Circumventing CAN-SPAM

Dekortage writes "The iMedia Connection newsletter is running a story on how some politicians are violating CAN-SPAM with impunity. Apparently so-called 'political speech' e-mails do not fit the legal definition of spam, even if they are wholly unsolicited and unwanted. In this particular case, the spammer is the attorney general of Florida, who considers himself an anti-spam crusader."

Send it back to him ...

a hundred times ... and also by fax ... burn out his fax machine and keep him from getting any legit faxes.

He'll get the message.

Re:Send it back to him ...

I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. That said, most of these spam-laws have exemptions for existing 'prior business relationships' and I think it could be argued that, by emailing you, he has formed such a relationship. If you sent him a fax request, one letter per page, requesting that he terminate this relationship, then you could (presuming sufficiently deep pockets) get away with it. Of course, you are safe until after the election anyway - he's not going to want to all of the bad publicity he would get from 'suing a constituent who asked him to stop spamming them' (as the newspapers would be sure to spin it) in the run up to the gubernatorial elections.

how can this be a surprise?

You can sign up your phone number for the nationwide don't-call list and politicians are still allowed to call you. Just the other night some dude from the democratic party disturbed my dinner. Are you surprised that e-mail is not treated any different?

SPAM is SPAM ...

... and the fact that american politicians have created a loophole just for them is almost normal from that sad scene ...

Faux-Spam

Is it spam or not?

Spam is often referred to as UCE "Unsolicited Commercial Email", which his emails were not. We tend to apply a broad label to spam. Often "Any email I don't want.", which may not be fair in all cases. In any case the law seems fairly clear that he was not technically breaking it.

However, as someone who says they are a proponent of anti-spam, engaging in "spam like" behavior can only undercut their position.

How is this diferent...

then any of the other spammers that ignore the can-spam act???? I get more spam now then i ever did!

A "prank" for just such an occassion:

Do this outside. Get a pane of fiberglass and belt-fed sanding machine. Turn the fiberglass pane into fiberglass powder. (Carefully) sprinkle the power around the home of [insert enemy's name here], being sure to reach each carpet, set of clothes, and piece of upholstered furniture.

With any luck, he'll have to burn down the house and salt the earth it stood on to get that itching to stop.

CAN-WHAT?

I met someone not too long ago who ran a SPAM outfit, and he boasted that he was 100% CAN-SPAM compliant, because he always gave his recipients an option to be exempted from future SPAMs. Apparently, the first contact can't be considered a SPAM, according to the law.

So guess what? This guy had hundreds of domains, officially different companies which would act as agents for his clients, so that he (the spammer) could use the same mailing list over and over and over, because it wasn't "him" that was using it; it was his clients.

So basically, CAN-SPAM is really SWISS-CHEESE. There are so many holes in it that any idiot can figure out a way to avoid being penalized.

Unfortunately, there are no holes in the laws protecting these guys from great bodily harm...

Re:CAN-WHAT?

Unfortunately, there are no holes in the laws protecting these guys from great bodily harm...

No, but I believe that the CAN-SPAM law does require a valid physical postal address. It would be really, really illegal if somebody were to use that information to beat the sh*t out of him.

If he's not including that valid postal address, then he should be arrested under the law. My concern with CAN-SPAM isn't the loopholes as much as that they don't seem to be enforcing the rules. No law does any good if it isn't enforced.

I'd really like to see him try the "But it wasn't really me, it was my multiple domain names" excuse in front of a judge.

What I've found

Is,

That if you get on the phone and call these idiots often enough to complain they sometimes get the message.

Just tell them that you will call each time you receive that unsolicited email or phone call from them.

Make absolutely certain that you put the poor staffer on the hotseat. Make sure they fully understand that who they represent is invading your privacy and that you will not tolerate it.

If they try to hang up on you then simply tell them that if they don't hear you out that you are a constituent that will be walking through their front door to give them the piece of your mind in person otherwise. That usually really gets their attention.

Being a bit obnoxious can have it's benefits.

Don't accept crap from those boneheads, you bought and paid for them to be there, get your money's worth!

Not Surprised

Just like a politician preach that they are anti-spam, via spam.

Not circumvention

Politicians have always done this. There is always a clause in the law that allows them to communicate to the masses. A politician doesn't have to use the DO NOT CALL service to screen their calls, because the specifically put in the law that they are allowed.

