Privacy, Spam, and the Internet
Filksinger
I have been keeping an eye on the debates over privacy and spam on the
Internet, and what sort of solution, if any, there should be. I have become
curious as to what the Heinlein Forum thinks.
Here are my questions:
1. What, if anything, should the government do end/control/limit spam? If
it should do something, why? If not, why not?
2. What, if anything, should the government do control or force disclosure
of the policies concerning the trading of information collected online
concerning private citizens? If it should do something, why? If not, why
not?
Filksinger
Nuclear Waste
Filksinger wrote in message <01bd9f8d$640b28e0$fd211dac@d036>...
>I have been keeping an eye on the debates over privacy and spam on the
>Internet, and what sort of solution, if any, there should be. I have become
>curious as to what the Heinlein Forum thinks.
>
>Here are my questions:
>
>1. What, if anything, should the government do end/control/limit spam? If
>it should do something, why? If not, why not?
Nothing, the last thing we need to do is grant the government control over
the internet. As far as spam and acceess to the net go I have two thoughts,
TANSTAAFL, and caveate emptor (sp?)
>
>2. What, if anything, should the government do control or force disclosure
>of the policies concerning the trading of information collected online
>concerning private citizens? If it should do something, why? If not, why
>not?
Any action it takes will be futile, this sort of information trading is
impossible to stop. At this point, take the advice of Friday (from the book
of the same name) and lie to any computer you can. If there is a chance to
gum up the works, do so. I started when I registered this nice Aptiva with
IBM. Since then any product I have registered has different information in
every field. I get an ecclectic mix of spam.
Nuclear Waste
Wayne Morgan
Filksinger wrote:
> I have been keeping an eye on the debates over privacy and spam on the
> Internet, and what sort of solution, if any, there should be. I have become
> curious as to what the Heinlein Forum thinks.
>
> Here are my questions:
>
> 1. What, if anything, should the government do end/control/limit spam? If
> it should do something, why? If not, why not?
>
> 2. What, if anything, should the government do control or force disclosure
> of the policies concerning the trading of information collected online
> concerning private citizens? If it should do something, why? If not, why
> not?
>
> Filksinger
Not sure I understand the second question (my ignorance, not your question),
but I believe the government should keep its nose out of the spam issue. It
can't move quickly enough to keep up with new dodges spammers dream up.
Government regulation will only needlessly complicate the issue in an area
which doesn't need any more regulation. Let commercial software providers and
internet vendors attempt to keep ahead of spammers, always assuming there is
enough market to support their efforts.
Wayne
Filksinger
Wayne Morgan wrote in message <35915AFD...@indy.net>...
>
>
>Filksinger wrote:
<snip>
>> 2. What, if anything, should the government do control or force
disclosure
>> of the policies concerning the trading of information collected online
>> concerning private citizens? If it should do something, why? If not, why
>> not?
>>
>> Filksinger
>
> Not sure I understand the second question (my ignorance, not your
question),
At this time, if I fill out a form on the Internet, buy a product, or
otherwise identify myself and/or my interests, it is possible for the people
who collect the information to sell it elsewhere. This destroys my privacy.
There are reports of people being traced via . The majority of sites on the
Internet that collect information at this time do not give even a hint of
what they intend to do with it, and many collect information automatically
without even asking who you are.
Furthermore, no one can deny that the industry, which of course is promoting
self-policing, has so far been a complete flop at this. Virtually nothing
has been done so far, and past attempts at self-policing in privacy
guidelines before the Internet were major flops. This is hardly surprising,
as it is against the company's best interests to tell people that it is
going to do something (sell private information, keep tabs on everything you
buy and everywhere you go) that makes it money but which people will not
like.
In 1983, 183 large companies signed a document saying that they would uphold
the OECD privacy guidelines. Checking one year later, out of 34 companies
surveyed, only 7 CEOs even knew their companies were signatories, and three
denied it outright. Given the online world's lip service and virtually
complete lack of actual effort in this area, they'll have to offer some
strong evidence that they intend to make real changes to be convincing.
Filksinger
Filksinger
Wayne Morgan wrote in message <35915AFD...@indy.net>...
>
>
>Filksinger wrote:
>
>> I have been keeping an eye on the debates over privacy and spam on the
>> Internet, and what sort of solution, if any, there should be. I have
become
>> curious as to what the Heinlein Forum thinks.
>>
>> Here are my questions:
>>
>> 1. What, if anything, should the government do end/control/limit spam? If
>> it should do something, why? If not, why not?
<snip>...I believe the government should keep its nose out of the spam
issue. It
>can't move quickly enough to keep up with new dodges spammers dream up.
