Spam, Constitution And Forums Aka Random Ramblings Of A spammed Victim

May 11, 2006

Can we be protected from spam/spammers by the laws of the land? Or rather, is it ok constitutionally to get angry and feel frustrated when you get bombarded with spam? Does my anger violate the freedom of speech of another individual?

When I was a software engineer back home, I was troubled by incessant phone calls for a new credit card/or a new home. On one hand I was rejected by Citibank when I applied for one and on the other they would call my cell/mobile and my office line, during my working hours.

Once I was in an important meeting with my project manager, I got a call from one of those fine young women in HSBC asking me whether I needed a credit card. Under normal circumstances I would not have bothered to take the call, but since I was expecting an important call, I decided that the call should be attended to, only to find someone asking me to apply for a credit card. I knew at that particular point that I was having a bad day and after giving her an earful on privacy, I let her have it too.

After a few days the calls stopped because of this, but they resumed soon, because they found some new loopholes to get past the law.
Call it plagiarism, the Ancient Greeks wrote most of our constitution. Whether our founding fathers had a notion of freedom is a debatable issue. It is debatable albeit without a resolution and without much of pragmatic utility.

The Indian Constitution's Preamble is given in the next paragraph. I have highlighted those words which have been violated from virtually the first day. It is also of interest to note the word socialist in the first line of the preamble. I would say that this is a philosophical error, the same mistake that U.S.S.R made. Socialism is a philosophy in itself and so is any constitution. The preamble represents the metaphysics/axioms of the constitution and it is easy to run into inconsistencies if they themselves state an abstract and not well defined term such as socialism. In short this preamble needs another preamble which defines what they mean by socialism. All the other terms are pretty axiomatic and well defined. Contrast this with the US constitution. The word dignity is also of a questionable nature, in the sense it has to be objectively defined to avoid inconsistencies.

WE, THE PEOPLE OF INDIA, having solemnly resolved to constitute India into a SOVEREIGN SOCIALIST SECULAR DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC and to secure to all its citizens:
JUSTICE, social, economic and political;
LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship;
EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual and the unity and integrity of the Nation;

When I first saw the constitution I was really amused at the level at which the preamble was violated. The issue about socialism was pointed out by my Professor:- Prof.Bart Kosko, who is also a lawyer. It is interesting to note that socialism also prevents economic liberty. It also kills much of economic justice, by assuming the society to be primary over the individual. This assumption is what created the USSR and it is the same flawed assumption that made it go down the drain.

Arguing over something that is inherently prone to inconsistencies will never yield any constructive outcomes. Neverthless, let us try to analyse spam in a constitutional manner.

Does SPAM represent freedom of speech? Does it represent the exercizing the right of an individual to shout what he wants on any forum that he wants to shout on? Before we argue further, let us try to define the terms in the question.

Freedom of speech can be constructed in a consistent manner from our preamble combine Justice and Liberty:- translated into concrete terms it says:- I believe in what I believe and I dont get shot for saying it out.

All this breaks down on the Internet. In one case it destroys the boundaries set by nature and the society (like geographical distance, religion etc), on the other it also destroys the definition of an Individual. Viewed from that angle our constition would be erring in the FIRST word i.e. the word "WE". Who are we? How many identiies can an individual have? Does "WE" include all those identities? Does "WE" include the chat bots and the automatic bulk emailers?.

Our preamble assumes that "WE" are a set of individuals associated in the formation, and the running of a society called nation. "WE", our constitution assumes, are mature enough to understand what our constitution means.

In a press conference, you have to be really cranky to go and boo at someone like say, Deve Gowda. You know that consequences of such an event and you would not be doing it. Nor would you go and boo at a press conference of someone like Arundhati Roy or Medha Patkar. The main problem there is the individual identity, which gets exposed! It is a risky thing to do though our constitution protects us for the boo-ing.

Contrast the same with an hypothetical online press conference of Shri. Deve Gowda. There will be a few hundred people who would aggressively spam it, shouting Deve Gowda Murdabad, booing all over, with their thousand faced identities. That would be a sad sight to watch.

