Re: [wg-review] A Reply to Miles B. Whitener... Re: The owners of "the Internet" must manage it for their own benefit

[Sotiropoulos <sotiris@hermesnetwork.com>]

1/14/01 11:07:59 AM, Sandy Harris <sandy@storm.ca> wrote:

>Sotiropoulos wrote:
> 
>> 1/14/01 12:13:00 AM, Kent Crispin <kent@songbird.com> wrote:
>> 
>> >Indeed, your ISP wants to do business with you, but you have no right to
>> >FORCE it to do business with you.  Moreover, if your ISP doesn't like
>> >what you put on your website (say you are a spammer), it can boot you
>> >off (*).
>> 
>> You sing a silly song Kent.  It gets sillier all the time.
>
>For a change, and somewhat to my surprise, I find myself agreeing with Kent here.
>Some ISPs do refuse to handle porn and many have some clause in their terms of
>service agreement that forbids other abuses like copyright violation, breaking
>into other people's systems, ...

Yes. And all of these have to do with Laws.  Problem is, different nations, different laws.  Not everybody wishes to toe their neighbour's line.  

>And yes, ISPs were disconnecting spammers long before governments were even
>aware of the problem, let alone before they passed a few laws, grossly watered
>down by the marketers' lobbyists.

Who is going to tear down the huge advertising billboards in New York City and other places?  You know, the ones you can't help but see... even if you 
don't think they jibe well with your view of the skyline or landscape -the intrusive type.  Or, perhaps your landlord's leased out the whole side of his 
building for ads which cover the windows of all the tenants on that side of the building?  Who's going to tell the landlord he can't sell that advertising 
space, because I don't want to have to see it?  Who's going to stop the postman from dropping solicitation into your mailbox, or private companies from 
delivering flyers to your doorstep?  What about spam filters?  I don't even read spam mail, I delete any mail i do not recognize (very little to begin with), or 
that I do recognize as spam.  A few get through, but I am more annoyed by huge billboards blocking the skyline, and the trees being chopped down for 
flyers which won't be read...  

In any case, if the "consensus" is that spam is bad amongst a given group, then it is... but then so is just about every other advertising avenue that 
people use upon you without your permission, I guess.

Personally, I do not use spam, nor do i condone it.  However, I live with it, just like I live with a lot of things i don't do, nor condone...  

>The point here is that the net is inherently a co-operative venture. Everyone
>from hugecompany.com to whatever.edu to localisp.net interconnects their
>systems for the benefit of their organisations and their users (employees,
>staff & students or customers) and there are a bunch of agreements about
>how to do that. Without those agreements, it won't work. Some of them are
>the IETF protocols. Others are things like the agreement to prevent spam.
>An ISP that fails to deal with spammers will be blacklisted; others will
>refuse their packets. If you aren't co-operative, others won't talk to
>you. Look at http://maps.vix.com/rbl for one example.

Again, if that's the consensus, no problem... but how does all that spam get through anyway?  I honestly do believe that people should be more careful 
with their email addresses.  Use a remote address for most purposes that do not require your more coveted addresses.  I think the biggest detractors and 
defamers of such direct marketing, are themselves guilty of it in one way or another.  Have you purchased any Nike products lately?  What about the 
guy/girl who thinks of the sweatshops people toil in to produce Nike goods whenever he/she sees you wearing your jacket, hat, or shoes?  

>Or do a web search on Stanford Wallace, Cyberpromo and Agis for another.
>In that battle, Wallace's Cyberpromo were the largest unsolicited email
>firm around, Agis their ISP. It took a year or so, but eventually Agis
>listened to their peers and pulled the plug. 

Did a majority force a member to toe the line?  Well... at least you and I can agree that a majority constitutes some kind of authoritative body with 
prerogatives to action.  Unlike something vaguely referred to as a "consensus". 

>> Therefore, it follows that you in fact have no "right" to free
>> >speech on the Net -- there is free speech on the net because there is a
>> >market for it, not because there is a right to free speech on the net.
>
>I think there's some confusion on both sides here. We need to distinguish
>between some set of abstract 'rights of man' that we think everyone should
>have and the rights which some law guarantees.
>
>For example, I think free speech is a right on the net because I think it
>is a right of man in general, but that is in the abstract.  
> 
>> Kent, think of it more along these lines:  You (and others like you) have
>> the *right* to go into business to *serve* the public.  In doing so, you
>> are allowed to gather and keep your wealth and property.  This does not
>> mean that you  have any *rights* OVER the public. ...
>
>But in legal terms, there's a contract between an ISP and its customer.
>The ISP does have specific, enforcable, legal rights based on that.

Yes, and so does the consumer.

>> >Many people are confused about this.  They think they have a "right" to
>> >free speech on the net, but what they actually have (in the US, at
>> >least) is a right that keeps the GOVERNMENT from controlling their free
>> >speech.  They completely fail to realize that the implication of the
>> >internet being owned by private parties is that the real rights actually
>> >belong to those who own infrastructure.  Your right, as a consumer, is
>> >to try to find someone who will sell you the service you want.  If they
>> >don't want to sell it to you, you are out of luck.
>
>In terms of the legal rights, Kent is exactly correct here.
> 
>> Kent, I honestly believe you are either self-delusional, or some kind
>> of plant on this list. ...
>
>I suspect he understands the net better than you.

Technically?  Without a doubt.  As for his political observations of the general clime,well... that's debatable. 

Sotiris Sotiropoulos
          Hermes Network, Inc.


--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html