FC: Congressional aide likes Larry Lessig's anti-spam suggestion

[Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>]

Previous Politech message:

"Will Larry Lessig's proposed anti-spam law make spam... worse?"
http://www.politechbot.com/p-04355.html

---

From: [deleted per request --DBM]
To: declan
Date: Thu, 23 Jan 2003 12:26:33 -0500

Hi Declan -

I wanted to express my keen interest in this issue and these responses in 
particular. I work for Congress, and know that there are Members who are 
very aware of the problem of spam, and are interested in doing something 
about it.

Though there aren't specific bills ready to be introduced yet, I thought 
Politechnicals might be interested to know that Larry's idea of the ADV: 
tag is one of the main ones being considered, and stands a good chance of 
being introduced.

I also wanted to respond to Jim's and Chip's comments.

--
 >From: "Jim Harper" <jim.harper@policycounsel.com>
 >
 >Lessig's bet is nearly risk-free. "ADV:" legislation >is very unlikely.
 >More importantly, though, it's ham-handed.
 >
 >Along with reducing spam, why not rate spam law on >whether it preserves 
free speech rights? If you're >not sympathetic to free speech, how about 
how well
 >a spam law protects communications that consumers >want and need (some of 
which are ADV:'s)? Has Lessig >considered whether his proposal thwarts small
 >business participation and competition in the online >medium by creating 
disproportionate litigation risk?
 >
 >If there's going to be good spam law - not a foregone >conclusion - it 
will come from considering all the >interests at stake.
 >
 >Jim
---

Jim, all the interests at stake are being considered. As I understand it, 
one of the major benefits of Larry's proposal is that it doesn't 
-criminalize- excess unwanted spam (as some recent bills have done). 
Rather, it would, as Chip noted, created a much better method of filtering. 
The belief is that adding a simple tag to the subject line would not create 
an undue burden on small business (even -I- can type ADV: in just one second).

---
 >Date: Tue, 7 Jan 2003 12:15:15 -0600
 >From: Chip Rosenthal <chip@unicom.com>
 >
 >I'm going to take the position that the law Larry >proposed may make spam
 >levels *worse*.
 >
 >Here's why: data indicate a significant rise in spam >levels over the 
past year. (I'm currently crunching >some numbers, hoping I can measure 
this effect.) I >believe there are two reasons for this. One is the
 >recession. The other is due to the increasing >effectiveness of filtering.
 >
 >As filters get more effective, spammers pump out more >and more messages, 
trying to push their crap through >the shrinking sieve. Labelling may 
provide for the >most effective filtering yet, driving spammers to >flood 
at levels unimagined.
 >
 >So while Larry's proposal may reduce what lands in >your inbox, the 
servers are going to *choke*. That's >because the SMTP mail protocol 
requires that the >server receive the complete message before it can be
 >inspected for tags. So servers will be driven into >the ground accepting 
and discarding millions of >messages a day, all with proper spam labels.
 >
 >Here is the flaw in Larry's propsal: it assumes >reasonable, rational 
people. As effectiveness of spam >decreases, the less likely a reasonable, 
rational >person would use it.
 >
 >The problem is that people who advertise by spam >aren't reasonable, 
rational people. They are morons >who believe in work-at-home pyramid scams 
and that >apricot seeds cure cancer. They don't do efficacy
 >calculations. They just look at the cost. They don't >care if spam has a 
1/1mil capture rate, just so long >as it's cheap. And with its nearly-zero 
marginal >cost, they'll just adjust their spam levels upwards >as necessary.
---

Chip, I hope you're not forgetting the other part of Larry's proposal - the 
bounty on noncompliant spammers. Ideally, most would follow the rules and 
put on the tags. But we're realistic, and we know that many won't. It seems 
that the most effective method of enforcement is giving the Federal Trade 
Commission to fine each infringment, and giving good and industrious people 
on the net the opportunity to track down the infringers, pass the info 
along to the FTC, and collect a "bounty" from the FTC after they recover 
the fine from the infringer.

Is it perfect? No, obviously not. But, in my opinion, it's about as close 
as we're going to come to a real solution.

---
 >I think legislation is the right solution, but >labelling isn't it. Spam 
represents pollution of a >public resource, and we need regulations and
 >financial penalties appropriate for protecting that >endangered resource.
---

Any suggestions for improvements or changes are welcome, of course. :) I'm 
no member of Congress, and I'm not under the illusion that I have all the 
right answers. That's why Larry's idea is great - it's a fresh new approach 
to a thorny problem.

Regards,

[deleted --DBM]




-------------------------------------------------------------------------
POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
Recent CNET News.com articles: http://news.search.com/search?q=declan
-------------------------------------------------------------------------