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

[Peter Fairbrother]

Peter Harkins wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 05, 2003 at 07:06:46PM -0700, mindfuq at comcast.net wrote:
>> The state must protect my freedom of speech.  So when I make a claim
>> against AOL for conducting a DoS attack against me, the state must
>> rule in my favor, or else they are failing to protect my free speech
>> rights.  
> 
> OK, for anyone who wasn't sure, it's time to stop feeding the trolls.
> 

Troll or not, if AOL censored email in the UK* it would be illegal
interception. 2 years for every interception.

IMO, that's the only good thing to come from the RIP Act (the one with
not-(yet)-implemented GAK).

Freedom to do your own thing is great, but what if the baby bells refused to
connect you to another baby bell? The benefits of a unified 'phone service
are such that legislation prevents baby bells doing that, and most of us
would agree with that legislation. IMO, email should be similar.

But it don't solve the spam problem :-(

-- 
Peter Fairbrother

*They do censor UK email, but they do it in the US. The relevant legal
phrase is "public telecommunications service provider", not "common
carrier". If you offer a telecomms service (eg email) to the public in the
UK then you are a PTSP, and RIPA applies to you. No choice.