With Tablets & Clouds, Plug PC will Take Off

Plug Computers are tiny embedded server PCs built within an AC power adapter. The entire PC (CPU, power supply, memory, and networking) are contained in the plastic cube that you plug into an electrical outlet. Some models even include wireless networks or miniature hard drives. And get this: The device uses only 5 watts – about the same as a Christmas tree light, or about 80¢/month.

What these tiny PCs don't have is local input or output. That is, they have no keyboard, screen, microphone, mouse or camera. Most models don't have a disk drive either, but you can attach an external drive or thumb drive.

What can you do with a PC that has no input or output peripherals? More than you might think! As with any server, you interact from another connected device over your local network, the internet, or even from a mobile phone. In fact, these devices are embedded with a web server which makes it feel like you are interacting with a Facebook page or a big online merchant. They are tiny, personal cloud servers. Models from various vendors are typically preinstalled with Linux and contain popular web applications such as document collaboration, torrents, phone/PBX, blogs, bulletin boards, home security, photo sharing, and personal media distribution. They are terrific as an iTunes hub, a photo sharing community, or simply a repository of your movies, music and work documents.

Imagine traveling around the world with the simplest of tablets (for example, the new Amazon Kindle Fire), and accessing data, media and apps from your own home server. Just attach one of these babies into your router, add a disk drive. Then, roam about the earth! You are A 21st century netizen, using your own personal cloud server.

What about back up? Most vendors include software to back up your Plug Computer to the cloud or to other Plug Computers.

Name brand companies offer plug computers, including PC industry stalwarts like PogoPlug, Seagate (GoFlex Net) and Iomega. Since popular applications for this computing platform are relatively new, you may not have heard about other companies. They cater to geeks and bleeding edge users. That's because, their offerings are intended for coders, hackers and hobbyists who love to experiment. Models by Shiva, Tonido, Guru and Ionics are closer to the nuts & bolts architecture.

(Note to self: Buy stock in Marvell Technology. They own the Plug Computer
market. Every brand and model mentioned here uses their ARM processor!)

You can find a lot of information by searching the web, but what prompted me to comment on these miniature marvels was a naïve statement in a Nettop Review. The blogger described the pros & cons of a new Plug Computer called DreamPlug. He pointed to the lack of a display port as a drawback.
____________________________________________

Ellery's response...

Wow! I try hard to avoid criticizing other reviewers or journalists. But the author (or perhaps an editor at Nettop or Dvice) erred in pointing to the absence of a display port as a “flaw”.

This is a Plug Computer. It is not intended to be a really tiny PC. Nothing like that! It is an embedded CPU with connectivity. Principal applications are as a cloud server, phone PBX, shared photo archive, video and music server, personal online backup, or even a stand-alone support desk & BBS.

You plug it in and access it from a network attached PC, phone, television, torrent client, etc. Think of a PC as having two basic components: a storage server and a terminal component. This is the storage server part and not the access terminal. Simple, very low power, and very powerful. Lots of bang for the buck! The popular plug computer vendors have created aps with incredible functionality. These include vendors and re-packagers like Sheeva, PogoPlug, Tonido, Guru, Ionics, Seagate etc.

_____________

Dreamplug PC plugs right into the wall, but has one fatal flaw

Tuesday, February 8th, 2011 | Dreamplug Nettops

Dreamplug Nettop

The DreamPlug is a nettop so small that it doesn't even need a power adapter the entire nettop is an oversized plug that goes straight into your wall jack. The Dreamplug is powered by a 1.2 GHz Marvell Sheeva ARM-based processor, 512MB of DDR2 memory, 1GB of storage, and Ethernet, USB, and eSATA connectors, 802.11b/g/ WiFi, Bluetooth, a headphone jack and an SD card slot.

There’s one major thing lacking on the Dreamplug however. There’s no VGA, DVI, or HDMI output and that's because there's no graphics processor on board. While it'd be kind of neat to plug a keyboard, monitor, and mouse into the DreamPlug and run a light-weight desktop Linux distribution, the little guy is really designed for simpler tasks such as network storage, managing a security system, or home automation.

