Re: [Asrg] Anti-spam laws do work, FYI. There's proof.

["Brian Bruns" <bruns at 2mbit.com>]

On Sunday, August 01, 2004 7:28 PM [EST], Roger B.A. Klorese wrote:

> Brian Bruns wrote:
>> When you buy services from someone, you should read the fine print
>> in everything, and not just blindly sign up.
>
> Um, no, the print shouldn't be fine, and information that would
> affect your choice should be presented in clear terms, not legalese.
>

It doesn't matter if its 10 point or 50 point, if they spell it out in
your contract with them, you are obligated to read it and understand
it.  If you don't do either, then you shouldn't agree to it.
Legalese is the way that it is so that everything is spelled out in
exact terms, as would be necessary if there was a dispute in a
courtroom.

If you don't understand what you are reading, ask.  Its not hard.
When I get a contract in front of me I dont fully understand, I have
the person whos giving me the contract explain it out in detail
anything that I don't fully understand.

AUP/TOS agreements aren't hard to understand most times.  In fact,
they are usually very straightforward in what you can and can't do.
You can't send UCE/UBE from your dialup account.  You can't stay
connected 24/7 with a dynamic dialup.  Etc. Etc.

But the point is, YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY READ IT.  That is something
most people don't bother doing.  That is noone's fault but themselves
for not reading it.  This is why click-through agreements on programs
that include adware/spyware are so dangerous.  If people actually read
what they were agreeing to, you think people would be so willing to
install the application?


>> If you signup, without
>> bothering to ask questions of the provider you plan to go with,
>> that is your own fault.
>
> And if you don't investigate the circumstances in which your fuel
> tank might explode, that's your own fault too?  No, wrong -- it's
> the provider's responsibility to ensure that their terms and
> restrictions of service are clearly understood.
>

And most TOS/AUP agreements are pretty straightforward - but once
again, you have to actually read it.

When you signup for an account, all of the places I have seen require
you to click a box which says (or is similar to), "I have read and
agree to the terms stated above."  If you blindly click "Yes", even
though you haven't bothered to read it, it won't absolve you from the
requirements set forth in the TOS/AUP.

Imagine if you were a spammer, who signed up for a DSL account
somewhere.  You click YES I AGREE, and go through the install.
Finally your line is in, and you start spamming.  A few days later,
your provider terminates you for violating your agreement.  You decide
to take the DSL provider to court with the claim that "I didn't read
the TOS/AUP.  I just clicked yes." and that you want monetary damage
from the provider for shutting you off without cause.  You really
think the judge in the case will take you seriously and rule in your
favor?

Bottom line is, these things, no matter how obsecure or unclear to the
'normal' individual, are still binding.


>> If someone says 'spam protected e-mail', and you don't bother to
>> ask about their protection methods, and you lose legit mail, how
>> is that the providers' fault?
>
> Because the typical consumer only has been presented with wnough
> information to believe thay can have (a) all of their mail
> delivered, spam and all, delivered, or (b) all of their real mail
> delivered no matter how and where it originates, and all of their
> spam and viruses blocked.  Of course they'll choose (b) -- even
> though that's not what they'll get, and they won't discover that
> unless they read page 14, paragraph 47(b)(iii).

That is not the fault of the provider though.  There is no foolproof
method of blocking spam, and there is bound to be false positives.
Unless you have a SLA with the provider which says that it guarantees
that your mail will go through no matter what, and that you will never
loose any legit mail, you can not blame the provider.

Ever look at the SLA on most consumer ADSL lines, or cable modems?
They either don't exist, or specifically say that the provider will
bear no responsibility to the speed of the connection, and can not
guarantee reliable connections.

If you want something that is guaranteed, get an SLA.  Most people
will not go for the SLA because it usually bumps up the cost of the
connection/service a bit, and people won't pay the extra cost (both
consumer and businesses alike).  Take a look at the cost of a ADSL
line versus a T1 line.  T1 lines usually come with an SLA, and the
difference shows.


Btw, I thrive on debates like this.  Please don't take any of my
responses personally or as an attack, because they aren't.

-- 
Brian Bruns
The Summit Open Source Development Group
Open Solutions For A Closed World / Anti-Spam Resources
http://www.sosdg.org

The Abusive Hosts Blocking List
http://www.ahbl.org


_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg