Subject: Re: [Asrg] filtering at connect time

From: "Dr. Jeffrey Race" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 06 Mar 2003 11:05:36 +0700

On Wed, 5 Mar 2003 11:18:14 -0800 (PST), Michael Marking wrote:

>It is certainly premature to assume that the net cost of one solution
>(such as eliminating open relays) exceeds or trails the net cost of
>another solution (such as content filtering). This is especially true in
>that one user's individual situation may differ greatly from that of
>others' situations. If there is not an extremely good and compelling
>reason to impose the values of the majority on everyone, then it is both
>unethical, and poor engineering, to do so.

I beg to add a perspective here that seems missing, which is that
society values the principle that each person must  be responsible
for his actions, and those causing injury must cover the losses,
not the victims.

This is a grave flaw with all the filtering technologies: it is
living in the "make the victims pay" world.      No proposal will
gather public acceptance which is based on the "make the victims
pay" model.   

The burden is rightly on the owners of the open relays, not on 
their victims.

Jeffrey Race

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Michael Marking <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 6 Mar 2003 14:29:29 -0800 (PST)

> The burden is rightly on the owners of the open relays, not on

No. The owners of the open relays are also victims. The guilty parties
are the spammers.

If I leave my house unlocked, and someone walks in and takes something
of mine, that person is guilty of theft. (However, because it was
unlocked, my insurance company -- by private contractual agreement --
may not be willing to pay.) It should not be necessary for me to spend
money or time to protect my possessions. The trend in computer-related
law is also in this direction: being charged with theft-of-service does
not require that a perpetrator breach some barrier, only that he or she
have used computer resources without permission.

There is a shovel in my yard, not locked up. If a person takes my shovel
without my permission, and uses it to kill another person, am I guilty?
I think not.

Perhaps the open relays operators are negligent (or lazy or whatever),
but the theft is being committed by the spammers.

The problem occurs because the current system is inadequate to make the
spammers liable in any practical sense for their actions. Although there
may be exceptions, it is usually infeasible to pursue them either by
civil or by criminal action. Part of the problem is technical -- which
we are considering -- and part is legal, which is beyond our charter.

If we can facilitate the prosecution of spammers for their crimes, then
perhaps it will not be necessary to make it a civil or criminal offense
to leave our electronic doors unlocked.