The DreamPlug measures just 4.3x2.7x1.9" and uses just 5W of power. It's based on the Plug Computer platform.

Sarah Palin's America: All too clear

In May 2010, Jon Stewart of The Huffington Post analyzed a Sarah Palin video to better understand how she defines “Real America” and who she considers a real American.

From the Daily Show (Huffington Post)
Jon Stewart on Sarah Palin's definition of a “Real America”

Here at AWildDuck, we love characters like Sarah Palin — as folksy as Perot and as clueless as Quayle. One needn’t be a comedian or a liberal commentator to make light of this woman. Swimsuit model, marksman and aerial hunter of bear & caribou, she provides a mountain of fodder for satire and editorials. Her glib and feisty sarcasm serves her well. I trust that these quips are original and I think that they are quite clever.

[caption id="attachment_358" align="alignnone" width="475"] Sarah Palin relaxes in the Governor’s office[/caption]

We don’t know yet if Palin will enter the presidential race, but wouldn’t it be scary if a majority of Americans take her seriously? Don’t laugh! It happened with Bush Jr and almost happened with Quayle; a proverbial heartbeat away from leading the free world.

With apologies to Mr. Stewart, I'll add AWildDuck observation to his stand up analysis.

At first, I took it in stride when hearing Sarah Palin explain that small towns in Midwest and mountain states are the  “Real America”, After all, she was playing to her base and it certainly includes small towns and rural Americans. Of course, whenever you connect with one group, you may inadvertently slight anyone who is separate from your target audience. But Palin doesn’t just slight by omission. She really wants to redefine America into a very narrow and xenophobic society...

Palin tries and succeeds to connect with small town Americans, some Christians — especially those with a “my ancestors-arrived-before yours” mindset. She also connects well with gun rights advocates and rednecks. But in connecting with these people, she ostracizes other patriotic Americans (and even many Christians) with her anti-urban, anti-immigrant, anti Hollywood, anti Democratic, and generally intolerant view of our multicultural society.

Get over it, Sarah! America is a melting pot, and our immigrants bolster our collective achievements. Your narrow, intolerant view is not representative of a “united” country.

Before watching Jon Stewart’s commentary, I would have only realized that Palin was slighting Democrats and anyone who accepts the multicultural melting pot that our big cities have become. But with the benefit of this analysis, I realize that she is both ignorant and intolerant. She plays to central Iowa and Nebraska, because she feels that these rural farm lands have not yet been “polluted” by Jews, Africans, Latinos, and Asians. Her thinly veiled statements of love for “Real Americans” sugar coat a core of racism and hate.

And what about her Tea Party? Their political goals lie to the far right, but are credible and have broad support: Budget cuts, strong military, personal responsibility, and limited government. But just as with their bunk mates at Fox News and the Christian Coalition, prominent party spokespeople have a dim view of social freedoms. They have no respect for individual choice, individual privacy and tolerance.

Like many Americans, my ancestors were white and European. Yet, I hope that other “majority” Americans will recognize intolerance in a dress. The thought of Sarah Palin in a position of command frightens me. This woman is a danger to our future.

- Ellery Davies

Ellery contributes occasional political and social commentary to selected web sites.
He often responds to readers.

The "Ground Zero" Mosque

Stephen Prothero is a professor of Religion, author, and lecturer. He also writes the CNN Belief Blog. In July, 2010, he wrote an op-ed for CNN in which he supported the efforts to build a mosque near Ground Zero, the hallowed ground of a great number of 911 victims, including the many 1st responders who died there.

My take: Ground Zero mosque good for America and New York

CNN also published my feedback. Now that I have created AWildDuck, the retort is as relevant today as it was last year.

Does this belong at Ground Zero?

