Fun and games?
How many times do I have to say this?
It's not a matter of silly
rant/flame/shut-off-machine and leave it.
Programmers get sued for this work!
Again, I keep stressing, we are not in the same
position. I worry a lot about
getting sued. I respond many times to
Sims-smears. Yes, I say the same things over and
over, because I'm asked the same things over and
over.
I did not do almost all of what Sims accuses
me of doing. I deny it today. I denied
it yesterday. If asked, I will deny it tomorrow.
It is a cruel thing to then turn around and
claim the repeated false accusations are
somehow proof of truth.
On-topic: This is not just a flame war. It has
serious implications for
my anticensorware work, related to
issues such as CIPA. All the things I planned were
derailed by Michael Sims' attack.
"As already mentioned in another story a Federal censorware law is now
being challenged in court. For the past months, I've been focusing on
trying to change some of the ways people think about
censorware. Censorware is not a "filter", it's a blinder-box."
I've never spammed Slashdot, or
sent "hundreds of letters", or similar.
The way you know who is telling the truth is simple logic. If he
had anything, anything, serious on me,
he'd be making maximum use of it. When you break it down,
the only thing he has, is much calling me names, and that
other people have called me names.
The reason for the lie is that he has learned as a journalist,
there is no cost to fabrication. Since he can throw mud with
no downside, he does so. Whatever sticks to me is to his benefit.
If he can shift the debate away from
What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org), to
my sanity (i.e., lack thereof), he wins. Because that makes the topic
about accusation and denial, and truth-is-in-the-middle,
rather than his ongoing destruction and malicious actions.
Michael Sims pulled this latest stunt just before
the CIPA trial
started. My mind boggles. He's GOATSE'D censorware.org!
If someone tries to get to a censorware.org report from an
old link,
instead, they get his rant. It's amazing.
This is ON-TOPIC. He derailed my planned anticensorware work to coincide with the
CIPA trial, by his actions. He's goatse'ing
people looking for material from censorware.org,
motivated by the CIPA trial. It's absolutely
shameful.
``(C) CERTIFICATION WITH RESPECT TO ADULTS.--A certification under this
paragraph is a certification that the library--
``(i) is enforcing a policy of Internet safety that includes the
operation of a technology protection measure with respect to any of
its computers with Internet access that protects against access
through such computers to visual depictions that are- (... legal stuff)
For the amusement value, take a look at the following proposal
I recently sent to Slashdot. I wrote this more for my sense of humor
than expecting them to take me up on it. No reply, which wasn't a surprise.
I should note, loyalty oath, it's their utter and complete right not to reply.
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:46:09 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
To: malda
Cc: [Three lawyers and two Slashdot editors]
Subject: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code
Per:
http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed500
> I want to write an editorial. What should I do?
>
> Before you get carried away, mail me a synopsis of your idea (put the
> text 'Proposed Feature' in the subject). That way I can tell you if it
> is something we would consider posting before you bother to write the
> whole thing.
With the upcoming CIPA trial about government-mandated censorware,
I'd like to write something about censorware. I think I'm eminently
qualified, as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work
http://sethf.com/pioneer/
, and was the key figure behind exposing what
censorware actually blacklists.
I'm particularly interested in pursuing something related to
releasing code. One of the things I've discovered is that N2H2's
[rest of the paragraph redacted]
I've been hesitant to release this code, since I worry I'll
be sued, and would face a lot of bad publicity. In fact, your infamous
editor, Michael Sims, just breached confidentiality on Censorware Project
legal material and posted a detailed legally sensitive internal
message from Censorware Project attorney James Tyre, listing specific
past decryptions I've done. All the details of which programs and what
I did, in the words of Censorware Project's own lawyer. If you care,
it's at
http://censorware.org/censorware.org_tyre_revelati on.txt
Anyway, my inspiration is that if you have an editor who does
these vengeful actions, my best bet is paradoxically to go straight to
the lion's den and *offer you* the story, so it becomes in part your
legal problem to publish the actual code. This way any legal threats
are both your problem and mine, rather than having situations such as
one of your editors releasing damaging legal material about me just as
one of the biggest censorware-related trials is about to get underway.
Let me know if you're interested in something along these lines.
