[debate] proposal: this house will legalize spam

Wed Apr 22 13:49:51 UTC 2009

Several thoughts occur to me.  First on the topic of drugs, we're thinking of the wrong person in terms of pleasure.  Here the Spammer, not the recipient, is the one getting the benefit they are the metaphorical drug user, we are just collateral damage (kind of like the community that surrounds the addict).  Second, what really is Spam?  Let's I my spam filter flags legitimate emails from vendors, my car dealership (maintenance reminders), and PR folks who I know as spammers and regularly blocks their email.  What if you actually want cheap Viagra and the offer is legitimate?  

Bill Gates, some time back, proposed the idea of an email tax.  Something that was a fraction of a penny per email.  It would amount to a couple of dollars for most of us but would virtually halt efforts to send email to an entire country forcing spammers to better target their messages to people who might actually want to purchase and reduce dramatically the cost we all pay in terms of spam filters, wasted storage, and time (to scan the damned spam filters) while helping the government raise money.   This money could even be earmarked to go after malware creators.  

I like this approach because it doesn't put us in the position of deciding what spam is, it gets the mail we want to us with less work, it forces spammers to be better at meeting the actual goals of the spam piece (actually selling something), and it raises money that could be used to solve other problems.  

While off topic, I wonder if a fee structure on currently illegal drugs, tobacco, and alcohol could be used to fund the universal healthcare programs we know the country needs?  Once we went down the path of carbon credits it would seem the model could be applied universally.  Just a thought and clearly off topic.  

Rob Enderle
Principal Analyst

Work:  408 272-8560
Cell:     408 832-6326
FAX:    408 904-5274

-----Original Message-----
From: debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org [mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] On Behalf Of E L
Sent: Wednesday, April 22, 2009 5:20 AM
To: Peter Jukes
Cc: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
Subject: Re: [debate] proposal: this house will legalize spam

Yea, lets ignore all the rest of the argument and just answer one
irrelevant sentence:)
On 4/22/09, Peter Jukes <pdjukes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> OK. I'm stepping in here, tentatively, for the first time. I think the
> analogy with drugs is interesting and provocative, but fundamentally flawed.
>
> After all most psychoactive substances have at least some short term benefit
> such as pleasure, relaxation or enhanced performance. Though most spams
> promise to enhance my sexual performance (which I find somewhat insulting) I
> can think of no short term increase of pleasure, relaxation or ability
> thanks to their receipt.
>
> A better analogy sure would be with waste - fly tipping in the UK, or
> illegal dumping in the US. The fines imposed on those who pollute the
> environment this way are in effect a kind of tax. They help to compensate
> for the hidden social costs of pollution.
>
> Whether legal or not, SPAMMERS should pay for their littering of the
> cybersphere, and the congestion they cause on bandwidth.
>
They pay for net access like everyone else. I'm not sure where is that spammers
take a lot of web traffic comes from. Do you have numbers to back it up?
Beside that, why should spammers pay extra over what everyone pay for
their bandwidth?
Now we'll start charging people per protocol?:)