I get it... Stephen Prothero argues that blocking a Mosque at ground zero is a win for terrorists, because they will have succeeded at changing our pluralistic ways of tolerance and coexistence. But the argument doesn't cut it, Stephen! Islam in this century stands for intolerance and in our front yard is inextricably linked with violence and hate. Imams here in the US call for the overthrow of America and death to Americans.

The religion routinely calls any outsider an infidel (and you know what that brings, don't you?). It is just too much to ask that we look at these individuals as a fringe minority within a peaceful religion. The nuts are driving the car and we needn't choose to give them the auto loan and the dealership.

I grew up in Skokie Illinois. Our village of 70,000 had a large number of concentration camp survivors from Nazi Germany. Neighbors and store owners had numbers burned into their forearms at Auschwitz, Sobibor, Matthausen and Treblinka. While I supported the ACLU and admired their stance on free speech, they lost my respect and support when they backed the march of Nazis through the streets of Skokie. The ACLU claimed that political, legal and financial support was offered to these nuts in the name of free speech and fair representation. Perhaps they have the right -- I don't know. But certainly, the ACLU could find other worthy causes for their time and money. The decision to represent these screwballs was about as looney as the intent to allow a mosque to be erected at Ground Zero. For hundreds of millions of individuals (perhaps more than a billion around the world), that juxtaposition represents a win for radicals, cowards, and nut cases. To claim that it represents a religion of peace and tolerance is a PC delusion. At the very least, it is shockingly insensitive and inappropriate.

Is there even a contest of opinions here? I realize that true freedom is not subject to the whim of public opinion, but let's just vet this one question: How many people in New York want to walk past a Mosque at Ground Zero. Seriously...How many?!

Not a Horse: An oat-powered quadrapedal transport device

From time to time, at AWildDuck, I offer an observation or op-ed on a topic of human interest. This one is not about current events, the price of gold, law or politics. Nah. It's just Ellery’s spin with a nod toward levity. This one is fluff...

Columnist, Eric Felten, writes The Wall Street Journal’s biweekly column, Postmodern Times. In December 2010, he penned this review of Ralph Keys book, Euphemania.

To Put It Another Way  — The Wall Street Journal, Dec 14, 2010

The book is filled euphemisms – both clever and odd. A few nuggets generate guffaws because they are clearly linguistic substitutions crafted to soften the impact of harsh truths. Without lying, they manage to twist simple facts to suit the utterer.

Take, for example, this euphemism for an aerial bombing. It has not been credibly attributed to a US defense department spokesman, but one could certainly imagine some Spin Meister warning generals and press attachés to get with the lingo:

Battlefield soldiers called for a vertically deployed antipersonnel device

Replacing “bomb” with “vertically deployed antipersonnel device” brings to mind a humorous euphemism from my childhood.

In the late 70s, I was in the showroom of a Fiat dealer as my father completed the purchase a car in a corner sales office. My brothers and I occupied ourselves by watching a video on what Fiat claimed was the first fully automated robotic assembly line. In a perfect ballet, rows of machines worked in unison. The factory was completely devoid of humans.

[caption id="attachment_398" align="alignleft" width="300"] Hello boys. What can I do for you?[/caption]

Spotting an unattended group of young boys, a sales person approached and asked if he could help us. I replied that we were waiting for our father as he completes the purchase of a new car. The salesman surprised us with his response:  “You must be mistaken...We don't sell cars.”

I had no idea if he was joking – or if perhaps, I had wandered into the waiting area of another retailer. (Yet, I was watching a showroom presentation of an automobile assembly line!). As my jaw dropped, I asked the salesman to tell me exactly what products are sold in this establishment. His reply still echoes in the Euphemism Hall of Fame:

                     "We don't sell cars. We sell Italian driving machines!"

[caption id="attachment_401" align="alignright" width="300"] It's not a car—It's an Italian driving machine![/caption]

The correction had the desired effect. “Wow!”, I thought. These must be very classy cars. A few minutes later, my father emerged from the sales office with a big smile on his face. The sales manager gave him a pair of brown, leather, race car driving gloves. They had open fingers and were covered with raised dots of rubber. That’s just what Dad needed as the new owner of an Italian driving machine.

