...Or is this guy talking out of his 90 year old asshole
----
http://www.siliconvalley.com/mld/sil...ey/5722718.htm
----
New weapon for spam: bounty
By Michael Bazeley
Mercury News
Spammers beware. Larry Lessig wants to put a price on your head.
The Stanford law professor will team with Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose, on Monday to unveil a bill that would require unsolicited commercial e-mails to be identified as advertising -- and then put a bounty on anyone who breaks that law.
If the law passes, citizens could be eligible for rewards of thousands of dollars or more if they're the first to provide the government with proof and the identity of offending spammers.
``It's like bounty hunters in the old West,'' said Lessig, who most recently argued a landmark copyright protection case before the U.S. Supreme Court. ``You bring 'em in and get the bounty.''
Lessig is so sold on his idea, he's offering a guarantee: He'll quit his Stanford job if the bill becomes law and ``does not substantially reduce the level of spam.''
Lessig's idea is only the latest in a long list of efforts to combat what has become the scourge of the Information Age.
Despite myriad technological and legal efforts to curb spam, Internet users are getting more unsolicited e-mail come-ons than ever, accounting for about 40 percent of all e-mail traffic.
Lessig said his idea, which he first proposed more than two years ago, is better than many of the technological ploys used to combat spam, such as blacklisting e-mail servers allegedly used to send spam.
The first piece of his plan, labeling, is a common approach to the problem. Any unsolicited commercial e-mail would have to include the tag ``ADV'' in the subject line, clearly identifying it as an advertisement. The label would allow Internet service providers or individual users to filter out -- or filter in -- messages before viewing them.
In the past, labeling efforts haven't worked.
California passed a law in 1998 that required senders of unsolicited e-mail advertisements to add ``ADV:'' or ``ADV:ADLT'' to the subject lines of their messages. Violators are guilty of a misdemeanor and subject to a $500 fine.
Since then, almost no one has been prosecuted under the law, chiefly due to a lack of consumer complaints and the difficulty in tracking down the spammers.
``Just labeling alone has been demonstrated not to be effective,'' said Ray Everett-Church, chief privacy officer of the ePrivacy Group in Philadelphia. ``There are many spammers ignoring it.''
That's why, Lessig and Lofgren said, lawmakers need to back up the labeling requirement with strong enforcement. Despite its best efforts, the government doesn't have the resources to hunt down and prosecute every illicit spammer. Hence, the citizen spam cop, motivated by a reward.
``This gives a tool for people to fight back,'' Lofgren said. ``And it gives a disincentive to spammers to continue.''
Lessig predicted that plenty of ``technically qualified and eager people'' -- college students, perhaps -- would jump at the chance to track down spammers for the right price.
The bounty hunters would need to trace the offending e-mail to its source, identify the sender and provide proof to the Federal Trade Commission. The FTC would investigate and fine the offender, if appropriate. The bounty hunter would get 20 percent of the fine.
``You have to be a little private investigator,'' Lessig said.
Lofgren's bill, which will be introduced next week, would also require commercial e-mails to include a way for recipients to opt out of future mailings. Companies or individuals that send e-mail to people who opted out would face penalties.
It will have competition in Congress. Another bill would outlaw e-mails that have deceptive subject lines and hide the senders' identity. California lawmakers, meanwhile, are considering a bill that would allow Internet users to sue e-mail marketing firms for $500 for each piece of unsolicited advertising.