In article ,
No, we are not in favor of spam, but we are against collateral damage to innocent parties in the name of fighting spam.
No, see above.
The fight against CAN-SPAM was based on several major problems with the legislation:
- It explicity permits spam, unless the recipient requests to be removed (opt-out), instead of prohibiting spam, unless the recipient requests it (opt-in).
- It prohibits individual or class-action lawsuits against spammers by email recipients, but allows enforcement by the FTC, state attorneys general, ISP's, and other federal agencies for special categories of spam (banks).
- It supercedes state laws, except for laws pertaining to fraud. Most of the state laws that were superceded were of the opt-in variety, which did not restrict the rights of the spam recipient to bring suit.
In other words, CAN-SPAM is worse than no legislation at all, in that it restricts the rights of individuals to sue spammers, and restricts the rights of states to enact real legislation with penalties, while making spam into a legitimate business.
Would you rather have your house protected by a trained attack dog under your direct control, or would you rather have congress tell you that you can't own your own attack dog, but that they will provide a few toothless poodles instead, but they will be kept in Washington.
The real objections are to the potential for serious collateral damage to innocent parties, and to the potential for these anti-spam tools to be used as the mechanism for DDoS attacks against innocent parties.
Filtering does not affect innocent parties, unless they try to send you email, and are blocked from doing so.
DDoS attacks do affect innocent parties, and are illegal.
A DDoS attack by proxy is still a DDoS attack.
Coordination with others for the purpose of initiating a DDoS attack is conspiracy to commit a crime, which is itself a crime.
-- Welcome My Son, Welcome To The Machine -- Bob Vaughan | techie @ tantivy.net | | P.O. Box 19792, Stanford, Ca 94309 |
-- I am Me, I am only Me, And no one else is Me, What could be simpler? --
[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: So if an airplane crashes into a building in New York City and everyone jumps on their telephone at one time to chat with everyone else about it and 90 percent of the residents cannot get a dial tone or connection, that is a Denial of Service is it not? Whose fault is it? Or a new very popular web site starts up and everyone tries to look at it at one time, and quite a few callers get turned away as a result. Whose fault is that? When is it ever my fault if I attempt to use a communications link somewhere and a million other folks are trying to do the same and I get turned away. Is congestion on the telephone network or a computer network ever of concern to me (as in to be blamed for same)? Maybe the phone company needs more circuits or the ISP or the web page owner need more resources? If each person who sees a piece of spam objects to the piece of spam (and the owner of same having been positively identified) chooses to complain to the owner is it really _my concern_ if the computer links (or phone lines or other communication system) is too crowded?Anyone who had something other than the WTC situation to talk about on
9-11-01 was one of your innocent parties which got injured, were they not since the phones were all screwed up that day. And if a person that wanted to place an order for some merchandise they could not get through on the phone, could they? And if X number of people were on their computer complaining with someone about unwanted email they had recieved and another person came along who did in fact want some of that merchandise then they would not be able to get through either, would they? If you send out several million spams, I have to assume you expect to get at least a few thousand orders for your product, with the requisite customer service correspondence to go along with it. AOL, Yahoo, MSN and Google are all anticipating _lots_ of traffic, so they prepare accordingly with plenty of circuits and equipment. If for some reason, they get more responses than they expected, things will get very hectic on the computer. Should I get the blame for all that as well?You know, Bob, your claims that it is a 'crime' for some people to respond in a negative way to a product on the computer is really stretching things pretty thin. If it makes you feel better to refer to those concerted complaints as a 'crime' in order to twist things around and make out the spammers to be 'poor innocent business people' who have been 'victimized' by a relative handful of netizens filing complaints, then please go ahead and do so. But no matter what you say, it is _not_ a crime when someone's network resources run low because of a huge response (pro or con) to a message the person sent out. Nor is it a crime when a group of people get very excited about some situation and begin chatting with others about it. So call it whatever you want, it is _not_ DDOS when a million (or any number of users) respond -- even all at once -- when they are asked something. PAT]