Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Sat, 16 Jan 1999 16:59:07 -0600 (CST)
From:      Jim Bryant <jbryant@unix.tfs.net>
To:        jabley@clear.co.nz (Joe Abley)
Cc:        jbryant@unix.tfs.net, jal@ThirdAge.com, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG, dennis.moore@mail.house.gov, jabley@clear.co.nz, tlambert@primenet.com
Subject:   Re: Forward all spam to UCE@FTC.GOV [please take to -chat]
Message-ID:  <199901162259.QAA28290@unix.tfs.net>
In-Reply-To: <19990117020152.A812@clear.co.nz> from Joe Abley at "Jan 17, 99 02:01:53 am"

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
In reply:
> On Sat, Jan 16, 1999 at 03:45:35AM -0600, Jim Bryant wrote:
> > In reply:
> > 
> > > [absurd uneducated anarchist crotch-rot rant deleted]
> > 
> > > >to disagree with this is to admit that self-policing the internet [or
> > > >anything else for that matter] is an utterly sophistic concept that
> > > >needs to be relegated to the status of fairie tale.  which, by the way
> > > >is a circular concept anyhow, since to agree with my reasoning is to
> > > >admit the same.  at least i have enough moral character to admit it.
> > > 
> > > What? You're not making any sense.
> > 
> > what part did you not understand.  self-regulation DOES NOT work, HAS
> > NEVER worked, and WILL NEVER work.  it is a historically sophistic
> > concept.  where there is no threat of punishment, there is no
> > incentive to not do something.
> >
> > anarchists like you have made the internet a ROTTING CESSPOOL of
> > criminal activity.  every now and then the toilet does need flushed
> > lest the whole house become diseased!
> >
> > [rest of shouting removed for the safety of others]

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.

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.

i do tend to be direct, and some people are not equipped to handle
direct speech.  please excuse me if it sounded like shouting.  any
capitalization was intended to emphasize a point, and not to be
shouting.

> Your messages are interesting. I think you are both right, to a certain
> extent.
> 
> 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.

i do realize of course, that the majority of OUR problem in the USA
does originate here, even if it is being sent through international
relay points.

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.

>  (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.

> 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.

> 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.

> There are three ways I can see to defeat the spammers:
> 
> 1. Make it free to receive spam. Practically, the only way to accomplish
> this is to make all inbound e-mail free. This isn't practical at
> all.

agreed, as stated in my last message on the subject.

> 2. Make it expensive to send spam. Practically, this could only be done
> by making it expensive to send all e-mail. This won't happen.

agreed.  that would be detrimental to the entire net.

> 3. Implement a technical solution based on end-to-end signatures and/or
> cryptography, so that unsolicited mail will never be accepted. This would
> effectively make spam pointless, since the target audience is removed.

terry used this argument.

such a solution would require standardization, many years to
implement, as well as the finding unconstitutional of our current law
based on property rights issues.  to do this before such a ruling
would result in massive restraint of trade lawsuits that could only be
defended by using the private property case and making the current law
unconstitutional.

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.

i also believe that implementation on a national scale would also be
more expensive than a legal solution with adequate enforcement methods
and budgets.  it would be totally ineffective to do this unless it was
mandated by law, see my argument concerning why we have the current
problems because of "voluntary self-regulation" and the lack of anyone
volunteering to do it effectively.

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.

i seriously doubt if this solution can be implemented on such a large
scale as to replace the current protocol standards for transferring
email anytime in the next ten to twenty years even if mandated by law.

the current installed base is just too large to make such a change any
faster, especially given that no standards yet exist for such a
solution.  think about the sheer numbers and sheer cost involved.  if
it is a voluntary solution, it could take upwards of thirty to fifty
years to implement globally.  keep in mind that certain network
providers and service providers are part of the problem that we are
trying to deal with.

i'm not writing off this idea.  i'm just saying that more immediate
solutions can be had inside of three to five years on an international
scale, this assumes that nothing will be done to solve the problem by
the current right wing majority in our house and senate, and that they
get kicked out next election.  we can work on mop-up later.  using
end-to-end cryptographic certificates is a great mop-up solution, but
assuming that my timeline for start of work on the legal issues is
correct, the legal road will solve the bulk of the problem a full
fifteen to twenty-five years before the practical global
implementation of such a transport is realized, and backward
compatability with SMTP phased out.

such a transport is the natural progression of mail transport, but
please be realistic when projecting timelines for FULL global
implementation.  realize that until such FULL global implementation is
achieved, FULL backwards compatability with SMTP will be mandated.

