Date: Sun, 17 Jan 1999 00:41:49 -0800 From: Mike Smith <mike@smith.net.au> To: jbryant@unix.tfs.net Cc: freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Forward all spam to UCE@FTC.GOV [please take to -chat] Message-ID: <199901170841.AAA05140@dingo.cdrom.com> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:59:07 CST." <199901162259.QAA28290@unix.tfs.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
>
> because you are not american, you probably do not understand the
> meaning of what was said. what was said was a first step in the
> process.
Actually, non-Americans tend to pay more attention to the blatant
imperialism of country than most of your citizens do.
> in our country we tend to treat criminals as such, and in most of our
> states, those who aid criminals are no different from the criminal
> himself, by law.
By labelling them "criminals" you are presupposing that your
interpretation is the only valid one. This is another farily American
response.
> > Jim: Apart from a token mention of other countries in one paragraph, you
> > presuppose that
> >
> > (a) the entire problem lies within the governance of a single entity,
> > namely the US
>
> no i don't. in every one of my messages, unless i missed one, i
> mention the need for clear treaties to be established, probably via
> the ITU. I'm not actually attempting to deal with the international
> problem at this point, we need to get the plank out of our eye before
> we get the splinter out of yours.
Yes, that's right - once you've imposed your own ill-advised and
draconian measures, you'll use whatever means you can to ram them down
the throats of the rest of the world. After all, they can't possibly
manage their affairs as well as you can do for them.
I'll leave you to guess just what the other 95% of the world thinks
about that idea. I think you'll find it about as popular as the
activities of your petrochemical companies, your smelly and xenophobic
soldiers, and those irritating low-score Mary Kay saleswomen.
> i also pointed out the fact that most other countries respect private
> property in the manner we do under their laws, and that the argument
> is applicable anywhere these laws and democracies exist.
The argument needs simplistic, narrow minds like yours in which to
sprout. Regrettably your mentality's not entirely confined to the USA.
Tell me, if you will, how it can be that in your marvellous country
where personal freedoms have been steadily reducing for over a century,
more is proprtionally spent on enforcement now than at any other time in
your history, and when punishments and criminal statutes are at their
strongest, crime - which you yourself claim would be reduced by these
measures - is at an all-time high?
Actually, don't bother telling me. I'm familiar to the point of
boredom with the argument. But I hope you lose a little sleep before
you manage to rationalise it away.
> > (b) that there is a conceivable mechanism for enforcing any law outlawing
> > UCE
>
> i believe i already mentioned that there are federal laws in place
> here concerning private property issues. the penalties are in place.
>
> the methods of enforcement are many. but talk of the methods can
> happen later, we have more immediate problems here like overturning an
> unconstitutional law that allows them to invade our property.
Yes, let's enact an unenforcable law. But gosh pal, that's
unconstitutional. 8)
> > Both these premises are faulty, in my opinion.
> >
> > The problem of spam is not new; all forms of communication suffer from it
> > in one way or other. The problem with e-mail spam is that it is incredibly
> > cheap to originate, and it costs recipients money to receive.
>
> exactly. this is why here in the USA we have either regulated in an
> intelligent way or banned altogether each form of spam except for on
> the internet.
Intelligent? You obviously don't listen to the radio, watch television,
or open your eyes while you're driving. "Spam" in normal communications
channels is worse in the USA than in any other part of the world.
Don't kid us Jim - your country couldn't "regulate" spam intelligently
if it tried (which it won't).
> > For example, I get cold-called on my GSM phone when I am in other countries.
> > This costs me money much the same as the e-mail spam I receive costs me
> > money. It rarely happens, though, because it is expensive for the spammer
> > to do.
>
> here in the usa, making a telemarketing call to a celluar or pcs phone
> is illegal, and has a serious punishment associated with it.
But it's legal to cold-call me at home here. That wastes my time and
costs *me* money. See "intelligent" above.
> how long will it be before a way is found around this solution by
> spammers? once they do that, we are back where we started. they have
> found ways around everything else we can throw at them.
Now you start to see part of the problem. It doesn't matter how you
attempt to "defeat" the spammers. They will end-run you at every
opportunity; they have more money, they're more organised, and their
very survival depends on them doing so.
This isn't a once-off battle that can be won with draconian legislation
and imperialistic manipulation of trade agreements; it's just one more
small phase in an ongoing war.
The only way to "stop" spammers is to take away the *incentive*.
Punishing them doesn't work anymore than it works for any other
undesired behaviour.
Of course, you can see where you have to go to take away the incentive,
and I don't believe it's practical any more than you do. So we have to
live with the war. There are better ways to win it than sowing mines
in friendly territory, cf. Cambodia.
> where there is no legal or financial incentive for change, change does
> not happen. this is fundamental to human nature. this principle
> dates as far back as Hammurabi [sp?], and is the time tested and valid
> reason we have laws and enforcement in every country on this planet.
Laws and law enforcement actually exist to defend the existing power
structure. The individual laying their life on their line may well be
sold on the idea of doing their bit "for society", but the organisations
don't serve that purpose.
> that's why we build courthouses and prisons. that's why you build
> courthouses and prisons. how did your country get it's start? [i'm
> not attempting to bash your country by saying that, i think aussies
> are great people, i'm just making a point]
Unless I'm muchly mistaken, Joe Abley is actually a New Zealander.
And your grip of British colonial history is pretty shaky. Care to
tell us who worked the fields of Virginia? Or outline the commercial
basis for the settlement of Australia? It certainly had very little to
do with courthouses and prisons; they merely served as a source of
slave labour.
You're invited to consider how the misapplication of laws, courthouses
and prisons allowed the British to rationalise turning their own
underclass citizens into slaves, and compare it to your current opinions
on "criminals" as people that do things you personally don't like.
> No legal mandate, no incentive to take action, no action taken. human
> nature.
Defenses can only be effectively erected by those with an incentive to
do so. Regulators have no incentive to do so; it is the technically
aware, irritated spam recipients that are the most likely source of
such a defense.
> Private property laws can easily be extended to the internet, and to
> do so is merely the natural progression of those laws into today's
> way of life and conducting business.
Sure. Just like the marvellous extension patent law to software.
> a society that does not adapt it's methods of dealing with it's
> misfits as the society itself changes and grows is a society on the
> way to it's own destruction.
That's a supportable premise. Unfortunately it directly contradicts
your main theme. You suggest applying the society's extant rules in a
domain where they are not necessarily valid. That's not adaptation,
that's stasis.
> remember, this is not a debate on if serious regulation of the
> internet will take place, rest assured, it will be seriously
> regulated.
If it is "seriously regulated", it will cease to be "the internet", and
we will have to wait for something else will spring up in its place.
Personally, I'll just find something more interesting to play with.
Home Genetics sounds good.
> WELCOME TO REALITY.
^ Jim's private
--
\\ Sometimes you're ahead, \\ Mike Smith
\\ sometimes you're behind. \\ mike@smith.net.au
\\ The race is long, and in the \\ msmith@freebsd.org
\\ end it's only with yourself. \\ msmith@cdrom.com
To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199901170841.AAA05140>