Ellery (at) starbus (dot) com

CA model must be more distributed, less monetized

My columns, op-ed and feedback appear on many web sites. Among my favorite soap boxes are Engadget, Yahoo, Amazon and The Wall Street Journal. But I also contribute to various technical communities.

Recently, I have become active in InfoSec, the largest of LinkedIn discussion groups. InfoSec participants include a remarkably diverse cross section of information security specialists representing all sides of the security matrix. We have policy pundits, in house security directors, technicians, law enforcement officials & consultants, ethical hackers, and an occasional anti-forensic zealot, like me!

Patrick Gustavsson is Senior Consultant at Cybercom in Stockholm Sweden. This week he posed this question to InfoSec members:

Considering recent problems with certificates, what's your opinion about PKI?
Does PKI have a future?

Patrick was referring to recent events concerning certificate authorities (CAs) being hacked and the forgery of widely trusted certificates, as was the case with Google's. Because the CA model is built upon trust for the CA, Patrick was asking if the model is broken and that perhaps PKI was a poor design for the future.

My response: Good question. Wrong culprit!

PKI is not broken. In fact, it is brilliant and durable. The whole concept of digital trust is at thing of beauty and simplicity (Thank you Clifford Cocks, Diffie, Hellman, Elgamal, Kravitz, Rivest. But the trust is misdirected. In the past decade it has become expected that the trust is never P2P, but rather involves central repositories, and that somewhere along the way, certificates must grease the palms of "Central Authorities".

PKI is not the component that is broken. PKI is just fine, thank you! The technology will remain the linchpin of any secure communication, and eventually of all IP packets including VOIP. (PKI can be enhanced with Sender Bonds, a form of financial risk for packets exchanged between strangers...But we'll save that for another day!).

Rather, complexity of the CA model is the problem. The certified party is not readily evident, the paths of trust are murky and – most importantly – visitors rarely know why they should be trusted! The solution is easy, but it will require that we (the security specialists), dismantle the trust model...

Ellery's Solution for P2P Trust: Outside of a communist regime, trust is not something that lends itself to central authority. Trust should always be personal and built on relationships both individuals and "flexible communities" (that is: either circles of trust or trust pyramids), and  save the individual. We must return the Internet to a pyramid of trust (like PGP) and – at the very least – create a mechanism to self sign new relationships as they are developed. The entire CA house is built on an old boys’ network of payoffs and profit. It must not be so. Real trust is built by referral and the 3rd party trust of your own trusted parties, just as it was in the beginning.

Don’t agree? Sound off. Add feedback to this article.

Samsung opens Bada: Is another phone OS good thing?

Got Bada? Don't bother! This just in from Engadget (short version) via the Wall Street Journal (full story).

With Google's recent acquisition of Motorola Mobility, Samsung has become the leading independent manufacturer of Android phones. In fact, they are in a pissing contest with Apple and they have a real shot at winning! And why not? The largest consumer electronics company is embedding the leading mobile OS without any license fee. They are not only making money phone-over-fist, they are presenting a viable threat to Apple for the brass ring.

But wait! Sammy is not happy.They want to expand their own mobile OS into a market juggernaut. Taking a page from Google, they have just announced plans to open the OS, inviting outside developers to extend and expand. But why? Does the market want another mobile OS? Samsung is a sterling manufacturer. The best. Given enough resources and drive, I have no doubt that they could catch up with Android functions and apps (navigation, media, markets, tools, hot spot feature, etc). But for what purpose? Are they planning to become a Google and replicate the underlying ad-driven business model? Do we want that from an electronics vendor?

