Your post advocates a

(x) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante

approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)

( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
(x) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(x) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(x) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business

Specifically, your plan fails to account for

( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
(x) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
(x) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
(x) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
(x) Technically illiterate politicians
(x) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook

and the following philosophical objections may also apply:

( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
(x) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
(x) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough

Furthermore, this is what I think about you:

(x) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

They are switching drugs in Missouri, while adding a team of compounding pharmacists, so the drugs will be made on site and therefore not subject to Europe's politics. Also some of the European flexing here is a direct result of NSA wiretapping.

It's not evil to have a banner ad. Right, shareholders?

Zombies nod.

Apart from the exact victims here, there is a huge chilling effect.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christophersteiner/2012/08/02/knight-capitals-algorithmic-fiasco-wont-be-the-last-of-its-kind/

Knight Capital is a trading company so the money they used belonged to other people.

FTA: "Such an episode would take down not only the traders, but likely the brokerage house that gives them access to electronic markets and perhaps even other clients of that brokerage. It could completely subvert the little amount of trust the public still has in our stock markets."

You appear to be making the same kind of mistake that Bill Gates did with his 256k RAM quip.

I want you to imagine the bandwidth required to have every human being (today it's about 7.2 billion) transferring video streams at once to Google. Now imagine that about half of them are also watching four video streams. Now imagine they are coding for a big company from home and they need a 20tb dataset. Now imagine they need 1.2^4 tb datasets of each 20tb.

Google is making waves with Glass. This is the kind of product that will change things fundamentally.

Google is one company. Now imagine 20 more companies all doing the same thing.

Also for about 4% of the number of people, there will be bots that will use 95% of the available bandwidth.

1gbs is really NOTHING compared to what we'll need. We'll need something like 256tbps and it will still not be enough because one thing holds true: we expand.

This isn't a slap on the wrist. This is a pat on the back for inflicting harm with egregious negligence.

Therefore this was probably engineered as an assault.

Businessweek weighs in.

I'd like to see a software system effectively deal with social engineering as well as other criminal vectors. Software is only going to be able to protect its own silo of information.

Also, we see a lot of programmers relying on code from outside sources. They don't typically debug someone else's code which is a ripe area for exploit vectors.

Combine these elements and you have our present day situation. I don't see any of this addressed in the competition.

They appear to be assuming the network is not corrupted from within.

Google wants us to have 1gbps so we can pump our information to them faster. The more information Google can get from everyone, the more they know about existence from the perspective of a futurist deity, which could be a very powerful tool in years to come when we're trying to figure out what to do about all the problems our predecessors have left us with.

Let's take it one step further and identify the REAL PROBLEM.

The NSA isn't saying they want to have all information to be free and accessible to everyone uniformly -- they are saying they want to have it forever for their own purposes (whatever those might be).

But when Snowden does the same exact thing as the NSA -- according to them he must be punished as a traitor.

Laws are not therefore uniform. They apply only to some... and when that is happening there is no society. There is only the law of the insect colony and a fat queen riding the heap.

You are now a tree frog.

Vulgar display of power.

As someone who has visited Longboat Key, let me just say it's one of the nicest communities in Florida. Nestled into the coast just off Sarasota, LBK is a kind of retirement community of older folks. There are a lot of criminal types that prey on the island from Sarasota, because of the wealth and opulence, and relative seclusion the island provides. There are some gated communities but primarily there are coastal homes and hotels along the key, which make it a perfect place for a would-be criminal to strike.

I'm not condoning license plate records but at the same time, known criminals that head for the island who do not take residence there are an obvious benefit for that type of surveillance.

But that said, if someone was applying for a job there who happened to have served their time and changed their ways from a criminal past -- this would cause police harassment for no reason and push a criminal back towards a life of crime, perhaps.

LBK is a kind of gated community in and of itself, however it is a free country and any citizen should be allowed to travel anywhere and no sheriff should have the power to tell someone to get out of town, because that's un-American.

Snowden appears to have originally entered NSA with the intent to gather data to release publicly. He appears to have an interest backing him. He has had deception training -- it is obvious from his blank expression whenever he's interviewed. But he does let it slip from time to time. Perhaps intentionally.

Russia and China have everything to gain if USA is unable to track threats in realtime.

Don't you know that every Fab manager in Asia does extra runs of chips under that table and sells them on the gray/black markets?

It's a logical fallacy to assert something is okay because others are doing it. If something is done by EVERYONE, and the result is GOOD for society, then that action is morally good. If something is done by EVERYONE and the result is BAD, then that action is morally bad.

Every public company is operating against the interests of their common employees

Stop buying things from public companies.

Just throw the book at this guy. He's scum. This is precisely what's wrong with the corporations on our planet and there has to be some kind of accountability, not that it would do much good in convincing CEOs to play a fair game. It seems everyone is cutting corners these days.

That is NOT how you grow a brand.