4 ms·

In essence, this is the spam debate all over again, with some extra seasoning. (The permissions are incidental - other apps exist that are polite in this respec

In essence, this is the spam debate all over again, with some extra seasoning. (The permissions are incidental - other apps exist that are polite in this respect.) So, out comes the canned spam response: Your post advocates a ( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea.) (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money (X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers (X) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once Specifically, your plan fails to account for (X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email (X) Open relays in foreign countries (X) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses (X) Asshats (X) Jurisdictional problems (X) Extreme profitability of spam (X) Technically illiterate politicians (X) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers (X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves and the following philosophical objections may also apply: (X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical Furthermore, this is what I think about you: (X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.

tomp 7y ago
> Lack of centrally controlling authority for email That's the key difference with phones - phone numbers and call are (quasi-)centrally controlled - by your network provider. A simple legislative solution is just "user gets $10 discount on their phone bill for each spam call" and watch the problem solve itself...
- Piskvorrr 7y ago
  (X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money Where does the $10 come from? (Who pays it? Who collects it?) Also, you just invoked a Cobra Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
  - tomp 7y ago
    Users collect $10 from their network operator by filling a claim in an online form. Burden of proof on the network operator to prove it wasn't a spam call (e.g. originated from a known number, lasted more than some number of minutes, metadata indicates that it was a two-way conversation, etc.). Huge fines if users complain to the regulator that any of the above isn't true.
    - redux13 7y ago
      Cue the beginning of a spam robo-call (or more accurately, robo-receive) industry purely for the purpose of collecting this $10 for every call received.
    - wtmt 7y ago
      This would be difficult to write as a law and very difficult to enforce, though I like the idea of the burden of proof being on the operator. In India we have a national DND (Do Not Disturb) registry that anyone can signup for and choose whether to receive marketing communications or not, and what categories therein. The regulator has made the operators enforce the reporting mechanism along with penalties (monetary and otherwise) on the marketers for violations. But still, there are cases where a marketer may claim that the person receiving the call/SMS opted for it and signed up or had some transactional relationship with the company.
  - albedoa 7y ago
    > Who pays it? Who collects it? My only guess is that you misunderstand what is being proposed. The spammer is not part of the transaction.
    - Piskvorrr 7y ago
      In which case, how in the world will anyone sane consent to "I didn't like this call - prove me wrong or give me $10"? (Yes, yes, make a law, I got that. Good luck getting that passed.)
      - albedoa 7y ago
        This thread is not about a voluntary payment, and we don’t typically get to choose which laws we consent to. So I don’t know what you are asking.
        Piskvorrr 7y ago
        Once the law is in effect, that is. First, it needs to be passed - and then, not shot down as unconstitutional. Moving the burden of proof to the operator (a third party! Not even one of the endpoints) sounds...very brave.
mola 7y ago
This is response is a total straw man argument. I was talking about robo calls, your response is about difficulties with email spam. The phone network is controlled centrally. Government can force handling spam by phone companies, the same way they can force them to give police call logs etc for the purpose of collecting evidence. Further more, Robocalls usually are of a more local nature (not international). Government may instruct Police to investigate origins of Robocalls and enforce sanctions. A formal complaint process could be made , where any end user may file a complaint, Providing proof is trivial. Both for the act, and origin (Robocalls are advertising a specific product from a specific company.) A law could be made which mandates a speedy process for filing relevant lawsuites with small claims court, if found guilty the offending party will be levied a large fine. This is from the top of my head. It probably contains many flaws. But it certainly doesn't seem impossible to combat Robocalls.
wongarsu 7y ago
As a German I've never received a robo-call in my life. Germany is the 4th largest economy in the world, so it's not like we are just under the radar either. I have no idea what we are doing right, but I am willing to bet it's a legislative solution.

tomp 7y ago

> Lack of centrally controlling authority for email That's the key difference with phones - phone numbers and call are (quasi-)centrally controlled - by your network provider. A simple legislative solution is just "user gets $10 discount on their phone bill for each spam call" and watch the problem solve itself...

Piskvorrr 7y ago
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money Where does the $10 come from? (Who pays it? Who collects it?) Also, you just invoked a Cobra Effect. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cobra_effect
- tomp 7y ago
  Users collect $10 from their network operator by filling a claim in an online form. Burden of proof on the network operator to prove it wasn't a spam call (e.g. originated from a known number, lasted more than some number of minutes, metadata indicates that it was a two-way conversation, etc.). Huge fines if users complain to the regulator that any of the above isn't true.
  - redux13 7y ago
    Cue the beginning of a spam robo-call (or more accurately, robo-receive) industry purely for the purpose of collecting this $10 for every call received.
  - wtmt 7y ago
    This would be difficult to write as a law and very difficult to enforce, though I like the idea of the burden of proof being on the operator. In India we have a national DND (Do Not Disturb) registry that anyone can signup for and choose whether to receive marketing communications or not, and what categories therein. The regulator has made the operators enforce the reporting mechanism along with penalties (monetary and otherwise) on the marketers for violations. But still, there are cases where a marketer may claim that the person receiving the call/SMS opted for it and signed up or had some transactional relationship with the company.
- albedoa 7y ago
  > Who pays it? Who collects it? My only guess is that you misunderstand what is being proposed. The spammer is not part of the transaction.
  - Piskvorrr 7y ago
    In which case, how in the world will anyone sane consent to "I didn't like this call - prove me wrong or give me $10"? (Yes, yes, make a law, I got that. Good luck getting that passed.)
    - albedoa 7y ago
      This thread is not about a voluntary payment, and we don’t typically get to choose which laws we consent to. So I don’t know what you are asking.
      - Piskvorrr 7y ago
        Once the law is in effect, that is. First, it needs to be passed - and then, not shot down as unconstitutional. Moving the burden of proof to the operator (a third party! Not even one of the endpoints) sounds...very brave.

mola 7y ago

This is response is a total straw man argument. I was talking about robo calls, your response is about difficulties with email spam. The phone network is controlled centrally. Government can force handling spam by phone companies, the same way they can force them to give police call logs etc for the purpose of collecting evidence. Further more, Robocalls usually are of a more local nature (not international). Government may instruct Police to investigate origins of Robocalls and enforce sanctions. A formal complaint process could be made , where any end user may file a complaint, Providing proof is trivial. Both for the act, and origin (Robocalls are advertising a specific product from a specific company.) A law could be made which mandates a speedy process for filing relevant lawsuites with small claims court, if found guilty the offending party will be levied a large fine. This is from the top of my head. It probably contains many flaws. But it certainly doesn't seem impossible to combat Robocalls.

wongarsu 7y ago

As a German I've never received a robo-call in my life. Germany is the 4th largest economy in the world, so it's not like we are just under the radar either. I have no idea what we are doing right, but I am willing to bet it's a legislative solution.