SMTP has it's shortcomings in the modern age.  it's day will come, not
soon, but it will come.  I remember a guy who said that not one single
line of COBOL will exist by 1990...  how many lines of COBOL have been
upgraded to last until at least the year 9999 or later within the last
few years?  how hard is it going to be to change the standard that the
entire world uses for email?  re-think your argument.

it's easier and cheaper in the short term to make laws, and enforce
them on a global scale through treaties.  let's make them now, they
won't have to be as harsh now as they will be if the problem continues
snowballing for another thirty years.  especially since in another
thirty or fourty years most countries will need to implement more
radical laws, such as madatory family planning.  there is no sense in
making things harder than they have to be.  this assumes that right
wing nationalist factions everywhere don't take care of the problem by
having armageddon first, which is exactly where conservative and right
wing policies in many countries are heading [especially here], either
through design or ignorance [hard to tell].  just like spam, there are
two camps in the population control argument too.  the ones that want
to do it the easy way [family planning], or the hard way [Planet of
the Apes].

> If the internet is indeed a "rotting cesspool of criminal activity", then
> it will not be improved by treating the symptoms - you need to attack the
> cause.
> 
> If it is technically possible for spam to be sent, it will be sent. This
> is the nature of humanity, and no amount of moral posturing or regional
> lawmaking will stop it.

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]

> I have copied your senator, or congressman, or whoever you said he was.

House Representative = Congressman = like your MP.  Our senators from
Kansas are part of the problem, and thus not included here.

> My message to him is unsolicited. I am not (nor have I ever been) a US
> citizen. What facet of US law is stopping me from doing this? What possible
> future US law could stop me?

none, but a treaty can.  and countries have ways of forcing treaty
breaking countries to comply.

in this case, i'm sure my congressman would not mind.  how else can
lawmakers make intelligent laws, unless they understand the issues,
and the scale of a problem.

> Is there any practical difference between this letter, and its content,
> and another message I might have chosen to send advertising some pyramid
> sales scheme? Again, which current or future US law could indict me?

yes, there is a difference.  i copied the message yours is in
reference to to my congressman.  diverse views are needed in any
debate.

had you chosen to spam him with unsolicited commercial email, there
may be a related treaty that can be used, even if there is not a
specific treaty in place.  also, what are your laws on the subject, if
your country already has such laws, you would be guilty of them for
doing so, notification could be easy.

there is a need for specific treaties to be negotiated, and put into
place.  a direct non-proxy opt-in law, with adequate enforcement
provisions is simple to implement, both at the treaty level, as well
as in all signatory countries.  non-signatory countries, could
possibly lose access under such a treaty.

> Lawers and government will not save us from spam. That will only happen
> by the application of thought from software engineers and protocol
> architects.

i'm still waiting for IPv6....  Well?  When?!

No legal mandate, no incentive to take action, no action taken.  human
nature.

i predict that full implementation of IPv6 on a global scale will take
many years, and will be fought every step of the way by criminals with
a lot of money that don't want to be easily traced every time they
commit a criminal act.  how far off is this from the truth?  talk to
me in thirty years, don't be surprised if i just cut and paste this
paragraph as the reply, as it will probably be as true then as it is
now.

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.

If Denial of Service [DoS] attacks can be made illegal and enforced
against, so can spam.  The fundamental legal principles behind each
are the same.  any non-communist non-feudal democracy on this planet
probably has the laws in place already, they just have to be extended
to a new type of private property.

i've been on the internet since the early-mid eighties.  i once
supported collaboration, and self-regulation.  back in those days, it
was something that was actually got done because the scale of the
problem was miniscule, and the government heavily regulated the
internet here.  such heavy regulation did nothing detrimental, and
actaully made the internet a decent place to excercise free speech and
to collaborate.  i'm man enough to admit that the problem is out of
hand now to the point that such voluntary solutions are no longer
valid to solve the problem at the large scale it's at today.

back then if a country was causing a problem, all we had to do was
flip a switch on a single line card, and they were off of the net for
the duration.  the same thing could have been done to a university or
contractor.  the rules have changed, the scale has changed, now doing
that is impossible.  the internet is now on it's feet.  time to potty
train it.

