Subject: Re(2): Re(2): SPAM (fwd)

From: ColorNet Robin <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 11:01:21 +0200

Hello all,
It may be interesting to access the following :
http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg15/en/media/dataprot/news/enspam.htm

If necessary I will make myself available for the presentations in
Brussels on 28 September and report back to you if we can delay
publication of the draft until at least monday October 4th in order to
take the above into account.

I understand and sympathise with Albert Lunde's viewpoint that ....
" I'd repeat what I said about the prior RFC, that in my opinion we
aren't writing a legal document, but an ethical document."

Nevertheless, irrespective of IETF standpoint per IETF, at the current
stage of the game, there are so many vested interests that  our document
tself will be taken into account by all - both corporations, governments
and international regulatory institutions.  Please do not underestimate
either your importance and the necessity of translating the ethics into
the double effectiveness of peer pressure and legal influence.  Please
also do not underestimate the fact that all governments (for different
reasons) legally assimilate online and offline in many circumstances.
This could be a test case for the relevance of ISOC per ISOC.

[email-masked] a écrit:
>Hi Jonathan,
>
>You have some very interesting points--thanks for sending them!
>
>You are at something of a disadvantage, as you note, joining the process
>at this stage.  Many of these issues were discussed as the scope of the
>doc was being determined.
>
>Basically, the group is past talking about the meta issues, but would be
>very interested in specific ways of improving the doc (even if those ways
>mean you feel you need to suggest a whole new outline or something).
>
>thanks!
>April

[email-masked] a écrit:
>If you want my honest opinion, I would like to see it become policy that
>spammers lose their domain names, that the contacts for the offending
>domain
>be blacklisted so they cannot hold that role again, and that the product
>or
>website paying for the spamming (being advertised) suffer the same
>penalty.
>
>But that is extremist, and not very realistic.

Here IMHO that there is another possibility but this may not be the time
and place.  That is if there was an Anonymous Universal Identifier - bio
or crypto - and independant (ISOC ?) 3rd party identification - then
everyone would be identified in a certain way but never nominally unless
that was desired by the individual.  This would allow for a far freer and
speedier networking universe while at the same time protecting the
individual from both government and big business pressure.  It is another
story but they are interlinked.
[email-masked] a écrit:
>I now see the distinction you are making between ONLINE and OFFLINE,
>Jonathan.
>
>ONLINE is spam.
>OFFLINE is "Junk Mail".
>
>We are concerned only with those manners which use the Internet as a
>medium,
>therefore, we do not address OFFLINE. I believe it is entirely outside of
>our purview to address paper mail, as it does not use the Internet as its
>sole or primary medium.

We are also concerned with the global transition from offline online and
IMHO that if we totally divorce ourselves from the realities of the
offline universe - as some are doing regarding the online networking - we
are prejudicing our position as objective and legitimate arbitrator.  If
we lose relevance we might as well be crying in the wilderness

Best regards Jonathan

---

From: Albert Lunde <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 17 Sep 1999 08:08:36 CDT

> This could be a test case for the relevance of ISOC per ISOC.

I don't particularly expect that the laws (or ethical principles)
are going to be different "offline" and "online" and I'm a little
unclear what conclusion you are attempting to from this reference.

The state of the law (in the US) _is_ a bit clouded just now,
by case law taking time to catch up with reality, by the problem
of multiple juristictions that may apply to an on-line transaction,
and by the questionable efforts of legislators to special-case
the Internet in dumb ways.

There are reasonable legal analogies for fighting spam with the
"offline" world: you will hear folks talk about "trespass"
or "theft of services" in anti-spam circles (and some case
law reflects this). In the US there have been lobbying efforts
to extend the junk fax law to explictly cover e-mail (from
one electronic medium to another) which have failed at the federal
level so far.

If, as someone else suggested, you are just trying to say that
physical "mail" and electronic "mail", bulk "mailings" deserve
to be treated exactly the same, legally, (just because they
are both called "mail"), then I disagree, because as I've
said before, they have the quite different cost structures.

To say otherwise would be like agreeing that people have the
right to send me bricks postage due, and hold me responsible
for the costs.

This doesn't mean that I think laws on, say, what is "pornography",
or "fraud", or "freedom of expression", or "privacy", should not apply
even-handly to both media, and to "online" and "offline"
alike. I just want analogies to take into account significant
differences, like "Who pays the bills?".

Span is a problem today because of the problem of cost shifting
and "abuse of the commons". It's such a visible problem that
it tends to obscure the fact that there's a commnunity of
responsible people that have been using the Internet for
businessing and marketing in ethical ways, some far longer
that the current crop of fly-by-night spammers. I see the
one mission for this document as steering business
a bit unclear on the issues people towards that community,
rather than the company of electronic rip-off atrists.

--
    Albert Lunde                      [email-masked]