Re: anti-spam updates for ISOC from the ASRG (fwd)

>> - current anti-spam policies/legislation/regulation AND a statement
>> of evaluation.  (e.g,, pointer to CAN-SPAM and an admission that it
>> doesn't seem to have done anything)
> 
> [...]
> 
> The EU's spam directive, which has been implemented to a greater or
> lesser degree in all the member countries, has been pretty effective
> against spam that's not wholly criminal.

It is more of an annoyance than an effective practice, IME.

It seems EU is about to revise their Data Protection Directive to make
it tighter[1].  I have no idea how to tell them that in order to work
in Internet, the idea of getting a user's consent has to be
implemented with an adequate protocol.  As an exercise, I tried and
describe how such a protocol could be conceived[2].

[1] http://www.google.com/search?q=%22Reding%22+Aigner&hl=en
[2] http://fixforwarding.org/

Perhaps, if Google and Facebook are willing to comply, they can push
for having a compliable law...

> The majority of spam these days is utterly illegal just about
> everywhere, sent using stolen resources advertising fraudulent stuff. 
> That doesn't so much need new laws as it needs better coordination
> among law enforcement in various countries, cooperation between
> network operators and LE as well as identifying and dealing with a
> relatively small numbers of networks that are run for or by crooks.

Although that's true, I don't think end users are able to distinguish
those categories of spam.  So the bottom line is that they cannot
defend their rights.  Isn't this sufficient to say the law is ineffective?