Of course, I'd be happy to write a standard editorial about my
experiences fighting censorware, censorware internals, winning an EFF
Pioneer Award for my work, commentary on the technical accuracy of the
trial, or so on, whatever might be appealing. But I think it's
very productive and unique to do something code-related.
[I realized after writing the above, that someone might be confused as to:
"How come you're complaining about Michael Sims releasing damaging
legal material, when the information is on your website's Pioneer section?"So I then immediately added the following clarification]
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:03:31 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing
code
On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:46:09PM -0500, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work
>
http://sethf.com/pioneer/
Small note of clarification - I only released all the Pioneer Award
nomination material on this page after Michael Sims broke Censorware Project
confidentiality, and publicly posted Censorware Project attorney
James Tyre's internal message detailing all the decryptions I'd done. At
that point, I figured since this information was being publicized in a
negative context, I might as well publicize it myself in a positive
context. Again, this leads to the idea behind my code/story proposal.
better the legal risks be "our" problem than just "my" problem.
After 2006, the FCC will require all over-the-air broadcasts to be
digitally encoded. Under the pretext of preventing the
"Napsterization" of their video signals, the MPAA has convened the
Broadcast Protection Discussion Group (BPDG) of the Copy-Protection
Technical Working Group (CPTWG). The BPDG's "standards," developed in
concert with a group of arm-twisted representatives from major
technology vendors, will specify flags controlling the public's
ability to store, copy, and share digital TV signals.
ethereal, I don't like to reply to people about this topic in story
threads, because I don't want to give the appearance of trying to
hijack discussion. I'll make an exception here, because you're not
a troll, and for other reasons.
The simple way you "can tell what the truth is", is that every single
other person associated with censorware.org has wanted Michael Sims to
stop playing dog-in-the-manger with the
censorware.org domain name.
And not only has he refused, he's now turned it into a smear-site. Note
this does not depend on whether or not you believe I am sane.
It's instructive to look at, e.g.
Jonathan Wallace's account, and a
public
comment by Jamie McCarthy. This isn't objective proof, though, because
we all could be ganging-up on Michael Sims (pile-ons have happened,
Michael Sims is trying to create one on me).
I categorically deny the accusations of spamming Slashdot and similar.
And the way to know the truth of that is simple logic. If he
had anything, anything, serious on me,
he'd be making maximum use of it. When you break it down,
the only thing he has, is much calling me names, and that
other people have called me names. In contrast, he still has the
censorware.org
registration
The Internet belongs to no country alone, but to all countries
collectively. It is in a jurisdictional sense like the oceans or the
air and space. Because it is an omnipresent shared resource, it is,
and must be, by nature extraterritorrial. While transactions occurring
solely on the Internet may have an impact on nations and/or their
citizens, this fact does not and should not automatically imbue the
effected country with jurisdiction over the actions of persons
transacting on the Internet. Whether jurisdiction over the actions of
persons operating exclusively on the Internet can be asserted is, like
all questions regarding the application of extraterritorial
jurisdiction, a matter of law and policy.
We're going to replace them. To have freedom to live as part of
a community, to have the freedom to treat other people decently,
you must replace your propriety software with free software,
software that lets you have those freedoms.
It would be easy to dismiss this comment as
hippy-dippy-there-he-goes-again. But consider what we are seeing now,
with attempts to control people and programmers via the
DMCA and similar ilk.
Calling it "brain damage" is not really accurate, but the effect is
real. Think of what happened in this way:
Imagine you wear special, expensive, contact lens.
You wear them all day, every day, for a long time. Then an airline
security guard decides the contact lens might be the next thing in
terms of smuggled terrorist weapons (after all, given a bomb hidden in shoes,
and plastic explosives, well, better safe than sorry). So security rips
the contact lenses out of your eyes (scratching your corneas in doing so),
and ruins your lens with their grubby fingers in the process of examining them.
Suddenly, you're back to pre-contact lens vision, with some "damage"
(not dramatic in the overall scale of things, but still painful) to your eyes.
Now imagine you can't get easily get new contact lenses, or even
replacement glasses, because they're specially-made.
Stripped of the cyborgness, this is the sort of experience we're
talking about. It's clear it's not a pleasant one.