I love competition, whether it be in the hardware or OS (mobile platform in this case). But in the past year, we were witnessing a tentative market maturity that foreshadowed the end of fragmentation. With the death of Palm and Symbian, the acquiescence of Blackberry, and the futile "last-gasp" rumination of Windows Mobile, it appeared that we were finally headed for a showdown - or more likely a market duopoly: Google Android -vs- Apple iOS. This congealing of the market will allow for much greater overall sales and it heralds the day when handset manufacturers can show their stripes and reward both users and shareholders. Think of Dell, HP and even Gateway in the heady heyday of the mid 90s. Once that market was firing on all cylinders - and with developers focused on just Windows and Apple, it floated all boats. Last second upstarts were squashed - and rightly so. Imagine the loss of productivity and profits if the market had experienced arrested condensation as it did with HD-DVD and BluRay.

Do you recall DrDOS and HPs desktop OS? Imagine, if a bit later in the desktop OS wars (some point after market maturation), there emerged a 16-bit CP/M or some new desktop OS by HP and Acer. Would it serve any purpose? Perhaps—but only if it brought transformative technology and a credible opportunity for rapid adoption. More likely, it would have simply retarded productivity and gains for everyone.

Please, Sammy, let it be so. I realize that you are a great company and that Korea's Yin-yang is still rising. But now is not the time to become a Netflix and shoot yourself in the foot. Strengthen your ties with Google. The Motorola acquisition needn't be a threat. Make piles of cash on great AMOLED Android phones and shelve your plans for an independent hurrah! At least think about it. This play will cause Samsung to lose precious ground.

So sayeth Ellery

Ellery Davies is chief editor of awwildduck.com
Get heard. Consider posting feedback.

Increase gas tax as market cost of oil rises

When the cost of gasoline or oil rises (especially when it 'spikes'), a reduction of taxes causes great harm to consumers and taxpayers. In fact, we are best served by a rise in taxes tied directly to changes in the cost of oil.

In May 2011, a group calling itself National Taxpayers Union or NTU launched a $1.25 million campaign to fight energy taxes, like the fuel tax added to the cost of gasoline at the pump in most countries.* One of the group's less controversial public service announcements (or more accurately, a lobbying effort) consist of magazine ads and videos that encourage Americans to write their legislators and demand a roll back of gas taxes whenever market prices spike.

[caption id="attachment_574" align="alignright" width="300"] In supplier controlled markets, consumers can contain costs by magnifying spikes.[/caption]

I hate consumption taxes, especially the ones that target individual commodities or categories, such as alcohol, cigarettes, luxury purchases, or any system of import tariffs. They are a form of social engineering and they bastardize free markets. But when an energy consumer nation gives consumers breaks during periods of price spikes, the result counters the social intent. In fact, each time that oil prices rise, the best thing our government can do is to force them higher still! This may sound crazy, but when the supply of a commodity is controlled a few foreign cartels, it is no longer a commodity. Artificially lowering the consumer price by subsidizing the price simply stimulates consumption. It does not expand supply, and so the subsidy goes directly into suppliers' pockets.

Apparently, I am not the only one who thinks that lower gas prices is a bad idea. This month, Motley Fool columnist, Travis Hoium filed an Op-Ed entitled, 3 Reasons the US Should Want Higher Oil Prices. His analysis and opinion is articulate and adequately supported, but none of his reasons point to the fundamental economic reason that for a country that aspires to energy independence, oil should be taxed higher whenever the market cost of externally sourced oil rises. Let me spell it out (Hey! That's what I do in A Wild Duck!)

What happens if we lower the cost of a commodity to consumers in an effort to counteract a higher supply price? That's easy -- It doesn't take an Economist to answer! Since the supply is not increased, throwing a subsidy to the buyers "fuels" an even faster rise in prices and hands all that money to the supplier.

Let's say that C = Amount of fuel needed for critical purposes
. . . . getting to work, heating our home, manufacturing
Let's say that D = Amount of fuel needed for discretionary purposes
. . . . vacation travel, backyard BBQ, mowing the lawn, etc

Of course, with a limited personal budget, high fuel prices influence a consumer's decision to classify an activity as 'critical' or 'discretionary'. Additionally, the use of fuel is greatly affected by how efficiently you perform a task (taking a train to work instead of driving, vacationing nearby instead of far away, etc).

