Spam

With the advent of the electronic mail system in the 1970s, a new opportunity for direct marketing using unsolicited electronic mail became apparent. In 1978, Gary Thuerk compiled a list of those on the Arpanet and then sent out a huge mailing publicising Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC—now Compaq) systems. The reaction from the Defense Communications Agency (DCA), who ran Arpanet, was very negative, and it was this negative reaction that ensured that it was a long time before unsolicited e-mail was used again (Templeton, 2003). As long as the U.S. government controlled a major part of the backbone, most forms of commercial activity were forbidden (Hayes, 2003). However, in 1993, the Internet Network Information Center was privatized, and with no central government controls, spam, as it is now called, came into wider use. The term spam was taken from the Monty Python Flying Circus (a UK comedy group) and their comedy skit that featured the ironic spam song sung in praise of spam (luncheon meat)—“spam, spam, spam, lovely spam”—and it came to mean mail that was unsolicited. Conversely, the term ham came to mean e-mail that was wanted. Brad Templeton, a UseNet pioneer and chair of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has traced the first usage of the term spam back to MUDs (Multi User Dungeons), or real-time multi-person shared environment, and the MUD community. These groups introduced the term spam to the early chat rooms (Internet Relay Chats). The first major UseNet (the world’s largest online conferencing system) spam sent in January 1994 and was a religious posting: “Global alert for all: Jesus is coming soon.” The term spam was more broadly popularised in April 1994, when two lawyers, Canter and Siegel from Arizona, posted a message that advertized their information and legal services for immigrants applying for the U.S. Green Card scheme. The message was posted to every newsgroup on UseNet, and after this incident, the term spam became synonymous with junk or unsolicited e-mail. Spam spread quickly among the UseNet groups who were easy targets for spammers simply because the e-mail addresses of members were widely available (Templeton, 2003)

The Benefits and Costs of Online Privacy Legislation

Many people are concerned that information about their private life is more readily available and more easily captured on the Internet as compared to offline technologies. Specific concerns include unwanted email, credit card fraud, identity theft, and harassment. This paper analyzes key issues surrounding the protection of online privacy. It makes three important contributions: First, it provides the most comprehensive assessment to date of the estimated benefits and costs of regulating online privacy. Second, it provides the most comprehensive evaluation of legislation and legislative proposals in the U.S. aimed at protecting online privacy. Finally, it offers some policy prescriptions for the regulation of online privacy and suggests areas for future research. After analyzing the current debate on online privacy and assessing the potential costs and benefits of proposed regulations, our specific recommendations concerning the government's involvement in protecting online privacy include the following: The government should fund research that evaluates the effectiveness of existing privacy legislation before considering new regulations. The government should not generally regulate matters of privacy differently based on whether an issue arises online or offline. The government should not require a Web site to provide notification of its privacy policy because the vast majority of commercial U.S.-based Web sites already do so. The government should distinguish between how it regulates the use and dissemination of highly sensitive information, such as certain health records or Social Security numbers, versus more general information, such as consumer name and purchasing habits. The government should not require companies to provide consumers broad access to the personal information that is collected online for marketing purposes because the benefits do not appear to be significant and the costs could be quite high. The government should make it easier for the public to obtain information on online privacy and the tools available for consumers to protect their own privacy. The message of this paper is not that online privacy should be unregulated, but rather that policy makers should think through their options carefully, weighing the likely costs and benefits of each proposal.

Plugging the “Phishing” Hole: Legislation Versus Technology

This iBrief analyzes the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, legislation aimed at curbing the problem of phishing. Phishing is the sending of fraudulent emails which appear to be from legitimate businesses and thereby fooling the recipients into divulging personal information such as credit card numbers. While this legislation may provide some assistance in the fight against phishing, it is limited by the global nature of the Internet and the ease with which phishers can hide and avoid judgments. This iBrief therefore concludes that although the Anti-Phishing Act can play a supporting role in the battle, technological solutions are the most effective means of reducing or eliminating phishing attacks

Plugging the “Phishing” Hole: Legislation Versus Technology

This iBrief analyzes the Anti-Phishing Act of 2005, legislation aimed at curbing the problem of phishing. Phishing is the sending of fraudulent emails which appear to be from legitimate businesses and thereby fooling the recipients into divulging personal information such as credit card numbers. While this legislation may provide some assistance in the fight against phishing, it is limited by the global nature of the Internet and the ease with which phishers can hide and avoid judgments. This iBrief therefore concludes that although the Anti-Phishing Act can play a supporting role in the battle, technological solutions are the most effective means of reducing or eliminating phishing attacks

Deceptive Practices 2.0: Legal and Policy Responses

Reviews recent online misinformation campaigns and "cyberfraud" to suppress voting and skew elections, mainly in minority communities. Examines whether federal and state laws can sufficiently deter and punish perpetrators. Makes policy recommendations

Society-in-the-Loop: Programming the Algorithmic Social Contract

Recent rapid advances in Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning have raised many questions about the regulatory and governance mechanisms for autonomous machines. Many commentators, scholars, and policy-makers now call for ensuring that algorithms governing our lives are transparent, fair, and accountable. Here, I propose a conceptual framework for the regulation of AI and algorithmic systems. I argue that we need tools to program, debug and maintain an algorithmic social contract, a pact between various human stakeholders, mediated by machines. To achieve this, we can adapt the concept of human-in-the-loop (HITL) from the fields of modeling and simulation, and interactive machine learning. In particular, I propose an agenda I call society-in-the-loop (SITL), which combines the HITL control paradigm with mechanisms for negotiating the values of various stakeholders affected by AI systems, and monitoring compliance with the agreement. In short, `SITL = HITL + Social Contract.'Comment: (in press), Ethics of Information Technology, 201