[eff-austin] Antispam Bills: Worse Than Spam?

[John Kozubik]

On Sun, 3 Aug 2003 mindfuq at comcast.net wrote:

> * John Kozubik <john at kozubik.com> [2003-08-02 19:27]:
> >
> > That is incorrect.  AOL owns their network, and they can respond to your
> > arbitrary communications on their network in any way they see fit.
>
> Unfortunately, you're correct.
>
> > Maybe they will deliver your email to your AOL subscribing friend.
> > Maybe they will block that email.  Maybe they will translate the
> > email into French and reverse the word-order and then send it to
> > your friend.  Maybe they will print it out and mail it back to you
> > for no reason.  All of these responses are perfectly legitimate, and
> > represent a private entity using their property in whatever way they
> > see fit,
>
> Yes, this is the problem I'm trying to address.  Normally when Alice
> tries to transmit information to Bob, if Mallory decides to sabotage
> the communication, this is a denial of service attack, forbidden by
> criminal law.
>
> However, if the communication passes through Mallory's back yard, we
> can let the attack happen because it's on Mallory's property.  At the
> same time, if I sabotage the city water line that passes through my
> property, I can be held accountable.  And rightly so.  Mallory should
> also be held accountable for blocking communications.  This is what
> needs to change.

This comparison is invalid.  You are correct that your private property is
... well ... your private property, but if you look closely you will find
that you have a contract (of some kind, be it an agreement, etc.) with
your city - most likely in the form of an easement.  So, by interrupting
their water line, you would be breaking your contract.

Make no mistake, if you hold a contract that AOL entered in with you that
stipulates that they must send your email that you place onto their
property to your friend, then by all means prosecute them to your fullest
ability.  Further, if the AUP/TOS ("contract") that your friend, as a
subscriber, has with AOL stipulates something similar, then again, go
forward with my best wishes.

We all know, however, that AOL has no such contract with you, and that
their contract with your friend most likely boils down to "we will do as
we see fit and you will like it", and further, that even the peering
agreements that AOL has with other service providers, common carrier laws,
etc. most likely do not come anywhere near to stipulating this.  As well
they shouldn't.

So once again, we are back to:

AOL can do whatever they want with the bits you place on their private
property.

> > It amazes me how many people on this list only respect private property
> > when it is convenient for them to do so.  (For reference, see the "Tim May
> > argues (correctly) that people can't protest in his house" and, more
> > recently, the "Gilmore thinks airlines can't refuse him travel for any
> > reason they see fit"  threads)
>
> There's a balance of rights, and obviously private property rights
> aren't going to always get priority.  While they're high on my list in
> *some* cases, they don't top human rights.  Some rights are a little
> more fundamental and important than private property rights.  And when
> someone abuses their property to damage someone else, I have zero
> respect for their private property rights.  So I'm not at all
> surprized that someone would perceive an inconsistency on this issue,
> because there are so many more important rights that have a greater
> bearing on peoples happiness.
>
> AOL isn't even a human, so to put the private property rights of AOL
> above the well-being of any human is a silly mistake.
>
> In my particular case, AOL is blocking me from talking to friends and
> family.  I suppose I could argue that the packets I create and send
> are created with my private property and resources, so those packets
> are my property, and AOL is vandalizing my property by destroying
> these packets.  You can argue that how you want, but the bottom line
> is that AOL is using their property to gain power to control who may
> talk to who.  This is clearly an abusive use of property, and I have
> no tolarance for it.  They need to be removed from power, and the
> consumers who contributed to the purchasing of their property need to
> be given some rights.

This will be my last response to this thread.  Your comments boil down to:

a) You have forgotten that communication existed before the Internet, and
further, that Internet communication exists just fine without AOL.  The
obvious conclusion that using AOL is an act of terminal stupidity is left
as an exercise for the reader.

b) You invoke the tired, meaningless appeal to the big bad corporation
stomping on the little guy.  In reality, AOL can do whatever it pleases
with your bits when you place them on their property, barring any prior
contract to the contrary.  Any legislation that stipulates otherwise is
misguided.

And I think both of those are absurd.

-----
John Kozubik - john at kozubik.com - http://www.kozubik.com