Original April Fools - Spam "protection"
on
April Fools Wrap Up
·
· Score: 3, Funny
I wrote the following piece for today, which
at least I thought was funny. It's
currently bouncing around the story queue in
Kuro5hin,
but it doesn't look like it'll get to post.
The problem of
Spam, i.e. junk e-mail,
has been plaguing the net for years. This article makes a modest
proposal for spam "protection", in terms of a novel economic analysis
leading to the benefit of all concerned.
In economic terms, let's consider why there's profit in spamming
(sending large numbers of unsolicited emails). This is due to the
"cost-shifting" nature of the spam process. It takes very little
effort to send a large number of e-mails. But e-mail is not free (as
in beer). In effect, the spammer shifts the expense of the advertising
campaign, from the seller, onto ISPs and users:
The ISP must pay (in resources) to distribute the spammer's ads
The user must pay (in time) to delete the spammer's ads
So this is, literally, the price of free (as in speech) speech - the
ISP and the user must bear the costs of the spammer's ads. Now,
a frequent "technological solution" is that, once the ISP has paid to
handle the spammer's mail, the user can avoid the further payment of time,
by paying cash to another organization, which will perform the task of
sorting out the spam. This approach is exemplified by services offered
by, for example,
Brightmail Inc.
or SpamCop Email System
But what does this sorting organization do? Its only task
is to try to identify spam from real mail. That is, it is paid to try
to
identify mail
sent from spammers. However, since it is in an
adversary relationship to the spammers, the
spam-gangs have every
reason to try to avoid such identification.
There have been some
proposals
to facilitate identification of spam by legally requiring labels.
But that involves government and law.
In fact, it's compelled speech! Instead, since the
free market
is the solution to all problems,
the only proper course of action is to
provide spammers with an economic incentive to identify themselves.
After all, spam identification is the exact product being sold by
third parties, so why pay a middle-man? If one is going to pay, for
maximum market efficiency, why not pay the source?
In this scheme, the user pays a mailbox "protection fee" to an
umbrella group, let's call it the "Spamafia". In return for this
"protection", the "Spamafia" provides the user with a simple mailbox
checking system which can be run over mail messages. Because this
system works in a manner akin to passing items over a net barrier, it
might be termed a "racket". So, the "racket" tests each piece of
mail. Those mail messages which originate from members of the Spamafia
each contain a certification token. In the process of testing the
mail, this token is sent back to the Spamafia, and so redeemed to the
individual spammer for a small fee, say a penny or so. In
return, the user is given assurance that this message is certified as
spam, and so can be automatically deleted without fear of losing
legitimate mail. In essence, the spammer is given an incentive to
also obtain a small amount of money from each smart user by being
straightforward, rather than only trying to obtain a larger amount of
money by fooling just a few suckers (and annoying everyone else).
The beauty of the system is that everyone has an incentive to
participate. The spammers get more money, as the spams can generate
income now from both the suckers, and the nonsuckers paying mailbox
protection fees. There's no reason to evade spam-detection, in fact
the opposite. The more people signed up to the protection racket, the
more certification tokens are redeemed. The smart users get to have a
workable mailbox, rather than one filled with junk. And they have the
"peace of mind" that the mail being deleted is not important. It's the
magic of the market at work.
"I haven't seen much flexibility so far," Stephens replied.
I dunno. It seems to me that Intel is pretty contorted here.
They've certainly done a lot of twisting. Maybe even performed with their corporate body, what might be termed,
in a very subtle and euphemistic sense,
a "yogic posture".
Open Source, power users vs. The Masses
on
Can GnuPG Deliver?
·
· Score: 2
This passage
of the article seems particularly insightful to me:
Open-source can also mean "closed climate," with developers working
only to meet their own desires and those of a relatively small and
stable base of users and fans. The strength of the movement --
distributed development by volunteer programmers worldwide -- isn't
geared toward the sudden appearance of clamoring consumers with
questions, complaints and wish lists in hand.
Linux is good, for people who are willing to put in the effort
to use its power. The same holds for crypto. But marketing to
the masses is not a "geek thing".
Blade has perhaps the most bizarre origin of all of the vampire
hunters in TOD. During his labor, Blade's mother was undergoing
complications and her friends summoned a doctor of dubious background.
