[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[Asrg] Re: Spam and crime analogy



That's what's so hideous about spam, it incurs lots of costs and yet
owing to its unwanted nature no one wants to pay those costs. Which is
similar to much crime,

Making the sender pay would probably suit many receivers of unwanted spam just fine. The problem is how to make the spammers pay for their boat-loads of email without making everyone else pay for the email they send. And that's already been hashed out here at great length with the e-postage thread.


The analogy to crime is interesting, because crime is (to a large extent) handled (or attempted to be handled) by police. Police are a public good, and are, directly or indirectly, paid for my taxes (indirect would be federal income tax paying for grants to states) And there already *is* a small degree of "taxation" regulation of spam going on: the FTC goes after the really big and egregious fish out there, but that's a "whack-a-mole" game.

What the crime analogy suggests is that the costs of controlling (or reducing, or eliminating [?]) spam should fall on society as a whole, or at least that segment which uses computers (which, possibly is everyone, since we ALL use computers indirectly when we buy products from companies).

What if a logistical/legislative framework could be made (this would probably be impossible under the current administration, and anyway, spam is a worldwide problem) to tax producers of operating systems when vulnerabilities which allow spambots to "easily" exploit their products? By "easily" I mean something like "using a feature of the OS that would have no other reasonable purpose)." This is very vague, I know, but so is the DMCA.. Vulnerabilities that I think might fit this definition would be the open port numbers others have mentioned in Windows, automatic executable running in windows, no protection for downloaded programs attempting to modify the registry or TCP/IP stack, etc. Other OS's (MacOSX Darwin, Linux) probably have similar problems. Hardware and other-software companies (makers of home broadband routers, software and hardware firewalls, etc) could also be brought under this umbrella. This would theoretically stop a lot of the spam attacks at their source: the insecure OS or firewall, etc that allowed the spam to be sent in the first place.

Do I think this would work? In reality, probably not. Is it logistically and legislatively feasible? Almost certainly not. But maybe it's worth considering a bit - seeing spam as an externality like crime, and it's solution also must be funded/executed as an externality and public good.

Jim


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