At a conference in Malta, a group of American bloggers had a bit of a culture clash with some European and Asian journalists.

Read Larry Magid’s report on CNET News.com

Podcast — Larry Magid and CNET’s Executive Editor Tom Merritt talk about the panel

As I reported today on CNET News.com, the Center for Disease Control is using Twitter to advise people about swine flu.  And Nielsen Online is reporting a big increase in conversatoins about the disease that has already killed 149 people in Mexico as on noon PT today.

See my CNET post: CDC using Twitter for swine flu information

As we recognize Earth Day this week, it’s worth looking back on last week’s report on the carbon footprint of spam.

In a report commissioned by security vendor McAfee, ICF International found the 62 trillion pieces of spam sent in 2008 had the same environmental impact as 3.1 million passenger cars or 2.4 million U.S. homes. A single piece of junk e-mail adds 0.3 grams of carbon dioxide, which is like driving three feet.

Because they usually don’t waste paper, it’s easy to ignore the environmental impact of spam or any other electronic communications. But sending, receiving, storing and viewing messages does consume energy, and energy consumption adds to carbon emissions in addition to other environmental and economic costs.

The ICF estimates that e-mail from the average business user accounts for 288 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, with 22 percent of that usage related to spam. More than half the energy wasted by spam results from users viewing and deleting it, according to the report.

The process of getting spam from one place to another involves multiple phases — all of which consume energy. First there is the scraping of Web sites to harvest e-mail addresses, followed by code and copy writing to initiate the spam campaign. Next comes sending the messages via the Internet to an army of infected “zombie PCs” all of which use energy to receive and retransmit the messages. Then there is the impact on servers that store and send the spam, the routers and other Internet infrastructure and, of course, the PCs that finally receive and display the junk mail.

Add to that the resources used to attempt to filter the spam and it’s easy to understand the potential environmental impact. If every inbox had spam filters, according to the report, we could cut energy waste by 75 percent. But eliminating spam at the source would save even more energy.

When McColo, a U.S.-based Web-hosting service that was responsible for much of the world’s spam, was shut down in 2008, the result was an annualized carbon dioxide savings equal to taking 2.2 million cars off the road. But the victory was short-lived. Spammers have successfully rebuilt their sending capacity.

The report suggests that, beyond doing everything possible to put spammers out of business, spam filtering is an effective way to reduce the energy waste. Most e-mail programs come with spam filters, though configuring them to trap spam and not to trap legitimate mail isn’t always easy.

There are several plug-ins for Microsoft Outlook and Outlook Express that greatly improve the filtering you can do with those programs. Until I discovered a free and even better solution, my favorite was Cloudmark Desktop, which costs $39.95 a year.

The way I currently eliminate most spam is to route all of my mail through Gmail. When people write to me at larry@larrymagid.com, the mail gets routed to my Gmail account. I then access it either through a Web browser or through Microsoft Outlook, which, like all e-mail programs, can be configured to access Gmail. You’ll also need to configure Gmail to allow you to check mail through an e-mail program.

Gmail isn’t perfect. But it does a better-than-average job at trapping spam and a much-better-than-average job of avoiding false positives. Nevertheless, some spam still gets through and I occasionally find a legitimate message trapped in the spam filter.

Yahoo and Hotmail also have spam filters. I haven’t used Hotmail in a while but I find that my Yahoo inbox gets more spam than my Gmail account.

One way to cut back on spam is to avoid having your e-mail address plastered all over the Internet. (I give this advice but I don’t follow it, because I want readers to be able to reach me.) Spammers love to harvest e-mail addresses from blog postings, forums and other public places where addresses are posted. One way to avoid this problem is to use disposable e-mail addresses that expire or can be abandoned if they attract too much spam. For a good primer on this, search Wikipedia for “disposable e-mail.”

Another method is to use an ISP that offers a challenge response system. These services send out a message to unknown senders requiring them to go through a validation process to make sure that a human being is behind the message. I’m not a fan of these systems because they can be annoying to people who write to you and can trap legitimate machine-generated mail, such as offers from companies you want to hear from, mailing lists and even bounce-back notices from people you know.

Regardless of what type of spam filters you use, you should never respond to spam messages, even to tell them to stop. Any response is an indication that the message got through to a live person, which makes your inbox an even more valuable commodity to the spammers.

Viva la France! French lawmakers have unexpectedly rejected a bill that would have cut off Internet access to people who repeatedly download music or videos illegally. The law, which was supported by French President Nicolas Sarkozy, could have resulted in a year’s suspension of Internet access for individuals after being warned by both an e-mail and a letter.

The French Senate passed the bill April 3, but it was rejected by a vote of 21-15 last week by a sparsely attended session of the lower house, France’s National Assembly. Similar proposals in New Zealand, Britain, Germany and Sweden have been met with protests by civil liberties groups and others, according to Agence France-Presse.

Based on the number of votes, I’d hardly call the outcome in France a repudiation. The Electronic Frontier Foundation’s international outreach coordinator, Danny O’Brien, expects the bill to be reintroduced and passed. But he thinks it will then be reviewed by France’s Constitutional Council, which is roughly equivalent to our Supreme Court.

“There’s a strong chance that the council will have something to say about this,” said O’Brien, “because it does raise so many questions about natural justice and civil liberties.”

While I am not aware of any similar legislation in the United States, there are reports that the Recording Industry Association of America is exploring ways to get Internet service providers, or ISPs, to voluntarily discipline customers who repeatedly ignore warnings to stop downloading or sharing copyrighted files.

It’s not clear exactly what the recording association has in mind and what type of cooperation they will get from ISPs, but CNet News reported last month that an AT&T executive told an audience at a music conference that the company has started to issue warning notices to people suspected of sharing music files. It also reported that Comcast is cooperating with the association, but neither company has threatened to suspend or terminate accounts of those accused of such violations.