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.  do you have a kid?  if you don't
discipline your kid for doing wrongful acts as he grows up, what do
you end up with?  another person to feed in maximum security on a life
sentance.  what happens when you have a whole society raised the same
way?  Planet of the Apes.

this is a juncture moment for the internet, the good wanting something
done still outnumber vastly the bad who are keeping it from being done
in their own self-interest.  we can take care of it the right way, or
we can take care of it the wrong way.  how we take care of it now
effects the outcome.  i would rather have intelligent laws and
enforcement now, than draconian laws with brutal enforcement later.

remember, this is not a debate on if serious regulation of the
internet will take place, rest assured, it will be seriously
regulated.

solving the problems now is a lot easier and cheaper taxwise than
solving them later.  this is what is called a sound fiscal spending
policy.  waiting until later, and spending hundreds or thousands of
times more to solve the problem is called unsound fiscal spending
policy.

waiting decades until some pie-in-the-sky undefined protocol is
implemented on a global scale with complete backwards compatability
phase-out, using it as the sole cure, and spending tens of thousands
of times as much money to do so, just to have it suddenly bypassed by
the criminal element, is absurdity.  you start with nothing, you end
with nothing, what have you solved?  nothing!  effective laws and
effective enforcement of those laws is lasting, and has the benefit of
the psychological side effect of making the criminals think about the
consequences, and possibly changing their mind before they act.

a new grand security system is merely a temporary setback to a
cracker.

"DDD DDD DDD DE H.M.S. TITANIC. HIT ICEBURG, SINKING. DDD DDD DDD"

there is no single solution.  laws, treaties, and real enforcement in
the near term is the cheapest, and most effective way to solve the
MAJORITY of the problem.  new technology will be key to the final
solution, but we have got to be realistic concerning it's
implementation schedule, cost, and the fact that it is not the key to
solving the vast majority of the problem.  both methods together can
be an effective combination.  you can work on the Titanic, while I
will push the legal issues, and I'm sure we can meet in the middle, in
the near future [at least on the legal issues].

it'll never be "Leave it to Beaver", but let's pray it doesn't devolve
to "Planet of the Apes".  what it amounts to is the question: what do
we want the world of our grandkids to be like?  while at the same time
realizing that by the time they are my age the global population will
be somewhere between 12 and 16 billion people, possibly much higher,
or possibly as low as the dark ages if certain things are allowed to
continue.

did you just hand over your lunch money to the schoolyard bully as a
kid?  i didn't.  i hope you didn't either.

in the mean time, and back on subject: please support a commented
forwarding line in the spam filters in sendmail.cf to forward
unsolicited commercial email automatically to uce@ftc.gov, as they
have requested.  if you are not american, you can change the address
to one of your government's agencies, or just leave it commented.  if
your government is not researching the scope of this problem, you need
to make them aware, if you don't, you WILL end up with either laws
that are inadequate, or laws that are too harsh on the innocent.  it's
a simple and straightforward request being made by a federal agency
here in the USA that wants to help solve some of the immediate
problems IN OUR COUNTRY.  it's a simple change to sendmail.cf.

[reality check mode on]

i'm surprised to find so much opposition to helping a government
agency in it's constitutional duties from the americans on this
mailing list.  kind of hypocritical i think, in light of the fact that
the majority of people propagating the "self-regulation" sophistry
seem to be talking so much about "constitutional duties", upholding
the law, and such, these days.

if everyone could be trusted to do the right thing on their own, then
we wouldn't need locks, security systems, laws, enforcement, drug
sniffers, bomb sniffers, nuclear/biological/chemical warfare &
terrorism response teams, domestic terrorism task forces,
international terrorism task forces, technological crimes task forces,
courthouses, jails, prisons, death penalties, guns, police, FBI, CIA,
Secret Serice, NSA, armies, navies, air forces, marines, nukes, ad
nausium...  and neither would any other country.

WELCOME TO REALITY.

[reality check mode off]

jim
-- 
All opinions expressed are mine, if you    |  "I will not be pushed, stamped,
think otherwise, then go jump into turbid  |  briefed, debriefed, indexed, or
radioactive waters and yell WAHOO !!!      |  numbered!" - #1, "The Prisoner"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Inet: jbryant@tfs.net    AX.25: kc5vdj@wv0t.#neks.ks.usa.noam     grid: EM28pw
voice: KC5VDJ - 6 & 2 Meters AM/FM/SSB, 70cm FM.   http://www.tfs.net/~jbryant
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HF/6M/2M: IC-706-MkII, 2M: HTX-212, 2M: HTX-202, 70cm: HTX-404, Packet: KPC-3+

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?199901162259.QAA28290>