* Roy M. Silvernail <roy@rant-central.com> [2003-08-02 23:06]:
On Saturday 02 August 2003 23:35, mindfuq@comcast.net wrote:
Ultimately, you could say my objective is to ask for more RIGHTS, not RESTRICTIONS. But rights also come in the form of law. I'm not asking for more restrictions on email.
If we accept that the set of "natural rights" is fixed, then by asking for more rights (for yourself), you are in fact arguing for more restrictions (on others).
I would almost agree with that, but in this particular case I don't see how tort law restricts them from sending spam. With a tort law that gives me a right to claim $500 per spam, they can still send spam, in fact, I might even welcome the spam. But then it's only fair to compensate me for my damages and troubles. Heck, I might even buy the product they're selling at the same time.
I have long argued that spam is tresspass and theft of service, but I have stopped arguing for legislation because I recognize that it is futile.
You've given up?
Your actions against telemarketers are successful because both you and the telemarketer are within the same jurisdiction and tort law exists to support your action. But try to apply the same tort concept against some Chinese spam generator (or Korean, or Romainian, ad infinitum) and you will quickly see that the global nature of the internet renders regional tort law moot.
I'm not sure I agree with that. Being outside of the U.S. would make it more difficult for me to assert a claim, but not impossible. I'm no expert on this, but I believe there are lawsuits against overseas companies, and I heard that countries basically trade judgements.. ie. if we have $1 million in judgements against Canadian companies, and vice versa, they enforce our judgements and in exchange we enforce theirs.
I keep a loose track of the spam I receive (typically >50/day) and a good 85% originates offshore, even though the benefiting party may be domestic. Enacting tort law will simply drive the remaining 15% offshore, and the benefiting parties will just argue that they have been Joe-jobbed.
I don't know about your numbers, but lets assume they're accurate. I would be happy with going after the locals, because I want to be compensated whether it's someone in my country or otherwise. So it would be a good start to get compensation for internal spam- no reason to ignore that. In fact, considering all the spam I get, and figuring that I can only handle a few lawsuits a week while maintaining my real job, 15% of of your 50/day leaves 7.5 emails per day that are actionable. Not bad. That's more than enough. If I get $500 per lawsuit, I would actually feel that the whole spam problem is resolved, because it would be enough compensation to collectively not care about the foreign spam. If the 15% are eventually driven offshore, that's still an improvement. But in reality, a large chunk of that 15% will just stop what they're doing. Also, if their email originates offshore, but they still live locally, I can still sue them, because their personal jurisdiction is within my long-arms reach. Relocating servers does not get them off the hook. If I'm in New York, then they are doing business in New York under New York's jurisdiction, and that is where the forum would be. Enforcement of the judgement would be in the jurisdiction of their person, or their assets. So if that's Florida, that is where the money will come from. The legal system doesn't care if their servers are in Vanuatu. Sure it would be more difficult to trace them, but let's not deny the private right of action for those with the resources and motivation to make their claim.
The problem is that the present email structure was designed for a more naive time when all parties were trusting and trusted. The solution *is* a technical one. We must build fences against the tresspassers, but inevitably some will sneak through. If you want to receive email, you will have to deal with email. That's freedom, isn't it?
No, it doesn't have to be this way. A system of trust is a good one, as long as there is accountability. I love not having any privacy / blocking features on my phone. Anyone can call me, and family members aren't blocked or screened. They get my voice immediately. Even telemarketers are free to call me; but if they dare break the TCPA, they will have to compensate me. This is a great arrangement because I don't need to barricade everything and fear blocking people I want to talk to. I don't have to pay my phone company for privacy features, adding to their profits while they sell my number to the telemarketers simultaneously. And when a bad guy gets through, I get compensated well enough not to care. In fact, I even welcome telemarketing calls.. muahaha! And I must say, the corporations are failing with their technical solutions. This is not working. Spam still gets through, and I don't get compensated when this happens. My legitimate mail gets blocked because the filters don't work, and even worse, I don't get compensated when that happens. Private corporations are abusively exercising their power to regulate who can email who, and the collateral damage is ignored. These private corporations need to be removed from power. They should not have this power. If an entity must have this power, it should be the government, but certainly not a careless profit driven heavyweight. Spamassassin works pretty well, but this is a user level tool, not being used by ISPs. I would use spamassassin in combination with tort law. This would be the best protection. As it stands, the technicians are blocking my legit mail, and I want to sue these people more than anything. They are causing more damage and frustration than the spammers. I won't rest until MAPS and AOL are removed from power.