Re: Murkowski anti-spam bill could be a problem for ISPs

[Stephen Sprunk <spsprunk () paranet com>]

At 18:54 24-05-97 -0600, Pete Kruckenberg wrote:
> I see serious problems with this as well. First, it is inconsistent with
> the way that other "unwanted" messages. For example, your postmaster is
> not required to filter through your mail and remove any junk mail (usually
> "tagged" as "bulk mail"). And yes, you are paying for that mail to get to
> you as a US tax payer. 

Actually, the USPS is almost 100% postage-funded; the only "subsidy" they
receive is that it's a felony to mess with US Mail (which courts will go
crazy over), whereas messing with FedEx/UPS packages is barely a misdemeanor.

> Second, I think it opens huge liabilities for an ISP. What happens, for
> example, if an ISP mistakenly filters out an important legitamate message
> because it met the conditions of a junk message? Or, if an ISP fails to
> filter out all junk mail because of a failure of the filtering system or
> because the junk mail is not properly tagged?

This provision is also contrary to the idea of a common carrier...  I think
we should be trying to get _closer_ to common carrier status, not farther
away. 

> On the other side, I think there are huge liabilities that come up from
> the people who might *want* spam (obviously there must be people who
> respond to spam), as well as whatever rights spammers may have to
> communicate their message. It stinks of a ripe first amendment lawsuit
> when you talk about the carriers of the message completely shutting off
> communications of this sort. Of course, I'm not an attorney.

I agree.

> For these reasons, as an ISP, I'm very fearful of legislation like this. I
> would prefer that the ISP be completely removed from the loop, and that
> the legislation focus strictly on ways that Internet users can do their
> own spam filtering (even potentially having a user-specified server-side
> filter, so they don't have to download the spam messages), and leave it at
> that. 

I think that the burden should be placed entirely on the spammer; there is
no reason to bother the user or the ISP with this mess.

The current US law (USC Title 47 Sec 227) governing commercial
telecommunications should be strengthened to explicitly include email.
There's already been a few judgements using this law as-is, so there's no
reason to create a new law that may not work.

The US government can add email addresses to the telephone number opt-out
list they maintain; email spammers will have to pay for access to the
opt-out list just like phone spammers, and the US Govt will eat any spammer
who doesn't use it alive.  Other countries will undoubtedly follow the US's
lead if/when it works, as many have with telephone opt-out lists.

I'm not familiar with snail-mail opt-out lists; it might be worth
investigating those (if they exist), but the phone opt-out lists will
probably more applicable.

Out of curiosity, has anyone considered the effect of this law (or others)
on non-profit spam?


Stephen
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -