Expertiza_Wiki - User contributions [en]

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 6

2007-07-30T02:17:25Z

Slricks:

=Mapping / Google Street View=
Many are concerned about the invasiveness of satellite/aerospace imaging. Governments have complained of risks related to the availability of images of sensitive military or strategic sites, sometimes requesting obfuscation or blackouts of the compromising images. With the expansion of mapping technologies to the street level (see links below), more people have become concerned about how invasive to their privacy public photography can be.

Amongst many lawful and beneficial uses, mapping technologies have also made it easier for planning crimes.

'''Explore the ethical implications of mapping technologies. Should mapping technologies comply with the laws of every country that has access their services even if they are not located there? Are requests for censorship of public photography ethical? When? As mapping imagery increases in coverage and resolution over time, should there be limits set or censorship mandated to protect the public from lawful but invasive and sometimes unwanted photography?'''

=Google Street View=
==Overview==
[http://http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/ Google Street View] is a tool integrated into [http://maps.google.com Google Maps] that allows users to view routes from a street-level perspective. This tool is only available for select locations, usually large cities such as Miami and San Francisco. When using Street View, you are given a 360 degree view of the street from the perspective of a car on the street. The view is generated from actual photographs taken of the streets. There is a zoom feature incorporated into the view and people and private property are not censored by Google. Street View was developed as a tool to aid users in finding landmarks, shops, restaurants, and other points of interest in cities that would otherwise be foreign to a tourist or other traveler. Another touted feature is that you can take a 'virtual walk' around a Street View enabled city.

==Concerns==
===Individual's Rights===
There are several concerns that people have with Google Street View. Many people function under the assumption that their everyday actions are not being watched. Some of the Street View photographs, which are all readily accessible show people walking the streets or entering establishments. Most of these pictures seem harmless, but there are a few that show men walking into adult-themed bookstores, or women laying out sunbathing. Had these people known that they would be displayed to the world, they may have changed their plans for that particular day, and surely some of them would have never consented to these images being shown. While there are some obvious benefits to Street View, if even one person is offended by the content of the images then there is reason for concern of the ethicality of the tool. Some may argue that the pictures are taken from a public place, and would be visible to anyone who happened to be traveling through the area. While this is compelling, one must also consider the fact that the people photographed may not have had a problem with being seen by the general public in small numbers, but would object to being seen by the millions of people that use Google.

There are many questions that can be raised about Street View regarding individual's privacy rights. However, none break any actual laws since all pictures are taken in public places. Does that make it ok though? Is it ethical? If you are accidentally caught changing infront of the shower by Google Street View photographers should they remove the photo? Since it was obviously not their intent to take a picture of you naked it may be hard to hold them accountable. However, it would be in good ethical 'taste' to remove the pictures if so requested, eventhough it would not be required by law.
===Larger Scale Implications===
It's not just mapping on a street level that have ethical implications. Mapping technologies on a larger scale bring up other ethical issues. While being able to view satalite imagery may make it easier for you to find a place of business, it could also aid robbers in researching their next robbery victim. It could even help terrorists plan their next attack on a major landmark without even requiring them to visit their target. Satalite imagery could have a huge impact on national security. Should access to such information be restricted? and to who's laws should they conform to? This all depends on who has ownership of the information. If a Russian satalite is sailing over the United States and takes pictures of the White House they should be allowed to do whatever they want with those images, unless of course, they obtained them by breaking some law. This obviously has great implications if such information falls into the wrong hands, but, ethically, you can't deny or restrict someone use to something that is rightfully and legally theirs. The access to such information can not ethically be restricted, but perhaps the ways the information is obtained could.

==Regulation/Solutions==
Currently, Google has no real restriction on what will get put on the maps. They will remove an image if there is a request and sufficient justification, but they report that there have been 'very few' removal requests. This does not mean that people would not be offended by their image being on a globally-viewed map, it may just be that due to the nature of the maps, that people may be ignorant to the fact that their image is even there. While Google may be on solid legal ground, there are a few options that have been posed by online communities that may offer a more responsible approach.
===Possible Solution===
*Censoring out images of people: Google could simply 'blur' out the faces of people caught by their cameras. This would address some of the individual's rights concerns, but it still leaves some of the other issues unresolved.

=Resources=
===Relevant External Links:===
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html Google Zooms In Too Close for Some (New York Times)]
* [http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/05/google_street_view_a.html Public Opinion on Google Street View (Boing Boing)]
* [http://jonsmith.greykitty.net/2007/07/09/google-street-view/ Google Street View at Arriving Somewhere]
* [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0805/082405td2.htm Google satellite imaging software raises terrorism concerns]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/technology/20image.html?ei=5090&en=fc8a8529ca004e0c&ex=1292734800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1185755335-XtGDEBT8QrPTINYVSlN1wg Governments Tremble at Google's Bird's-Eye View]

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 6

2007-07-30T02:15:05Z

Slricks:

=Mapping / Google Street View=
Many are concerned about the invasiveness of satellite/aerospace imaging. Governments have complained of risks related to the availability of images of sensitive military or strategic sites, sometimes requesting obfuscation or blackouts of the compromising images. With the expansion of mapping technologies to the street level (see links below), more people have become concerned about how invasive to their privacy public photography can be.

Amongst many lawful and beneficial uses, mapping technologies have also made it easier for planning crimes.

'''Explore the ethical implications of mapping technologies. Should mapping technologies comply with the laws of every country that has access their services even if they are not located there? Are requests for censorship of public photography ethical? When? As mapping imagery increases in coverage and resolution over time, should there be limits set or censorship mandated to protect the public from lawful but invasive and sometimes unwanted photography?'''

=Google Street View=
==Overview==
[http://http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/ Google Street View] is a tool integrated into [http://maps.google.com Google Maps] that allows users to view routes from a street-level perspective. This tool is only available for select locations, usually large cities such as Miami and San Francisco. When using Street View, you are given a 360 degree view of the street from the perspective of a car on the street. The view is generated from actual photographs taken of the streets. There is a zoom feature incorporated into the view and people and private property are not censored by Google. Street View was developed as a tool to aid users in finding landmarks, shops, restaurants, and other points of interest in cities that would otherwise be foreign to a tourist or other traveler. Another touted feature is that you can take a 'virtual walk' around a Street View enabled city.

==Concerns==
There are several concerns that people have with Google Street View. Many people function under the assumption that their everyday actions are not being watched. Some of the Street View photographs, which are all readily accessible show people walking the streets or entering establishments. Most of these pictures seem harmless, but there are a few that show men walking into adult-themed bookstores, or women laying out sunbathing. Had these people known that they would be displayed to the world, they may have changed their plans for that particular day, and surely some of them would have never consented to these images being shown. While there are some obvious benefits to Street View, if even one person is offended by the content of the images then there is reason for concern of the ethicality of the tool. Some may argue that the pictures are taken from a public place, and would be visible to anyone who happened to be traveling through the area. While this is compelling, one must also consider the fact that the people photographed may not have had a problem with being seen by the general public in small numbers, but would object to being seen by the millions of people that use Google.

There are many questions that can be raised about Street View regarding individual's privacy rights. However, none break any actual laws since all pictures are taken in public places. Does that make it ok though? Is it ethical? If you are accidentally caught changing infront of the shower by Google Street View photographers should they remove the photo? Since it was obviously not their intent to take a picture of you naked it may be hard to hold them accountable. However, it would be in good ethical 'taste' to remove the pictures if so requested, eventhough it would not be required by law.

It's not just mapping on a street level that have ethical implications. Mapping technologies on a larger scale bring up other ethical issues. While being able to view satalite imagery may make it easier for you to find a place of business, it could also aid robbers in researching their next robbery victim. It could even help terrorists plan their next attack on a major landmark without even requiring them to visit their target. Satalite imagery could have a huge impact on national security. Should access to such information be restricted? and to who's laws should they conform to? This all depends on who has ownership of the information. If a Russian satalite is sailing over the United States and takes pictures of the White House they should be allowed to do whatever they want with those images, unless of course, they obtained them by breaking some law. This obviously has great implications if such information falls into the wrong hands, but, ethically, you can't deny or restrict someone use to something that is rightfully and legally theirs. The access to such information can not ethically be restricted, but perhaps the ways the information is obtained could.

==Regulation/Solutions==
Currently, Google has no real restriction on what will get put on the maps. They will remove an image if there is a request and sufficient justification, but they report that there have been 'very few' removal requests. This does not mean that people would not be offended by their image being on a globally-viewed map, it may just be that due to the nature of the maps, that people may be ignorant to the fact that their image is even there. While Google may be on solid legal ground, there are a few options that have been posed by online communities that may offer a more responsible approach.
===Possible Solution===
*Censoring out images of people: Google could simply 'blur' out the faces of people caught by their cameras. This would address some of the individual's rights concerns, but it still leaves some of the other issues unresolved.

