more on BBC article on spam "solution" of hashcash, from Microsoft

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 15:13:16 -0600
From: gep2 () terabites com
Subject: [IP] more on BBC article on spam "solution" of hashcash, from 
Microsoft
To: dave () farber net

I *strongly* object to this "metered service" bullshit trying to impose itself
onto the Internet.

Those of us with some experience have seen this crap far too often.

For example, for decades telephone directory assistance used to be "free".

Then the phone companies said there was too much abuse (people just not 
picking
up their directory and calling 411 instead) so they limited each subscriber to
no more than 10 "free" calls per month (more, they said, than most legitimate
users would ever really need) but eventually that number came down and 
down, to
the point where now most people get NO free directory assistance calls at 
all.
:-(

And when did you last see a telephone directory next to a pay phone?

If phone companies were SERIOUS about their charging being "to stop abuse", 
then
they could have simply set it up instead that "directory assistance calls
without limitation are free to numbers not in your present directory, or from
pay phones.  Directory assistance calls where the number supplied IS in your
present directory will be billed at the (admittedly punitive) rate of $3.25
each."

Presumably one wouldn't expect cellular phone users to carry a directory with
them, so they'd probably need some other scheme (such as "we give you twenty
directory assistance calls per month free", say.)

It's not only just doing all the bookkeeping and accounting for these E-mail
charges.  It also means making sure that you're not charged (or credited) 
twice
for the same message (sometimes now I do receive duplicates of a single 
message,
which is no biggie).  It also means a challenge procedure, and that means
customer service folks to answer the phone calls and answer the questions and
issue credits/refunds/adjustments as needed.  All of this costs money, and 
that
money is ultimately paid by the people as part of their Internet service
charges.  (And those should be REDUCED, NOT INCREASED.)

Back when 800-service (WATS) was proposed, AT&T pointed out that something 
like
85-90% of the cost of a long distance phone call was the cost of billing 
you for
it.  The principle of OUTWATS lines was simply disconnecting all the "measured
service" crap and passing the savings on to the consumer.

In the case of these "micropayments", the same thing is doubtless true (in 
fact,
probably WORSE since the number of nearly-meaningless "micropayments" involved
would be scandalously high compared to the trivial amounts of money involved).

Already, spammers are using worms/viruses to hijack computers to send their 
spam
for them.  The use of these "micropayments" schemes only means that such
hijacking will cost REAL MONEY to those whose computers have been violated, 
and
(again) REAL MONEY to the victims' ISPs who will have to adjust/credit 
accounts
accordingly.  It won't be the spammers paying this money any more than it's
spammers paying the costs of their bullshit right now.

Meanwhile, "hashcash" and other payments schemes are being proposed for one 
and
only one reason, and that's because (like credit cards) they allow those
companies involved to build their own huge profits into the overall "cost of
living".  It's not the first time that a company has tried to earn huge 
profits
on the basis of their "controlling access" to portions of the Internet.

:-((

Also, it's especially crazy that the terribly broken European VAT system is 
held
up as some kind of shining model... there's an example of where people all 
have
to report the same single transaction to the government in excruciating
detail... where instead of ONE transaction being reported (like sales tax here
in the USA) there are multiple reports and taxes and refunds (and reporting
costs) all the way along the chain of flow of goods and services.  :-(((  Very
cumbersome, very much administratively inefficient.

<---- Begin Forwarded Message ---->
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 14:44:31 -0500
To: ip () v2 listbox com
From: Dave Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: [IP] more on BBC article on spam "solution" of hashcash, from 
Microsoft
Reply-To: dave () farber net


Delivered-To: dfarber+ () ux13 sp cs cmu edu
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2003 11:50:34 -0700
From: "Robert M. McClure" <rmm () unidot com>
Subject: Re: [IP] more on BBC article on spam "solution" of hashcash,
  from Microsoft
X-Sender: rmm () unidot com
To: dave () farber net

At 01:29 PM 12/26/03 -0500, Dan Steinberg wrote:
>The idea of micropayment is not new. It has been brought up and shot down
>about as many times as any I guess. The simple issue that fails to be
>recognzed by anyone who brings it up is collection. How do you effectively
>collect these micropayments when one of the key problems in fighting spam
>is the identity of the spammer is hard to find?

This problem has been addressed and largely solved by the design of the VAT
(value
added tax) system.  Each party has to collect from those with whom they are in
immediate contact.  More precisely, each party must collect, for example
$0.01 from
each party from which it collects one message, and pay the same to each
party to
which it sends a message.  For a simple relay, this is a wash.  An
individual customer
of an ISP would simply be billed or credited with the (small) amounts
involved.  This
would force each ISP to assure itself of the creditworthiness of each of
its customers
or limit the number of messages sent.  A spammer sending 1,000,000 messages
would
then find the venture unprofitable.  Reducing the financial incentive for
spammers is
clearly the only ultimate solution.  Legitimate senders of bulk mail (e or
ordinary) have
long since learned to cull their lists and not send needless mail.

Bob McClure



-------------------------------------
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/



<----  End Forwarded Message  ---->

Gordon Peterson                  http://personal.terabites.com/
1977-2002  Twenty-fifth anniversary year of Local Area Networking!
Support the Anti-SPAM Amendment!  Join at http://www.cauce.org/
12/19/98: Partisan Republicans scornfully ignore the voters they "represent".
12/09/00: the date the Republican Party took down democracy in America.

-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as interesting-people () lists elistx com
To manage your subscription, go to
 http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip

Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/