Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Your Rights Online

UK To Hold Public Enquiry On Spam 168

Posted by simoniker from the obligatory-egg-and-beans-reference dept.
feepcreature writes "Is something going to be done about email spam at last? In the UK, the All Party Parliamentary Internet Group is to hold a public enquiry into spam. These politicians seem to understand the scale of the spam problem, and they are considering a new global level organization to deal with the Internet, as well as new laws, inter-government action and technical solutions. But will more international bodies help? Would laws work?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK To Hold Public Enquiry On Spam More

UK To Hold Public Enquiry On Spam

Comments Filter:

  • laws? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by heliocentric ( 74613 ) * on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:19PM (#6216804) Homepage Journal
    Would laws work?

    You can make something illegal, but you can't make it unpopular.

    • Kind of like.... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by mhore ( 582354 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:33PM (#6216963)
      If spamming is outlawed, only outlaws will spam?

    • Re:laws? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by kwerle ( 39371 )
      You can make something illegal, but you can't make it unpopular.

      The tobacco industry woud disagree...

    • Re:laws? (Score:2, Interesting)

      by frankthechicken ( 607647 )
      The problem is, if the House of Lords debate [the-statio...fice.co.uk] is any indication, the possiblity of any laws whatsoever being passed is fairly minimal.

      • Re:laws? (Score:5, Informative)

        by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @05:09PM (#6217379) Homepage
        The problem is, if the House of Lords debate is any indication, the possiblity of any laws whatsoever being passed is fairly minimal.

        Come again? Since when was a house of Lords debate an indication of anything other than the fact the members still have a pulse?

        The statement from the minister is actually pretty specific, they will be legislating to implement the privacy directive, that has a direct application to the spam issue. They are also open to other legislation being proposed - if it makes sense.

        Parliament is nothing like Congress. The legislation is almost entirely driven by the government, they choose the schedule for the bills, everything so if legislation is introduced the chances are that it will be passed unless there are major problems. None of the gridlock you get in the US.

        The other difference is that legislation is frequently amended en-route in response to individual members concerns and in committee. Unlike in the US the ammendments cannot be completely unrelated bills, but any member can propose an ammendment, you don't have to be a committee chair to have a chance of getting it heard. The privacy directive is very likely to be ammended to include an anti-spam provision if one is proposed that makes sense.

        The result is that the system works very differently. It is not unusual for a bill to be followed by another shortly after with corrections.

        The point is that it should not be easy to get legislation through.

        • Since when was a house of Lords debate an indication of anything other than the fact the members still have a pulse?Oh, I agree completely, it's just that sometimes I wonder whether the House of Lords is a debating chamber or purely a prelude to a failed attempt to join the stand up comedy circuit.

        • Re:laws? (Score:3, Informative)

          by Death Owl ( 661455 )
          Zeinfeld - I am calling you out as a fake expert, as you do not appear to understand the significance of the House of Lords in the UK parliamentary system. The House of Lords has the power to send bills back to parliament for reconsideration if it feels they have been poorly thought through. It can do this up to two times before parliament can force a bill through. This allows them to delay the passing of legislation significantly. In recent years, the UK press have praised the House of Lords as actuall
          • Zeinfeld - I am calling you out as a fake expert, as you do not appear to understand the significance of the House of Lords in the UK parliamentary system.

            One of my cousin's is a member.

            You might disagree with my views but attacking someone as uninformed simply for disagreeing with you makes you sound a little arrogant.

            The Lords has been a joke for at least a century. Far from being more representative than the commons it has failed to put a stop to any of the Tory party's reactionary measures such a

  • Unfortunately (Score:5, Funny)

    by Mononoke ( 88668 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:21PM (#6216822) Homepage Journal
    Unfortunately they misspelled the word 'public' in the notice they mass-mailed, and the notice got tossed out with the rest of the spam.

  • FINALLY!!! (Score:5, Funny)

    by SuperDuG ( 134989 ) <<kt.celce> <ta> <eb>> on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:23PM (#6216849) Homepage Journal
    The nuclear powers have agreed to stop spam. I knew it would take a strong force to stop spam, I think a few globalthermonuclear weapons targeted at key locations might just do the trick.

