more on caution on Spam legislation from CDT

[Dave Farber <dave () farber net>]

------ Forwarded Message
From: Mary Shaw <mary.shaw () cs cmu edu>
Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2003 11:09:59 -0400
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] caution on Spam legislation from CDT

The CMU policy on controversial speakers makes a point that is relevant
here.  The policy is based on the principle that the university should
protect the students' right to hear a diversity of opinions, but without
establishing a right for speakers to be heard (we're a private university).
The speakers can, of course, go to some public place and speak to their
hearts' content.

In other words, your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
listen.

Similarly, I hope Congress can stay clear about the difference between
    - an individual's right to receive (legal) email that he/she wants
    - an individual's right to express him/herself, including in email
    - an individual's right to not receive undesired email
    - an individual's right to restrict the dissemination of his/her email

Not that it will be easy to do this, but if these distinctions are lost it
will surely go badly.

For example, I believe it is important to preserve the ability to send
anonymous email, but I also believe that sacrificing the sender's identity
as a source of credibility should impose a high standard for other evidence
of credibility.  And because anything that permits protected whistle-blowing
is likely to protect spammers as well, this means that it should be easy for
anyone who does not want purely anonymous email to refuse it, and it
indicates a need for other kinds of credibility, like identification tokens
that are good for restricted purposes or times.

Mary

------ End of Forwarded Message

-------------------------------------
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/