Re: Spam Filters Threaten Free Speech on the Internet - washington post

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

From: Rahul Tongia <tongia () cmu edu>
Date: November 30, 2008 9:51:54 AM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re:    James McGrath Morris - Spam Filters Threaten  
Free Speech on the Internet - washington post
Reply-To: tongia () cmu edu

Dave,

Correct me if I'm wrong (as I often am!) but isn't the First Amendment  
about rights vis-a-vis the GOVT. and not between private individuals?...

Rahul

Begin forwarded message:

From: "David S. Barkley" <dbarkley () nsimonco com>
Date: November 30, 2008 1:31:08 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Re: James McGrath Morris - Spam Filters Threaten  
Free Speech on the Internet - washington post

Mr. Kulawiec's comments miss the point, I believe.

"His problem lies with his own choices."
I doubt that his mailing service was making the decision. Rather they  
were advising him about how to get past the Spam filters that are in  
place elsewhere. There is software that can test mailings to get a  
"Spam Index". The "one rule fits all" mentalilty of such filters leads  
to some amusing/disturbing limitations on what can make it past the  
filters (as Mr. Kulawiec demonstrated quite well).

"The author has conflated his free speech right (as guaranteed under  
the Constitution) with an obligation of others to listen."
The "others" aren't the ones making the decisions. While most end  
users have the ability to filter the mail they get based on some  
criteria, there is a great deal of mail they don't get because of  
filtering mechanisms over which they have no control. These pre- 
filters work quite well, if you don't mind losing 1 in a 1000  
legitimate emails.

Dave  Barkley


On Sun, Nov 30, 2008 at 9:31 AM, David Farber <dave () farber net> wrote:


Begin forwarded message:

David Farber wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: Rich Kulawiec <rsk () gsp org>
Date: November 30, 2008 7:32:12 AM EST
To: David Farber <dave () farber net>
Subject: Re: [IP] WORTH READING      James McGrath Morris - Spam  
Filters Threaten Free Speech on the Internet - washington post
This is alarmist nonsense for two reasons.
First:
I contacted the company that distributes my newsletter, and a staff
member explained that three sets of words among the issue's many
The author has chosen to use a company which in turn has chosen to
use a broken spam filter.  His problem lies with his own choices.
Second:
The author has conflated his free speech right (as guaranteed under
the Constitution) with an obligation of others to listen.  If end
users wish to make the same set of choices that he has, and make them
equally poorly, then they might end up not receiving issues of his
newsletter -- or many other pieces of email.  If this becomes a
problem for them (or for him) perhaps they'll revisit those choices.
But in no way, shape or form is there a First Amendment issue of
any kind here.
Note: This should not be taken as advocacy for anti-spam measures that
inspect content.  I've long held that it's quite easy to implement
robust anti-spam measures without resorting to content inspection.
(Where "robust" implies low false positive and false negative rates.)
I strongly suspect that when the spam/anti-spam arms race ratchets up
another notch or two, the shortcomings of content filtering will be even
more apparent.
---Rsk


--

Gordon Peterson II
http://personal.terabites.com
1977-2007:  Thirty year anniversary of local area networking




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com



--
David S. Barkley, Ph.D.
Managing Editor, Virtlab




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com