Home Help About Profile Search Home
Guest: login

Internet Law Colloquium > Your Spam Solution

Rotisserie Question

It's November 4, 2004. In the post-election planning, the victorious presidential candidate's advisers ask you what their approach to spam should be in the next four years. They are interested in what steps (if any) the government should take on its own, and what steps it should encourage other entities (such as ISPs or the IETF) to take.

In your response, please do three things:

1. Outline how the U.S. should proceed on spam policy for the next four years.
2. Explain with greater detail what steps are the keys to success.
3. Explain how you will measure success in these efforts.

Please take a look at the spam discussions for Prof. Palfrey's Cyberlaw and the Global Economy class before responding:  http://h2o.law.harvard.edu/viewRotisserie.do?rotisserieId=547

Status ?

Done. Started on
10/5/04 1:35 PM
Schedule
Start: 10/5/04 1:35 PM
Round 1 Due: 10/8/04 7:00 PM
Round 2 Due: 10/11/04 5:00 PM
Final Due: 10/12/04 5:00 PM
Statistics
Active Users15
Posts32
Scheduled Rounds2
Search ?
Rotisserie Posts  (Refresh) ?
Sort By: Thread / Author View: Rotisserie Posts and Comments / Rotisserie Posts Only
Expand Rounds: All / 1 / 2 / None

U.S. Policy on Spam policy for the next 4 years

There is no doubt that spam has become an issue of not only national but international concern. This Government is More...

View Thread Comments

Throughout the next four years, the United States should have two primary objectives in its anti-spam efforts:
1. To reduce the practical effects of spammers' actions through use technology to More...

The government should not fund "the private sector's attempts to develop technology-based solutions to spam" for the simple reason that it is unnecessary and probably wasteful. The response of the More...

View Thread Comments

I think the main problem with spam is that it clogs up internet bandwidth.  I don’t think that the fact that it reaches end users is a big problem.  Most More...

In many instances, spam is a personal problem in the sense that one must be educated in the practical techniques they can employ to combat spam. It is my opinion, More...

View Thread Comments

Solving the spam problem would probably provide some great political cover to allow the Department of Homeland Security to sift through everyone's email.  Assuming alleviating spam is the ends (and More...

I think the harm from SPAM is real, even if I cannot calculate its cost.  SPAM wastes my time and means I have to worry about email I send getting More...

Regarding intrusion by State Agencies, such activities would be actionable if not authorised by specific legislation. In addition, the US Constitution provides privacy rights (although they are not unlimited)In reality, More...

View Thread Comments

I propose we tackle two problems at once. Delving deeply into the problems of software patents is better undertaken in a separate thread. Generally, I believe that software patents and More...

I agree with your statements about the negative implications of the patent system on computer software in general, and on the spam problem in particular, but I'm not sure that, More...

Thread Comments:

"the most plausible solutions lie in the adoption of conventions between these companies."

That's exactly the point. I'm arguing that the biggest obstacle to collective action, and thus the "adoption More...

View Thread Comments

If no change is made to current law and technology, SPAM will increasingly consume more of the net’s bandwidth, cause economic loss to end users from fraud, and diminish the More...

I think you are right that we need to make the source of email messages identifiable in order to eliminate fraud.  Upgrading the SMTP protocol and/or creating sender ID and More...

I really think that your proposal is strong and its technical understanding is way beyond my own. That said, i'm going to avoid the technical stuff :-) and concentrate on More...

Thread Comments:

I appreciate both sets of comments above.  One common thread in both posts is the idea that somehow it is possible to separate mass mailings (i.e. SPAM) from individually targeted More...

View Thread Comments

It's November 4, 2004. In the post-election planning, the victorious presidential candidate's advisers ask you what their approach to spam should be in the next four years. They are interested More...

This strikes me as a very thoughtful and carefully considered response.  Because spam works at all by exploiting the underlying openness of the net architecture (packets are just packets), a More...

Thread Comments:

I cannot understand why you would rather have a safe-mail system that displaces SMTP rather than runs alongside it.  Displacing SMTP would upset a great many users who favor its More...

Don't misunderstand me, I am not advocating for the elimination of SMTP, but only suggesting that certain consequences follow from the original posting's suggesting that SMTP and safe-mail coexist side More...

View Thread Comments

The American people have made a bold choice, and President-Elect Dodge and Vice President-Elect Lydick must show comparable fortitude in adapting the rather fusty platform of the Prohibition Party to More...

The memo above assumes that there is a problem with spam.  Moreover, it assumes that the problem of spam is BIG.  As such, the memo suggests that we attack spam More...

I think your affirmative suggestions are a start, but alone I think they won’t do enough to meaningfully reduce spam.  I agree that the current enforcement under CAN-SPAM is anemic, More...

View Thread Comments

1. While spam is a tremendous problem, our knee-jerk reaction should not be for direct government intervention. Instead, the incoming administration must encourage existing entities on the internet to stop More...

I think that you are absolutely right that the ISPs will play a crucial role in reducing or eliminating spam; however, I would just make one additional suggestion.

I believe More...

Thread Comments:

My problem with this proposal is that it shifts responsibility of blocking communication upstream.  Without a very careful definition of what is SPAM I am reluctant to immunize ISP's for More...

View Thread Comments

1.
A) Any company or individual that profits from a commercial endeavor is liable for all spam sent in order to generate revenue for that endeavor.  
B) Any party held More...

I agree that ‘money’ is a key factor in mitigating the spam problem. However, the above solution has the following drawbacks:

·        Spam consisting of obscene material, frauds, viruses and More...

View Thread Comments

Technical Solutions
       
Filtering can be used to block a substantial percentage of spam while blacklisting can be utilized to block ISPs which are considered to be spam sources. Further, our More...

View Thread Comments

1. It is paramount that effective legal protection is provided against excessive and abusive direct marketing practices such as the use of spam. Legislation must also protect the right of More...

Thread Comments:

I feel my posting did not address specific actions that may be taken without resorting to unenforeceabl measures such as CAN-SPAM and the other legislative efforts of Utah, Virginia, etc. More...

View Thread Comments

It has been suggested the SPAM is costing American over $200 billion a year.  Much of this SPAM is being sent from overseas, from countries such a Nigeria.  The real More...

Thread Comments:

Also, I thought that the whole idea of trusted networks by Derek is intriguing.  In general, i like the idea of the members of the community regulating themselves.  When i More...

View Thread Comments