The doctor turned out to be the white-haired vampire known as Deacon
Frost. He feasted on Blade's mother right before Blade's birth which
resulted in Blade being immune to vampire bites. As a result of
Frost's attack, Blade's mother died but not before she gave birth to
Blade. Blade was raised by his mother's work associates until he was
9 years old. At age 9, Blade helped save the life of vampire hunter
Jamal Afari, a musician who took Blade in and raised him as his son.
Afari trained Blade as a vampire hunter as well as a trumpet player
until Dracula turned Afari. Blade was forced to kill Afari and swore
revenge on Dracula.
I don't know if the movie is faithful to this. But it was
a very original idea.
Isaac Asimov used this for a SF story
on
Playing Ball in Space
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Isaac Asimov wrote a prescient
short story
"The Singing Bell", about this effect. The plot hinges
on proving that a man has recently been to the moon, by catching him
off-guard in catching something as if he was on the moon
(i.e. he had adapted to the lunar gravity in terms of ball-catching).
Absolutely great science-fiction story.
Slashdot Mirror
1) I can NEVER write an article proposal to his employers?
2) If I do, it constitutes "harassing" to discuss a serious legal concern of mine based on Michael Sims' actions?
Really, I'm curious, I'll pay the karma here.
Read the issues I outline. Am I wrong? Frankly, the proposal seemed like a clever idea to me to solve my legal-risk problem and what damage Michael Sims might do in such a situation.
Remember, for revenge, he posted an extensive legally-sensitive message from Censorware Project attorney James Tyre, detailing EVERYTHING I did in terms of decrypting censorware, great stuff for any censorware company to use if they wanted to sue me.
But do you think I'm in the wrong for bringing up this action as a part of why I'm worried in doing legally-risky work? It's "harrassing email"? What Michael Sims did in breaching the trust the lawyer placed in him is ... what? Fun and games?
How many times do I have to say this? It's not a matter of silly rant/flame/shut-off-machine and leave it. Programmers get sued for this work!
New sig for today: My proposal to Slashdot for CIPA article
Again, I keep stressing, we are not in the same position. I worry a lot about getting sued. I respond many times to Sims-smears. Yes, I say the same things over and over, because I'm asked the same things over and over.
I did not do almost all of what Sims accuses me of doing. I deny it today. I denied it yesterday. If asked, I will deny it tomorrow.
It is a cruel thing to then turn around and claim the repeated false accusations are somehow proof of truth.
On-topic: This is not just a flame war. It has serious implications for my anticensorware work, related to issues such as CIPA. All the things I planned were derailed by Michael Sims' attack.
New sig for today: My proposal to Slashdot for CIPA article
Censorware - changing the debate from "filtering" (Technology)8
By Seth Finkelstein
http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2002/3/25/8925/0608
New sig for today: My proposal to Slashdot for CIPA article
I've never spammed Slashdot, or sent "hundreds of letters", or similar.
The way you know who is telling the truth is simple logic. If he had anything, anything, serious on me, he'd be making maximum use of it. When you break it down, the only thing he has, is much calling me names, and that other people have called me names.
The reason for the lie is that he has learned as a journalist, there is no cost to fabrication. Since he can throw mud with no downside, he does so. Whatever sticks to me is to his benefit. If he can shift the debate away from What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org), to my sanity (i.e., lack thereof), he wins. Because that makes the topic about accusation and denial, and truth-is-in-the-middle, rather than his ongoing destruction and malicious actions.
Michael Sims pulled this latest stunt just before the CIPA trial started. My mind boggles. He's GOATSE'D censorware.org! If someone tries to get to a censorware.org report from an old link, instead, they get his rant. It's amazing.
This is ON-TOPIC. He derailed my planned anticensorware work to coincide with the CIPA trial, by his actions. He's goatse'ing people looking for material from censorware.org, motivated by the CIPA trial. It's absolutely shameful.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
For the amusement value, take a look at the following proposal I recently sent to Slashdot. I wrote this more for my sense of humor than expecting them to take me up on it. No reply, which wasn't a surprise. I should note, loyalty oath, it's their utter and complete right not to reply.