>Government regulation will only needlessly complicate the issue in an area
>which doesn't need any more regulation. Let commercial software providers
and
>internet vendors attempt to keep ahead of spammers, always assuming there
is
>enough market to support their efforts.
It wouldn't need to keep up with anything. At this time "junk faxes" carry a
simple civil penalty- you send me one, I can sue you for $500 for each one.
Extended online to emails, anyone who sends me junk email loses $500 for
each person willing to press the issue. Hiding their identities wouldn't
help, as a commercial email that doesn't carry some way of identifying who
to buy the product from is useless. That identity can be sued.
(Note: In the case of outright fraud, we already have laws against it. It
would not be necessary to create new laws in this area, IMHO.)
Filksinger
Ed Johnson
On 24 Jun 98 Filksinger wrote:
<snip>
>
>1. What, if anything, should the government do end/control/limit spam? If
>it should do something, why? If not, why not?
FS: I am leery of any government intervention. I get my share of
unwanted E-Mail and hope that they can be prevented without Big
Brother telling us all how to operate the Internet.
>
>2. What, if anything, should the government do control or force disclosure
>of the policies concerning the trading of information collected online
>concerning private citizens? If it should do something, why? If not, why
>not?
>
>Filksinger
Here is an area where we, the good citizens of our respective
countries, have banded together to stop forced disclosure of private
information. (Or should have) If that means government
intervention, then let it be what We The People ask our elected
reps. to do for us.
(2 cents worth <G> )
Ed J
Bob Lawson
I have a question...
Who defines what Spam is?
Is it merely unsolicited email?
Unsolicited commercial email?
Unsolicited commercial email that goes to a large number of people?
Unsolicited email that goes to a large number of people?
If so, what is "large"?
Are non-profit organizations exempt?
why or why not?
If they never actually mention a specific product, only a business, is
it still Spam?
Is an email that is "news" spam or not? (a person or business or
organization emails a large number of people to let them know of
something that has happened, is going to happen, etc.)
If so, what is news? (a new product being released? probably not. FTL
drive discovered? probably, but what about all the areas in between?)
There are too many questions to list here, but these seem to be the
more important ones.
Bob
--Bob
A highbrow is the kind of person who looks at a sausage and thinks of Picasso.
A. P. Herbert (1890-1971), British author, politician. Mr. Haddock, a witness, in Uncommon Law, "Is 'Highbrow' Libellous?" (1935).
The ballot is stronger than the bullet.
Abraham Lincoln (1809-65), U.S. president. Speech, 19 May 1856, Bloomington, Ill.
<<Big Charlie>>
Bob--
Well written.
The proposals to regulate "spam" come from the same omes who have
been unable to get a handle on telephone solicitations for several
decades. As one who works nights; that is far more of a problem for me.
--
<<Big Charlie>>
"The history of progress is a long, long list of specialists who were
dead wrong when they were the most certain." --SIASL
Filksinger
Bob Lawson wrote in message <35920359...@news.sff.net>...
>I have a question...
>Who defines what Spam is?
Usually defined as an unsolicited advertisement. This is probably a good
definition, as it avoids problems with unsolicited religeous email, for
example, which would be a much thornier issue to tackle.
>Is it merely unsolicited email?
>Unsolicited commercial email?
>Unsolicited commercial email that goes to a large number of people?
>Unsolicited email that goes to a large number of people?
>If so, what is "large"?
If the present "junk fax" law is extended to email, the present law defines
it as "unsolicited advertisement". The term "unsolicited advertisement"
means any material advertising the commercial availability or quality of any
property, goods, or services which is transmitted to any person without that
person's prior express invitation or permission.
>Are non-profit organizations exempt?
Yes.
>why or why not?
Ask three politicians, get four answers.:) Take your pick.
>If they never actually mention a specific product, only a business, is
>it still Spam?
If mentioning the business is intended to advertise the commercial
availability or quality of its property, goods, or services, yes.
>Is an email that is "news" spam or not? (a person or business or
>organization emails a large number of people to let them know of
>something that has happened, is going to happen, etc.)
If it fits the definition above, yes.
>If so, what is news? (a new product being released? probably not. FTL
>drive discovered? probably, but what about all the areas in between?)
>
>There are too many questions to list here, but these seem to be the
>more important ones.
Good list. Hope my answers helped.
Note that if no laws are invoked, or if different laws are invoked, the
definitions may change. Proponents of letting industry deal with the problem
suggest that ISPs sue spammers, since spam costs everyone on the network(s)
involved, rather than being paid for by the spammer. This is what makes it
theoretically possible to sue spammers, or even (possibly) to get past the
First Amendment- the financial costs of free speech cannot be forced upon
the people who you are speaking to without their permission. Of course, this
is also what makes spam so attractive to the spammer; the people you
advertise to, and even people you don't, pay the majority of your costs.
