[WSIS CS-Plenary] Spam as an issue

[John Mathiason]

Apropos of Jonathan's point, an article in today's New York Times is 
entitled
"Law Barring Junk E-Mail Allows a Flood Instead" 
(http://www.nytimes.com/2005/02/01/technology/01spam.html).  The 
article notes that the United States "Can-Spam" act does not function 
well, in part because of its internal ambiguities and in part because 
it can be easily evaded by having an "off-shore" server.  It also notes 
that laws on spam are different in different countries.  Also of 
interest is the lack of any mention of how the borderless nature of the 
Internet makes spam feasible (which is not surprising in a US-oriented 
publication).

Such an article in a major US newspaper suggests that the issue of the 
limitations of national responses to spam is receiving some attention.

Regards,

John

On Feb 1, 2005, at 11:20, Jonathan Cave wrote:

>  At 12:58 01/02/2005, Fede wrote:
>
> On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 10:14 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>  > So you think that there is no need for global regulation of 
> spam?[...]
>  > it will just let you lost in cross-border legal procedures while the
>  > spammer has all the time to finish the job and disappear.
>
>  I have a feeling that you forget that there is a reason why those 
> pesky "cross-border legal procedures" exist: to keep citizens of 
> country A under their own legal framework, instead of having them 
> subject to country B's laws. Those legal systems are different for a 
> reason.
>
> That's not wholly accurate - there are mutual recognition and 
> choice-of-venue provisions. In general, a citizen of A can be 
> prosecuted for an offence committed in B if the act is also an offence 
> in A, though there are important practical questions about who bears 
> the burden of prosecution, where the trial takes place and how law 
> officers from one jurisdiction get evidence from another. The 
> Indymedia case lately discussed in this list comes to mind...
>
>
> Of course, spam is a problem. Over 70% of my incoming mail is spam, 
> and I'm not happy with all the spam from spam-friendly countries, but 
> maybe that's the price we need to pay to avoid the current tendency 
> towards blanket "harmonization" of everything.
>
> Co-ordination and local versions of common standards are attractive 
> alternatives to harmonisation. Things don't have to be the same, just 
> aware of and sympathetic to each other.
>
>  But political will is very important: a jurisdiction that has a 
> positive 'trade balance from its citizens' spamming activities abroad 
> will be no more likely to cooperate in effective spam control than a 
> jurisdiction that is a net seller in eCommerce would be to support 
> Internet taxes or duties. On the other hand, many of these 
> 'independent' jurisdiction find international pressures a handy way to 
> win domestic battles (the history of the WTO telecom agreement being 
> an exact case in point).
>
>
> Not to mention that spam will stop dead on its track the moment the 
> majority of people are educated enough to stop falling for it. Calling 
> for better and deeper education strategies for all is something 
> everyone could probably agree on as a goal we want WSIS to concentrate 
> on. It would eliminate not only spam, but a lot of other problems, and 
> create a lot of opportinities. More efficiency in getting unpleasant 
> people behind bars doesn't have nearly as positive a ring to it.
>
> As far as I am aware, the *vast* majority of people are already aware 
> of at least the current types of spam. But for spammers sending 
> millions of messages a day the enterprise is profitable if even a tiny 
> minority respond. It is also a bit unfair to say 'falling for it' as 
> though spam and fraud were one and the same. True, much of it is 
> phishing for identity theft opportunities - but the majority to date 
> consists of unsolicited commercial offers - if people want to buy 
> these goods, they will. If spam is a cheap way to reach these 
> customers, it will be used. Why should spam be easier to stop than 
> junk mail or junk faxes? The public interest arises because the costs 
> imposed on others ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3352111.stm) 
> are very large compared to those experienced by the spammers. Unless 
> the education solution is much more effective than any other education 
> programme has ever been, it won't make a difference. By the way, is 
> there any evidence that spamming is inversely correlated with either 
> general education or Information Society readiness indicators?
>
>  Jonathan
>
>
>          Fede
>  --
>  GnuPG Public Key: gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-key 
> BD02C6E0
>  Key Fingerprint: 04F4 08C5 14B7 2C3D DB21  ACF8 6CF5 0B0C BD02 C6E0
>