    Rejoice and run to the streets, freedom from spam is near!!!

    • Re:FINALLY!!! (Score:1, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      " I think a few globalthermonuclear weapons targeted at key locations might just do the trick."

      Like Texas right ?

    • Re:FINALLY!!! (Score:3, Funny)

      by osu-neko ( 2604 )
      Wasn't there a site or program somewhere for translating IP addresses into grid coordinates? Could be useful...

      host-loc 24.196.258.3 | xargs missile-launch

    • China and Brazil, two of the largest spam-supporting countries. Wiping them off of the face of the earth would only be a good thing, as it would drastically reduce spam in our inboxes.

      After that, something of a lower yeild for Boca Raton, Florida is in order. Then again, perhaps we should take that out first, since that's where quite a few of the spammers actually live.

  • interesting idea (Score:5, Insightful)

    by scovetta ( 632629 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:24PM (#6216853) Homepage
    I think a pay-per-view model like the one IBM described, available here [extremetech.com] would somewhat alleviate the problem. I'd be happy to accept spam if I was paid, say, $0.01 per email received. Perhaps something like a tax on the ISPs, so Joe's ISP can send out 100 emails a day per user, any more is taxed at $0.01 per email. So each user gets the 100, if they need more, then they either pay a little bit, or maybe even get a license for unlimited. I wouldn't mind paying a TINY bit for a solution to the spam problem. As long as these fucktards use open relays (run by fucktards), I'm never going to be able to tell the penis enlargement mailing lists I REALLY sign up for from the spam.
    • If you're willing to pay a little to solve the spam problem, buy a filter or a filtering service. There are many out there and many work very well. But taxing or charging for email will kill it and just opens the door to "email postage hikes" in the future either by a government(s) or a greedy company. How many billions of email are sent per day? What company wouldn't want a piece of that pie even if it were only a penny per email?

      Email is free because it should be. That's what's made it so popular be

      • The tax thing is bad, but requring that any email have a valid return address would be nice for reverse spamming. I've been known to send many copies of huge binaries to people who won't quit spamming me.

        Now allowing me, the receiver of spam, to charge the spammer $0.01 for every piece I receive could work.

        For example I get spam from that idiot in Africa who wants me to transfer $1 million dollars to some bank account. I hit reply, and say "you owe me a penny. Feel free to transfer it to my paypal account
        • Nice idea... charge those worth charging and let others (friends, colleagues etc) free. Sounds like good practice.

          IMHO, email needs a re-vanp. When recieving an emil, authentication of the originating address should be required - would stop a lot.

          But, just as ass regulation, it would need global acceptance, meaning it would probably have to be accepted as a UN resolution.

          Hmmmm, famine debate about dying babies or removing some spam... let me think...

          I agree it should be done, but some of us need more


          • But, just as ass regulation, it would need global acceptance, meaning it would probably have to be accepted as a UN resolution.

            Yes, and we all know that everyone obeys the UN and its resolutions. Nice notion but I don't think a UN resolution will be of much practical help.

            By the way, "ass regulation"???

    • Why tax ISPs for sending all emails? Just tax them for sending spam.
      • This is a good idea, print spam + headers, send w self addressed stamped envelope to "Spam Prevention Agency" or SPA, ISP is charged since spammers generally make sure they can't be traced. Every spam is good for $0.35, $0.10 goes to keep the SPA running, the other quarter goes directly in my pocket.
    • I think the problem you will find is this: the spammers don't actually want to pay you anything. This is probably why they try to avoid being identified (and therefore sued) by using open relays and all those other tricks.


      Lets face it, there is a spam problem because there is a hole in the SMTP protocal. Fixing the hole is the best bet for solving spam.

  • Maybe (Score:5, Insightful)

    by The Bungi ( 221687 ) <thebungi@gmail.com> on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:25PM (#6216873) Homepage
    Would laws work?

    Self-regulation has largely failed, so I really don't see why not. Because of the actions of a few (in Internet scale), the rest of us must pay.

    But the question is not really "would the law work". It's "would it be enforceable?", and "at what cost?". And "cost" is not only monetary...

    • The only way this is going to work, is to make UCE illegal, and tie the sponsoring company (for product driven UCE) to the spammer legally. Most non product UCE is fraud bait anyway (pump and dump, pyramid, nigerian, etc).

      Make it so that companies are responsible for their advertising, and that UCE (even by a third party on your behalf) is illegal. Make it (bty international treaty) so that anyone receiving the spam can sue, across any juristiction that the advertising firm trades in. If they claim that th

      • Re:IANAL (Score:3, Interesting)

        by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 )

        If they claim that they didn't know their advertisers were going to USE (illegally), tell them they can sue the spammers to recover their money.

        Yeah, that's a great idea. Guilty until proven innocent. I'll be sure to send out millions of spams claiming to be from whatever politician signs that crap into law.

        • Re:IANAL (Score:3, Insightful)

          by shaitand ( 626655 )
          That's ok, we've tossed freedoms and ideals out the window thousands of times before in the tradition of this country. God damnit, if we can do it one more time (and I assure you, we'll do it not one but thousands more times) then let it be to stop the greatest threat and menace that faces modern times!!! SPAM!!
      • And how do you prove it when someone counter-sues for waste of time?

        We need a more wholesome solution, with lots of fibre.
    • Beyond the problem of actually enforcing the eventually proposed laws, is it worth it? I think it is important for the internet to be open and free, and I'm not sure if you can have laws such as these and maintain an open and free internet. If they can, I don't have a problem with it; but I just can't see how it would work without destroying what is fundamental to the internet.

      If people who used the internet were more educated and took the whole thing as a learning experience, and didn't use AOL, then p

    • I fail to follow your assertion that, since regulation by people who do know what they're doing isn't working, regulation by people who don't know what they're doing can't be worse.... Governments have pretty consistently demonstrated their lack of understanding of what an "ISP" is, and the Home Office have certainly demonstrated their lack of respect for freedom of speech, anonymity, etc.

      Any time governments regulate speech, it's risking censorship. Any time governments regulate technology they don't un

    • Self-regulation has largely failed, so I really don't see why not.

      Well, the current email system has failed to self-regulate, but that could be considered a technical failing.

      For example, because email is sent cleartext, if intercepted emails were endemic we would, correctly, say that we didn't protect ourselves from spies. In that case, and in the case of spam, the solution seems to be to fix the email system.

      A modern email system could incorporate signatures and keys quite transparently. Your email cl

  • I was going to get ADSL, but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by maeka ( 518272 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:25PM (#6216877) Journal
    From the article:
    In order to increase user confidence in the Internet and increase take-up levels for broadband it is essential that all stakeholders work together to combat the growing of spam.


    If you ask me, spam is a good reason to get broadband. I'm tired of trying to download 25+ bloated, HMTL laden, emails every day over my sub-56K connection.
    • "HMTL laden" - Osama's techie brother? ;)

      Broadband (when BT finally get their arses into gear and install it) will lessen the effect of the issue, but it's still there. It may be trivial to download the spam, but you still have to wade through the stuff trying to find real mails.

      I don't think laws can really help either? I doubt most of these spammers (at least the ones that seem to spam me) really care about the law!

      Perhaps the best way to kill off spammers for good would be for Microsoft to build bay
      • For those who don't know what bayesian filtering is, look here: http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html

        Spam still takes out a lot of the internet's bandwidth -- and not EVERYBODY will use Outlook or Entourage. As long as they can send spam to the 5% (Non-Windows) who don't use those programs, they'll do it. Linux, BSD, Microsoft, and Apple will all have to do this, but there will still be people who get it nevertheless. They also might research into what kind of stuff goes through and send that. Eventually the
      • It's the right word, spelled the right way, look it up. [reference.com]
        Yea, yea, and it should be HTML, not HMTL.

        As for Microsoft incorporating Bayesian filtering in OE (or any other client): POPFile [sourceforge.net] and others are free (as in beer and speech,) and filtering after downloading doesn't speed up the crawl email takes across my slow connection.
        • Don't worry about the "HTML laden" pun... I was only making a joke, not judging your English :)
          The fact that I quoted the "HMTL" only comes from me being a lazy git using copy+paste.

