I'd like to point out why such systems are inacceptable and
a severe threat to privacy and freedom of speech.
I can see that there might be privacy issues - but any submission of an
*unencrypted* message to transport on the public internet caries an tacit
acceptance that the content becomes, in a sense, public. I can't see a free
speech issue here, who's proposing that employment of such a system be
mandatory?
So once a government observes any kind of a politically unwanted
In many jurisdictions I suspect this would be illegal.
message, it can immediately list all those people who have
received that particular message simply by doing a database lookup.
Except for the intention, there is absolutely no difference
- and especially not a technical difference - between this and
a censorship machinery.
Except a censorship machine is imposed, while this kind of service would be
voluntarily subscribed to, or implicit in the acceptance of a contract
with, say, an ISP or employer?
Any kind of organisation -
could spoof spam
alerts or even fake spam in order to perform a denial of service
attack by poisoning the pattern set and thus getting all messages
This is a concern.
This is the perfect invitation for abuse. Since 9/11, there are
severe efforts to enforce political correctness and to impact the
Mechanisms are needed to guard against this.
And by the way, not every message from a girl asking me to have
wild sex with her is spam.
I don't even get *spam* inviting me to wild sex anymore :(
could such a pattern filter, which requires adaption for getting
effective, ever be effective against a one-time-shot attack like
spam?
And yet it moves. Patterns are conserved from old to new spam (to an
extent).
Imagine there were content based spam filters working effectively.
Imagine there would also be a widely spread PKI and it would
be common to make people's public key publicly available.
What would the next generation spammers do? Obviously, they would
collect e-mail addresses _and_ public keys, and encrypt their spam,
thus rendering the content filters ineffective. People would tend
to not distribute their public key or to not having one at all.
Er, no. That's just not right is it?
While a government would never be able to establish such a
surveillance and censorship infrastructure for political reasons,
You seriously think that they haven't already?
Bless you!
--
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg