On Mon, 2022-04-18 at 06:16 +0200, Paul Vixie via mailop wrote: > the original RBL (at MAPS, this was) was an > attempt (by me, and then by others) to "keep the noise down so that > e-mail is usable". you should be able to verify from where you sit > that (a) we did not achieve that goal, (b) we achieved a number of > other deleterious non-goals, and (c) we were not universally hailed > as liberators by others who thought they knew better what "the > public interest" actually was.
Hindsight is 20/20, good for you you are learning. Earlier in this interesting thread you qualified Gmail as "late stage surveillance capitalism." Has it occured to you that reputation services, whether distributed or other, are early stage surveillace capitalism? I am not familiar with the lawsuits, but the general solution to all reputation services, whether IP-reputation, consumer credit, or any other business that collects information about other subjects (the building block of surveillance capitalism!) is consent: if the subject does not consent, do not collect/report. No reporting, no cause for legal action. Provide reputation certificates for subjects that opt into the service and let recipients decide how to deal with the absence of such reputation ceritificate(s). As has been noted in this interesting thread by others to whom I apologize for not citing them properly, the problem is behavioral. Not technical. The solution (easier said than done) is policy, and sometimes co-operation must be enforced. Humans live on fault lines oblivious to the tectonic movements underneath until the tensions explode. The three active fault lines underneath this industry that require policing are: (1) the dissociation of cost and benefits. economic externalities. I miss the days when I could operate a mail server behind a 2400bps dial- up modem. (2) the dissociation of liability and control. for much too long, this industry has disclaimed, wether in licensing terms or terms of service, the liability for the consequences of what it controls. just copied from your nemesis: TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, EXCEPT AS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED FOR HEREIN, NEITHER PARTY MAKES ANY OTHER WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. the opressor MAKES NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT ANY CONTENT OR INFORMATION MADE ACCESSIBLE BY OR THROUGH THE SERVICES. CUSTOMER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE SERVICES ARE NOT A TELEPHONY SERVICE AND THAT THE SERVICES ARE NOT CAPABLE OF PLACING OR RECEIVING ANY CALLS, INCLUDING EMERGENCY SERVICES CALLS, OVER PUBLICLY SWITCHED TELEPHONE NETWORKS. (3) competing ownership/property claims. Who owns the network, the device, the software, the data, the service? And what are the limits on such property? Easier to point the fault lines out than to suggest solutions. I apologize for not being ready to offer fully thought out solutions. Even if I was, the even more difficult task is to gain acceptability and get the solutions implemented. The political process. Even within the most advanced legal frameworks, serious updates are required in the areas of (A) competition law; (B) consumer protection; and (C) telecommunication policy. The question is: what kind of world do we want to live in, and leave to our children? The answer is subjective. Back to lurking, -- Yuval Levy, JD, MBA, CFA Ontario-licensed lawyer _______________________________________________ mailop mailing list mailop@mailop.org https://list.mailop.org/listinfo/mailop