> I have little to say in favour of SPAM, either economically or socially,
> except the Monty Python song. And it has at least inspired a musical  in
> Scotland
>
> > 2008 marked the thirtieth birthday of spam email and to celebrate SPAM the
> Musical turned spam into video art. Based on the texts of spam email,
> collected over two years, SPAM the Musical is about make-believe and truth,
> hope and betrayal.
> >
>
> Peter
>
>
>
> On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 12:46 PM, David Harley <david.a.harley at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Actually, the drugs argument -is- germane, in that economic considerations
> > do - in some contexts - override moral convictions. (Note that I'm not
> > personally favouring one set of moral convictions over another here.)
> >
> > Governments routinely tax soft drugs like tobacco and alcohol while paying
> > lip service to the notion that they are a Bad Thing. (Yes, I'm as fond of
> a
> > glass of wine as most, but I'm not unaware that there are moral and
> > practical arguments for prohibition or at least more serious regulation
> than
> > we're used to in the West, whether I subscribe to them or not.)
> >
> > Institutional subversion of overt restrictions is a fact of life and
> > politics, and not only on the level of out-and-out corruption.
> >
> > I don't say that's how it -should- be, and that's not what I read Gadi's
> > original proposal as saying, either.
> >
> > --
> > David Harley BA CISSP FBCS CITP
> > Small Blue-Green World
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> > > [mailto:debate-bounces at whitestar.linuxbox.org] On
> Behalf Of Gadi Evron
> > > Sent: 21 April 2009 07:22
> > > To: E L
> > > Cc: debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> > > Subject: Re: [debate] proposal: this house will legalize spam
> > >
> > > E L wrote:
> > > > Gadi,
> > > >
> > > > His point is very valid. By saying we should allow spam because of
> > > > economical reason you actually claimed that those
> > > economical reasons
> > > > are more important than moral reasons.
> > >
> > > I did no such thing. Your are taking a part of what I said
> > > and distorting the context.
> > >
> > > > Or that if something can earn money for the state, it
> > > doesn't really
> > > > matter if it hurts other citizens on the process. He
> > >
> > > I did no such thing. Where have I said that? Your
> > > extrapolation does not follow from the original claim.
> > >
> > > > gave you an example of another subject where that claim was
> > > used, but
> > > > rejected by people in most countries, showing you that most people
> > > > prefer morality or at least protecting themselves over the country
> > > > earning few more dollars.
> > >
> > > He did not give me an example of another subject of
> > > relevance, but gave me an example of an exactly analogous
> > > situation. The fight against drugs, while similar in ways
> > > (being reactive, going against demand) to the fight against
> > > spam, they are not analogous.
> > > People do not steal for spam. People do not die of over-dose
> > > with spam.
> > > Your rhetoric is insulting to those families who lost loved
> > > ones to the drug trade.
> > >
> > > We can argue about drugs, or about spam. Which is it?
> > >
> > > > On the other hand your argument is a bit flawed from the technical
> > > > point of view. You gave no evidence that taxing spam will actually
> > > > allow the country to earn money nor did you talk about how this
> > >
> > > Spam is a money-earning industry, taxation will take some of
> > > that money and give it to the government. Duh.
> > >
> > > > taxation is going to work. People send most spam from other
> > > countries,
> > >
> > > Attacking the mechanism is silly as is arguing definitions.
> > > It will be taxed much like any other industry. Once this
> > > resolution passes the bill in question can discuss the agent
> > > which will enforce this regulation and what its powers will be.
> > >
> > > > and in anonymous way, how will you know who to charge and how much?
> > >
> > > Exactly where I am coming from. There is a demand for
> > > services of marketing email, and while legal alternatives
> > > don't exist (which also lower costs) the underground market
> > > flourishes.
> > >
> > > Once they are incorporated and working within the law (as
> > > surely entrepreneurs will be) the illegal spam operations will suffer.
> > >
> > >
> > > > Instead I want to raise two points about spam
> > > > First, we should look about what actually bother people about spam:
> > > > -  Spam pretends to be regular mail, disturbing our work flow
> > > > - Most of the spam one gets is not relevant to him, either
> > > because of
> > > > where he lives, or not relevant product.'
> > > >
> > > > Both those issues can be solved by proper mandatory tagging of the
> > > > spam. (Of course one will need to discuss what information
> > > > exactly is going to be there, but this will be left for some
> > > > international standard body).
> > >
> > > But in fact, the problem of spam has not been solved, if anything--it
> > > has become worse. Regardless, we accept that there are means by which
> > > you can mitigate spam. We believe that by regulating it, the industry
> > > can be taxed and safety and safety measures can be put in place to
> > > protect consumers.
> > >
> > > > Now that is it showed spam can be done without harming
> > > others, I also
> > > > want to point the importance of spam to the economy.
> > >
> > > You did not demonstrate spam can be done without harming.
> > >
> > > > Actually - without spam to our real mailbox, a lot of small
> > > and medium
> > > > size businesses would have had to spend a lot of money, that they
> > > > don't have,  over advertisements.
> > >
> > > I week for these small business who invade my private space,
> > > but at the
> > > same time I applaud them! Thank you for bringing that argument to our
> > > attention. Why should small businesses be forced to become
> > > criminals to
> > > get affordable advertising? Spam would not exist at the level it does
> > > today as email advertising in the way spam works today would be
> > > legalized and thus regulated.
> > >
> > > > Ely
> > > >
> > >
> > >       Gadi.
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > debate mailing list
> > > debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> > > http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > debate mailing list
> > debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
> > http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
> >
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
>  debate mailing list
>  debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
>  http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate
>
>
_______________________________________________
debate mailing list
debate at whitestar.linuxbox.org
http://whitestar.linuxbox.org/mailman/listinfo/debate