Therefore we have the wrong constitution for the internet. I support the notion that internet should remain free. I also subscribe to the notion that forums and groups that form within the free internet should have well defined constitution.

One can view this in an evolutionary form. Suppose we need a system to evolve. We would set some rules in the system, which are fundamentally held true all the times (for example "Survival of the fittest!" or "Adapt or Perish", "Do or die"). Then let the system free. There would be an infinite possibilities of the growth of the system, but we can approximately predict where it would evolve into. For example one can easily see that socialistic organization almost corrupt entirely in very less time.

What defines these fundamental rules, in the case of a society, is it's constitution. The Internet does not have one. So we don't think for a second before creating alternate identities, sending a scary email to a friend from a junk id, spamming, flooding forums with noise, noise to such an extent that some of the well meaning people leave the forum and hide.

A society without a constitution, or one that does not follow a constitution can be aptly called a crowd. The Internet is a crowd and not a community. It is a jungle filled with bots, sites, viruses, a scary ecosystem to say the least. The only fundamental rule is that performance of anything is bound by technology. This is a clinical rule with no ethical information involved. No set of definitive actions to act. This is a crude world much like what our ancestors would have been through.

Forums are the next evolutionary step, where a group of individuals come together and form a community which follows its own rules. Is there a rule in that forum such as "Don't like it : Don't join it!". Well if there is then we have a controlled society which protects its citizens from the bots, the spammers and viruses of the external internet. If there is no rule like that then we have an open society which fails to protect its contributors from external attacks. The only choice it leaves to an individual is either leave the forum or fend for himself/herself.

I wish I knew the solution to this problem. The best thing would be to come up with a very strong set of axioms, which define the ethical behaviour one should follow in the forum. There should be well set terms and conditions for posting a comment. And if these are by any chance violated, then the comment should be deleted without mercy and care should be taken not to send the email to the author of the post.

My only contention is that we form a society that protects every sensible individual in it from external irrational elements. Why not build an electric fence?

Lakshmikanth can be found nowadays idling around in Los Angeles. He believes that philosophy, economics and mathematical logic stem from the same root :- rationality. Therefore he often writes on economics, philosophy and mathematics. He also likes to read History and brag about it. Check out his blog for more of his rants!!!
eXTReMe Tracker
Keep reading for comments on this article and add some feedback of your own!

Spam, Constitution And Forums Aka Random Ramblings Of A spammed Victim


Author: Lakshmikanth


Comments! Feedback! Speak and be heard!

Comment on this article or leave feedback for the author

May 11, 2006
11:36 AM


this is a conundrum

freedom (of speech) is meant to be exercised with responsibility

if responsible behaviour is not exercised then it can be exorcised (by the forum moderators)

May 11, 2006
09:45 PM

Constitution is all weak. law is full of loop holes and 498 can put all in jail. woman says rape all goto jail.

May 11, 2006
09:47 PM

In this country only woman get justice. men are haarssed .
Constitution is like that only.
We have internet now and that is only source of freedom .

May 11, 2006
10:37 PM

We have internet now and that is only source of freedom...er...and sex too...cyber sex, i meant

(of course my comment is as pointless as the original one)

May 11, 2006
10:40 PM

T: LOL....

Salute you!

May 11, 2006
11:01 PM


a man has to do what a man has to do...M keeps telling me


May 11, 2006
11:54 PM

this is a serious discussion, abt men's rights.

May 12, 2006
12:07 AM

This is as much about men's rights as Benito Mussolini was about linguine.

May 12, 2006
12:10 AM

benito ??

May 12, 2006
12:13 AM

Anon: Never mind.. Benito was just another guy who had some wierd fetish...and ofcourse i completely agree to Aaman.

T: I completely agree to you, A man definitely hass to do what he has to do!

May 12, 2006
01:23 AM

Lakhu seth

when you need 498 education then come to us. You will forget all this poetry, shero shayri.

Then your head will work properly and you will be sorry.

All of you.

May 12, 2006
01:26 AM

Anon: I should have begun the article with the words 'Arz Hai', Pardon me :-)

thanks for seeing this as poetry... a wonderful compliment in itself.