          On filtering, perhaps you missed my point... I actually use POPFile myself. What I'm suggesting here is exploiting Microsoft's dominance. After all, almost everyone except hobbyists (meaning the usual Average "how do i get the internet" Joe) use Outlook/O.Express. Many I talk to don't even know that other email clients exist
        • filtering after downloading doesn't speed up the crawl email takes across my slow connection.


          true, however, the best you can do if your server doesn't support any spam filtering is use something like mailwasher - which doenloads the headers for you to preview in a dialog. you can they tell it to delete on the server, messages you don't want to see - and therefore don't download.


          I use it, I like it, I'd prefer no spam at all, but the world isn't perfect.

          cheers.

    • Why upload the remote images.

      In my humble experience, spam is not sent with attachments, but rather sends HTML emails which upload an image when opened (thus allowing checking of readers as well as saving bandwidth costs for them).

      Why not use an email prog like Eudora, Netscape or Mozilla which, IMHO, far surpass IE or Outlook and will allow default blocking of uploading remote images in emails, blocking popups (have seen the odd couple in emails) etc?

      Give them a try.

  • Piece by piece (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MeerCat ( 5914 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:27PM (#6216903) Homepage
    Even if this first move by the UK government comes to not very much, it's an encouraging sign that parts of the government is becoming aware of the problem and has at least expressed an interest in resolving it.

    This stance at least sends a message to companies who so far have had a broad tolerance to spam (cable ISPs who don't care about security, companies running open relays, etc.) - I honestly believe they often have this "it's not important" attitude out of pure ignorance.

    Governements saying "this matters" may encourage a few of them to pick up their act. Piece by piece we will make a move towards a more securable mail infrastructure - it won't happen overnight, it won't happen by bigh bang, it'll come small step by small step, and as such moves like this should be neither ridiculed nor raved about, but gently welcomed and encouraged.

    All IMHO

  • Not enough (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sn00ker ( 172521 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:28PM (#6216908) Homepage
    To kill spam/UCE, it will take considerably more than just one country. There needs to be a global agreement, otherwise it's pointless.
    If there's even one country with no anti-spam laws, people will just go there to spam. Sure, there're technical ways to deal with that, but given how easy it is to "acquire" new IP address space most of them are doomed to failure.

    • Nope - one county is enough - provided they have a big enough stockpile of Cruise missiles.

      • Nope - one county is enough - provided they have a big enough stockpile of Cruise missiles.
        Nah, Shrub's too busy trying to work out how he can parlay his experience invading third world countries into a degree from a prestigious, accredited university - I mean, those spammers wouldn't lie would they?

    • Re:Not enough (Score:2, Interesting)

      by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 )

      If there's even one country with no anti-spam laws, people will just go there to spam. Sure, there're technical ways to deal with that, but given how easy it is to "acquire" new IP address space most of them are doomed to failure.

      Huh? How easy is it to acquire new IP address space?

      If there's only one country with no anti-spam laws, that country would likely lose its internet access completely.

      • Huh? How easy is it to acquire new IP address space?

        According to this story [slashdot.org], it's not at all difficult to "acquire" (note the inverted commas) new space.
        As for closing 'net access down totally, I can't quite see it, eh. At the international level carriers don't put provisions in their contracts about what traffic you can send, provided you don't try and harm their network. The breach of contract suit against any carrier who tried that one on would be short, sharp, and decidedly unpleasant for the c

  • Nudge, Nudge (Score:3, Funny)

    by inertia187 ( 156602 ) * on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:29PM (#6216918) Homepage Journal
    Man:
    Evening, squire!
    Man with hat:
    Good evening.
    Man:
    Is your...is your wife a spammer?
    Man with hat:
    I-I...I beg your pardon?
    Man::
    Your...your wife. Does she spam, eh? Does she spam, eh? Eh?
    Man with hat:
    Huh, sometimes she has to spam, yes.
    Man:
    I bet she does! I bet she does! Say no more! Say no more! Know what I mean? Nudge, nudge!