Filksinger
Filksinger
<BC wrote in message <35928...@aol.com>...
>Bob--
> Well written.
>
> The proposals to regulate "spam" come from the same omes who have
>been unable to get a handle on telephone solicitations for several
>decades.
Actually, the proposals that are most popular with spam opponents are the
ones that extend the junk fax law to explicitly cover email, and that _has_
been passed, passed the scrutiny of the courts on First Amendment issues,
and been effective at stopping junk faxes. Apparently the fact that junk
faxes place the cost burden of advertising clearly upon the shoulder's of
the _recipient_ was enough to get such laws past the First Amendment issues
which have interfered for years with attempts to stop telephone
solicitations.
>As one who works nights; that is far more of a problem for me.
I can understand that. Personally, I'd be glad to shoot down the telephone
solicitors, too, but unlike the anti-junk fax law the anti-junk phone call
laws have been shot down by the courts a number of times, and most
politicians won't get into the First Amendment vs my right not to be
accosted in my home issue. The "you can't make people pay for your free
speech" issue is easier politically and has already passed the courts, but,
while arguments could be made that it applied to junk phone calls, they
aren't nearly as solid as the case against junk faxes and email.
Filksinger
Michael P. Calligaro
Re phone solicitors. Here's the magic phrase.
"Please put me on your do not call list."
If you say that and they call you back within some period of time (a year,
was it?) you can sue for damages. And, because there aren't that many phone
solicitation companies, it doesn't take very long to stop getting calls.
Just say that to the next ten people who call and you'll see your calls drop
considerably.
> The proposals to regulate "spam" come from the same omes who have
>been unable to get a handle on telephone solicitations for several
>decades. As one who works nights; that is far more of a problem for me.
Michael P. Calligaro
Indeed. I recently sent some mail to a small group of people from this
board. One of the recipient ISPs decided my mail was spam and disallowed
it. Not a big deal there, but it would REALLY suck if I'd also gotten
charged $500.
bytor
Bob Lawson <bo...@snowcrest.com> wrote in message
35920359...@news.sff.net...
<<Big Charlie>>
Bytor--
I use that line regularly; along with pointing out that I am a night
worker, and it seems to have helped some. But the tendency of
solicitors to hang up if they get a "sleepy" hello and their autodial
equipment that does not connect you until after you answer (and hangs up
if more than a few seconds pass) annoy me even more.
Anyone who calls me with an "out of area" on the caller ID and
doesn't leave a message is near certain to be a solicitor. "private"
calls I do not answer period. But my ID unit is not inthe bedroom in
any case. Maybe I should answer those and do some chewing.
Geo Rule
> Anyone who calls me with an "out of area" on the caller ID and
>doesn't leave a message is near certain to be a solicitor. "private"
>calls I do not answer period. But my ID unit is not inthe bedroom in
>any case. Maybe I should answer those and do some chewing.
Note to self: Big C won't be answering our calls.
Our experience is that cell phones also usually report as "Out of
Area".
Geo_...@MSN.COM
-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-^-
"I have always imagined that paradise will be a kind of library."
--Jorge Luis Borges
--- GEnieTag v3.0a ------[Geo]-------
Fader
On Sat, 27 Jun 1998 06:33:43 GMT, Geo_...@MSN.COM (Geo Rule) wrote:
> Our experience is that cell phones also usually report as "Out of
>Area".
>
At work usually cell phones come up as "cell phone" also pay phones
come up as "pay phone", sometimes with the # & sometimes not.
Fader
Yog Sysop
Yog stirred in the depths when bo...@snowcrest.com (Bob Lawson)
uttered:
>There are too many questions to list here, but these seem to be the
>more important ones.
Right now there are about 22 million small businesses in the USA
alone.
Suppose that 1% of them decided to advertise with spam.
Suppose that the 1% sent only one email per year.
How many unsolicited commercial emails would be in your box
every day?
Answer: more than 600.
Do you want to hit the "delete" key 600 times per day?
Do you want to send a "remove" message 600 times per day?
Will your legitimate, wanted mail be squeezed out?
Will a service (email) that you bought and paid for no longer be
useful to you?
Suppose that 2% decide to spam? 3%? 5%? 50%?
This is the tragedy of the commons, in almost pure form.
--
James D. Macdonald
http://www.sff.net/people/doylemacdonald/
<<Big Charlie>>
Geo--
The vast majority of my out of town calls show up with a number.
In any case, if you leave a message, I will either answer (if home) or
return your call.