🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <351cac76.202384357@news.ilos.net>,
Arthur D. Mira <admiral@ilos.net> wrote:
>In can.infohighway, mercer@bnr.ca (Stephen Mercer) wrote:
[actually, I wrote it reading ott.online. Arthur read it in can.infohighway.
That's neither here nor there.] 
><snippity>
>
>=>  Actually, it'd be much easier to do, if the cost of sending were
>=>on the sender, instead of the transport, and thus indirectly, the 
>=>recipient. If spammers paid the cost of thier email, they'd be much
>=>more careful what they spammed, and how. Also, when thier emails
>=>are turned back by automated filters, they would suddenly find out
>=>what is _really_ worth advertising via email, and what isn't. It
>=>might even open doors for legitimate, and fair use of email as an
>=>advertising medium.
>
><snippity>
>
>NO! NO! NO! A thousand times no. I don't want *ANY* advertising
>in my *E-MAIL*, legitimate(?) or otherwise unless I have specifically
>requested it. It makes little difference to me if it is from Joe Schmo
>in his basement trying to flog his latest scheme, or something from
>Rogers Cantel trying to flog an on-line service.
 
  You've missed my point, which was that spammers pay the cost of
delivery. Whether email is used as a legitimite means of advertising
or not, after that precondition is put into effect, is really 
irrelevant, and I probably shouldn't have speculated, considering your
rather intense reply.  But, I can just as easily filter and bounce 
junk mail, whether I pay for the delivery, or they do. If I'm [or you're]
bouncing every one of thier prepaid email ads, how long do you think 
they'd continue, anyway?

>We are inundated with advertising on our telephones, televisions,
>printed media, mailboxes. It's managed to slither into damned near
>every aspect of our lives...to the point where educational
>institutions have come to rely on corporate goodies to survive.
>Therein life the crux of the 'problem'. Advertising is a fact of life.
>There is nothing wrong with it. It is not bad per se. BUT when
>it involves overkill, intrusion, and exceeds the bounds of
>freedom of speech it serves no use, purpose or value.
 
 This is not, and never has been, a freedom of speech issue.

>I don't have a problem with every business in the world setting
>up a web site. I don't have a problem with any form of advertising
>in usenet *PROVIDED* it stays in the proper and appropriate
>newsgroup, or at the very least adheres to long standing posting
>guidelines. But when it comes to e-mail...no way.
 
  I happen to agree, but not for the same reasons you outline.

>That is not hypocrisy. That is a belief in FREEDOM OF SPEECH.
>freedom of speech is the right of people to express their opinions
>*PUBLICLY* without *GOVERNMENTAL* interference, subject to
>the laws against libel, incitement to violence or rebellion.

  And this applies to your contract with your ISP, how? If they drop
dead tomorrow, of 'economic malnutrition', and no other ISP picks
up your service, besides a class action suit to get your money back, 
what right do you have to online access?

>It's why I find the bluring of jargon, slang, and terminology between
>e-mail and usenet to be more than just malapropism, pedantic purism,
>or hair splitting.
>
>E-mail *IS NOT A PUBLIC FORUM*, it is a private forum, where two
>or more people communicate. By all means invoke the powers
>of *GOVERNMENT* to ensure that everyones right's in regards to
>e-mail and privacy issues remain sacrosant.
 
  Email is private, insofar as you can reasonably expect that your
communications have probably not been compromised, between the
other and you. Most ISP won't snoop your email, or let others do
so - it's bad for business. But they can't be held responsible if 
fubar.net happens to relay your email, and keep copies for thier 
own nefarious purposes. You'd probably have legal recourse, but 
it wouldn't be via freedom of speech.
  If you _really_ want privacy, use PGP. 

>Usenet *IS A PUBLIC FORUM* but *GOVERNMENTAL* involvement
>should extend no further than is absolutely necessary, while ensuring
>that freedom of speech is protected.
 
  Usenet is public insofar that communication sent out via NNTP
will probably be available for public reading at each site it gets
to. It is by no means guaranteed to get there, or even obligated
to. Since the Usenet servers owned by most ISPs are private property,
you have no guarantees to access to them, either. Again, it's many
things, but not a freedom of speech issue.
 
>The issue is that there is a very real fear that since no clear and
>defined distinction has been drawn between e-mail and usenet,
>and is further impaired by the use of with a duality of meaning in
>terminology, then the GOVERNMENT AND IT'S BUREAUCRATS
>will act without distinction and with a heavy hand.
 
  Maybe. They may try many things, not many may be well conceived or
administered. But we certainly won't be doing ourselves a favor if we 
don't understand the distinctions ourselves, including mislabelling 
them as being devices subject to 'freedom of speech'. Hell, that concept
doesn't even exist as a right in every country connected to the 'Net.

>Members of the Carleton freenet rally in support of an American
>legislators intrution into an area of free speech, and attempt to
>pre-empt and castigate the efforts of civil liberties organizations to
>ensure that rights to freedom of speech remain.
 
  I'm not sure this makes sense to me, or that it's relevant.
Carleton ppl are being censoring badboys, is what you're saying,
maybe?...

>Kind of makes me wonder where their heads are to some degree.
>On the other hand over the years I've seen the havoc that well
>intentioned but thoughtless zealots have reeked in areas of social
>concern.

 How you snipped my speculation of how email might be used if spammers
had to pay for thier volume, and turned it into a freedom of speech
online issue, baffles me at best.

-- 
Stephen Mercer <mercer@nortel.ca> 
Nortel Global Product Support. (613) 765 3214
Opinions are not those of Northern Telecom.
My Karma ran over your Dogma.