> The Do Not Call list started in 2003, but it seems it's starting to be taken a lot more seriously lately. Is it though? I'd say Do-Not-Call is a failure. Mu

> The Do Not Call list started in 2003, but it seems it's starting to be taken a lot more seriously lately. Is it though? I'd say Do-Not-Call is a failure. Much like CAN-SPAM. Both are 2003. Check the calendar. I'm still wading through more spam than ever in my inbox and getting an ever increasing number of scammers calling my cell phone. The problem is always going to be that you need a watchdog with teeth. As we've seen in recent years, all of these government three letter agencies can be gutted simply by swapping in some corporate patsy at the top. Maybe you can beg the government mommy for your freedom and law enforcement back in 4-8 years. Antitrust laws exist. How many decades have we gone now since actual, serious enforcement? Shouldn't Do-Not-Track be the default anyway? Why must we opt out of tracking, spam calls, and spam emails? And, of course, the elephant in the room is: who wants spam calls, spam emails, and tracking in the first place? No one! No one would opt in to any of that crap. Which is why the laws are carefully designed for apathy and toothless enforcement. If you want to talk legislation then talk legislation. If you want to talk tech solutions then talk tech solutions. But an HTTP header is neither of those things. Imagine we all just drop encryption. Instead we just pass a flag in the TCP header that says "please don't look at my data passing through this network." Yeah that sounds insane, right?