[719] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: Legislative Relief - was Re: Motion for a new POST NSF
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (bmanning@ISI.EDU)
Mon Oct 16 17:19:44 1995
From: bmanning@ISI.EDU
To: raisch@internet.com
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 1995 14:02:23 -0700 (PDT)
Cc: pferguso@cisco.com, bmanning@ISI.EDU, jcurran@bbnplanet.com,
gherbert@crl.com, com-priv@lists.psi.com, nanog@merit.edu
In-Reply-To: <199510162001.QAA28328@mail.internet.com> from "Robert Raisch, The Internet Company" at Oct 16, 95 03:57:32 pm
> On 16 Oct 95 at 10:19, bmanning@ISI.EDU wrote:
> > Me thinks that this is yet one more short sighted view of the Internet.
>
> Bill, all very good points, indeed.
>
> But while the US-centric issues are not lost on me, it
> certainly seems that the majority of spammage originates from US
> ISPs. Perhaps this is based in some way on the free-wheeling
> entrepreneurial nature of US commerce or on the increasing tide
> of social indifference. But I digress...
..seems..(to).. originates from US (sites)...
And where do you get your data? Domain Names?
Not a real good measure. IP addresses? Better,
but only slightly so. Email origin? Ever hear
of email spoofing? John Currans earlier note
was very concrete here. You have no data that
back your assertion that the problem is US based.
>
> I am not advocating laws which restrict uses of commercial
> networks. I am advocating restraint over those things that
> others can do to me which cost me money and thus, are theft.
> Federal law already (I believe) restricts what use others may
> enjoy of my resources without my permission. FAX and cellular
> phones cannot be used for purposes of advertising.
>
So internetMCI, Sprintlink, PSI, UUnet, MSN,
and all existing ISP's networks are not going
to be bound by your proposed legislation?
While I can't say wrt cellular actions, I know
my fax machine (and PO box, and home answering
machine) get all sorts of unsolicited dreck.
Whats the law that I can use to protect myself?
> Finally, what I am suggesting is perhaps a little more subtle
> than grotesque legal bludgeoning. Consider the potential
> impact that highly visible federal law would have on those who
> would consider this an effective means to market to others using
> resources for which they do not pay.
Most folks that I know think that "highly visible federal law"
often equates to "grotesque legal bludgeoning".
>
> </rr>
--bill