May 12, 2006
01:30 AM

that was not for you, it was for your truck driver friend.
this is a serious talk.
after all in india everyone thinks them to be an actor , model or poet.

May 12, 2006
01:33 AM

we have 1000 people who have suffered 498 now.

May 12, 2006
01:35 AM

Ohh ok.. i never thought it was serious when i wrote the articel... anyways.. thanks for reminding me about how serious all this is.

I think i dont have any truckdriver friends.. I have only a few friends who have spammed me, thats all.. thats why i wrote this articel.. sorry Anon Uncel

May 12, 2006
01:38 AM


it was for tempo-ral

May 12, 2006
01:41 AM

froget it ,when thet get 498 , then they will come to us. They will have no choice.

May 12, 2006
01:42 AM

sure Deepak, I cannot forget all that spam can I?

I surely have no choice other than what temporal mentioned.... A man has to do what a man has to do!

May 12, 2006
01:56 AM

"A society without a constitution, or one that does not follow a constitution can be aptly called a crowd. The Internet is a crowd and not a community."

Chaos brings in new order. Chaos can not happen when there is no crowd. Internet is same as a millions of interconnected neurons where each neuron communicates with hundreds more. Its a massive brain/skynet in making.

"I wish I knew the solution to this problem."

Please do "Zazen" as your prof. Bart Kosko did with guidance from Takeshi Yamakawa. You will realise there is nothing really called "a problem". A problem comes to existence the moment we verbalise it.

May 12, 2006
02:08 AM

Exactly... You hit the nail on the head.

Bart Kosko is a great researcher in this particular field.. however coming to your point.

Chaos exists and relates to something fundamental in the Universe, many call it God, many call it nature, many people call it probability. Kosko/Yamakawa et all call it Fuzz,I use a more general and personal form of chaos called symbolic representational uncertainty.

The crux of your argument: assuming the internet to be a neural network, is kind of flawed. A neural network has each neuron behaving within well defined limits.. there is enough literature to check out the firing rates of neurons, check out the works by Bart Kosko and Ashok Patel.

I mentioned this particular effect by calling any evolutionary system as a system having a constitution, a set of fundamental behaviour, which cause random chaotic interactions. I am pretty much sure that without these set of axioms we will only see entropy going up.. and not down.. I am researching on that area though... will have some kind of a proof soon...

May 12, 2006
02:25 AM

To Spam or to be spammed, thats the question

May 14, 2006
03:42 PM

Societies (and also internet) can collectively behave like a massive brain. Just the way, a neuron in brain is made of both certain and uncetain behaviour, a human communicating with fellow humans(in real and in internet) can transmit meta-info which can be certain and also uncertain. Society as a massive brain can resist change and can have collective memory (not really accessible to an individual). The other way to approach is to look at the whole nervous system(in brain extending to society) as a fractal.

In last days of Dec 99 (when the hijacked Indian Airlines plane was on the tarmac of Kandhahar airport), I met Takeshi Yamakawa (at ISI, Kolkatta) first on breakfast table and then in the conference session. The main discussion was towards making dynamic neural networks extrapolate (which differential equations do with ease). When extended to societies, how does a society react to situations which it is unfamiliar with? Can a society extrapolate? If yes, then how to make it more effective?

Many years back, I was bit concerned about centralised systems (whether it is IBM mainframe, Barings Bank or cut-paste Constitution of a country).

A centralised system is like Nimrod's pillar (or like the centralised electric/computer controlled system in Jurassic park). Can a highly centralised media serve a democratic society well?

Promotion of more and more bottom-up decentralised systems, can help enhance stability in present day highly charged socio-economic systems worldwide.

Too many top-down systems will work to stop growth of decentralised bottom-up systems.

This conflict can be observed in internet and in blogosphere. A highly centralised/generic constitution alongwith a stiff (non-fuzzy) legal system imposed on a highly diversified society is leading to sub-optimal performance.

The democracy, which gets the feedback signal once in 5 years (in an age of complexity), is also highly suboptimal.

Add your comment

(Or ping: http://desicritics.org/tb/1729)

Personal attacks are not allowed. Please read our comment policy.

Remember Name/URL?

Please preview your comment!