Subject: [Asrg] The combination of legislation and technology (was: Articl e - New anti-spam proposal in the House of Representative)

From: Paul Judge <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 23 May 2003 16:41:39 -0400

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Rognlie [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 3:43 PM
> To: Yakov Shafranovich
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [Asrg] Article - New anti-spam proposal in the 
> House of Representative
> 
> 
> Sadly, none of those provisions will have ANY impact on the 
> trash cluttering the net.  they'll just move off-shore.

Blanket statements like this are do not contribute significantly to the
progress of these conversations.

Additionally, while the second statement holds some truth. The first is far
from reality.

Legislation and the enforcement of it do have an effect on the spam problem.
The solution to the problem includes technology, legislation, and
education/best practices. The relationship between technology and
legislation is a familiar one. For example, look at the problem of computer
intrusions: there is a set of technology available such as firewalls and IDS
to protect resourcesand they are supported by legislation to allow
prosecution of and litigation against those that are determined to
circumvent the technology. This same relationship is seen in something as
basic as property theft: burglar alarms and door locks provide protection
and they are supported by laws that provide a strong deterrence.

If one actually examines the contents of some of the proposed legislation,
one would notice that many of the proposals provide support based on the
limits of the technology and require information necessary for the
technology to be effective.

As stated in the charter, "ASRG will not pursue research into legal issues
of spam, other than the extent to which these issues affect, support, or
constrain the technology."

> On Fri, May 23, 2003 at 03:27:07PM -0400, Yakov Shafranovich wrote:
> > Below is a CNET News.com article about a new anti-spam 
> proposal in the
> > House:
> > 
> > http://news.com.com/2100-1025-1009467.html
> > 
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg

---

From: Dave Crocker <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 10:29:16 -0700

Paul,

PJ> Legislation and the enforcement of it do have an effect on the spam problem.

At the FTC workshop, speakers from states having laws were quite clear
that they were NOT having an effect on spam.

So, Paul, what data support your claim that laws "have an effect on the
spam problem"?  And please do not use extrapolations from "related"
contexts, such as facsimile or telephony.  There is a littany of reasons
those experiences are likely not to apply to Internet email.

Also, what effect do you claim they have?

d/

d/
--
 Dave Crocker <mailto:[email-masked]>
 Brandenburg InternetWorking <http://www.brandenburg.com>
 Sunnyvale, CA  USA <tel:+1.408.246.8253>, <fax:+1.866.358.5301>

---

From: Troy Rollo <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 26 May 2003 09:15:18 +1000

>that they were NOT having an effect on spam.

Did any of them have a real "anti-spam" law"? There's only one state that 
has a true (opt-in) anti-spam law. CAUCE has been saying for years that 
opt-out ant anti-forgery laws won't have any spam-reduction impact, so 
pointing at such laws and saying "laws don't work" seems to lack foundation.

Expecting laws requiring opt-out and anti-forgery to stop spam is like 
expecting an "anti bank robbery law" to work because it makes bank robbery 
illegal unless the robber wears a pink tu-tu and respects a request not to 
do it to that bank again. All such a law would do would be to increase the 
sales of pink tu-tus. Nobody would seriously call such a law "anti bank 
robbery", and nobody should seriously call an opt-out law "anti spam".

--
Troy Rollo				Chairman, CAUBE.AU
[email-masked]			Executive Director, iCAUCE

---

From: mathew <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2003 23:57:37 -0400

On Sunday, May 25, 2003, at 19:15 US/Eastern, Troy Rollo wrote:
> Did any of them have a real "anti-spam" law"? There's only one state 
> that has a true (opt-in) anti-spam law. CAUCE has been saying for 
> years that opt-out ant anti-forgery laws won't have any spam-reduction 
> impact, so pointing at such laws and saying "laws don't work" seems to 
> lack foundation.

Furthermore, did any of them make any serious attempt at *enforcing* 
the law?

If we see a few spammers lose their homes, and a few more are sent to 
jail, and the spam *still* continues with no reduction in volume, 
*then* I'll be prepared to accept it as evidence that legal solutions 
won't stop spam.

mathew