On January 29, 2007 at 13:48 dotis(_at_)mail-abuse(_dot_)org (Douglas Otis)
wrote:
The US Federal government allows bulk sending of unsolicited email.
To be precise the "US Federal government" allows nothing specifically
in this realm. There are activities which are expressly or by
implication of law illegal or subject to regulatory or civil
limitations.
If you know of a US law which says "you can send unsolicited email",
other than by implication of the absence of any express prohibition, I
would be interested in seeing a reference to that law or similar.
That said, much noxious email is sent via computers which have been in
effect "hijacked" by use of viruses, trojans and other malicious
software. These are often called "zombie botnets", a commonplace term
of art which could be more precisely defined, and I referred to them
specifically in the email to which you are responding but you elided
that phrasing in your response.
Creating or exploiting "zombie spambot" behavior is illegal in the US
and elsewhere, and has been occasionally prosecuted. The problem, thus
far, has been lack of enforcement.
While this is spamming, US law permits it. Providers with customers
that are bulk sending unsolicited email must rely upon AUPs to be
able to exclude this behavior. Other countries ignore egregious
behaviors that might also be seen as possible revenue sources.
Such countries might exist, perhaps de facto, but their intention,
e.g., for the revenue sources, as you claim, versus a simple lack of
prioritization of enforcement activities is unclear.
If you know of any country which has expressly stated in a policy,
memo, legislation, or other publicly memorialized statement what you
claim above I'm sure it would be edifying to this group.
I personally know of no such document and as such where you claim the
lack of expressed intent, policy, or judgement as intentioned I will
claim that same silence as mere negligence and the intent as quite the
opposite.
Otherwise I have to assume your statement is a purely speculative
inference into the /mens rea/ of more than one nation (you use the
plural) whom you do not even list. Could you at least provide an even
partial list of these nations whose intentions you are relating?
Better would be the specifics you base your claims upon.
Effective measures may require international agreements. What rules
This is a weak attempt to make the best the enemy of the good.
Nations, as a rule, have legal sovereignty over their own
citizenry. There is no need for international agreement to enforce a
nation's own laws on their own citizens.
If a citizen of a country is breaking that nations' laws, such as
fraud or electronic trespass, even if the act is not ultimately within
that nation, they would have legitimate claim to first juridiction in
any criminal, regulatory, or similar matter, generally by exercise of
long-arm statutes or limitations thereof.
Where there might be exceptions they could be dealt with in the future
as a refinement of the proposed action. Thus, making the best the
enemy of the good.
I reject the proposition that because there might be some case which
requires more broad and as yet non-existant powers to prosecute that
therefore we must not encourage the prosecution of behaviors which
easily fall within the current purview of each nations' sovereignty.
That, to repeat, is merely an attempt to make the best the enemy of
the good which is a highly undesireable goal.
should be adopted to improve behavior on the Internet? With spam
establishing the principle, what is left remains a discussion of price.
Lawful nations recognize a duty to enforce their laws, particularly as
they relate to their own citizenry's behavior. The mere existance of
unlawful nations does not argue against that point.
There is nothing new or unusual about criminal fraud, trespass,
vandalism, or similar which may arguably cross international
boundaries whether it involves postal, telephony, telegraphy, wire
transfer, internet, or other means.
My suggestion was simply a suggestion that we produce a document
ultimately issued by the IETF urging more effective enforcement of
laws as they stand.
Whether further refinement would help is a separate matter and
unnecessary a priori, even if a desireable goal. Sufficient unlawful
behaviors enable "spam", such as zombie botnets, that it would be
progress to simply make a public request that the laws (&c)
prohibiting those behaviors be better enforced.
Absence explicit substantiation of your claims I consider your point
of view purely speculative, and not meriting further discussion. But
by all means provide detail as suggested.
--
-Barry Shein
The World | bzs(_at_)TheWorld(_dot_)com |
http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD | Login: Nationwide
Software Tool & Die | Public Access Internet | SINCE 1989 *oo*
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg