IP: Privacy advocate demands government create central e-mail registry

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> Date: Mon, 24 Apr 2000 11:23:27 -0400
> To: politech () vorlon mit edu
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
>
>
> Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2000 21:03:27 -0700
> From: Lizard <lizard () mrlizard com>
> Subject: Privacy advocate demands government maintain central e-mail registry!
>
> http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2000/04/21/company_spam/index.html
>
> Once again, we see well-meaning(presumably) fuzzy-headed (definitely) 
> liberals dropping their trousers and yelling "Take me hard, Uncle Sam!". 
> Sigh. When will they ever learn? The answer, my friend, is...uhm..never mind.
>
> We do not need 'strong legislation', ESPECIALLY not 'strong legislation' 
> that involves the FCC maintaining lists of email addresses for ANY 
> purpose. What we need is strong *technology* -- better filters, 
> spamblocks, and the like. The government is not going to stand with the 
> average citizen against the evil corporations -- the government is 
> permenantly locked in alliance with the evil corporations, at least those 
> (like Netscape) that provide 'campaign contributions', wink-wink, know 
> what I mean, say no more, say no more.
>
> Any 'strong legislation' intended to 'stop spam' will be written, and then 
> applied, in such a manner as to make it quite feasible for large 
> corporations to keep spamming, while shutting down the legitimate use of 
> email by small businesses or individual ranters or any sort. After all, 
> mail in reply to a usenet article, a web page, or a post on a mailing list 
> is often 'unsolicited'. Further, people with a cause, howeever nutty, will 
> gather addresses from newsgroups or mailing lists. While these uses are 
> annoying, they are not, and should not be, considered criminal -- but any 
> 'anti spam' laws WILL ban free speech and will NOT ban commercial speech 
> from 'good corporate citizens' (aka 'corporations that give money to 
> congresscritters').
>
> The fact Garfinkel could write "To be honest, I never really considered that
> it might use my e-mail to send me an advertisement without first asking my 
> permission. " with an apparently straight face undermines his ability to 
> be considered a legitimate commentator on this issue. Of course, his 
> entire ouvre (Database Nation, et al) seems to be composed of feigned 
> shock and righteous indignation over actions (your supermarket sells your 
> purchase data to marketing companies! Gasp!) that no one with an ounce of 
> sane cynicism is either surprised at or bothered by. Like anyone cares 
> about any purchases I might make. Hey, marketers! I might be buying some 
> condoms soon, so tell your computers to take me off the porn lists and put 
> me on the chocolate&flowers lists. Don't tell my Mom. (Actually, DO tell 
> my Mom, she'd begun to despair I'd ever find another girlfriend. The fact 
> I'm 35, single, and living in San Francisco was starting to worry her, if 
> you get my drift.)
>
> When Amazon.com tracks my buying habits, it's so that they can offer to 
> sell me books -- an off I am free to refuse. What scares ME is when Uncle 
> Sam demands Amazons lists for its own purposes -- but I suspect Mr. 
> Garfinkel approves of such uses. After all, if the *government* is doing 
> the information gathering, it must be 'for the public good' and not in the 
> service of 'private greed'.
>
> **********
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
> To subscribe, visit http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
> This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------