Re: Principles of Spam-abatement

Paul -- With respect, I think this argument is going nowhere because 
some of us want to discuss it in terms of property rights, and others 
of us want to discuss it in terms of human rights.  I believe that 
communication should be viewed as a human right, and that property 
rights can and should be limited where necessary to ensure those 
rights.  It seems to me that our disagreement stems from this basic 
difference of beliefs, rather than from logical flaws in one of our 
arguments, which makes for a fundamentally unproductive debate, so I'm 
going to *try* to shut up.  :-)  I will concede that if I started from 
a belief that the issue was one of property rights, rather than human 
rights, then I would probably agree with you and Vernon.  -- Nathaniel
On Mar 12, 2004, at 2:16 PM, Paul Vixie wrote:

> ah, intermediaries.  while at MAPS i often heard complaints (from 
> people
> who wanted to send e-mail that some other people didn't want to 
> receive)
> that subscribing to a blackhole list overreached an ISP's rights and
> responsibilities -- that customers should have to "opt into" such a 
> service
> on a case by case basis.
>
> (which was amusing at the time since these same complainants were 
> arguing
> at the same time that recipients of e-mail should have to "opt out of" 
> the
> email they didn't want to receive.  but i digress.)
>
> ultimately it was found that no law or regulation required carriage, 
> and
> that an ISP (whether in the US, Canada, or EU) could subscribe to any
> blackhole list they wanted, and the only recourse any of their 
> customers
> had was whatever was explicitly spelled out in their contracts.  so, 
> while
> we could argue about whether there ought to be a law or regulation, and
> then we could argue about which countries this law would have force 
> within
> and whether an international treaty would be required (or possible), 
> there
> is no sense in arguing whether a network owner has or does not have the
> right to refuse to carry any traffic they choose or fail to choose, for
> any reason or no reason.  "it just ain't so."
>
> ---------
>
> ah, monopolies.  many times while at MAPS i heard complaints from end 
> users
> whose e-mail was getting rejected "by association", to the effect that 
> they
> had no choice of ISP, there was only one ISP in their region, or 
> whatever,
> and that adding that ISP to a blackhole list constituted an impossible
> mandate on the unwitting bystanders who happened to share that address 
> space.
> well, i guess you all know how this turned out, too, right?  about 
> half of
> the nontechnical community of internet users now has a plethora of 
> "e-mail"
> accounts, often free, often web-delivered.  no misdeed on the part of 
> your
> DSL or cablemodem provider prevents you from being a full internet 
> citizen
> with all rights and privileges pursuant thereunto.
>
> of course, technical users just buy a 1U server and pay $50/month to 
> have
> it colo'd somewhere, and they use their home DSL or cablemodem service 
> for
> the only thing it's actually good for -- tunnelling to someplace whose 
> abuse
> policies are enforced.
>
> --------
>
> nathaniel, john, i have a lot of respect for you but from reading this 
> thread
> it's clear that you have only been studying this issue for a couple of 
> years.
> please give it a decade, and read what's been written on the topic of 
> digital
> rights, before you go head to head with vjs (who has been studying 
> these
> issues as long as i, and who has definitely done his homework.)
>
> the fact that continued universal connectivity requires conservative 
> behaviour
> by universal subset standards is a strength of the internet economy, 
> not a
> weakness.  it's the only fence we have, and "good fences make good 
> neighbors."
> the "rule of law" would not be nearly as fine grained or as relevant 
> or as
> successful in this community.  unless you think that CANSPAM is going 
> to stop
> people in china or taiwan from sending you e-mail you have no fonts 
> for about
> products you'd have no use for, that is.
> --
> Paul Vixie