=Resources=
===Relevant External Links:===
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html Google Zooms In Too Close for Some (New York Times)]
* [http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/05/google_street_view_a.html Public Opinion on Google Street View (Boing Boing)]
* [http://jonsmith.greykitty.net/2007/07/09/google-street-view/ Google Street View at Arriving Somewhere]
* [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0805/082405td2.htm Google satellite imaging software raises terrorism concerns]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/technology/20image.html?ei=5090&en=fc8a8529ca004e0c&ex=1292734800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1185755335-XtGDEBT8QrPTINYVSlN1wg Governments Tremble at Google's Bird's-Eye View]

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 6

2007-07-30T01:47:14Z

Slricks:

=Mapping / Google Street View=
Many are concerned about the invasiveness of satellite/aerospace imaging. Governments have complained of risks related to the availability of images of sensitive military or strategic sites, sometimes requesting obfuscation or blackouts of the compromising images. With the expansion of mapping technologies to the street level (see links below), more people have become concerned about how invasive to their privacy public photography can be.

Amongst many lawful and beneficial uses, mapping technologies have also made it easier for planning crimes.

'''Explore the ethical implications of mapping technologies. Should mapping technologies comply with the laws of every country that has access their services even if they are not located there? Are requests for censorship of public photography ethical? When? As mapping imagery increases in coverage and resolution over time, should there be limits set or censorship mandated to protect the public from lawful but invasive and sometimes unwanted photography?'''

=Google Street View=
==Overview==
[http://http://maps.google.com/help/maps/streetview/ Google Street View] is a tool integrated into [http://maps.google.com Google Maps] that allows users to view routes from a street-level perspective. This tool is only available for select locations, usually large cities such as Miami and San Francisco. When using Street View, you are given a 360 degree view of the street from the perspective of a car on the street. The view is generated from actual photographs taken of the streets. There is a zoom feature incorporated into the view and people and private property are not censored by Google. Street View was developed as a tool to aid users in finding landmarks, shops, restaurants, and other points of interest in cities that would otherwise be foreign to a tourist or other traveler. Another touted feature is that you can take a 'virtual walk' around a Street View enabled city.

==Concerns==
There are several concerns that people have with Google Street View. Many people function under the assumption that their everyday actions are not being watched. Some of the Street View photographs, which are all readily accessible show people walking the streets or entering establishments. Most of these pictures seem harmless, but there are a few that show men walking into adult-themed bookstores, or women laying out sunbathing. Had these people known that they would be displayed to the world, they may have changed their plans for that particular day, and surely some of them would have never consented to these images being shown. While there are some obvious benefits to Street View, if even one person is offended by the content of the images then there is reason for concern of the ethicality of the tool. Some may argue that the pictures are taken from a public place, and would be visible to anyone who happened to be traveling through the area. While this is compelling, one must also consider the fact that the people photographed may not have had a problem with being seen by the general public in small numbers, but would object to being seen by the millions of people that use Google.

There are many questions that can be raised about Street View regarding individual's privacy rights. However, none break any actual laws since all pictures are taken in public places. Does that make it ok though? Is it ethical? If you accidentally caught changing infront of the shower by Google Street View photographers should they remove the photo? Since it was obviously not their intent to take a picture of you naked it may be hard to hold them accountable. However, it would be in good ethical 'taste' to remove the pictures if so requested, eventhough it would not be required by law.

It's not just mapping on a street level that have ethical implications. Mapping technologies on a larger scale bring up other ethical issues. While being able to view satalite imagery may make it easier for you to find a place of business, it could also aid robbers in researching their next robbery victim. It could even help terrorists plan their next attack on a major landmark without even requiring them to visit their target. Satalite imagery could have a huge impact on national security. Should access to such information be restricted? and to who's laws should they conform to? This all depends on who has ownership of the information. If a Russian satalite is sailing over the United States and takes pictures of the White House they should be allowed to do whatever they want with those images, unless of course, they obtained them by breaking some law. This obviously has great implications if such information falls into the wrong hands, but, ethically, you can't deny or restrict someone use to something that is rightfully and legally theirs. The access to such information can not ethically be restricted, but perhaps the ways the information is obtained could.

=Resources=
===Relevant External Links:===
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/01/technology/01private.html Google Zooms In Too Close for Some (New York Times)]
* [http://www.boingboing.net/2007/06/05/google_street_view_a.html Public Opinion on Google Street View (Boing Boing)]
* [http://jonsmith.greykitty.net/2007/07/09/google-street-view/ Google Street View at Arriving Somewhere]
* [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0805/082405td2.htm Google satellite imaging software raises terrorism concerns]
* [http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/technology/20image.html?ei=5090&en=fc8a8529ca004e0c&ex=1292734800&adxnnl=1&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1185755335-XtGDEBT8QrPTINYVSlN1wg Governments Tremble at Google's Bird's-Eye View]

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 6

2007-07-29T22:22:51Z

Slricks: working on ethics of streetview

CSC 379:Week 4, Group 6

2007-07-29T21:55:50Z

Slricks:

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 6

2007-07-19T16:11:43Z

Slricks:

=Software Patents=

==Overview==
*A patent protects an idea or concept relating to software.
*A patent must be:
**Novel: It must be new, not capitalize on an existing idea that is already in use.
**Non-obvious: You can't patent anything thought of a "common knowledge" or obvious. It should not be an obvious idea to the reasonable person.
**Useful
**Fully Disclosed: Meaning that a person should be able to create your idea simply by looking at the design in the patent.
*Most patents last for 20 years.
*Cottage Industries are stay at home companies that only deal in holding the rights to patents.
*Until 1981 in general computer programs were not patentable.
*Most software patents these days only protect the small algorithms and techniques that are the building blocks to larger programs and not entire programs.

'''Cottage Industries & Patents:'''
* What are the ethical implications of having businesses devoted solely to acquiring, holding, and enforcing patents through lawsuits? What are the costs and benefits posed by allowing these “cottage industries” to exist?
**'Cottage Industries', or companies that do not necessarily produce a product but rather acquire and enforce patents, pose many threats to both consumers and producers. While patents are necessary and beneficial to society, some patents are not as 'non-obvious' as they should be. This is why these patent-holding companies exist. By holding some of these more vague patents, these companies can lay back and wait for an opportunity to pounce on a firm that may physically implement a feature that could possibly be interpreted as an infringement. While this may not seem too unethical, the fact that the patent holders may produce no other goods or benefits to society is unsettling. Where the ethics come in is when a holding firm will knowingly watch a company sell a product that they feel infringes on their patent and wait for the product to reach a high amount of sales. Then, after the product has been sold in large numbers and brought in a lot of money to the producing firm, the holding company springs a patent infringement suit on them. Defending against a patent lawsuit is quite an endeavor for the accused as well. It can cost upwards and above one million dollars just to defend against charges. And if the suit holds up, then the guilty will have to pay huge amounts of money, as indicated in the links below. When a company sits back and watches a product being sold and waits for the maximum amount of revenue to be generated, and then decides to strike seems unethical. If they know of the supposed infringement, then ethically, for all parties involved, they should act as soon as they are privy to the knowledge.
**A benefit of 'Cottage Industries' is that obviously, patents will get enforced. The idea of originality will be preserved if patents are enforced as rigorously as a holding company could.

'''Links:'''
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EFD61030F932A05751C1A960958260 Patent Suit Award]
*[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200607/ai_n17185839 Should Ethics Play a Special Role in Patent Law?]
*[http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=9252 Immersion gets 91 million from Sony]

'''Patents & Competition:'''
* Often groups will not enforce patents through lawsuits due to the risk of their patents being found invalid. They have found that it is often more wise to acquire and hold patents as a deterrent to competition. These actions pose a risk to software developers that do not have patents of their own to balance the threats. Examine the ethical considerations of this practice and of the responses to counter patent litigation threats.

**By holding patents to deter competition, some companies have found a way to stifle their competitors. If an opposing developer does not hold a patent to do what they want to implement, then they may choose to not implement it at all, rather than to be faced with a large lawsuit. Defending against such a lawsuit may not be within the means of anyone but a few large companies, as the costs of fighting a patent infringement suit can be around a million dollars. This serves as a great deterrent for the holders of the patent, because even if their patent claim may not be valid, the company that is being charged may not want to gamble with so much on the line, and simply choose to suspend development on any product that may infringe. This does not seem to be an ethical practice, mainly because the company with the patent is not using the patent as a means, but rather the other company. Patents should be used to nurture and develop ideas that benefit society, not to drive a nail through competitors through frivolous suits.
'''Links:'''
*[http://gamasutra.com/features/20070227/sirlin_01.shtml The Trouble With Patents]

'''Patent Infringement:'''
*Patents on software are there to protect the labor, time, and money invested by the creator during the development of the software. However, many people believe that patents become just an obstacle to developing new software. Many people have begun patenting basic ideas that were already commonly in use in the industry. Often patents are intentionally broad to make them more valuable. These basic patents are beginning to make it very difficult for the development and distribution of new software. People have patented all simple code and ideas that are essential to developing higher level software. This means a software developer must negotiate with each patent holder he violates to try and obtain a license to use it. This is obviously making it much harder for a software developer to produce a legal product.
**'''With all these problems created by software patents what ethics are involved in the development of software that likely infringes on existing patents?'''
***One of the main criteria for a patent is it be novel and non-obvious, the problem with this is for many the US Patent Office employed no computer science professionals; so they had no idea what ideas and practices were considers basic and obvious and had been in use for years in the software development field. This means that many of these patents should never been issued in the first place.
***Software patents do not cover entire programs. Patents only cover the specific algorithms and techniques to carry out a task in a program. All these small bits being patented makes it nearly impossible to use them to develop a large useful program.
***With the internet and sites like Google Patent Search it is becoming much easier to find and research patents in order to avond infringement. This has made unintentional infringement a less likely event with patent information more widely available.
***Patents are however difficult, timely, and very expensive to obtain. This means that no matter how trivial or redundant a patent might be someone has put a great deal of effort into obtaining it and thus have a legitimate claim to ownership of the idea. This should also discourage people from just filing as many patents as possible as a way to make a profit.
*According to the US Constitution the purpose of patent is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." So the question is do software patents promote progress? It is most likely that they don't. Most software patents only hinder the progress of the field by forcing developers to deal with lawsuits, red tape, and licensing issues. Many people feel that patent laws need to be changed and more specific rules for software patents need to be developed.
'''Links:'''
*[http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html Software Patents]
*[http://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office]
*[http://www.google.com/patents Google Patent Search]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 6

2007-07-19T16:11:06Z

Slricks:

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 6

2007-07-19T16:09:23Z

Slricks:

=Software Patents=

==Overview==
*A patent protects an idea or concept relating to software.
*A patent must be:
**Novel: It must be new, not capitalize on an existing idea that is already in use.
**Non-obvious: You can't patent anything thought of a "common knowledge" or obvious. It should not be an obvious idea to the reasonable person.
**Useful
**Fully Disclosed: Meaning that a person should be able to create your idea simply by looking at the design in the patent.
*Most patents last for 20 years.
*Until 1981 in general computer programs were not patentable.
*Most software patents these days only protect the small algorithms and techniques that are the building blocks to larger programs and not entire programs.

'''Cottage Industries & Patents:'''
* What are the ethical implications of having businesses devoted solely to acquiring, holding, and enforcing patents through lawsuits? What are the costs and benefits posed by allowing these “cottage industries” to exist?
**'Cottage Industries', or companies that do not necessarily produce a product but rather acquire and enforce patents, pose many threats to both consumers and producers. While patents are necessary and beneficial to society, some patents are not as 'non-obvious' as they should be. This is why these patent-holding companies exist. By holding some of these more vague patents, these companies can lay back and wait for an opportunity to pounce on a firm that may physically implement a feature that could possibly be interpreted as an infringement. While this may not seem too unethical, the fact that the patent holders may produce no other goods or benefits to society is unsettling. Where the ethics come in is when a holding firm will knowingly watch a company sell a product that they feel infringes on their patent and wait for the product to reach a high amount of sales. Then, after the product has been sold in large numbers and brought in a lot of money to the producing firm, the holding company springs a patent infringement suit on them. Defending against a patent lawsuit is quite an endeavor for the accused as well. It can cost upwards and above one million dollars just to defend against charges. And if the suit holds up, then the guilty will have to pay huge amounts of money, as indicated in the links below. When a company sits back and watches a product being sold and waits for the maximum amount of revenue to be generated, and then decides to strike seems unethical. If they know of the supposed infringement, then ethically, for all parties involved, they should act as soon as they are privy to the knowledge.
**A benefit of 'Cottage Industries' is that obviously, patents will get enforced. The idea of originality will be preserved if patents are enforced as rigorously as a holding company could.

'''Links:'''
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EFD61030F932A05751C1A960958260 Patent Suit Award]
*[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200607/ai_n17185839 Should Ethics Play a Special Role in Patent Law?]
*[http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=9252 Immersion gets 91 million from Sony]

'''Patents & Competition:'''
* Often groups will not enforce patents through lawsuits due to the risk of their patents being found invalid. They have found that it is often more wise to acquire and hold patents as a deterrent to competition. These actions pose a risk to software developers that do not have patents of their own to balance the threats. Examine the ethical considerations of this practice and of the responses to counter patent litigation threats.

**By holding patents to deter competition, some companies have found a way to stifle their competitors. If an opposing developer does not hold a patent to do what they want to implement, then they may choose to not implement it at all, rather than to be faced with a large lawsuit. Defending against such a lawsuit may not be within the means of anyone but a few large companies, as the costs of fighting a patent infringement suit can be around a million dollars. This serves as a great deterrent for the holders of the patent, because even if their patent claim may not be valid, the company that is being charged may not want to gamble with so much on the line, and simply choose to suspend development on any product that may infringe. This does not seem to be an ethical practice, mainly because the company with the patent is not using the patent as a means, but rather the other company. Patents should be used to nurture and develop ideas that benefit society, not to drive a nail through competitors through frivolous suits.
'''Links:'''
*[http://gamasutra.com/features/20070227/sirlin_01.shtml The Trouble With Patents]

'''Patent Infringement:'''
*Patents on software are there to protect the labor, time, and money invested by the creator during the development of the software. However, many people believe that patents become just an obstacle to developing new software. Many people have begun patenting basic ideas that were already commonly in use in the industry. Often patents are intentionally broad to make them more valuable. These basic patents are beginning to make it very difficult for the development and distribution of new software. People have patented all simple code and ideas that are essential to developing higher level software. This means a software developer must negotiate with each patent holder he violates to try and obtain a license to use it. This is obviously making it much harder for a software developer to produce a legal product.
**'''With all these problems created by software patents what ethics are involved in the development of software that likely infringes on existing patents?'''
***One of the main criteria for a patent is it be novel and non-obvious, the problem with this is for many the US Patent Office employed no computer science professionals; so they had no idea what ideas and practices were considers basic and obvious and had been in use for years in the software development field. This means that many of these patents should never been issued in the first place.
***Software patents do not cover entire programs. Patents only cover the specific algorithms and techniques to carry out a task in a program. All these small bits being patented makes it nearly impossible to use them to develop a large useful program.
***With the internet and sites like Google Patent Search it is becoming much easier to find and research patents in order to avond infringement. This has made unintentional infringement a less likely event with patent information more widely available.
***Patents are however difficult, timely, and very expensive to obtain. This means that no matter how trivial or redundant a patent might be someone has put a great deal of effort into obtaining it and thus have a legitimate claim to ownership of the idea. This should also discourage people from just filing as many patents as possible as a way to make a profit.
*According to the US Constitution the purpose of patent is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." So the question is do software patents promote progress? It is most likely that they don't. Most software patents only hinder the progress of the field by forcing developers to deal with lawsuits, red tape, and licensing issues. Many people feel that patent laws need to be changed and more specific rules for software patents need to be developed.
'''Links:'''
*[http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html Software Patents]
*[http://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office]
*[http://www.google.com/patents Google Patent Search]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 6

2007-07-19T16:00:03Z

Slricks:

=Software Patents=

==Overview==
*A patent protects an idea or concept relating to software.
*A patent must be:
**Novel: It must be new, not capitalize on an existing idea that is already in use.
**Non-obvious: You can't patent anything thought of a "common knowledge" or obvious. It should not be an obvious idea to the reasonable person.
**Useful
**Fully Disclosed: Meaning that a person should be able to create your idea simply by looking at the design in the patent.
*Most patents last for 20 years.
*Until 1981 in general computer programs were not patentable.
*Most software patents these days only protect the small algorithms and techniques that are the building blocks to larger programs and not entire programs.

'''Cottage Industries & Patents:'''
* What are the ethical implications of having businesses devoted solely to acquiring, holding, and enforcing patents through lawsuits? What are the costs and benefits posed by allowing these “cottage industries” to exist?
**'Cottage Industries', or companies that do not necessarily produce a product but rather acquire and enforce patents, pose many threats to both consumers and producers. While patents are necessary and beneficial to society, some patents are not as 'non-obvious' as they should be. This is why these patent-holding companies exist. By holding some of these more vague patents, these companies can lay back and wait for an opportunity to pounce on a firm that may physically implement a feature that could possibly be interpreted as an infringement. While this may not seem too unethical, the fact that the patent holders may produce no other goods or benefits to society is unsettling. Where the ethics come in is when a holding firm will knowingly watch a company sell a product that they feel infringes on their patent and wait for the product to reach a high amount of sales. Then, after the product has been sold in large numbers and brought in a lot of money to the producing firm, the holding company springs a patent infringement suit on them. Defending against a patent lawsuit is quite an endeavor for the accused as well. It can cost upwards and above one million dollars just to defend against charges. And if the suit holds up, then the guilty will have to pay huge amounts of money, as indicated in the links below. When a company sits back and watches a product being sold and waits for the maximum amount of revenue to be generated, and then decides to strike seems unethical. If they know of the supposed infringement, then ethically, for all parties involved, they should act as soon as they are privy to the knowledge.

**A benefit of 'Cottage Industries' is that obviously, patents will get enforced. The idea of originality will be preserved if patents are enforced as rigorously as a holding company could.

'''Links:'''
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EFD61030F932A05751C1A960958260 Patent Suit Award]
*[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200607/ai_n17185839 Should Ethics Play a Special Role in Patent Law?]
*[http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=9252 Immersion gets 91 million from Sony]

'''Patents & Competition:'''
* Often groups will not enforce patents through lawsuits due to the risk of their patents being found invalid. They have found that it is often more wise to acquire and hold patents as a deterrent to competition. These actions pose a risk to software developers that do not have patents of their own to balance the threats. Examine the ethical considerations of this practice and of the responses to counter patent litigation threats.
'''Links:'''

'''Patent Infringement:'''
*Patents on software are there to protect the labor, time, and money invested by the creator during the development of the software. However, many people believe that patents become just an obstacle to developing new software. Many people have begun patenting basic ideas that were already commonly in use in the industry. Often patents are intentionally broad to make them more valuable. These basic patents are beginning to make it very difficult for the development and distribution of new software. People have patented all simple code and ideas that are essential to developing higher level software. This means a software developer must negotiate with each patent holder he violates to try and obtain a license to use it. This is obviously making it much harder for a software developer to produce a legal product.
**'''With all these problems created by software patents what ethics are involved in the development of software that likely infringes on existing patents?'''
***One of the main criteria for a patent is it be novel and non-obvious, the problem with this is for many the US Patent Office employed no computer science professionals; so they had no idea what ideas and practices were considers basic and obvious and had been in use for years in the software development field. This means that many of these patents should never been issued in the first place.
***Software patents do not cover entire programs. Patents only cover the specific algorithms and techniques to carry out a task in a program. All these small bits being patented makes it nearly impossible to use them to develop a large useful program.
***With the internet and sites like Google Patent Search it is becoming much easier to find and research patents in order to avond infringement. This has made unintentional infringement a less likely event with patent information more widely available.
***Patents are however difficult, timely, and very expensive to obtain. This means that no matter how trivial or redundant a patent might be someone has put a great deal of effort into obtaining it and thus have a legitimate claim to ownership of the idea. This should also discourage people from just filing as many patents as possible as a way to make a profit.
*According to the US Constitution the purpose of patent is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." So the question is do software patents promote progress? It is most likely that they don't. Most software patents only hinder the progress of the field by forcing developers to deal with lawsuits, red tape, and licensing issues. Many people feel that patent laws need to be changed and more specific rules for software patents need to be developed.
'''Links:'''
*[http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html Software Patents]
*[http://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office]
*[http://www.google.com/patents Google Patent Search]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 6

2007-07-19T15:54:10Z

Slricks:

=Software Patents=

==Overview==
*A patent protects an idea or concept relating to software.
*A patent must be:
**Novel: It must be new, not capitalize on an existing idea that is already in use.
**Non-obvious: You can't patent anything thought of a "common knowledge" or obvious. It should not be an obvious idea to the reasonable person.
**Useful
**Fully Disclosed: Meaning that a person should be able to create your idea simply by looking at the design in the patent.
*Most patents last for 20 years.
*Until 1981 in general computer programs were not patentable.
*Most software patents these days only protect the small algorithms and techniques that are the building blocks to larger programs and not entire programs.

'''Cottage Industries & Patents:'''
* What are the ethical implications of having businesses devoted solely to acquiring, holding, and enforcing patents through lawsuits? What are the costs and benefits posed by allowing these “cottage industries” to exist?
**'Cottage Industries', or companies that do not necessarily produce a product but rather acquire and enforce patents, pose many threats to both consumers and producers. While patents are necessary and beneficial to society, some patents are not as 'non-obvious' as they should be. This is why these patent-holding companies exist. By holding some of these more vague patents, these companies can lay back and wait for an opportunity to pounce on a firm that may physically implement a feature that could possibly be interpreted as an infringement. While this may not seem too unethical, the fact that the patent holders may produce no other goods or benefits to society is unsettling. Where the ethics come in is when a holding firm will knowingly watch a company sell a product that they feel infringes on their patent and wait for the product to reach a high amount of sales. Then, after the product has been sold in large numbers and brought in a lot of money to the producing firm, the holding company springs a patent infringement suit on them. Defending against a patent lawsuit is quite an endeavor for the accused as well. It can cost upwards and above one million dollars just to defend against charges. And if the suit holds up, then the guilty will have to pay huge amounts of money, as indicated in the links below. When a company sits back and watches a product being sold and waits for the maximum amount of revenue to be generated, and then decides to strike seems unethical. If they know of the supposed infringement, then ethically, for all parties involved, they should act as soon as they are privy to the knowledge.
**A benefits of 'Cottage Industries' is that obviously, patents will get enforced. The idea of originality will be preserved if patents are enforced as rigorously as a holding company could.

'''Links:'''
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EFD61030F932A05751C1A960958260 Patent Suit Award]
*[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200607/ai_n17185839 Should Ethics Play a Special Role in Patent Law?]
*[http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=9252 Immersion gets 91 million from Sony]

'''Patents & Competition:'''
* Often groups will not enforce patents through lawsuits due to the risk of their patents being found invalid. They have found that it is often more wise to acquire and hold patents as a deterrent to competition. These actions pose a risk to software developers that do not have patents of their own to balance the threats. Examine the ethical considerations of this practice and of the responses to counter patent litigation threats.
'''Links:'''

'''Patent Infringement:'''
*Patents on software are there to protect the labor, time, and money invested by the creator during the development of the software. However, many people believe that patents become just an obstacle to developing new software. Many people have begun patenting basic ideas that were already commonly in use in the industry. Often patents are intentionally broad to make them more valuable. These basic patents are beginning to make it very difficult for the development and distribution of new software. People have patented all simple code and ideas that are essential to developing higher level software. This means a software developer must negotiate with each patent holder he violates to try and obtain a license to use it. This is obviously making it much harder for a software developer to produce a legal product.
**'''With all these problems created by software patents what ethics are involved in the development of software that likely infringes on existing patents?'''
***One of the main criteria for a patent is it be novel and non-obvious, the problem with this is for many the US Patent Office employed no computer science professionals; so they had no idea what ideas and practices were considers basic and obvious and had been in use for years in the software development field. This means that many of these patents should never been issued in the first place.
***Software patents do not cover entire programs. Patents only cover the specific algorithms and techniques to carry out a task in a program. All these small bits being patented makes it nearly impossible to use them to develop a large useful program.
***With the internet and sites like Google Patent Search it is becoming much easier to find and research patents in order to avond infringement. This has made unintentional infringement a less likely event with patent information more widely available.
***Patents are however difficult, timely, and very expensive to obtain. This means that no matter how trivial or redundant a patent might be someone has put a great deal of effort into obtaining it and thus have a legitimate claim to ownership of the idea. This should also discourage people from just filing as many patents as possible as a way to make a profit.
*According to the US Constitution the purpose of patent is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." So the question is do software patents promote progress? It is most likely that they don't. Most software patents only hinder the progress of the field by forcing developers to deal with lawsuits, red tape, and licensing issues. Many people feel that patent laws need to be changed and more specific rules for software patents need to be developed.
'''Links:'''
*[http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html Software Patents]
*[http://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office]
*[http://www.google.com/patents Google Patent Search]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 6

2007-07-19T15:53:12Z

Slricks:

=Software Patents=

==Overview==
*A patent protects an idea or concept relating to software.
*A patent must be:
**Novel: It must be new, not capitalize on an existing idea that is already in use.
**Non-obvious: You can't patent anything thought of a "common knowledge" or obvious. It should not be an obvious idea to the reasonable person.
**Useful
**Fully Disclosed: Meaning that a person should be able to create your idea simply by looking at the design in the patent.
*Most patents last for 20 years.
*Until 1981 in general computer programs were not patentable.
*Most software patents these days only protect the small algorithms and techniques that are the building blocks to larger programs and not entire programs.

'''Cottage Industries & Patents:'''
* What are the ethical implications of having businesses devoted solely to acquiring, holding, and enforcing patents through lawsuits? What are the costs and benefits posed by allowing these “cottage industries” to exist?
*'Cottage Industries', or companies that do not necessarily produce a product but rather acquire and enforce patents, pose many threats to both consumers and producers. While patents are necessary and beneficial to society, some patents are not as 'non-obvious' as they should be. This is why these patent-holding companies exist. By holding some of these more vague patents, these companies can lay back and wait for an opportunity to pounce on a firm that may physically implement a feature that could possibly be interpreted as an infringement. While this may not seem too unethical, the fact that the patent holders may produce no other goods or benefits to society is unsettling. Where the ethics come in is when a holding firm will knowingly watch a company sell a product that they feel infringes on their patent and wait for the product to reach a high amount of sales. Then, after the product has been sold in large numbers and brought in a lot of money to the producing firm, the holding company springs a patent infringement suit on them. Defending against a patent lawsuit is quite an endeavor for the accused as well. It can cost upwards and above one million dollars just to defend against charges. And if the suit holds up, then the guilty will have to pay huge amounts of money, as indicated in the links below. When a company sits back and watches a product being sold and waits for the maximum amount of revenue to be generated, and then decides to strike seems unethical. If they know of the supposed infringement, then ethically, for all parties involved, they should act as soon as they are privy to the knowledge.
*A benefits of 'Cottage Industries' is that obviously, patents will get enforced. The idea of originality will be preserved if patents are enforced as rigorously as a holding company could.
'''Links:'''
*[http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9503EFD61030F932A05751C1A960958260 Patent Suit Award]
*[http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3975/is_200607/ai_n17185839 Should Ethics Play a Special Role in Patent Law?]
*[http://biz.gamedaily.com/industry/feature/?id=9252 Immersion gets 91 million from Sony]

'''Patents & Competition:'''
* Often groups will not enforce patents through lawsuits due to the risk of their patents being found invalid. They have found that it is often more wise to acquire and hold patents as a deterrent to competition. These actions pose a risk to software developers that do not have patents of their own to balance the threats. Examine the ethical considerations of this practice and of the responses to counter patent litigation threats.
'''Links:'''

'''Patent Infringement:'''
*Patents on software are there to protect the labor, time, and money invested by the creator during the development of the software. However, many people believe that patents become just an obstacle to developing new software. Many people have begun patenting basic ideas that were already commonly in use in the industry. Often patents are intentionally broad to make them more valuable. These basic patents are beginning to make it very difficult for the development and distribution of new software. People have patented all simple code and ideas that are essential to developing higher level software. This means a software developer must negotiate with each patent holder he violates to try and obtain a license to use it. This is obviously making it much harder for a software developer to produce a legal product.
**'''With all these problem created by software patents what ethics are involved in the development of software that likely infringes on existing patents?'''
***One of the main criteria for a patent is it be novel and non-obvious, the problem with this is for many the US Patent Office employed no computer science professionals; so they had no idea what ideas and practices were considers basic and obvious and had been in use for years in the software development field. This means that many of these patents should never been issued in the first place.
***Software patents do not cover entire programs. Patents only cover the specific algorithms and techniques to carry out a task in a program. All these small bits being patented makes it nearly impossible to use them to develop a large useful program.
***With the internet and sites like Google Patent Search it is becoming much easier to find and research patents in order to avond infringement. This has made unintentional infringement a less likely event with patent information more widely available.
***Patents are however difficult, timely, and very expensive to obtain. This means that no matter how trivial or redundant a patent might be someone has put a great deal of effort into obtaining it and thus have a legitimate claim to ownership of the idea. This should also discourage people from just filing as many patents as possible as a way to make a profit.
*According to the US Constitution the purpose of patent is to "promote the progress of science and the useful arts." So the question is do software patents promote progress? It is most likely that they don't. Most software patents only hinder the progress of the field by forcing developers to deal with lawsuits, red tape, and licensing issues. Many people feel that patent laws need to be changed and more specific rules for software patents need to be developed.
'''Links:'''
*[http://lpf.ai.mit.edu/Patents/patents.html Software Patents]
*[http://www.uspto.gov/ United States Patent and Trademark Office]
*[http://www.google.com/patents Google Patent Search]

CSC 379:Week 2, Group 6

2007-07-19T14:54:55Z

Slricks:

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 1

2007-07-07T15:37:52Z

Slricks:

Techniques against spam

* Block domains or possibly top-level domans "known" to be large senders of spam.

** [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/07/2316225&from=rss Slashdot discussion of top-level domain] Although the link is a public forum, the readers and participants of slashdot tend to be those more familiar with computer systems. As such, many interesting perspectives are voiced, from email server administrators to the "power user." The discussion in this particular slashdot article does not resolve the issue at hand, it does however provide a better understanding of the current situation regarding spam.

** [http://www.gabacho-net.jp/en/anti-spam/anti-spam-system.html The Selective SMTP Rejection (S25R) System] This study provides an overview of spam countermeasures currently used and their success rates. The author then presents his methodology of countermeasure using a system of filters based on regular expression and Postfix to a claimed "99% Block Rate" of spam. Under the S25R System, he claims one could filter something as specific as a single reverse lookup or IP address to something as broad as a top-level domain. It could be argued that this is not so much a "system" as it is more of a "HowTo" implementing regular expression (like Perl) with Postfix to filter out spam.

** [http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/MF014.html HowTo: Block Incoming Mail Using MS Exchange 2000] This HowTo shows how to use the built-in filters of Microsoft Exchange 2000 to block unwanted senders. Senders can be blocked on a single basis or with the use of wild cards, block domains.

* Require users to request permission to send you e-mail (i.e. Earthlink spam blocker)
**[http://www.emaillabs.com/email_marketing_articles/permission_email_marketing_matters.html The Challenge of Permission Email] By obtaining permission in some form before emailing offers, it is thought that the overall feel of email marketing would be improved. Response rates for senders would increase, due to the fact that they have been given explicit permission to contact their recipients. While it may be costly on some levels to implement this type of system, the end result would produce a more focused system that will not instill anger amongst anyone in the system. Overall, this author feels that it would be worth the time and money investment to implement this type of system, due to the fact that senders can expect a higher rate of return on their correspondence, and the overall trust level of the situation would be improved.

* Charge for e-mail sent
** It is believed that charging people for every e-mail sent would virtually eliminate spam all together. E-mail would become much like the postal service in which a fee is charge for every message sent, like a stamp. The idea being that bulk e-mails would be no more economical than direct mail and would eliminate e-mail as a free form of advertising. Charging to send messages makes the costs far too high for spammers to make any profit. Many people feel however that this goes against the libertarian ideas and freedom the internet was based on. Ultimately it could be a burden to ordinary citizens and companies who rely on e-mail in every day life.
*** [http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/0,1000002138,39145632,00.htm Is it Time to Charge for E-mail?]

* Opt-in commercial e-mail

** [http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm FTC's CAN-SPAM Act] The Federal Trade Commission's page providing information on the CAN-SPAM Act for businesses. Provides an overview of the existing laws and penalties regarding spam and commercial emailers. Although the site is a federal site, the specifics are lacking. Specifically, under the "What the Law Requires," the statements are very open-ended that leaves many interpretations. For instance, "It prohibits deceptive subject lines," is very open-ended. How does one go about determining what is deceptive? What sort of metric is used? Additionally, the law specifies the use of Opt-out, but the specifics are again very open-ended. Under the "Penalties" section, it is again very vague. For example, "Relay emails through a computer or network without permission..," is somewhat too broad. How would one go about proving that someone intended to relay emails when he/she could easily say a multitude of excuses (such as "A virus used my computer as a relay," which has been known to happen before).

** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing Wikipedia on E-mail Marketing] Provides an overview of E-mail marketing. What the advantages and disadvantages of email marketing. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 that authorizes a $11,000 penalty for each spam violation to each spam recipient. To help with compliance, several third-party companies are available to help with email marketing compliance. Wiki also provides an overview of Opt-in advertising. For those interested in knowing some of the spam jargon, the Wiki does provide a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing#Terms glossary of terms].

** [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html The European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email] The EuroCAUCE is a group of users (ranging from end-users to corporations) trying to find a solution to the spam problem. Their solution is for an Opt-in list. They provide the risks/benefit discussion of Opt-In vs Opt-Out. Additionally, their is [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/links.html link to resources] that may be helpful to those who are tired of spam.

* Domain authentication
** [http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/12/05/spam.yahoo.reut/index.html New Authentication System to Block Spam] Yahoo! has been privately developing a new authentication system to protect email users from spam. By verifying the validity of the sender, the end email recipient can be reassured that the sender is who they say they are. The Yahoo! system uses public/private key encryption, in which an email message would be encoded with a private key that could be checked against the publuc key registered from the domain name of the server that the email claims to be from. If it matches, then all is well, if it fails, then the email is bounced and reported.
** [http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39228023,00.htm Domain Authentication Method Comes Up Short] Sender Policy Framework, or SPF was implemented as a way to ensure that the return addresses in your email inbox are in fact who they say they are. The principle behind SPF is that DNS records are used to say which machines can transmit email, theoretically eliminating 'spoof' emails(emails that purport to come from one source, but are actually from another). However, it has now been discovered that with a few lines of malicious code and a hacked machine, SPF can be exploited.

* Bounties
** The Federal Trade Commission has recently proposed offering a cash bounty to any citizen who helps to arrest spammers. Under the proposal the first citizen to come forward with information leading to the arrest of a spammer will receive no less than 20% of the civil penalty the FTC would eventually collect from spammers arrested due to that information. The idea is that it would be more effective if the average citizen spent the same amount of time searching for and reporting spammers as they did preventing and deleting the spam messages themselves. This would stop the problem at the root.
** The main problem with this idea is if the FTC, FBI, and ISPs can’t find and prosecute spammers how are ordinary citizens supposed to do any better. Ordinary citizens are very unlikely to catch spammers. Rather than prosecuting spammers who abuse the internet it is believed so called “bounty hunters” are more likely to attack legitimate companies guilty of some minor, unintentional breach of the complicated CAN-SPAM Act. Putting justice in the hands of the people like this could lead to an error of internet vigilantism.
*** [http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?CategoryID=3&ArticleID=7616 Spam Bounties]
*** [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Combat Spammers]

* The "Goodmail" approach
** With the “Goodmail” approach ISPs would sell an electronic postage stamp to companies wishing to send out bulk e-mails to their customers. This stamp guarantees companies that their e-mail will bypass all of an e-mail’s spam filters and go straight to the main mailbox as a certified message that is legitimate and safe for the reader to open. This would help people distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent e-mail by guaranteeing who the e-mail is from and that it is not a scam or virus. Also it would reduce spam by forcing companies to only contact customers likely to respond to a message in order to keep the cost of mass e-mailing down. “Goodmail” makes it unprofitable for spammers to send out bulk e-mail to which few people respond.
** While “Goodmail” is intended to reduce bulk e-mail and provide security from phishing and scams many people feel it is just a new revenue source for ISPs and not a valid way of fighting spam. It is possible that too many marketers will be willing to pay to have their e-mails certified, resulting in large numbers of advertisements guaranteed to bypass your spam filters and go straight to your inbox. “Goodmail” is unfair to small business and non-profit organizations who can’t afford to pay for their bulk e-mails. Also “Goodmail” could cause users to view all e-mail that is not certified as unsafe. This could cause users to skip over requested e-mails because they are not certified.
*** [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124762-page,1/article.html Spam Slayer]
*** [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=6efb03c8cbfac79e&ex=1296795600 Postage is Due for Companies Sending E-mail]

* Bonds with escrow agencies
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy#Email_spam Wiki article about bonds and escrow spam techniques] By adopting this approach, an 'Attention Economy' would be created, which is to say that through a user's own reports, the validity of an email or sender can be determined. The sender would be required to place a bond with an escrow agency, which the recipient could 'cash in' if the email was a waste of time. This would alert any authority to the potential spam, and appropriate action could be taken. Also, it would add more obstacles to the senders of spam.

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 1

2007-07-07T15:26:18Z

Slricks:

Techniques against spam

* Block domains or possibly top-level domans "known" to be large senders of spam.

** [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/07/2316225&from=rss Slashdot discussion of top-level domain] Although the link is a public forum, the readers and participants of slashdot tend to be those more familiar with computer systems. As such, many interesting perspectives are voiced, from email server administrators to the "power user." The discussion in this particular slashdot article does not resolve the issue at hand, it does however provide a better understanding of the current situation regarding spam.

** [http://www.gabacho-net.jp/en/anti-spam/anti-spam-system.html The Selective SMTP Rejection (S25R) System] This study provides an overview of spam countermeasures currently used and their success rates. The author then presents his methodology of countermeasure using a system of filters based on regular expression and Postfix to a claimed "99% Block Rate" of spam. Under the S25R System, he claims one could filter something as specific as a single reverse lookup or IP address to something as broad as a top-level domain. It could be argued that this is not so much a "system" as it is more of a "HowTo" implementing regular expression (like Perl) with Postfix to filter out spam.

** [http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/MF014.html HowTo: Block Incoming Mail Using MS Exchange 2000] This HowTo shows how to use the built-in filters of Microsoft Exchange 2000 to block unwanted senders. Senders can be blocked on a single basis or with the use of wild cards, block domains.

* Require users to request permission to send you e-mail (i.e. Earthlink spam blocker)

* Charge for e-mail sent
** It is believed that charging people for every e-mail sent would virtually eliminate spam all together. E-mail would become much like the postal service in which a fee is charge for every message sent, like a stamp. The idea being that bulk e-mails would be no more economical than direct mail and would eliminate e-mail as a free form of advertising. Charging to send messages makes the costs far too high for spammers to make any profit. Many people feel however that this goes against the libertarian ideas and freedom the internet was based on. Ultimately it could be a burden to ordinary citizens and companies who rely on e-mail in every day life.
*** [http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/0,1000002138,39145632,00.htm Is it Time to Charge for E-mail?]

* Opt-in commercial e-mail

** [http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm FTC's CAN-SPAM Act] The Federal Trade Commission's page providing information on the CAN-SPAM Act for businesses. Provides an overview of the existing laws and penalties regarding spam and commercial emailers. Although the site is a federal site, the specifics are lacking. Specifically, under the "What the Law Requires," the statements are very open-ended that leaves many interpretations. For instance, "It prohibits deceptive subject lines," is very open-ended. How does one go about determining what is deceptive? What sort of metric is used? Additionally, the law specifies the use of Opt-out, but the specifics are again very open-ended. Under the "Penalties" section, it is again very vague. For example, "Relay emails through a computer or network without permission..," is somewhat too broad. How would one go about proving that someone intended to relay emails when he/she could easily say a multitude of excuses (such as "A virus used my computer as a relay," which has been known to happen before).

** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing Wikipedia on E-mail Marketing] Provides an overview of E-mail marketing. What the advantages and disadvantages of email marketing. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 that authorizes a $11,000 penalty for each spam violation to each spam recipient. To help with compliance, several third-party companies are available to help with email marketing compliance. Wiki also provides an overview of Opt-in advertising. For those interested in knowing some of the spam jargon, the Wiki does provide a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing#Terms glossary of terms].

** [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html The European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email] The EuroCAUCE is a group of users (ranging from end-users to corporations) trying to find a solution to the spam problem. Their solution is for an Opt-in list. They provide the risks/benefit discussion of Opt-In vs Opt-Out. Additionally, their is [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/links.html link to resources] that may be helpful to those who are tired of spam.

* Domain authentication
** [http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/12/05/spam.yahoo.reut/index.html New Authentication System to Block Spam] Yahoo! has been privately developing a new authentication system to protect email users from spam. By verifying the validity of the sender, the end email recipient can be reassured that the sender is who they say they are. The Yahoo! system uses public/private key encryption, in which an email message would be encoded with a private key that could be checked against the publuc key registered from the domain name of the server that the email claims to be from. If it matches, then all is well, if it fails, then the email is bounced and reported.
** [http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39228023,00.htm Domain Authentication Method Comes Up Short] Sender Policy Framework, or SPF was implemented as a way to ensure that the return addresses in your email inbox are in fact who they say they are. The principle behind SPF is that DNS records are used to say which machines can transmit email, theoretically eliminating 'spoof' emails(emails that purport to come from one source, but are actually from another). However, it has now been discovered that with a few lines of malicious code and a hacked machine, SPF can be exploited.

* Bounties
** The Federal Trade Commission has recently proposed offering a cash bounty to any citizen who helps to arrest spammers. Under the proposal the first citizen to come forward with information leading to the arrest of a spammer will receive no less than 20% of the civil penalty the FTC would eventually collect from spammers arrested due to that information. The idea is that it would be more effective if the average citizen spent the same amount of time searching for and reporting spammers as they did preventing and deleting the spam messages themselves. This would stop the problem at the root.
** The main problem with this idea is if the FTC, FBI, and ISPs can’t find and prosecute spammers how are ordinary citizens supposed to do any better. Ordinary citizens are very unlikely to catch spammers. Rather than prosecuting spammers who abuse the internet it is believed so called “bounty hunters” are more likely to attack legitimate companies guilty of some minor, unintentional breach of the complicated CAN-SPAM Act. Putting justice in the hands of the people like this could lead to an error of internet vigilantism.
*** [http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?CategoryID=3&ArticleID=7616 Spam Bounties]
*** [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Combat Spammers]

* The "Goodmail" approach
** With the “Goodmail” approach ISPs would sell an electronic postage stamp to companies wishing to send out bulk e-mails to their customers. This stamp guarantees companies that their e-mail will bypass all of an e-mail’s spam filters and go straight to the main mailbox as a certified message that is legitimate and safe for the reader to open. This would help people distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent e-mail by guaranteeing who the e-mail is from and that it is not a scam or virus. Also it would reduce spam by forcing companies to only contact customers likely to respond to a message in order to keep the cost of mass e-mailing down. “Goodmail” makes it unprofitable for spammers to send out bulk e-mail to which few people respond.
** While “Goodmail” is intended to reduce bulk e-mail and provide security from phishing and scams many people feel it is just a new revenue source for ISPs and not a valid way of fighting spam. It is possible that too many marketers will be willing to pay to have their e-mails certified, resulting in large numbers of advertisements guaranteed to bypass your spam filters and go straight to your inbox. “Goodmail” is unfair to small business and non-profit organizations who can’t afford to pay for their bulk e-mails. Also “Goodmail” could cause users to view all e-mail that is not certified as unsafe. This could cause users to skip over requested e-mails because they are not certified.
*** [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124762-page,1/article.html Spam Slayer]
*** [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=6efb03c8cbfac79e&ex=1296795600 Postage is Due for Companies Sending E-mail]

* Bonds with escrow agencies
**[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attention_economy#Email_spam Wiki article about bonds and escrow spam techniques] By adopting this approach, an 'Attention Economy' would be created, which is to say that through a user's own reports, the validity of an email or sender can be determined. The sender would be required to place a bond with an escrow agency, which the recipient could 'cash in' if the email was a waste of time. This would alert any authority to the potential spam, and appropriate action could be taken. Also, it would add more obstacles to the senders of spam.

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 1

2007-07-07T15:06:50Z

Slricks:

Techniques against spam

* Block domains or possibly top-level domans "known" to be large senders of spam.

** [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/07/2316225&from=rss Slashdot discussion of top-level domain] Although the link is a public forum, the readers and participants of slashdot tend to be those more familiar with computer systems. As such, many interesting perspectives are voiced, from email server administrators to the "power user." The discussion in this particular slashdot article does not resolve the issue at hand, it does however provide a better understanding of the current situation regarding spam.

** [http://www.gabacho-net.jp/en/anti-spam/anti-spam-system.html The Selective SMTP Rejection (S25R) System] This study provides an overview of spam countermeasures currently used and their success rates. The author then presents his methodology of countermeasure using a system of filters based on regular expression and Postfix to a claimed "99% Block Rate" of spam. Under the S25R System, he claims one could filter something as specific as a single reverse lookup or IP address to something as broad as a top-level domain. It could be argued that this is not so much a "system" as it is more of a "HowTo" implementing regular expression (like Perl) with Postfix to filter out spam.

** [http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/MF014.html HowTo: Block Incoming Mail Using MS Exchange 2000] This HowTo shows how to use the built-in filters of Microsoft Exchange 2000 to block unwanted senders. Senders can be blocked on a single basis or with the use of wild cards, block domains.

* Require users to request permission to send you e-mail (i.e. Earthlink spam blocker)

* Charge for e-mail sent
** It is believed that charging people for every e-mail sent would virtually eliminate spam all together. E-mail would become much like the postal service in which a fee is charge for every message sent, like a stamp. The idea being that bulk e-mails would be no more economical than direct mail and would eliminate e-mail as a free form of advertising. Charging to send messages makes the costs far too high for spammers to make any profit. Many people feel however that this goes against the libertarian ideas and freedom the internet was based on. Ultimately it could be a burden to ordinary citizens and companies who rely on e-mail in every day life.
*** [http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/0,1000002138,39145632,00.htm Is it Time to Charge for E-mail?]

* Opt-in commercial e-mail

** [http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm FTC's CAN-SPAM Act] The Federal Trade Commission's page providing information on the CAN-SPAM Act for businesses. Provides an overview of the existing laws and penalties regarding spam and commercial emailers. Although the site is a federal site, the specifics are lacking. Specifically, under the "What the Law Requires," the statements are very open-ended that leaves many interpretations. For instance, "It prohibits deceptive subject lines," is very open-ended. How does one go about determining what is deceptive? What sort of metric is used? Additionally, the law specifies the use of Opt-out, but the specifics are again very open-ended. Under the "Penalties" section, it is again very vague. For example, "Relay emails through a computer or network without permission..," is somewhat too broad. How would one go about proving that someone intended to relay emails when he/she could easily say a multitude of excuses (such as "A virus used my computer as a relay," which has been known to happen before).

** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing Wikipedia on E-mail Marketing] Provides an overview of E-mail marketing. What the advantages and disadvantages of email marketing. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 that authorizes a $11,000 penalty for each spam violation to each spam recipient. To help with compliance, several third-party companies are available to help with email marketing compliance. Wiki also provides an overview of Opt-in advertising. For those interested in knowing some of the spam jargon, the Wiki does provide a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing#Terms glossary of terms].

** [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html The European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email] The EuroCAUCE is a group of users (ranging from end-users to corporations) trying to find a solution to the spam problem. Their solution is for an Opt-in list. They provide the risks/benefit discussion of Opt-In vs Opt-Out. Additionally, their is [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/links.html link to resources] that may be helpful to those who are tired of spam.

* Domain authentication
** [http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/12/05/spam.yahoo.reut/index.html New Authentication System to Block Spam] Yahoo! has been privately developing a new authentication system to protect email users from spam. By verifying the validity of the sender, the end email recipient can be reassured that the sender is who they say they are. The Yahoo! system uses public/private key encryption, in which an email message would be encoded with a private key that could be checked against the publuc key registered from the domain name of the server that the email claims to be from. If it matches, then all is well, if it fails, then the email is bounced and reported.
** [http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39228023,00.htm Domain Authentication Method Comes Up Short] Sender Policy Framework, or SPF was implemented as a way to ensure that the return addresses in your email inbox are in fact who they say they are. The principle behind SPF is that DNS records are used to say which machines can transmit email, theoretically eliminating 'spoof' emails(emails that purport to come from one source, but are actually from another). However, it has now been discovered that with a few lines of malicious code and a hacked machine, SPF can be exploited.

* Bounties
** The Federal Trade Commission has recently proposed offering a cash bounty to any citizen who helps to arrest spammers. Under the proposal the first citizen to come forward with information leading to the arrest of a spammer will receive no less than 20% of the civil penalty the FTC would eventually collect from spammers arrested due to that information. The idea is that it would be more effective if the average citizen spent the same amount of time searching for and reporting spammers as they did preventing and deleting the spam messages themselves. This would stop the problem at the root.
** The main problem with this idea is if the FTC, FBI, and ISPs can’t find and prosecute spammers how are ordinary citizens supposed to do any better. Ordinary citizens are very unlikely to catch spammers. Rather than prosecuting spammers who abuse the internet it is believed so called “bounty hunters” are more likely to attack legitimate companies guilty of some minor, unintentional breach of the complicated CAN-SPAM Act. Putting justice in the hands of the people like this could lead to an error of internet vigilantism.
*** [http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?CategoryID=3&ArticleID=7616 Spam Bounties]
*** [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Combat Spammers]

* The "Goodmail" approach
** With the “Goodmail” approach ISPs would sell an electronic postage stamp to companies wishing to send out bulk e-mails to their customers. This stamp guarantees companies that their e-mail will bypass all of an e-mail’s spam filters and go straight to the main mailbox as a certified message that is legitimate and safe for the reader to open. This would help people distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent e-mail by guaranteeing who the e-mail is from and that it is not a scam or virus. Also it would reduce spam by forcing companies to only contact customers likely to respond to a message in order to keep the cost of mass e-mailing down. “Goodmail” makes it unprofitable for spammers to send out bulk e-mail to which few people respond.
** While “Goodmail” is intended to reduce bulk e-mail and provide security from phishing and scams many people feel it is just a new revenue source for ISPs and not a valid way of fighting spam. It is possible that too many marketers will be willing to pay to have their e-mails certified, resulting in large numbers of advertisements guaranteed to bypass your spam filters and go straight to your inbox. “Goodmail” is unfair to small business and non-profit organizations who can’t afford to pay for their bulk e-mails. Also “Goodmail” could cause users to view all e-mail that is not certified as unsafe. This could cause users to skip over requested e-mails because they are not certified.
*** [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124762-page,1/article.html Spam Slayer]
*** [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=6efb03c8cbfac79e&ex=1296795600 Postage is Due for Companies Sending E-mail]

* Bonds with escrow agencies

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 1

2007-07-07T14:59:23Z

Slricks:

Techniques against spam

* Block domains or possibly top-level domans "known" to be large senders of spam.

** [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/07/2316225&from=rss Slashdot discussion of top-level domain] Although the link is a public forum, the readers and participants of slashdot tend to be those more familiar with computer systems. As such, many interesting perspectives are voiced, from email server administrators to the "power user." The discussion in this particular slashdot article does not resolve the issue at hand, it does however provide a better understanding of the current situation regarding spam.

** [http://www.gabacho-net.jp/en/anti-spam/anti-spam-system.html The Selective SMTP Rejection (S25R) System] This study provides an overview of spam countermeasures currently used and their success rates. The author then presents his methodology of countermeasure using a system of filters based on regular expression and Postfix to a claimed "99% Block Rate" of spam. Under the S25R System, he claims one could filter something as specific as a single reverse lookup or IP address to something as broad as a top-level domain. It could be argued that this is not so much a "system" as it is more of a "HowTo" implementing regular expression (like Perl) with Postfix to filter out spam.

** [http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/MF014.html HowTo: Block Incoming Mail Using MS Exchange 2000] This HowTo shows how to use the built-in filters of Microsoft Exchange 2000 to block unwanted senders. Senders can be blocked on a single basis or with the use of wild cards, block domains.

* Require users to request permission to send you e-mail (i.e. Earthlink spam blocker)

* Charge for e-mail sent
** It is believed that charging people for every e-mail sent would virtually eliminate spam all together. E-mail would become much like the postal service in which a fee is charge for every message sent, like a stamp. The idea being that bulk e-mails would be no more economical than direct mail and would eliminate e-mail as a free form of advertising. Charging to send messages makes the costs far too high for spammers to make any profit. Many people feel however that this goes against the libertarian ideas and freedom the internet was based on. Ultimately it could be a burden to ordinary citizens and companies who rely on e-mail in every day life.
*** [http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/0,1000002138,39145632,00.htm Is it Time to Charge for E-mail?]

* Opt-in commercial e-mail

** [http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm FTC's CAN-SPAM Act] The Federal Trade Commission's page providing information on the CAN-SPAM Act for businesses. Provides an overview of the existing laws and penalties regarding spam and commercial emailers. Although the site is a federal site, the specifics are lacking. Specifically, under the "What the Law Requires," the statements are very open-ended that leaves many interpretations. For instance, "It prohibits deceptive subject lines," is very open-ended. How does one go about determining what is deceptive? What sort of metric is used? Additionally, the law specifies the use of Opt-out, but the specifics are again very open-ended. Under the "Penalties" section, it is again very vague. For example, "Relay emails through a computer or network without permission..," is somewhat too broad. How would one go about proving that someone intended to relay emails when he/she could easily say a multitude of excuses (such as "A virus used my computer as a relay," which has been known to happen before).

** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing Wikipedia on E-mail Marketing] Provides an overview of E-mail marketing. What the advantages and disadvantages of email marketing. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 that authorizes a $11,000 penalty for each spam violation to each spam recipient. To help with compliance, several third-party companies are available to help with email marketing compliance. Wiki also provides an overview of Opt-in advertising. For those interested in knowing some of the spam jargon, the Wiki does provide a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing#Terms glossary of terms].

** [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html The European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email] The EuroCAUCE is a group of users (ranging from end-users to corporations) trying to find a solution to the spam problem. Their solution is for an Opt-in list. They provide the risks/benefit discussion of Opt-In vs Opt-Out. Additionally, their is [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/links.html link to resources] that may be helpful to those who are tired of spam.

* Domain authentication
** [http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/12/05/spam.yahoo.reut/index.html New Authentication System to Block Spam] Yahoo! has been privately developing a new authentication system to protect email users from spam. By verifying the validity of the sender, the end email recipient can be reassured that the sender is who they say they are. The Yahoo! system uses public/private key encryption, in which an email message would be encoded with a private key that could be checked against the publuc key registered from the domain name of the server that the email claims to be from. If it matches, then all is well, if it fails, then the email is bounced and reported.
** [http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39228023,00.htm Article2_rename_and_comment_me_please]

* Bounties
** The Federal Trade Commission has recently proposed offering a cash bounty to any citizen who helps to arrest spammers. Under the proposal the first citizen to come forward with information leading to the arrest of a spammer will receive no less than 20% of the civil penalty the FTC would eventually collect from spammers arrested due to that information. The idea is that it would be more effective if the average citizen spent the same amount of time searching for and reporting spammers as they did preventing and deleting the spam messages themselves. This would stop the problem at the root.
** The main problem with this idea is if the FTC, FBI, and ISPs can’t find and prosecute spammers how are ordinary citizens supposed to do any better. Ordinary citizens are very unlikely to catch spammers. Rather than prosecuting spammers who abuse the internet it is believed so called “bounty hunters” are more likely to attack legitimate companies guilty of some minor, unintentional breach of the complicated CAN-SPAM Act. Putting justice in the hands of the people like this could lead to an error of internet vigilantism.
*** [http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?CategoryID=3&ArticleID=7616 Spam Bounties]
*** [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Combat Spammers]

* The "Goodmail" approach
** With the “Goodmail” approach ISPs would sell an electronic postage stamp to companies wishing to send out bulk e-mails to their customers. This stamp guarantees companies that their e-mail will bypass all of an e-mail’s spam filters and go straight to the main mailbox as a certified message that is legitimate and safe for the reader to open. This would help people distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent e-mail by guaranteeing who the e-mail is from and that it is not a scam or virus. Also it would reduce spam by forcing companies to only contact customers likely to respond to a message in order to keep the cost of mass e-mailing down. “Goodmail” makes it unprofitable for spammers to send out bulk e-mail to which few people respond.
** While “Goodmail” is intended to reduce bulk e-mail and provide security from phishing and scams many people feel it is just a new revenue source for ISPs and not a valid way of fighting spam. It is possible that too many marketers will be willing to pay to have their e-mails certified, resulting in large numbers of advertisements guaranteed to bypass your spam filters and go straight to your inbox. “Goodmail” is unfair to small business and non-profit organizations who can’t afford to pay for their bulk e-mails. Also “Goodmail” could cause users to view all e-mail that is not certified as unsafe. This could cause users to skip over requested e-mails because they are not certified.
*** [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124762-page,1/article.html Spam Slayer]
*** [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=6efb03c8cbfac79e&ex=1296795600 Postage is Due for Companies Sending E-mail]

* Bonds with escrow agencies

CSC 379:Week 1, Group 1

2007-07-07T14:51:12Z

Slricks:

Techniques against spam

* Block domains or possibly top-level domans "known" to be large senders of spam.

** [http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/07/2316225&from=rss Slashdot discussion of top-level domain] Although the link is a public forum, the readers and participants of slashdot tend to be those more familiar with computer systems. As such, many interesting perspectives are voiced, from email server administrators to the "power user." The discussion in this particular slashdot article does not resolve the issue at hand, it does however provide a better understanding of the current situation regarding spam.

** [http://www.gabacho-net.jp/en/anti-spam/anti-spam-system.html The Selective SMTP Rejection (S25R) System] This study provides an overview of spam countermeasures currently used and their success rates. The author then presents his methodology of countermeasure using a system of filters based on regular expression and Postfix to a claimed "99% Block Rate" of spam. Under the S25R System, he claims one could filter something as specific as a single reverse lookup or IP address to something as broad as a top-level domain. It could be argued that this is not so much a "system" as it is more of a "HowTo" implementing regular expression (like Perl) with Postfix to filter out spam.

** [http://www.msexchange.org/tutorials/MF014.html HowTo: Block Incoming Mail Using MS Exchange 2000] This HowTo shows how to use the built-in filters of Microsoft Exchange 2000 to block unwanted senders. Senders can be blocked on a single basis or with the use of wild cards, block domains.

* Require users to request permission to send you e-mail (i.e. Earthlink spam blocker)

* Charge for e-mail sent
** It is believed that charging people for every e-mail sent would virtually eliminate spam all together. E-mail would become much like the postal service in which a fee is charge for every message sent, like a stamp. The idea being that bulk e-mails would be no more economical than direct mail and would eliminate e-mail as a free form of advertising. Charging to send messages makes the costs far too high for spammers to make any profit. Many people feel however that this goes against the libertarian ideas and freedom the internet was based on. Ultimately it could be a burden to ordinary citizens and companies who rely on e-mail in every day life.
*** [http://opinion.zdnet.co.uk/comment/0,1000002138,39145632,00.htm Is it Time to Charge for E-mail?]

* Opt-in commercial e-mail

** [http://www.ftc.gov/bcp/conline/pubs/buspubs/canspam.shtm FTC's CAN-SPAM Act] The Federal Trade Commission's page providing information on the CAN-SPAM Act for businesses. Provides an overview of the existing laws and penalties regarding spam and commercial emailers. Although the site is a federal site, the specifics are lacking. Specifically, under the "What the Law Requires," the statements are very open-ended that leaves many interpretations. For instance, "It prohibits deceptive subject lines," is very open-ended. How does one go about determining what is deceptive? What sort of metric is used? Additionally, the law specifies the use of Opt-out, but the specifics are again very open-ended. Under the "Penalties" section, it is again very vague. For example, "Relay emails through a computer or network without permission..," is somewhat too broad. How would one go about proving that someone intended to relay emails when he/she could easily say a multitude of excuses (such as "A virus used my computer as a relay," which has been known to happen before).

** [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing Wikipedia on E-mail Marketing] Provides an overview of E-mail marketing. What the advantages and disadvantages of email marketing. The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 that authorizes a $11,000 penalty for each spam violation to each spam recipient. To help with compliance, several third-party companies are available to help with email marketing compliance. Wiki also provides an overview of Opt-in advertising. For those interested in knowing some of the spam jargon, the Wiki does provide a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Email_marketing#Terms glossary of terms].

** [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/index.html The European Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email] The EuroCAUCE is a group of users (ranging from end-users to corporations) trying to find a solution to the spam problem. Their solution is for an Opt-in list. They provide the risks/benefit discussion of Opt-In vs Opt-Out. Additionally, their is [http://www.euro.cauce.org/en/links.html link to resources] that may be helpful to those who are tired of spam.

* Domain authentication
** [http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/12/05/spam.yahoo.reut/index.html Article1_rename_and_comment_me_please]
** [http://news.zdnet.co.uk/security/0,1000000189,39228023,00.htm Article2_rename_and_comment_me_please]

* Bounties
** The Federal Trade Commission has recently proposed offering a cash bounty to any citizen who helps to arrest spammers. Under the proposal the first citizen to come forward with information leading to the arrest of a spammer will receive no less than 20% of the civil penalty the FTC would eventually collect from spammers arrested due to that information. The idea is that it would be more effective if the average citizen spent the same amount of time searching for and reporting spammers as they did preventing and deleting the spam messages themselves. This would stop the problem at the root.
** The main problem with this idea is if the FTC, FBI, and ISPs can’t find and prosecute spammers how are ordinary citizens supposed to do any better. Ordinary citizens are very unlikely to catch spammers. Rather than prosecuting spammers who abuse the internet it is believed so called “bounty hunters” are more likely to attack legitimate companies guilty of some minor, unintentional breach of the complicated CAN-SPAM Act. Putting justice in the hands of the people like this could lead to an error of internet vigilantism.
*** [http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/ArticleReader.aspx?CategoryID=3&ArticleID=7616 Spam Bounties]
*** [http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5326107/%20 FTC Mulls Bounty System to Combat Spammers]

* The "Goodmail" approach
** With the “Goodmail” approach ISPs would sell an electronic postage stamp to companies wishing to send out bulk e-mails to their customers. This stamp guarantees companies that their e-mail will bypass all of an e-mail’s spam filters and go straight to the main mailbox as a certified message that is legitimate and safe for the reader to open. This would help people distinguish between legitimate and fraudulent e-mail by guaranteeing who the e-mail is from and that it is not a scam or virus. Also it would reduce spam by forcing companies to only contact customers likely to respond to a message in order to keep the cost of mass e-mailing down. “Goodmail” makes it unprofitable for spammers to send out bulk e-mail to which few people respond.
** While “Goodmail” is intended to reduce bulk e-mail and provide security from phishing and scams many people feel it is just a new revenue source for ISPs and not a valid way of fighting spam. It is possible that too many marketers will be willing to pay to have their e-mails certified, resulting in large numbers of advertisements guaranteed to bypass your spam filters and go straight to your inbox. “Goodmail” is unfair to small business and non-profit organizations who can’t afford to pay for their bulk e-mails. Also “Goodmail” could cause users to view all e-mail that is not certified as unsafe. This could cause users to skip over requested e-mails because they are not certified.
*** [http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,124762-page,1/article.html Spam Slayer]
*** [http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/05/technology/05AOL.html?pagewanted=1&ei=5090&en=6efb03c8cbfac79e&ex=1296795600 Postage is Due for Companies Sending E-mail]

* Bonds with escrow agencies