Foreign cartels wish to maintain high prices and high revenue, so they limit the foreign supply of oil. For them, it makes more sense to charge a lot of money for less product than to charge less money for a lot of product. If we consider again our classification of consumption into two categories, Critical and Discretionary, the supplier limits leave us with only enough fuel to support this much activity:

100%C + 80%(D)

Now if we counteract their production limits and insulate consumers from the higher cost, the formula doesn't change. We continue to use just as much fuel.

In a free market, limited supply causes prices to rise and this forces consumers to cut back on discretionary use. Some consumers with less money must cut back on critical needs. That's because some people can afford the keep buying and of course the cost of fuel rises.

In a free market -- at least on our side of the ocean, this normally leads to several things -- all of them very good:

•  Increase exploration and domestic production (Motley Fool covers this one)
•  Develop alternative fuels, especially domestic and environmentally friendly
•  Increase conservation:

• Reduce travel


• Turn off unnecessary appliances


• Turn down heat, insulating home or office

•  Change modalities:

• Carpool or use public transportation


• Reclassify some "Critical" uses as "Discretionary"


• Buy local (reduces wholesale transportation)


• Switch electric providers to avoid foreign sources

If consumers are suddenly subsidized when the cost of fuel rises, something terrible happens. Instead of producing more domestic energy, we are not at all affecting the supply. We are simply handing the foreign seller more cash — directly from the taxpayer to their pockets. And they didn't even ask for it! They raise the cost by $1 per gallon and we give them $2 extra. Heck, why not? It makes us feel good.

What happens if we increase taxes when suppliers raise prices? First, we benefit by all the good things listed above.

Second, since some foreign suppliers are not truly constrained in their production (that is, they have plenty of oil), they will keep costs low in order to sustain revenue. There are plenty of places this "cost reduction" tax can be inserted: at point-of-sale, at import, or in the distribution chain.

What do we do with the money that is raised by taxes? That's easy too. Give it back to consumers or use it to fund the development of energy sources that are domestic, inexpensive and environmentally safe.

This is how supply and demand should work. Of course, the government can still subsidize those in need. But do it in a way that doesn't bastardize market dynamics. As a society, we provide assistance to the consumers who cannot afford energy for critical needs, and not by handing money to the supplier (effectively, a reward for cutting production). In this way, we reduce consumption, increase domestic production and provide direct assistance to those who are less fortunate. The effect of subsidizing some buyers will force some other buyers to reduce discretionary use. For example, if some of the higher cost went to taxes, it could be used to help ease the consumers who can no longer afford the "critical" fraction of their use.
_____________
* Americans are taxed for automotive fuel at the pump: A federal tax of 18.4¢ plus a state tax that varies between 12~35¢. The average state tax is about 23¢/gal, so the typical American pays about 41½¢ tax on each gallon, or approximately 10%.

Eliminate Spam. Market your attention!

Using economics to stop spam is a great idea that's getting a very bad rap. The problem lies in the stump speeches of a major software executive and the press coverage of some very prestigious newspapers.

The method getting a lot of news coverage is to charge for email through some form of digital postage: a penny, a nickel, or an amount chosen by the recipient. The effect, say proponents, is that spammers will run when it gets too expensive to blast half the world's population with offers to improve a body part or refinance a home.

In the broadest sense, the idea is right on target. The only reason spam exists is because you can get a mailing list and send 300 million emails for next to nothing. The ISPs are left to pay for replicating your message and jamming it down the throats of unwilling service providers and subscribers. The problem is so bad and technology is so inadequate at stopping it, now even the makers of that technology say we have to make spammers pay.

But the answer is not to charge you or me or Aunt Nancy for personal email messages, or even to charge legitimate marketers for the simple act of sending something that—in retrospect—you actually appreciate receiving. Instead, a properly implemented solution will leave email as simple and as free as it is today. Free for everyone: for you, for Aunt Nancy, for Amazon when it confirms an order, and for a marketer whose respect for a mailing list is reflected in very careful targeting. But not for any sender whose email irked the recipient.

