<html>
<body>
At 12:58 01/02/2005, Fede wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">On Tue, 2005-02-01 at 10:14
+0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote:<br>
> So you think that there is no need for global regulation of
spam?[...]<br>
> it will just let you lost in cross-border legal procedures while
the<br>
> spammer has all the time to finish the job and disappear.<br><br>
I have a feeling that you forget that there is a reason why those pesky
"cross-border legal procedures" exist: to keep citizens of
country A under their own legal framework, instead of having them subject
to country B's laws. Those legal systems are different for a
reason.</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">That's not wholly accurate - there are mutual
recognition and choice-of-venue provisions. In general, a citizen of A
can be prosecuted for an offence committed in B if the act is also an
offence in A, though there are important practical questions about who
bears the burden of prosecution, where the trial takes place and how law
officers from one jurisdiction get evidence from another. The Indymedia
case lately discussed in this list comes to mind...<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Of course, spam is a
problem. Over 70% of my incoming mail is spam, and I'm not happy with all
the spam from spam-friendly countries, but maybe that's the price we need
to pay to avoid the current tendency towards blanket
"harmonization" of everything.</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">Co-ordination and local versions of common
standards are attractive alternatives to harmonisation. Things don't have
to be the same, just aware of and sympathetic to each other. <br><br>
But political will is very important: a jurisdiction that has a positive
'trade balance from its citizens' spamming activities abroad will be no
more likely to cooperate in effective spam control than a jurisdiction
that is a net seller in eCommerce would be to support Internet taxes or
duties. On the other hand, many of these 'independent' jurisdiction find
international pressures a handy way to win domestic battles (the history
of the WTO telecom agreement being an exact case in point).<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Not to mention that spam
will stop dead on its track the moment the majority of people are
educated enough to stop falling for it. Calling for better and deeper
education strategies for all is something everyone could probably agree
on as a goal we want WSIS to concentrate on. It would eliminate not only
spam, but a lot of other problems, and create a lot of opportinities.
More efficiency in getting unpleasant people behind bars doesn't have
nearly as positive a ring to it.</blockquote><br>
<font color="#0000FF">As far as I am aware, the *vast* majority of people
are already aware of at least the current types of spam. But for spammers
sending millions of messages a day the enterprise is profitable if even a
tiny minority respond. It is also a bit unfair to say 'falling for it' as
though spam and fraud were one and the same. True, much of it is phishing
for identity theft opportunities - but the majority to date consists of
unsolicited commercial offers - if people want to buy these goods, they
will. If spam is a cheap way to reach these customers, it will be used.
Why should spam be easier to stop than junk mail or junk faxes? The
public interest arises because the costs imposed on others
(<a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3352111.stm" eudora="autourl">
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/3352111.stm</a>) are very large
compared to those experienced by the spammers. Unless the education
solution is much more effective than any other education programme has
ever been, it won't make a difference. By the way, is there any evidence
that spamming is inversely correlated with either general education or
Information Society readiness indicators?<br><br>
Jonathan<br><br>
</font><blockquote type=cite class=cite cite=""><x-tab>
</x-tab>Fede<br>
-- <br>
GnuPG Public Key: gpg --keyserver wwwkeys.eu.pgp.net --recv-key
BD02C6E0<br>
Key Fingerprint: 04F4 08C5 14B7 2C3D DB21 ACF8 6CF5 0B0C BD02
C6E0<br>
</blockquote></body>
</html>