  • Can politicians really retool email? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bkedelen ( 673315 ) <bkedelen@yahoo.com> on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:29PM (#6216928)
    If spam is really a problem with the fundamental flexability of the smtp system, I do not see that politicians will have much success controlling it. It seems to me that the only really successful campaigns against offensive internet use are grass-roots based, starting with end users becoming genuinely fed up and accepting new (possibly painfully new) techniques, instead of just being annoyed, but unwilling to take the next step. Perhaps ./ should have an article examining the current alternatives to smtp and easy ways ./ readers can make it a part of their companies, and homes.

    • Perhaps ./ should have an article examining the current alternatives to smtp and easy ways ./ readers can make it a part of their companies, and homes.

      Considering that you can't sign up for slashdot without an SMTP-based email address, somehow I doubt they're going to do that. After all, slashdot is part of the problem.

      There are lots of alternatives to SMTP. Web forms and instant messages are two. Others are built on top of SMTP, like PGP signatures. None of them, however, are useful when you want t

  • Let's find a Cure, not a Treatment (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:30PM (#6216932)
    The spam issue has some interesting parallels in the models of the new economy. Just like in other industries like healthcare and pharmacuticals, the major players are not interested in a "cure". That's not profitable for them. A more appealing approach for them is some method of "treatment", preferably something that obligates the user to continually do business with them in perpetuity in order to maintain their spam-free condition.

    Efforts to regulate the content of spam messages, inconsequential civil penalties, client side filtering, and any system which filters mail based on content caters to this impotent approach to addressing the spam problem. It offers no cure. It does nothing to reduce spam; it does nothing to discourage spammers; it does nothing to address the most serious problem of spam, which involves unfair and often illegal exploitation of resources.

    Maybe this is the new way. We don't actually solve any problems. We just put bandaids on them and allow them to consume more wasted resources, and the demand for more resources, hardware and bandwith is what drives the new economy.

    Call me idealistic, but I think it sucks. I am appalled that so many people will settle for such shallow and ineffective approaches to these problems. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Most of these people profit from the existence of spam so why bite the hand that feeds them on a major artery when you can collect some bucks and merely trim their nails?
    • Call me idealistic, but I think it sucks. I am appalled that so many people will settle for such shallow and ineffective approaches to these problems. But I guess I shouldn't be surprised. Most of these people profit from the existence of spam so why bite the hand that feeds them on a major artery when you can collect some bucks and merely trim their nails?

      What would you suggest, then?
    • If any of you would bother to look you would find, unless you're on a dialup (and sometimes even dialups get hit) that if you have a real IP some spammer, sooner or later, usually within a day, will check to see if you have an open relay or open proxy. It's not hard: ZoneAlarm is enough. I see, for instance, that 12.145.146.25 was sniffing around my proxy ports earlier today (3128 and 1080). I'll report this to ATT.

      I'm patiently waiting for someone to check to see if I'm an open relay. Depending on wha

  • international bounties (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Every country who wants to fight spam should put a bounty on the identity of each spammer.

    If someone finds who the spammer is, they take the name to the FTC equiv in that government. The spammer then pays YOU that bounty.

    Do that..and the problem has just gotten easier.
    • In Soviet Russia, the spammer then pays YOU that bounty

    • Every country who wants to fight spam should put a bounty on the identity of each spammer.

      If someone finds who the spammer is, they take the name to the FTC equiv in that government. The spammer then pays YOU that bounty.

      Do that..and the problem has just gotten easier.

      The problem with that system, off course, is identity theft.

      Scenario: Spammer steals many identities, frames innoncent man and then reports him and claims a bounty,and YOU pay the spammer a bounty.

      Do that...and the problem has just got

  • I wanna be an outlaw (Score:5, Funny)

    by L. VeGas ( 580015 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:32PM (#6216952) Homepage Journal
    If spam is outlawed, only outlaws will get YOUNG HOT SLUTS!!! AND VIAGRA NOW!!

  • Job oportunity? (Score:3, Funny)

    by dfn5 ( 524972 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:33PM (#6216972) Journal
    ...and they are considering a new global level organization to deal with the Internet

    Hmmm, I wonder if they'll need a Unix admin. :-)

  • I live in England (Score:4, Informative)

    by Idimmu Xul ( 204345 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:34PM (#6216992) Homepage Journal
    And I have not once ever got any spam that offers any product or service to the English. It's either in some non-English language (Korean?) so I havent a clue what it means, or its offereing some service for Americans.

    I doubt this will do much :/
    • Except that the US has trouble passing laws, when the DMA are watching, but they could easily sneak through a treaty ...
    • There are a couple of standards for representing non-Roman character sets in email. If you don't read any languages that use them, you can set your spam filters to delete them. Ideally you can do that on your ISP's machine before they're delivered to you, but either way it blocks them.

      As far as American-oriented products go, most of the spammers are perfectly happy to sell their porn or blue-pills-purporting-to-be-Viagra to anybody in the world as long as they get a working credit card number. The credi

  • Did anyone else read: (Score:4, Funny)

    by stinkwinkerton ( 609110 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:35PM (#6216997)
    Paramilitary instead of Parliamentary?

    For a second there, I was thinking to myself "Man, those Brits take spam SERIOUSLY."

  • laws and sausages (Score:4, Interesting)

    by timothy ( 36799 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:36PM (#6217013) Journal
    Well, OK, spam isn't a "sausage" but if sterile canning systems had been around in abundance equal to that of instestines when people were first thinking up sausage, do you think anyone would quite recognize the difference? Go with sausage, just for a minute.

    Despite being of a basically liberal bent, I have at times so despaired of spam that even *new laws* sounded attractive. Various anti-spam measures [geocities.com] (I like the *potential*-payment plan of pennyblack [microsoft.com], mentioned on Slashdot at least once before), including of late vastly improved spam-filtering methods, I think are a better solution. (Yes, Declan McCullagh has made this argument better than I am ready to right now ;))

    Even though it sounds nice to say that we should "ban spam," unless all email is routed through a big Spam Whittler, any such ban is no better than just enforcing property rights laws re: trespass etc. In Italy, CDs are all stamped with a little pink stamp of government approval / taxation (at least 10 years ago there were ... still true?); I don't want little pink stamps of inspection / taxation on all my emails.

    A visit today to a franchise location of the U.S. Postal "Service" (remember, "dot-com, not dot-gov" since [hold the guffaws in the rear] they're not a government agency, according to so high an authority as ... the U.S. Postal Service) reminded me of what sort of people, if not which people per se, will increasingly hold power to approve email as any such laws click into bureaucratic place.

    timothy

  • The US is ready to help! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:38PM (#6217030)
    Just tell us who to invade and we'll be right on it!

  • The Horrors of SPAM (Score:5, Funny)

    by rMortyH ( 40227 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:41PM (#6217085)
    I'm not in the UK, so I can't tell my story there, but spam has ruined my life!

    First of all, it's almost impossible to answer all of it! But that's just the beginning of the problem.

    At first, I thought it was great. I got tons of credit, a new mortgage at 0%, and a fat check from some guy in Nigeria. But now my 'manhood' and my wife's breasts are so huge that neither of us can move or even feed ourselves.

    If we didn't have the army of hot teenage sluts to take care of us, we'd be dead by now.

    I hope they will put an end to spam before any more innocent people suffer this horrible fate.
  • Spammers wouldn't ever send out emails if they didn't make a nice wad of change from it. Someone I once knew made about $700 a month from porn spam, which was enough to pay for his SUV and rent while he went to college. The only reason they keep spamming is because of those morons that keep clicking on the emails and making them more money.. they are the real cause of the current spam problem we have today. The only way you can stop it is to make it unprofitable.
    • Your friend made $8400 a year doing it? Wow. That's almost, but not quite, the poverty level!

      Reminds me of that quote about the Other White Scammer, Duncan Shiels: that he makes $1,000 a week doing it. Which sounds nice and impressive until you realize that it's only $52,000 a year. Which anyone network admin or sysadmin should be able to make, and not piss off millions of people while doing so.

  • Anybody notice the acronym? (Score:3, Funny)

    by dacarr ( 562277 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @04:48PM (#6217164) Homepage Journal
    APIG is investigating spam... verrrry interesting. But not funny.
    • Yup. the obvious method for them to stop spam is to remove the spice, reconstitute it into the original pigs, and let it fly away, and that'll work just about as well as anything else that they'll propose.

  • legislating spam != good idea (Score:4, Insightful)

    by PinkFreud ( 51474 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @05:06PM (#6217360)
    I've always held the viewpoint that creating legislation to handle spam is a Bad Thing (TM). Unfortunately, such laws tend to be badly written, and get out of control quickly.

    How do you define spam, in legal terms? If a random user sends you an unsolicited email for ANY purpose, can you declare his message illegal? Imagine the havoc.

    Systems like ORBS were on the right track (though they're hardly the perfect solution) - let us, the users of the 'net, regulate spam. Unfortunately, due to sue-happy spammers, such systems are now being rendered ineffective (why does it seem that wherever the courts get involved, matters just get worse and worse...?).

    Legislation is not the answer. If the courts would only throw such frivolous lawsuits out, we *could* take care of the problem ourselves.
    • Perhaps
      Legislation is not the answer.
      and
      If the courts would only throw such frivolous lawsuits out, we *could* take care of the problem ourselves.
      are not so irrelevant as you think?

      After all, it's legislation that determines what courts decide -- even whether they throw out cases or not.

  • Compulsory Spam Filtering (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mrkurt ( 613936 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @05:07PM (#6217366) Journal

    I think about the only thing that governments can do is mandate that ISPs provide adequate spam filtering, as the Internet is global and government control of internet traffic stops at national borders. The solution that my ISP [core.com] has worked out seems to be effective; the spam is filtered, and a lot less seems to hit my inbox folder. I can report messages that are spam for me, and it gets added to my spam filter.

  • All They Do is Talk, Talk (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Newt-dog ( 528340 ) <newt-dog@@@phantomcow...com> on Monday June 16, 2003 @05:09PM (#6217386) Homepage
    When you get ANY government involved in ways to deal with the spam problem, you will get commitities, studies, and watered down legislation. The only people that will get hurt are the non-profit orgs and businesses that send out email newsletters. (documentation, ect)

    How many of you still get junk faxes? I still get several a day (business fax of PhantomCow.com) -- and I call every one of them back to get "removed" off thier list!! There is a law in place that will let me sue a junk faxer for $500, but it has to be a second offense, and you have to document everything.

    Just because you have a law, and give people the right to sue a company for spam, or whatever, it is still a hassle for the average Joe, and he won't do anything about it -- execept hit the delete key!

    Newt-dog

    • Obviously what we need to do is make the fine be against the ISP that relays the spam. Make it small, say $.35 then form a new organization that we can submit claims to. Print the mail + headers, include in an envelope with a form that indicates name and address (form freely available on web, can include as many claims and mails with one form as you wish). Organization automagically fines organization (much in the same manner as a speeding ticket, they can fight if they wish to prevent this huge fine...

  • Will laws work? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by anthony_dipierro ( 543308 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @05:14PM (#6217436) Journal
    Laws will only work if you hold the ISP responsible for enforcing them. If you require people to file a John Doe lawsuit in order to find out the identity of the spammer, it's not going to solve the problem. If, on the other hand, you make the ISP responsible unless they turn over the identity of the spammer (a la the DMCA), then the law will work (of course, whether this is a good thing or not if a whole different story).

    • Yes! if... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by axxackall ( 579006 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @05:46PM (#6217797) Homepage Journal
      There will be a law enforcing ISP to:
      1. to accept email only with correct (recognized and traceable) e-signature;
      2. to give (for free!) e-signing software (for example GPG) to all POP customers;
      3. to give (for free!) e-signing forms for all web-mail customers;
      Then:
      1. all email will be traceable;
        • therefore many temporary spam agents will afraid to spam as they know they are easier to be found and punished;
      2. it will be much easier to implement more robust black and white lists;
        • therefore, many spam sources will cease their spam operations (and perhaps look for alternative ways to make money) as the spam will be very ineffective na d most likely unprofitable;
      Conclusion: e-signature and PKI - that's the only way to clean Internet from spammers!

      • Why does there need to be a law?

        Let each ISP decide for itself whether it wants to take the responsibility of allowing anonymous customers. And let them decide how many emails those anonymous customers are allowed to send.

        • Re:Yes! if... (Score:3, Insightful)

          by axxackall ( 579006 )
          Why does there need to be a law? Let each ISP decide for itself whether it wants to take the responsibility of allowing ...

          ... and let every highway patrool police officer decide whether ...

          Well, why do we need any laws anyway?

  • without loosing all the freedom we now enjoy.

    How do you find out where the spam originated?

    Who do you sue, the spammer or the company the spammer is trying to make you a customer of?

    How do you prevent abuse?

    The only way to stop it is to make everyone log on with a unique authentication, and track that authentication. something I'm not interested in. thats for sure.

    Now who would be interested in knowing what anybody does on the internet at any given time?

    • How do you find out where the spam originated?

      Be where the spammers connect first.

      This honeypot:
      http://www.corpit.ru/cgi-bin/h0n5yp0t
      knocked Ralsky off three separate ISPs in one weekend. The story is a bit more complex than just that but what I say is true.

      Next question.
    • Who do you sue, the spammer or the company the spammer is trying to make you a customer of?

      The company! It's win-win. Not only is it easier to find the company than the spammer (just click the link), but if you take away the spammer's revenue..

      Same thing happened with fast food chains and the meat industry. The fast food industry (well, at least a couple of the big players) wanted their suppliers to clean up their act WRT e.coli etc, and they did.

      Remember the golden rule!
      Hit them in the pocket!
      It's

  • Wow, the spammers will be cacking their pants now! (Score:3, Funny)

    by FyRE666 ( 263011 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @06:08PM (#6217990) Homepage
    So a parlimentary group is is about to hold an enquiry with a view to forming a commitee to creating an organisation which will in turn look into way to implement new laws (which will require a consensus of opinion from a large number of countries) with a view to combating spam.

    It's as good as over for Ralsky! Yep, in about 30 years he'll find it tough when the first law is passed!

  • A global treaty is required (Score:3)

    by NewtonsLaw ( 409638 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @06:20PM (#6218135)
    For several years now, I've been pushing for an international treaty to provide a unified legal front to fight spam. Such a treaty could simply be modelled along the same lines as the the Berne Convention [cornell.edu], providing a basic, consistent legislative platform common to all member nations.

    If the Berne Convention can work for copyright issues, why can't a similar vehicle work for spam?

    The biggest problem spamfighters have right now is that there is no inter-jurisdictional authority to chase and prosecute spammers. A convention would provide this much-needed ability to enforce anti-spam laws across borders.

  • The REAL fix for spam... (Score:4, Funny)

    by shaitand ( 626655 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @06:34PM (#6218274) Journal
    We are just going to have to develop true AI, train it to the maturity level of a 12yr old. Now we have a perfect spam detection unit. All we have to do is show it peeks of pr0n for every spam detected and it will work day and night!

  • "Spam, spam, spam, spam!" (Score:3, Funny)

    by Jman314 ( 651648 ) on Monday June 16, 2003 @08:37PM (#6219174)

    I dislike spam a lot, but you have to love it spam when spam occurs so spam often everywhere. I spam counted no fewer spam than 15 references to spam in the spam article.

    I can just hear it start: "Spam, spam, spam, spam..."

    (Anyone who didn't get that needs to watch more Monty Python. They coined the term.)

  • The only way we'll stop spam, and kiddie pr0n and all the other crap that pollutes the net is if we start imposing national laws on our own locales of the net. This might be easier than you'd imagine. Most nations have only a very few choke points that connects them to the rest of the world. China's already gone a long way towards this (hey I don't like their politics but you gotta admit they've been pretty effective). ISTR Hong Kong was completely isolated from the 'net for a while, around about the time o
  • For a change, the politicians are prepared to listen - a Public Inquiry is a chance to make sensible suggestions, and reflect on what has and has not worked elsewhere.

    There are a lot of "interesting" questions though...

    What exactly is spam? bulk mail? automated mail? commercial mail? any or all of these? something else altogether? Perhaps as useful: what is not SPAM? It would be A Bad Thing to restrict legitimate bulk mailing, like mailing lists and so forth.

    Who should be targeted?

    • clueless amatue

Slashdot Top Deals

Utility is when you have one telephone, luxury is when you have two, opulence is when you have three -- and paradise is when you have none. -- Doug Larson

Close