An actuarial solution to spam?

[Cho Da]

Apply your actuarial/statistical skills to ridding you life of spam!!!

See: http://www.paulgraham.com/spam.html

[DW Simpson]

http://www.internetnews.com/commentary/article.php/3648946

[Brad Gile]

http://www.internetnews.com/commentary/article.php/3648946


Ending the Scourge of Spam
A big part of the spam problem is the fact that the United States, unlike jurisdictions such as the European Union and Australia, has not made spamming a serious crime. The so-called Can-Spam Act, passed by Congress in 2003, actually makes sending spam perfectly legal, as long as it bears some street address and links to an unsubscribe process (which is bogus, in the case of most spam).




You would think that this would have been considered obvious years ago, but you would have been wrong. Just proves how much clout the cyber criminals have in the US. I think these guys should get significant prison terms. Never happen here, though.


Brad

[Incredible Hulctuary]

You would think that this would have been considered obvious years ago, but you would have been wrong. Just proves how much clout the cyber criminals have in the US. I think these guys should get significant prison terms. Never happen here, though.Spamming is a profitable business, and corporations have increasingly been able to buy laws or have laws altered to reduce the impact on their business.

[Pseudolus]

How much of what most people would consider "spam" is sent out by corporations large enough to make significant political donations? I'm thinking pretty close to none.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

How much of what most people would consider "spam" is sent out by corporations large enough to make significant political donations? I'm thinking pretty close to none.Individually, not much. But gathered collectively under the DMA (Direct Marketing Association), they are a major campaign contributor to the Republicans.

[ultrafilter]

Bayesian spam filters have been around long enough that if your email provider has spam filtering, they're probably using a Bayesian technique. It works pretty well for most of us, but it really doesn't do anything to cut down the amount of bandwidth that spam consumes, which is the real problem.

Even if the US or Europe does pass an effective law preventing spam, it's no trouble for the spammers to relocate to other countries where law enforcement is either corrupt or distracted by bigger problems. Enforcing a US law against somebody with a computer and an internet connection somewhere in Central America or Africa is not a simple thing.

[Incredible Hulctuary]

Even if the US or Europe does pass an effective law preventing spam, it's no trouble for the spammers to relocate to other countries where law enforcement is either corrupt or distracted by bigger problems. Enforcing a US law against somebody with a computer and an internet connection somewhere in Central America or Africa is not a simple thing.Spam will never be eliminated 100%. But strong laws against it in the US could significantly reduce the amount of spam by increasing the hassle and expense associated with spamming.

If forced to do it from far-flung countries with unreliable electricity and expensive bandwidth, and to incorporate in those countries rather than in the US, many if not most of them would find it no longer profitable to be in the spamming business.

Unlike virus makers, almost all spammers do it for profit, not for fun. Cut into their profits and some will go out of business.