Date: Sun, 24 Mar 2002 23:46:09 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
To: malda
Cc: [Three lawyers and two Slashdot editors]
Subject: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code
Per: http://slashdot.org/faq/editorial.shtml#ed500
> I want to write an editorial. What should I do? >
> Before you get carried away, mail me a synopsis of your idea (put the
> text 'Proposed Feature' in the subject). That way I can tell you if it
> is something we would consider posting before you bother to write the
> whole thing.
With the upcoming CIPA trial about government-mandated censorware, I'd like to write something about censorware. I think I'm eminently qualified, as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work http://sethf.com/pioneer/ , and was the key figure behind exposing what censorware actually blacklists.
I'm particularly interested in pursuing something related to releasing code. One of the things I've discovered is that N2H2's [rest of the paragraph redacted]
I've been hesitant to release this code, since I worry I'll be sued, and would face a lot of bad publicity. In fact, your infamous editor, Michael Sims, just breached confidentiality on Censorware Project legal material and posted a detailed legally sensitive internal message from Censorware Project attorney James Tyre, listing specific past decryptions I've done. All the details of which programs and what I did, in the words of Censorware Project's own lawyer. If you care, it's at http://censorware.org/censorware.org_tyre_revelati on.txt
Anyway, my inspiration is that if you have an editor who does these vengeful actions, my best bet is paradoxically to go straight to the lion's den and *offer you* the story, so it becomes in part your legal problem to publish the actual code. This way any legal threats are both your problem and mine, rather than having situations such as one of your editors releasing damaging legal material about me just as one of the biggest censorware-related trials is about to get underway.
Let me know if you're interested in something along these lines. Of course, I'd be happy to write a standard editorial about my experiences fighting censorware, censorware internals, winning an EFF Pioneer Award for my work, commentary on the technical accuracy of the trial, or so on, whatever might be appealing. But I think it's very productive and unique to do something code-related.
Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com
[I realized after writing the above, that someone might be confused as to: "How come you're complaining about Michael Sims releasing damaging legal material, when the information is on your website's Pioneer section?"So I then immediately added the following clarification]
Date: Mon, 25 Mar 2002 00:03:31 -0500
From: Seth Finkelstein <sethf[at-sign]sethf.com>
Subject: Re: Proposed Feature - Censorware description, along with testing code
On Sun, Mar 24, 2002 at 11:46:09PM -0500, Seth Finkelstein wrote:
> as I won an EFF 2001 Pioneer Award for my anticensorware work
> http://sethf.com/pioneer/
Small note of clarification - I only released all the Pioneer Award nomination material on this page after Michael Sims broke Censorware Project confidentiality, and publicly posted Censorware Project attorney James Tyre's internal message detailing all the decryptions I'd done. At that point, I figured since this information was being publicized in a negative context, I might as well publicize it myself in a positive context. Again, this leads to the idea behind my code/story proposal. better the legal risks be "our" problem than just "my" problem.
Sincerely,
--
Seth Finkelstein Consulting Programmer sethf[at-sign]sethf.com
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The simple way you "can tell what the truth is", is that every single other person associated with censorware.org has wanted Michael Sims to stop playing dog-in-the-manger with the censorware.org domain name. And not only has he refused, he's now turned it into a smear-site. Note this does not depend on whether or not you believe I am sane.
It's instructive to look at, e.g. Jonathan Wallace's account, and a public comment by Jamie McCarthy. This isn't objective proof, though, because we all could be ganging-up on Michael Sims (pile-ons have happened, Michael Sims is trying to create one on me).
I categorically deny the accusations of spamming Slashdot and similar. And the way to know the truth of that is simple logic. If he had anything, anything, serious on me, he'd be making maximum use of it. When you break it down, the only thing he has, is much calling me names, and that other people have called me names. In contrast, he still has the censorware.org registration
If you want, we can take this to e-mail.
http://www.aquaria.net/lawsuit.html
And the archive of the infamous mailing list is at:
http://fins.actwin.com/aquatic-plants/index.php
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Isn't he RIGHT?