It’s also not clear how the companies’ term of service, which generally prohibit using their networks for illegal activities, could come into play. Comcast’s conduct and information restrictions, for example, prohibits “any unlawful purpose,” including that “which infringes the intellectual property rights of any person or entity.”

The company “reserves the right immediately to suspend or terminate your service” if you violate its agreement, so it wouldn’t be an enormous stretch for it to use the member agreement as grounds for action. In other words, it reserves the right to do exactly what the French law would have forced French ISPs to do.

I’m not sure what is worse — the proposed French law or the idea of voluntary cooperation between the recording industry and ISPs. In both cases there is a lack of due process. Even though there are warnings, there is no judicial review. At least when the recording association sued people, there was an opportunity to face your accuser in a court of law. Voluntary cooperation between companies leaves even representatives of the public completely out of the loop.

One could argue that this is a private matter. ISPs are not government agencies and they should have the right to discipline customers who violate their terms, just as we have the right to pick our ISP. But the problem is that taking away someone’s Internet access these days can be a very severe penalty.

For many people, loss of Internet access could result in the loss of livelihoods as well as their primary source of news and information, not to mention their ability to perform vital tasks such as banking, shopping and making travel arrangements.

What’s more, Internet access is typically shared among every member of a household. Should a child be denied the right to do his or her homework because a parent or a sibling allegedly violates the copyright law? And what about roommates? Are they to be punished for the crime of living with someone who is presumed guilty?

I’m not condoning copyright violations. I’m a copyright holder myself, and my son is a professional musician and songwriter. I respect the need for artists, writers and other creative people to find ways to protect their livelihoods. But if we are going to impose severe punishments for copyright violations, we should do it within the bounds of the legal system.

Laws — not private deals — should be vigorously debated by the public and legislators and, if enacted, should be carried out by courts and real judges, not people who happen to work for recording companies, trade associations or ISPs. The stakes for all involved are that high.

Ford Motor and Opera Software have announced a collaboration to add Web browsing to the Internet-enabled in-dash computers that Ford is installing in some of its trucks and vans.

The built-in Ford Work Solutions computer, which is being marketed to contractors, farmers, construction workers and business owners, is equipped with Microsoft Auto, a version of the Windows CE operating system.

In addition to accessing the Web through the Opera browser, the computer can run LogMeIn to enable remote access to office and home PCs. The computer also includes Garmin GPS navigation and is integrated into the vehicle cell phone. Internet access, through Sprint’s 3G network is available for $25 a month for a 25-megabyte plan or $50 for up to 5 gigabytes of data, which should be more than enough for the vast majority of users.

The computer costs $1,125. It has a 6.5-inch screen and comes with a wireless Bluetooth keyboard. Ford sells an optional wireless Hewlett-Packard printer. The device also has an AM/FM radio and a CD player.

You can use the radio, CD, navigation system and phone while driving, but for safety reasons, the computer and Internet access work only while the vehicle is parked. Also, the system does not allow you to stream Internet audio or video, even while stationary.

Ford says it’s the first vehicle manufacturer in North America to offer an installed Internet device, though there are several in-dash aftermarket devices and, of course, it’s long been possible to use an Internet-connected laptop in a car.

It makes a lot of sense for Ford to offer this to its business customers, many of whom spend the better part of their day in and around their vehicles. Before the economy put a damper on construction, it wasn’t uncommon to see contractors and construction foremen pull out a laptop to get or send information vital to the job.

And having a Web browser makes sense, given the vast amount of resources it makes available. The Ford device also lets users send and receive e-mail and text messages. A message from the office with an address of a job, for example, can be pasted into the GPS application, making navigation a bit easier.

As someone who doesn’t own a truck and probably never will, I’m not a potential customer for this system. But I’m sure Ford and other automakers have considered a consumer version for passenger cars.

If they do offer one — and I’m sure it’s inevitable — I hope they include a media player with the ability to stream audio while the car is in motion. I support not allowing the driver to surf the Web or watch video while driving, but I see no harm in enabling it for passengers.

Drivers can now listen to Internet radio on an iPhone plugged into a car audio system using iPhone apps such as Pandora, Tuner and AOL Radio. Shortly after the iPhone 3G came out, I drove around Silicon Valley with Mercury News reporter Troy Wolverton listening live to East Coast stations and overseas radio and streaming music via Pandora.

While it worked, there are some problems with the iPhone solution. Not only are the phone and service expensive, the device is not designed to be used safely from the car. It’s OK to listen but not safe to tune in a station while driving, even though I’m sure people do it. It would be equally dangerous to use a Web browser to tune into Internet radio while driving.

But it would be nice if future versions of products like this let you use the browser to configure your preferred stations while stationary or from home or work and put up a push-button interface on the screen that lets you tune into your favorite online stations as your car radio now let you access AM, FM and satellite stations.

I think Internet radio could strike a deathblow to satellite radio and present challenges to terrestrial radio stations and networks, including those of CBS, where I serve part time as an on-air and online technology analyst. Of course, broadcasters are already streaming their programming online (most CBS stations are now available on the iPhone through AOL Radio). But in an online world, they will have to compete with anyone who invests as little as a few hundred dollars in a PC, some audio gear and a Web site.

Today, people get live audio in their cars by listening to terrestrial stations that have FCC licenses and expensive transmitters, or to satellite radio with really expensive satellites floating around in space. Competition will be good for consumers as it pressures stations and networks to be more competitive.

Aside from building Internet media players in the dash, the auto industry needs to persuade cellular carriers to lower the cost of data plans. Sprint’s $50 plan, which is $10 less than the plan offered for laptops, is a good start. But I’d like to see prices come down further — perhaps to $19.95 a month.