Sound a bit far-fetched? You can’t help but wonder how a program or Internet service could distinguish between spam and desirable mail when you consider that few people even agree on the definition of spam. Worse still is the fact that content filters act with mindless automation. You don’t want to throw up barriers to a long lost college roommate, a new customer, or even your phone bill.

Right now, most ISPs and enterprises “protect” their users by filtering. Filtering is a process of inspection and identification. Filters try to ascertain if a message is unsolicited, commercial or sent in bulk. Some analyze sender dynamics. For example, was mail routed through China? Or is a server in the header also on a list of “evil doers”?

But no filter can maintain and distribute the copious database needed to track all senders and their clever methods in real time. Even if it could, the basic premise does not target spam with precision. The ideal solution intercepts only messages that an individual recipient would find undesirable, were he to read it. Only then, will the war against spam be won.

Sender at Risk to the Rescue

We all desire messages with one or more of the characteristics that filters use to identify spam. That's why the definition of spam should be shifted away from mortgages and Viagra to the underlying problem:

• Spam is undesirable mail


• Undesirable mail is a product of poor targeting


• Poor targeting is facilitated by economic incentive


• Solution: Create an economic disincentive

The trick is to force unrecognized senders to risk something of value and then leave the decision to seize that something to each individual recipient—even after the fact.

Some have argued that spam will dry up if senders are identified or at least forced to use genuine and traceable email addresses. The phone company uses such a “Caller ID” method today. They routinely intercept messages that lack Caller ID for recipients who choose to screen calls. But the phone number of an unrecognized caller says nothing about the relevance of the message content or the reputation of the person calling. The call could be from a relative in a hospital or from a marketer with no better demographic data then a phone book. The only reason we are not swamped by thousands of untargeted phone calls each day is because of the cost and effort associated with each call.

But suppose, instead, the intercept message said this:

“Your Caller ID is not recognized by the party you have dialed. If you complete the call and the recipient finds your contact undesirable, they may press *77 after hanging up. This will add a $2 fee to your phone bill.”

In the above scenario, think of *77 as an interrupt penalty. In effect, it says “I found the nature of your content to be either irritating, harassing or irrelevant, and so I am going to prod you to either clean up your contact list or deliver better content next time.” In our trials of the very same system applied to email, recipients rarely use their power to penalize senders. That’s because the real filtering takes place in the mind (and the pocketbook) of the sender.

Spammers send their drudge to audiences that are both large and poorly targeted. They would never enter into such a bargain. The only challenge is to ensure that everyone you already know is exempted and that the methods available for senders to put up money are trivial and trusted. This will facilitate rapid adoption.

Most importantly, a “sender-at-risk” model facilitates commerce. It allows marketers to reach you if they are willing to put up money to back their claim to individual relevancy.

Enhancing the Model

Imagine further, that the amount of liability reflected within a message is chosen by the recipient, based on how much they value their own time. During a quiet evening with the family, they can raise the bar to strangers to, say, $2, but during their regular day, they can lower it to $0.15. This refinement requires participation by the caller’s phone company. But the mechanism is largely in place today. With 900 numbers, phone companies routinely assess the caller a fee determined by the recipient. Fairness is ensured by requiring that the cost is described before charges begin.

In this day of very cheap communications, an email system (or a telephone system) can be greatly enhanced by the addition of this simple rules-based approach. E-mail remains free to senders but not to spammers. No laws are necessary to require that senders place cash at risk. Recipients need only refuse contact from unrecognized senders who fail to express the requisite digital credential within their message.

Someday soon, every message between strangers—fax, text message, and even pop-up—will convey the voluntary liability of the sender to each intended recipient. Senders who refuse to embed this respect within messages to strangers risk something greater than cash. They’ll risk being blocked entirely.

Ellery Davies is the pen name for the founder and CEO of a major email service. He is also a speaker, publisher, TV commentator, and is chief editor for awildduck.com. He has started four technology firms.