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2002/04/spam.htm
Plenty of further links to PDF's of the FTC's spam actions.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Imagine you wear special, expensive, contact lens. You wear them all day, every day, for a long time. Then an airline security guard decides the contact lens might be the next thing in terms of smuggled terrorist weapons (after all, given a bomb hidden in shoes, and plastic explosives, well, better safe than sorry). So security rips the contact lenses out of your eyes (scratching your corneas in doing so), and ruins your lens with their grubby fingers in the process of examining them.
Suddenly, you're back to pre-contact lens vision, with some "damage" (not dramatic in the overall scale of things, but still painful) to your eyes.
Now imagine you can't get easily get new contact lenses, or even replacement glasses, because they're specially-made.
Stripped of the cyborgness, this is the sort of experience we're talking about. It's clear it's not a pleasant one.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Given What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org), I don't think submitting it to Slashdot as an article is even worth the e-mail.
I'll post it here just for reader enjoyment. I think it's better than many of the stories which WERE posted!
______
Spam "protection" - a modest proposal
by Seth Finkelstein
April 1 2002
The problem of Spam, i.e. junk e-mail, has been plaguing the net for years. This article makes a modest proposal for spam "protection", in terms of a novel economic analysis leading to the benefit of all concerned.
In economic terms, let's consider why there's profit in spamming (sending large numbers of unsolicited emails). This is due to the "cost-shifting" nature of the spam process. It takes very little effort to send a large number of e-mails. But e-mail is not free (as in beer). In effect, the spammer shifts the expense of the advertising campaign, from the seller, onto ISPs and users:
- The ISP must pay (in resources) to distribute the spammer's ads
- The user must pay (in time) to delete the spammer's ads
So this is, literally, the price of free (as in speech) speech - the ISP and the user must bear the costs of the spammer's ads. Now, a frequent "technological solution" is that, once the ISP has paid to handle the spammer's mail, the user can avoid the further payment of time, by paying cash to another organization, which will perform the task of sorting out the spam. This approach is exemplified by services offered by, for example, Brightmail Inc. or SpamCop Email SystemBut what does this sorting organization do? Its only task is to try to identify spam from real mail. That is, it is paid to try to identify mail sent from spammers. However, since it is in an adversary relationship to the spammers, the spam-gangs have every reason to try to avoid such identification.
There have been some proposals to facilitate identification of spam by legally requiring labels. But that involves government and law. In fact, it's compelled speech! Instead, since the free market is the solution to all problems, the only proper course of action is to provide spammers with an economic incentive to identify themselves. After all, spam identification is the exact product being sold by third parties, so why pay a middle-man? If one is going to pay, for maximum market efficiency, why not pay the source?
In this scheme, the user pays a mailbox "protection fee" to an umbrella group, let's call it the "Spamafia". In return for this "protection", the "Spamafia" provides the user with a simple mailbox checking system which can be run over mail messages. Because this system works in a manner akin to passing items over a net barrier, it might be termed a "racket". So, the "racket" tests each piece of mail. Those mail messages which originate from members of the Spamafia each contain a certification token. In the process of testing the mail, this token is sent back to the Spamafia, and so redeemed to the individual spammer for a small fee, say a penny or so. In return, the user is given assurance that this message is certified as spam, and so can be automatically deleted without fear of losing legitimate mail. In essence, the spammer is given an incentive to also obtain a small amount of money from each smart user by being straightforward, rather than only trying to obtain a larger amount of money by fooling just a few suckers (and annoying everyone else).
The beauty of the system is that everyone has an incentive to participate. The spammers get more money, as the spams can generate income now from both the suckers, and the nonsuckers paying mailbox protection fees. There's no reason to evade spam-detection, in fact the opposite. The more people signed up to the protection racket, the more certification tokens are redeemed. The smart users get to have a workable mailbox, rather than one filled with junk. And they have the "peace of mind" that the mail being deleted is not important. It's the magic of the market at work.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Anyway, I think it works better as:
"If he didn't click on it, you must acquit!"
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
The various "Slow Glass" stories are a series written by Bob Shaw
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
at Yahoo
and CNET
even USAToday
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
So if someone wants to read it for their start-up dreams,
they can get it cheaper
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Someone should make a movie out of it someday ...
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)
"In lieu of flowers, contributions were send to ...",
or
"The ashes were ..."
But that would be cruel.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org)