[brlug-general] Microsoft Admits to and Defends Political Censorship of Email.

[Tim Fournet]

Source: 
http://www.silicon.com/research/specialreports/thespamreport/0,39025001,39123943,00.htm

    One such controversial organisation which claims to be legitimately
    sending out election material is Truthout.org.

    In the past the company has fallen foul of SpamCop and Yahoo!'s
    blacklists but the site's owners have publicly defended a strategy
    that has even seen users outside the US receive political emails
    they claim not to have signed up for, leading many to label the
    organisation a spammer.

    In the past Truthout.org has put its blacklisting down to "an
    individual with a political axe to grind" and the flaws inherent in
    recipient-based spam rating. It has also threatened legal action
    against SpamCop.

    A number of online message boards contain complaints about the
    activities of Truthout.org. One recipient posting on Politechbot.org
    wrote: "Despite never signing up for Truthout's newsletter I get it
    regularly. I don't know how it happened and I'm certain no one I
    know would've had any reason to sign me up."

    Another poster on Insecure.org wrote: "I too was subscribed to
    Truthout without any notification and without my consent. I got
    myself unsubbed and have recently been re-subscribed also without
    consent."


This is my last posting on this issue. I rarely take Microsoft's side, 
but I still believe they are right in this case.

willhill wrote:
> According to TruthOut, a MSN Hotmail spokesman said the block of TruthOut's 
> News letters was due to "reputation" and that the block would not be undone, 
> regardless of their customers wishes.  This applies to all Microsoft owned 
> mail services.  
>
> http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091307Z.shtml
> http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/383247/aol_msn_hotmail_wont_deliver_truthoutorg.html
>
> Yesterday, I predicted they might spin this as a technical glitch.  Shame on 
> those of you who jumped on me with bogus technical excuses and smeared the 
> irrelevant political content of the victim.  Your belief in M$ ethics was  
> misguided.
>
> Microsoft may yet turn around this decision.  When caught doing something 
> illegal or unpopular, they usually blame a junior employee and repudiate 
> everything they have said before.  In this case, they can further slander 
> TruthOut for technical ignorance and all of the nasty things I was called 
> yesterday for simply pointing out the censorship.  
>
> Even if they do turn around, they have made their intentions and internal 
> ethics clear.  If this had been a mistake they would have worked with 
> representatives who called to find out what was wrong.  When people sign up 
> for a mail list, they should receive it.  Microsoft email services should be 
> avoided.
>
> Once again, the only real solution to problems like this is to allow people 
> the freedom to run their own mail servers.  Blocks should only be put in 
> place for violating published bandwith or message limits.  It goes without 
> saying that network neutrality must remain the law of the land and there 
> should be competition for internet service.
>
> Blocks would put an end to the spam problem, because people who run insecure 
> operating systems would have to pay for it directly.  We already bear that 
> cost as a society, but it's passed on in ways that people don't notice.
>
> _______________________________________________
> General mailing list
> General at brlug.net
> http://mail.brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net
>   

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mail.brlug.net/pipermail/general_brlug.net/attachments/20070921/e67212d5/attachment.html