Legal reform

From the summary: "The iMedia Connection newsletter is running a story on how some politicians are violating CAN-SPAM with impunity. Apparently so-called 'political speech' e-mails do not fit the legal definition of spam, even if they are wholly unsolicited and unwanted.".

By definition then, if political speech emails are not legally spam, then the politicians are not violating the CAN-SPAM law. The summary is contradictory.

Should you* want politicians to conform to an anti-spam law, the solution is to lobby and vote for either the extension of CAN-SPAM to apply to political speech or alternatively for the creation of a new law. But currently, the politicians are not breaking an existing law. This is a hrader task of course, but that's the only way forwards.

Cheers,
Ian
(*by 'you' I mean US voters, I'm in the UK)

makes sense

In this particular case, the spammer is the attorney general of Florida, who considers himself an anti-spam crusader."

CAN-SPAM was never designed to prevent spam. It was designed to codify what could legally happen, provide a way for web-sites to harvest e-mail, and finally, to prevent the states from enacting new laws against these companies. For all purpose, it was a giveaway to BIG money that does spam (and inheritenly, the lobbyists). SO anybody who voted for it, supported spam, but could declare that they were fighting against it i.e. bait via name, but switch via action (think patriot act).

Does this really surprise anyone?

One of the basic premises of government is "do as I say, not as I do". After all, government is the organization holding the unique right to employ coercion as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. Do as I say, not as I do.

software spam controls

Regulation is not effective on the internet for this type of thing. We're seeing that with pr0n too. I know people under 18 who can easily get it, and no laws can easily change that, not even the one currently in the courts. Unless every porn site does "nofollow" on all their links (to stop image searches), there's nothing they can do on the internet end. And that doesn't stop torrents, etc. The only answer to pr0n is client-side control, and parental monitoring.

Ditto Spam. The only way to block spam is at the ISP or application level. Thunderbird has controls, and most mail providers have basic ones that'll block the crapfloods of non-English emails and stuff.

It is not a matter of the definition of SPAM

Both political and charity based mailing are exempt from from the CAN-SPAM law; same as they are exempt from the Do Not Call list. So it is not a case of definition or a loop hole, they are specificly allow to do so.
What was really funny in the Florida case is that they guy had campaigned on SPAM and had pushed for tough anti-spam laws. Then to top it off they released a message saying "This is not spam. This is truthful, it's straight forward. We're honest. To be spam it has to be, under Florida law, defined as being deceptive." No matter how it goes that is all just funny.
BTW there has been a court case over the exemption for political and nonprofit organization, the FTC argued that they were less likely then for-profits to abuse the practice.

But he can still be an "anti-spam crusader"!

Because after all, spam is now defined to exclude the political mailings this guy uses, so he's not "spamming" at all.

Now that Bill Clinton has opened the door to questionable definitions of existing words, both the Democrats and the Republicans have embraced his ideas firmly and run with them as far and as fast as they can.

Take a look at any of the anti-advertising laws...

and you'll find that there is a loophole in there for political solicitation.

Yes, phone robot autodialers are illegal... except of course if they are talking about something political. Spam and do-not-call as well. It's all in there.

Imagine the analog for mugging laws; mugging is illegal unless it is being done to raise campaign funds, in which case it is forgivable. Sounds silly, doesn't it, but I don't see a difference from the way they are writing the laws now.

If a tactic is annoying, intrusive and disliked enough to make it illegal, I have no idea why the politicians involved in this are unable to see that it is not a good idea to be the exception.

Here is california politicians are perticularly fond of auto-dialers; even the local unions use them.

Spam = Florida

Maybe it's just a coincidence, but most of the articles I read about spam always mention Florida.

Maybe a big filter between Florida and the rest of the World would work, and while we're at it a 100 ft high wall.

Erm...

violating CAN-SPAM with impunity. Apparently so-called 'political speech' e-mails do not fit he legal definition of spam, even if they are wholly unsolicited and unwanted

So, uhm, how would they be in violation? Far more than merely "not fitting the legal definition of spam," 'Political speech' emails--particularly from elected officials--IIRC, were explicitly excepted precisely so litigious morons who can't grok that a thing must meet some required legal definition before it can be in violation of a law referencing that defintion don't flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits every time their representatives send out a flyer informing them of how they're doing their damned job.

Truly lame.

Freedom of speech?

