----- Forwarded message from Dave Farber ----- From: Dave Farber Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 17:34:41 -0500 To: ip@v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] Charging For E-Mail X-Mailer: munch X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6.0.2.0 Reply-To: dave@farber.net And there are several more good arguments against it as proposed. Dave Delivered-To: dfarber+@ux13.sp.cs.cmu.edu Date: Mon, 02 Feb 2004 12:52:49 -0800 (PST) From: Lauren Weinstein Subject: Charging For E-Mail To: dave@farber.net Dave, Just a few notes on the issues of "charging" for e-mail... - As you point out, any fee structure is likely to start off low and rise as attempts are made to maximize the profit center on the part of ISPs. - Once ISP e-mail charging schemes are in place, governments will likely express interest in potential revenue to be derived from such sources. The long-debunked rumor of the "e-mail tax" might well become a reality. It has already been suggested in some quarters that the U.S. Postal Service's new "Electronic Postmark" EPM/Authentidate system could ultimately be a model in this regard. - It appears likely that a primary initial use for e-mail charging schemes would be to allow certain classes of bulk mailers to bypass ISP anti-spam filters to directly reach the captive audience of those ISPs. If you've got the bucks, you're classified as a "good" spammer and your wonderful offers will reach all those "grateful" e-mail recipients without interference from those pesky filter rules. - E-mail charging schemes can be used as an excuse to further bind customers tightly to their current ISPs. The "SPF" e-mail domain control system already has this effect by discouraging the legitimate use of alternate domains by users in many cases. - Widely-deployed e-mail charging would likely require ISPs to attempt extremely tight, centralized control over e-mail routing to try prevent "unauthorized" (and uncharged) e-mail flows by users operating their own MTAs (Mail Transfer Agents), non-escrowed e-mail encryption systems, and/or other "unapproved" technologies. Such centralized and enforced ISP control over e-mail would obviously have drastic potential negative privacy and security impacts. - The concept of widespread, enforced e-mail charging neglects to acknowledge the reality that e-mail is fundamentally an end-to-end Internet application that can be indistinguishable at the data level from most other applications. The backlash to e-mail charging schemes would likely give rise to vast distributed "underground" e-mail transport systems, encrypted and even designed to masquerade as other types of data. Even draconian attempts by ISPs to limit their subscribers' access to alternate TCP/IP ports would be unlikely to stem the flood of such alternate e-mail transport environments, that could even emulate standard Web (HTTP) traffic. Illicit music file trading would likely look like a drop in the bucket by comparison. Bottom line: Trying to charge broadly for e-mail could well provide a textbook definition of "Pandora's Box" brought to life. --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein lauren@pfir.org or lauren@vortex.com or lauren@privacyforum.org Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 http://www.pfir.org/lauren Co-Founder, PFIR - People For Internet Responsibility - http://www.pfir.org Co-Founder, Fact Squad - http://www.factsquad.org Co-Founder, URIICA - Union for Representative International Internet Cooperation and Analysis - http://www.uriica.org Moderator, PRIVACY Forum - http://www.vortex.com Member, ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as eugen@leitl.org To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ ----- End forwarded message ----- -- Eugen* Leitl leitl ______________________________________________________________ ICBM: 48.07078, 11.61144 http://www.leitl.org 8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE http://moleculardevices.org http://nanomachines.net [demime 1.01d removed an attachment of type application/pgp-signature]