Re: Rotenberg as the Uber Enemy

[TruthMonger.tm@dev.null]

Robert A. Costner wrote:
>  If EFGA has a
> position, it is that first the current laws should be tested against spam.  No
> new laws should be proposed until today's laws can be shown to be useless
> against the problem.

  Regardless, you are already preparing to participate in the
process of new laws being implemented.

>   DATA GATHERING
>  While there is nothing wrong with data
> harvesting in it's self, what one does with the info may be called into
> question.

  The data is going to be misused. Future legislation will be 
nothing more than a fight over who gets to misuse it.

> Data Collection procedures may be less restrictive than identification
> requirements, or content bans.
> The reason the TCPA is carefully considered is that once the law allowed for
> the promulgation of rules, the FCC had a series of public comment periods and
> promoted rules that highly favored privacy while trying to balance the fair
> practices of telemarketers.  Unfortunately, with spam, most spammers do not
> have "fair practices".

  This can be translated to mean that the little guys can do the
same thing that large companies do, only without having to hire
high-priced legal help to tell them how to route around the "rules."

> If is highly likely that the spam question could be quickly addressed and more
> clearly defined without new laws simply by a comment period and the
> promulgation of new rules.

  No new laws, just new rules. Doublespeak?
 

> SPAM vs TELEMARKETING
> In 1990, more than 30,000 telemarketing operations employed over 18 million
> Americans.  Easily we could see over 300K spam operators in business,
> employing less than one million people.  Each of these individual spammers
> could be sending out daily spams.  Many of them would be able to reach a
> significant portion of the internet users on a daily basis.

  Right. I'm going to receive 300,000 spams a day without taking 
steps to stop it, because I'm stupid. And nobody in the free market
is going to figure out that they can make a shitload of money by
providing a product that solves the problem. And enough people are
going to sort through 300,000 emails a day and send people money
to keep all the spammers operating.
  Since we're all so stupid and incompetent, I guess we'd better 
count on the government and the EFGA-type organizations to do
what is necessary to "save" us.

  Robert's immediate solution is to take a law that doesn't work
and promulgate "new rules" so that it does.
  Right. The "new rules" are going to be decided on by the same
lame bunch of actors who made the "old rules" which don't work.
And all of those people who aren't paying attention to the old
rules are going to have a vision from heaven which tells them
to follow the new rules.

  Question: "With all of the organizations 'busting their ass'
for our benefit, when do we start seeing the *good* legislation?"

  I can use strong crypto to keep my communications private and
I can maintain control over my private key. The government wants
to pass legislation to change that. What's to debate?
  I need groups of self-appointed saviors to negotiate the method
and timing of how my privacy and freedom are going to be taken
away? I don't think so!
  These "saviors" of our rights are doing nothing more than serving
as a buffer for the government as what we already have is being
stolen from us. They have taken it upon themselves to negotiate
our retreat in the face of loss of our privacy and freedom. They
are providing the government with a stamp of approval for "reasonable
compromise" of our freedom and privacy via "acceptable legislation."

  If these organizations are so concerned about my rights, then why
do I never see the words "Nazi Ratfuckers!" in their press releases?
  No more free buffets? No more power lunches with the power mongers?
No more nights in the Lincoln bedroom?
  (OK. I'll calm down and be "reasonable." How about the word,
"Bullshit!" I've read the government press releases, I've heard the
speeches. It's bullshit, but all I hear coming out of the mouths of
the "saviors" of my rights is replies in kind--politispeak.)

  I keep hearing how these organizations that haven't kept us from
getting fucked in the past are working for the future, when one of
our own is in jail *now*.
  Want to impress me? Do something for Jim Bell, because tomorrow
it's Tim May, and Adam Back a week later (they got Noriega, and 
they can get Adam, too.)
  You don't have time to aide Jim Bell, but you have time to give
me dire warnings about getting 300,000 emails a day? You have time
to tell me that the "solution" is to have the people who wrote 
rules that don't work write *new* rules?
  Horseshit!

TruthMonger