CAUCE's own Ray Everett-Church writes:

It may be a truism that “little things mean a lot,” but in the world of spam, flipping a single switch can have huge consequences that span the globe.

We saw that concept reinforced this past week when McColo Corp., an Internet hosting firm based in San Jose, Calif., had its Internet connection shut off by its upstream connectivity providers on suspicion that McColo was serving as a command and control center for various spamming “bot net” operations as well as a base of operations for various other unsavory activities.

Of course everyone, even McColo, is innocent until proven guilty. But in the days following the disconnection, global spam volumes have reportedly dropped by nearly two-thirds. I suppose it could be a coincidence...

Read the rest here.

This week, the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) published a number of what they call "RFCs," which originally meant "Requests for Comment" -- the standards documents which specify the technical underpinnings of the internet. Two of these, numbered 5321 and 5322, replace earlier documents defining the very core of internet email. On the surface, each of these seem surprisingly simple; one aims "...to transfer mail reliably and efficiently," while the other defines itself as "...a definition of what message content format is to be passed between systems." Yet without general industry-wide acceptance of (and compliance with) these standards, internet email simply would not exist.

This week also marks ten years since the death of Jon Postel, who arguably had more influence over the creation of the internet than any other single person. One of Jon's most enduring recommendations is to "be conservative in what you send and liberal in what you receive," which Vint Cerf (who had only slightly less influence over the early internet), described as "...a reminder that in a multi-stakeholder world, accommodation and understanding can go a long way towards reaching consensus or, failing that, at least toleration of choices that might not be at the top of everyone's list."

This philosophy is the root of all email, from the earliest standards discussions to the latest theories of authentication, reputation, and deliverability.

Earlier today Neil Schwartzman, the CAUCE Executive Director, did a series of interviews for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation radio 'drive' shows. He focused on why Canada doesn't (yet) have anti-spam legislation, who is behind the spam we all receive, why and how laws will help, and how internet users can protect themselves. Here's a recording of one of the interviews, conducted by All Points West host Jo-Ann Roberts for the Victoria, British Columbia CBC Radio One station, reproduced with permission.

In an article published by the Technology Liberation Front, Cato Institute adjunct scholar Tim Lee dissects a recent argument by the American Civil Liberties Union regarding free speech & anti-spam laws.

It's been interesting to watch the ACLU wrestle with anti-spam legislation. Their entire purpose is to work through the legal system to protect our civil rights, as defined in the First Amendment -- which is why I've been a card-carrying member since before I was old enough to vote -- so of course they're going to push back against any perceived abridgment of the right to free speech, including anonymous speech. Yet as Tim Lee argues, the amount of speech afforded to spammers before they run afoul of the Virginia statue is enormous: "someone may (a) send out an unlimited number of emails using a real email address, (b) send out 9999 emails per day (99,999 per month, 999,999 per year) while falsifying email headers, or (c) send out an unlimited number of emails with falsified addresses to people who have previously consented to receive them."

In order to violate this Virginia statute, you have to be very bad. In order to violate CAN-SPAM & get even more federal attention, you have to be even worse. Anyone with a real need for free, anonymous speech will have a myriad of other, simpler, and very likely cheaper avenues available to them -- including, unfortunately, sending 9999 forged, unsolicited emails each & every day.

The Washington Post reports that the U.S. Senate has passed legislation that would allow law enforcement to go after a much larger percentage of modern online crime. Specifically, it will:

• remove the requirement that each affected individual must have suffered at least $5,000 in damages
  
• "make it a felony to install spyware or keystroke-monitoring programs on 10 or more computers regardless of the amount of damage caused"
  
• give identity theft victims the ability to seek restitution
  
• criminalize attempts to extort companies by threatening to publish stolen information
  

These provisions were added to an unrelated bill, the Former Vice President Protection Act, which must next be voted on by the House of Representatives before it becomes law.

CAUCE is very pleased that the Senate has taken this action to protect people living within the United States, and particularly support the provisions adding a private right of action against the criminals who prey upon all of us daily.