Re: [anti-spam-wg] Proposal for a legal solution to spam

[Gunnar Lindberg <]

I've had the same idea in the late 1990:s (1999). Boy, was I wrong!

In fact Spam is illegal already, at least within EU (passed 2004-04-01
or maybe 2005-04-01; despite the date it's not a joke).

Anyone notice a difference?

The problem is that it isn't "illegal enough" and I'm not sure how
it could be made so - I'm not even sure if it should be made so.

The Legal System sees is a numer of separate disputes between me and
SpamIncN [N=1...], separare for each N. Now if N=1 there wouldn't be
much of a problem since I can delete a few pieces of email just like
that - or it would be large enough to be called "harass", which said
Legal System can deal with.

But N=large_enough_to_make_us_all_p*ssed and that's the crux.

We see the sum of all Spam (N), the Legal system sees one by one.

We hade a SMTP Proxy break in in the other day. Most for the fun of
it I browsed throuch our Argus statistics and I now have a fairly
accurate list of what IP made use of the Proxies, time stamps and
all that.  Everyone here would accept that as evidence but based on
previous discussions with IT prosecutors I'm 100% sure it would not
hold in court, assuming the Spammers have a defence lawyer at all.

That investigation took me 3h - as I said, for the fun of it, or more
correctly, to get a feeling for how much work is needed in each case.

No way the Police would have spent that amount of time on one single
event, espcially since it's only a few pieces to each of you. I even
think I agree on that priority... sigh.

Something else needed...

Social Engineering? People talk a lot of Spam and how annoying it is.
Well, every time our friends mention Spam, lets repeat the fact that
it's the very few people that actually buy based on Spam that make
the system running - "you wouldn't buy from them would you?".

	Gunnar Lindberg

>From anti-spam-wg-admin@localhost  Fri Sep  9 19:13:17 2005
>From: peter h peter@localhost
>Subject: Re: [anti-spam-wg] Proposal for a legal solution to spam
>References: <OFDA5617B4.EFAD12A0-ON80257077.0045C2FB-80257077.0046D44B@localhost>
>In-Reply-To: <OFDA5617B4.EFAD12A0-ON80257077.0045C2FB-80257077.0046D44B@localhost>
>Message-Id: <200509091912.08155.peter@localhost>
>Date: Fri, 9 Sep 2005 19:12:07 +0200

>On Friday 09 September 2005 14.50, Ian.Meikle@localhost wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 
>> I came across this:
>> 
>> http://www.freesoftwaremagazine.com/free_issues/issue_06/neednt_eat_spam/

>A correct observation.

>Unless spam is made illegal it won't stop. One way of increasing the pressure 
>could be to institute "pricehunter rewards" for everyone that can present 
>proof that convicts a spammer. I imagen that we have a lot of competent
>spam-fighters around the net that would love to earn a sum :-)

>Making suppliers of spemvertized goods responsible could lso be a way, that 
>would apply for spam selling brand names.  ( it won't help with pirated stuff
>but here other laws are applicable)

>ISP and corporations could also in the meantime make use of existing blocklists, this would
>work today. 

>Registries around the world has the authority to revoke address ranged abused
>(with non-existing or non-working whois information or ranges hijacked by
>spammers or hackers). There is no "Right" to obtain an ip-address range, it's
>a priviligie given to those who complies.

>> 
>> The author is arguing that ISPs, ICANN, RIRs and legal authorities should 
>> move away from a technological approach to combatting spam, and use what 
>> powers they have to enforce good behaviour.
>> 
>> Do people think there is any weight to his argument? Or that what he says 
>> may constitute a threat to the way in which LIRs and RIRs operate. I 
>> notice that he makes a connection between spam and cyberterrorism, 
>> specious in my view, which may be used to push his proposal forward.
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Ian


>Spam is theft, spam is, expressed in cost, more expensive then 9/11 

>> 
>> 
>> 

>-- 
>        Peter H�kanson   

>        There's never money to do it right, but always money to do it
>        again ... and again ... and again ... and again.
>        ( Det �r billigare att g�ra r�tt. Det �r dyrt att laga fel. )