I'm seeing a lot of comments here about how "those dirty politicians put a loophole in the law to exempt themselves." I, for one, am glad! This is called freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is extremely annoying...especially to those people who don't want to hear it. Guess what...Its one of the U.S.'s founding principles, so get over it. If there wasn't a loophole in the law for political speech, the ACLU would be up in arms about it, and rightly so!

On a different note, it is stupid that they are trying to redefine the word "Spam". In my mind, Spam isn't limited to email. If you're playing WoW and someone shouts "Lvl 30 Warrior LFG!" 30 times in a row, then they are spamming. "Spam" covers a wide range of annoying actions in the electronic media.

I don't trust politicians to define what "spam" is, and I don't trust them to make laws restricting any kind of online use. They simply don't understand the medium.

Related - spammer begs for mercy

Found this via the spam kings blog, absolutely hilarious:
http://spamkings.oreilly.com/archives/2006/01/unde r_attack_spammer_begs_for_1.html [oreilly.com]

Honestly, I still believe that vigilante tactics combined with laws such as ours in TN (making spam a civil action) are the only realistic way to go.

Policticl Speech is Different

IANAL. Political Speech is held in a different light than other kinds of mass-audience speech (like advertising soap for instance). This is a good thing and this speech should continue to be protected, shielded from laws that may in some way restrict it. Even when the speech or method of speech may seem downright stupid and ill-advised. Why? Because the freedom of this kind of speech is what the United States of America is all about. This is the kind of speech our founding fathers were considering when they created the Bill of Rights! If someone is prohibited by law from stating, publishing, or distributing their political beliefs we have started down the slippery slope to an oppressing society.

I don't believe in segregation, yet if some ignorant red-neck wanted to run for office and ran on that platform, I would defend his right to publish that position. I'd actually encourage him. Why? Because it would show people who and what he really is.

I get somewhat offended when churches urge political activism among their members because I believe that the separation of church and state should go both ways. Still, these church leaders have a right to spout their opinion from the pulpit and I'd never raise a finger to stop them because the freedom of political speech is that important (and I can exercise my right to go to another church just as easily). I hope those same leaders will let me express my opinion that their flock should not need that kind of shepherding though, since they are thinking, reasoning people and not sheep that need to be told what to think and do. It does sometimes appear that they have a harder time yielding to my rights than I do to theirs though...

Politicians above the law? I'm shocked!

Shocked I say! To think politicians believe they're above the laws they write! Next thing you'll be telling me is that they rearrange voting districts to prevent them from losing elections...

Political speech is a higher standard

Like it or not, US law (as interpreted by the courts) places a higher value on political speech than commercial speech. As a result, the restrictions that can be placed on political speech are less strict than those that can be placed on commercial speech.

Protected Political Speech...

Just wait until stuff written like this starts flooding people's mailboxes:

Vote for Hot Hot Cocks

Write-in a vote for Ron Jeremy this November! http://videos.hothotcocks.com/ [hothotcocks.com]

Join other supporters of hot hot cocks on our campaign website at http://singles.hothotcocks.com/ [hothotcocks.com]

Our political platform is the right to huge erections and unlimited C1ALIS for all citizens. http://canadianpharmacy.hothotcocks.com/ [hothotcocks.com]

Yes indeed, we CAN spam! God Bless America!

Government Run Like a Business

Attorney General Fox (R-Henhouse)

A politician lying?...

...wait...were his lips moving?

Loophole?

So send out spam with a political message.

Attorney General name is a great guy, worthy of being re-elected.

Now go out and buy some product and support him.

From the author...

I appreciate all the attention this article has gotten. As several posters have pointed out, the attorney general's email practice isn't considered spam under CAN-SPAM because it's political speech, not commercial. But recipients don't care if senders are obeying the letter of the law--if we don't want it, it's spam.

Fact is, just obeying the law won't keep a sender out of trouble. For example, a sender has up to ten days to remove someone from their list, which may as well be ten years in Internet time.

The free speech argument only gets you so far. Sure, political speech should be protected, but that doesn't give a politician the right to barge into my living room and start giving a speech. People consider their email inboxes to be like their living rooms--you may be welcome, but you need to be invited first.

Ultimately, no law or anti-spam program will be able to determine what's spam with 100% accuracy. I would be happy if the law could help prosecute those who are perpetuating obvious fraud.

politicians & non-profits exempt?

I thought all the anti-spam, telephone do nto call lists, junk fax laws, etc. exempted political communications and stuff from non-profit organizations...