I'm asking for more rights, not restrictions (was Re: Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?)

[Roy M. Silvernail]

On Saturday 02 August 2003 23:35, mindfuq at 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 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. 
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 
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.

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?