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

[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/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------