*** Democracies Online Newswire - http://dowire.org ***
*** Headlines from top blogs: http://dowire.org/feeds ***
Note the bit at the end.
Also, the problem of spam filling up cluttering up the e-mail boxes
of elected officials is huge. Listing e-mail addresses online makes
sense, but advice needs to be given to governments on how to:
1. Display e-mail addresses more difficult to harvest via spambots.
2. How to use existing spam filtering techniques in current programs
they use.
3. Create options for citizen "white lists" where auto-replies would
simply give citizens the option of registering their e-mail address
(and optionally name and postal address) with the government's e-mail
server or to use a web form if they don't want to verify their
identity. Then future e-mails from that citizen would be less likely
to identified as false positives for spam.
Also, my query about response tracking numbers for citizens brought
back some interesting responses. Check out:
Alexandria, Egypt: http://www.montazaonline.com - They do this.
Cities using the http://Comcate.com system:
http://www.cityoflancasterca.org - Connect With Lancaster
http://www.ci.orinda.ca.us - Contact Us > Email
http://www.cupertino.org - Access Cupertino
And a new "paperless" admin tool used in parts of India:
http://ll2b.blogspot.com
Government technical help desks, like in Ontario also use such tools
internally.
Also check out this project from the Center for Governmental Studies:
http://www.cgs.org/projects/media/digitaldemocracy/indexframe.html
http://www.cgs.org/projects/media/digitaldemocracy/
Steven Clift
http://www.dowire.org
------- Forwarded message follows -------
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Policy Post 10.15: Spam Continues to Plague Industry and Users
Date sent: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 15:01:57 -0400 (EDT)
CDT POLICY POST Volume 10, Number 14, September 29, 2004
A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties Online
from
The Center For Democracy and Technology
----------------------------------------
(1) Spam Continues to Plague Industry and Users
(2) Enforcement Efforts Increase, But Face Challenges
(3) Technology Proposals Are Seen as Key
(4) Technical Solutions May Implicate Non-Profits and Political Speech
----------------------------------------
(1) Spam Continues to Plague Industry and Users
As of June 2004, approximately 60% of all email was spam. Measures such
as the federal CAN-SPAM Act, which took effect in January 2004, have had
limited impact. Certainly, nothing has yet turned the tide. If anything,
spam appears to have become more invasive: spammers distribute viruses,
spyware, and surreptitious spamware. "Phishing" capitalizes on spam to
perpetrate fraud against online consumers.
In July 2004, CDT convened a meeting of industry, consumer advocates,
human rights campaigners, and technologists to discuss the status of
anti-spam efforts. As the CAN-SPAM Act had gone into effect six months
earlier, mid-summer was an opportune time to evaluate the extent to which
Internet users were experiencing some relief from spam, and to examine
the responses of law enforcement, industry and technology developers.
The concerns of ISPs focus on the costs spam imposes, costs that end-user
filtering does not address. Mainstream companies doing business online
worry about the efficacy of email as a communications medium. Increasingly,
they are concerned about whether legitimate email -- for example, purchase
confirmations -- will get through. Some progress has been made in
developing good practices for email marketing, such as committing to
solely permission-based marketing lists. Strategies of email marketing
may be moving away from acquisition of email lists and toward retention
of existing customers.
Consumers are frustrated with the lack of reduction in the incidence of
spam since the passage of the CAN-SPAM Act. Consumer advocates point to
the fact that users have no private right of action against spammers under
the Act. Businesses respond that an industry-sponsored consumer education
program could focus on consumers' online behaviors that result in their
receipt of spam.
Both consumer advocates and businesses note that providing the means to
identify and authenticate senders is key to resolving the spam problem.
However, issues of protection of legitimate anonymity remain to be
resolved.
A report summarizing the July discussion and highlighting areas of
agreement, disagreement, and ongoing concern is available at
http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/20040715consultation.shtml.
For CDT's analysis of the CAN-SPAM Act at the time it was enacted,
see http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/031211cdt.pdf
CDT's analysis of why consumers receive spam and what they can do to
curtail it is at http://www.cdt.org/speech/spam/030319spamreport.shtml
----------------------------------------
(2) Enforcement Efforts Increase, But Face Challenges
Pursuant to the enforcement provisions of the CAN-SPAM Act, several
states have brought cases against spammers under the law. At the federal
level, at least 62 cases have been brought by the Federal Trade
Commission. Most of the cases brought against spammers were based on
allegations of deceptive trade practices.
Identifying spammers is a key challenge to efforts to enforce spam
laws. Another is the lack of enforcement agents with the necessary
experience, training and skills. In many states, the attorney general's
office lacks the resources to train staff to adequately enforce spam
laws.
ISPs have also begun to bring enforcement actions, and the industry
says that the level of resources employed in fighting spam and the
skill of personnel working on the cases have increased.
----------------------------------------
(3) Technology Proposals Are Seen as Key
Given the limitations of enforcement, attention is turning to
technological solutions. Proposals focus on key characteristics of
email and email senders - reputation and identity; adherence to best
practices; and filtering by the end user.
Microsoft's Sender Policy Framework (SPF) contemplates an infrastructure
that relies upon identity and evidence to assure that a sender is who he
says he is; prevention agents that detect denial of service attacks,
assess sender reputation and filter outbound messages; and protection
filters that prevent spam from reaching the end user's inbox. SPF is not
a product or solution per se, but rather a broad program that includes
government-industry partnerships, strong spam laws, interagency
cooperation in enforcement efforts; industry standards and policies;
and educational programs to inform users about tools and best practices
for dealing with spam, as well as about how to assure the deliverability
of their own messages.
The TRUSTe-Bonded Sender program identifies and authenticates legitimate
email. The program identifies senders who are pre-qualified through the
Ironport service. Once certified, the sender must post a bond for a
specified amount, based on anticipated email volume. The Bonded Sender
program debits the bond amount based on customer complaints. Once
certified, Bonded Sender places the sender on its whitelist. If there
is a sudden rash of complaints or other significant cause for concern
about the sender's behavior, the sender is temporarily suspended.
Bonded Sender employs a business-to-business dispute resolution process.
Habeas promotes sender best practices, provides feedback about senders,
and ensures deliverability of messages. The goal of the Habeas solution
is to help senders establish identification and authentication practices.
Habeas uses a complaint resolution process that currently investigates
every complaint received by the company.
For more information:
TRUSTe-Bonded Sender program: http://www.bondedsender.com/
Microsoft's SPF:
http://www.microsoft.com/mscorp/twc/privacy/spam_senderid.mspx
Ironport: http://www.ironport.com/
Habeas: http://www.habeas.com/
----------------------------------------
(4) Technical Solutions May Implicate Non-Profits and Political Speech
Anti-spam technical solutions, especially those implemented at the ISP
level, raise issues non-governmental organizations. Several issues warrant
further consideration, including:
- The risk that legitimate messages sent by NGOs will be falsely identified
as spam and blocked, without notice to the sender.
- Retention of end users' control over their inboxes.
- The need to preserve anonymity for political speech in anti-spam solutions.
- The need for political speakers to be able to respond quickly by email,
without getting permission from a bonding agent.
- Due process for all parties in resolving complaints and disputes related
to spam. Those complaining about spam should be held accountable that
their claims are legitimate, so that political speech and unpopular
speech are not blocked in a discriminatory way.
CDT expects to continue its examination of the spam issue with a follow-up
meeting focusing on these free expression issues.
----------------------------------------
Detailed information about online civil liberties issues may be found at
http://www.cdt.org/.
This document may be redistributed freely in full or linked to
http://www.cdt.org/publications/pp_10.15.shtml.
Excerpts may be re-posted with prior permission of [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Policy Post 10.15 Copyright 2004 Center for Democracy and Technology
--
To subscribe to CDT's Activist Network, sign up at:
http://www.cdt.org/join/
If you ever wish to remove yourself from the list, unsubscribe at:
http://www.cdt.org/action/unsubscribe.shtml
If you just want to change your address, you should unsubscribe
yourself and then sign up again or contact: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--
Michael Clark, Grassroots Webmaster
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
PGP Key available on keyservers
Center for Democracy and Technology
1634 Eye Street NW, Suite 1100
Washington, DC 20006
http://www.cdt.org/
voice: 202-637-9800
fax: 202-637-0968
------- End of forwarded message -------
^ ^ ^ ^
Steven L. Clift - - - W: http://publicus.net
Minneapolis - - - - E: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Minnesota - - - - - - T: +1.612.822.8667
USA - - - - - MSN/Y!/AIM: netclift
Join my Democracies Online Newswire: http://dowire.org
EDem's Election 2004 Links: http://e-democracy.org/us
*** Past Messages, to Subscribe: http://dowire.org ***
*** To subscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
*** Message body: SUB DO-WIRE ***
*** To UNSUBSCRIBE instead, write: UNSUB DO-WIRE ***
*** Please send submissions to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] ***
*** New RSS XML Feed Available: ***
http://www.mail-archive.com/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/maillist.xml
