FYU: Distiction between value & reference content

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,8986067%5E28737,00.html

This above story illustrates the vulnerability of _vicarious liability_ of
email systems. Fundamentally SMTP 'store and forward' paradigm means that
governments impose regulatory instruments (see Australian Broadcasting
Services Amendment
http://www.murdoch.edu.au/elaw/issues/v9n3/chalmers93.html) on the visible
end-point, typically the ISPs or in this case the place of employment.

But in the IM2000 world, basically the value is boxed on the message store
and everything else is a reference (as defined by the various
notification and transmission protocols) to that value. Thus the legal
onus will be on

a) the person making available that content

b) liability of the message store is limited to extent dissemination
  policy respects any _express/implied consent_ of recipient

c) the default setting of any potential recipient is opt-in, ie
   they have to consciously define the bounds of notification
   signals that they get sent. This is no different from existing
   endorsement approaches advocated by privacy proponents.

d) If the account holder (as compared with the actual email account
   itself) defines otherwise, then it may be subject to _vicarious
   liability_ in establishing a hostile environment.

Given that 50% of all users are female, I think we shouldn't underestimate
their preference for a system that reduces the level of mail aggravation.

----
Legal Eaglet
Rules are made to be grok'em