Geekularity

I blogged about this topic earlier in February, and I’ve been watching the topic closely! AOL, and to a lesser degree Yahoo, are implementing an email filtering system that requires email senders to pay for the assurance that a message gets through to the recipient if the recipient is an AOL or Yahoo user. Now, I’m no legal expert, but this seems like a classic definition of extortion and racketeering.

The Hobbs Act, enacted in 1946, which was designed to fine and imprison organized crime members actually seems to fit here. Here’s an excerpt from United States Code, Title 18, Part I, Chapter 95:

(a) Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery or extortion or attempts or conspires so to do, or commits or threatens physical violence to any person or property in furtherance of a plan or purpose to do anything in violation of this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

(b) As used in this section -

(1) The term ”robbery” means the unlawful taking or obtaining of personal property from the person or in the presence of another, against his will, by means of actual or threatened force, or violence, or fear of injury, immediate or future, to his person or property, or property in his custody or possession, or the person or property of a relative or member of his family or of anyone in his company at the time of the taking or obtaining.(2) The term ”extortion” means the obtaining of property from another, with his consent, induced by wrongful use of actual or threatened force, violence, or fear, or under color of official right.(3) The term ”commerce” means commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.

(c) This section shall not be construed to repeal, modify or affect section 17 of Title 15, sections 52, 101-115, 151-166 of Title 29 or sections 151-188 of Title 45.

The process of blocking legitimate email messages, especially those that are intended for the purpose of commerce seems to qualify here. I realize the internet service providers are largely un-regulated and as such, they may be entitled to block data transmissions across their network. However, email has become a world-wide communications medium, equivalent to the telephone, and it should be protected as a public good. The companies that transport email data should therefore be regarded as a public utility and be required to move data reliably and without prejudice across its network. AOL should therefore be disallowed to block email messages which pertain to commerce else be subject to the fines and imprisonment stated in section “a” above. Please help spread the word and sign the petition to stop AOL from levying their own tax on the internet.

The New York Times & the Associated Press are reporting today that Yahoo & AOL, two of the largest email account providers, are implementing a new system where companies can buy access to recipient email accounts and bypass the SPAM filters. The same spam filters that they are trying to sell to their subscribers as protection.

This seems like a form of extortion and a blatant conflict of interest: “You can take your chances and run through the gauntlet of our spam filters, or you can slip the bouncers a couple of bennies every year to look the other way!” This will in no way help against SPAM. Rather it will be just another revenue stream for Yahoo & AOL until we all realize that it doesn’t work.

It will quickly become ineffective as the first ones to pony up for that access will likely be the spammers themselves. Should they get blocked in the process, no bother! They’ll just use the same tactics they have been using to change their identities and to try again. This system just buys them a couple of days of unfettered access while the spam cops play catch up. Meanwhile, the mom-and-pop store you are hoping to buy a rare book from just sent you a message telling you that one copy just arrived and that you have until noon to respond before they move on to the next person on the waiting list was just dropped into the bottom of your spam bucket because the store owners can’t afford to pay AOL and Yahoo their protection money.

There are other alternatives that are in the works which will likely be more effective:

1. SPF - Sender Policy Framework simply requires all domain owners to identify the servers from which their real email is coming from. Messages from anywhere else can be discarded. If implemented correctly I guarantee that this will cut down on 80% of the unsolicited email out there.
2. ISPs taking more responsibility. Most mass emails originate from computers of unsuspecting broadband customers who don’t know they’re involved. Their computers are infected with some form of malware and are sending out the messages on behalf of a malicious third party. Its not difficult for the network provider to identify a node on their own network which is sending out mass emails. Internet Service Providers could set up simple tripwire programs that would cut off computers until the owner makes contact. Once the owner acknowledges that their computer is causing a problem and makes the repairs, they can get access again. It doesn’t even need to involve the expense of tech support. Using “captive portal” technology used by WiFi hotspots, the owner’s next web surfing session will automatically point them to the appropriate notice and tutorial to fix their machine and to keep it clean.
3. More to follow… but first I must change the diaper of my toughest critic.

(Photo Associated Press)

Three days left in 2005 and it seems that I can’t let this year slip away without chastising Sony at least one more time. Recently reported in the San Jose Mercury News and on the BBC World News website, Sony has commissioned Graffiti art in at least seven major cities to promote the Sony Playstation Portable during the holiday season.

From Reuters:

“Music company Sony BMG, yielding to consumer concern, said on Wednesday it was recalling music CDs containing copy-protection software that acts like virus software and hides deep inside a computer.“

Hazzaaa! We’re talking about millions of CDs from some very popular artists. Take a look at the music which you have purchased in the last 6 months and see if it has a label somewhere that mentions “content enhancement.” If it does, DO NOT INSTALL IT IN YOUR COMPUTER! If you have, you may want to refer to you Antivirus provider for a possible fix. Also, F-Secure has published a document on how to identify the files that were installed by the root kit and how to remove them. Check in with the Sony BMG website in the next few days as the return policies should be posted shortly.

On October 13th, the Electronic Frontier Foundation posted their findings that many recent model color laser printers embed a subtle identification code in every printed page. The obvious use for such a code is for the United States Secret Service and the treasury agencies of other nations to track and prosecute counterfeiters. However, civil liberties groups and the blogosphere are currently up in arms about this finding as it theoretically allows the tracking of anonymous sources back to their origin regardeless of whether the activity is illegal or not.

Until now, the assumption was that forensic investigators were able to track just the makes and models of most communications devices. After all, this ability has existed since the early days of the printing press. A subtle drop of a letter or a tell-tale tooling mark on the face of one of the letter heads was all they needed to profile the machine and to narrow the field of suspects.

This ability has extended into the digital age where device profiles exist for everything that produces a document or a file. Digital cameras, scanners, MP3 players and word processing programs are no exception. Have you ever looked at the extra data that a Microsoft Word document contains about the author, the author’s computer, and any contributors? There’s a lot of data in there! Now, we know that the last hop in the identification trail, from the manufacturer to the consumer, is now more easily identifiable.

Well, there’s no denying that if you print or publish anything, you run the risk of being found out. If you were previously acting on another assumption, you’ve just been lucky up to this point.