Norway Bans Spam 238
nordicfrost writes: "Everyone in Norway has aquired a law-given right to say "no" to spam. This is also happening in other countries like Germany. The spammers have to check that the people they send advertisements to aren't on the "opt-out" list, a list centrally operated by the government's National Data Register. This means that anyone sending me something I haven't requested, faces fines and up to six months of jail time." Recently a spammer got one of my addresses and is spamming me 10 times a day. Forged everything, random everything, many different messages, only a similiarities in the subject line to tie them together. At least I can filter it, but I'd love to see this ass get 6 months of jail time, especially if he's doing this to thousands of others.
Re:This would only benefit spammers (Score:2)
When spam is made illegal in brand-name countries, it will just move, and you'll start hearing terms like "off-shore spammers" and "swiss spam accounts". If it isnt obvious, this paralles the drug trade, where drugs were made much more profitable.
An idea... (Score:1)
This would be a good way to have a 'safe' email account for emailing friends, collegues, etc. without digging through messages.
The only issue would be enforcement. In theory this works, but to ensure that the law would still be in effect for such a server, a lawyer would have to look at the law itself. Basically, do you need citizenship?
Give me a break! (Score:1)
Well, Well, Well, long time no viddy, old droogie SPAM! I am going to have to dissagree with laws against spam. You see, if you do not punish EVERYONE for unsolicited advertisements then NO ONE should be punished for it...period.
I know everyone that reads this will agree that spam sucks, telemarketers suck, and stupid pointless snail mail advertisements suck, get over it...Life sucks.
And who in this forum can back up claims that spam is like a DoS. I have never had any bog downs, loss of service or anything of the sorts from being the target of spam, nor has any of my friends, nor have I ever heard of such a thing other than those who's only purpose with the internet is to kill spam. Please give me a break, delete the message, and go on with your life. People who run mail servers choose to have an open relay.
All I am trying to say is this: Don't punish people for spamming, if you do then punish EVERYONE for advertising to people who don't want it. As far as spamming costing ISP's money and so on, hey that's part of your service, delivering email and so on...get a life.
Re:The price is too high! (Score:1)
Re:Repling to spam is the only sure fire defence!! (Score:1)
If you want to check it out, look at: the article [samspade.org] (safe browse mode via SamSpade.org). It won't be long before this guy gets kicked off his ISP for violation of his TOS, and giving out your home phone number to spammers (especially when there are sooo many reverse lookup systems out there) is suicidal.
Newbies: DO NOT FOLLOW THIS ADVICE!
---------------------------
Re:My Norwegian is a little rusty... (Score:1)
My mailbox which collates a number of addresses currently is about 70% spam. This is only because my previous (soon to be destroyed) address was listed on Usenet, web pages, NIC databases and so on.
Needless to say that my current address will never be listed anywhere. I use sneakemail addresses while I setup a complete DNS and MX and will use temp addresses after that. Any temp address that gets spammed more than 5 or ten times gets dunked.
Oh and I contact, call, protest, and generally make myself a nuisance with any spammer I can identify. Spam may not be officially illegal (there's no law but there are numerous "recommentadions" against it) in France, however owning a database of personal information without prior declaration is illegal. Spammers do not declare their databases and I can therefore log formal protests against them.
Pity it doesn't work with the ones from the US and Japan though.
Re:I'm Sure the Chinese Will Love This.... (Score:1)
We live in a free society
We do. The Chinese do not. The difference is that in the western world it is an offense to send somebody a junk fax. In China it is an offense to criticise the government using a fax machine, to somebody you know.
Hey guess what? A dictatorial government lied to cover up the introduction of a law preventing opposition from organising. Nothing to do with spam.
And I'd point out that you no longer get faxes from people sending you adverts, and you've got more ink and more paper in your fax machine as a result. Also, you can use your fax machine, as it doesn't start trying to print another ad whenever you plug it in. I think that's a bonus, and the definition of Junk Fax seemed to work.
---------------------------
Re:CmdrTaco is a far left liberal (Score:1)
I think your point is highly debatable. I agree with you that conservatives are the ones pushing for government regulation of abortions. But it is more typically liberals who are pushing for government regulation of smoking. Liberals also push for laws to restrict your 2nd Amendment rights. Further, they are constantly advocating laws to control how you may use your own personal property. Both groups advocate taking large portions of your personal income to spend as they see fit. And both groups are equally strong in their support for the War on Drugs. One of the few truly liberal groups that is against the WoD is the Libertarians.
Conservatives tend to support laws based on traditional Judeo-Christian morality: laws against abortion, laws against homosexuality, laws against adultry, laws against what your body may ingest, etc. "Liberals" tend to support laws based on New Age morality: laws against smoking, laws against guns, laws against your use of your own property, laws against freedom of association, etc.
Both groups are equally culpable in the regulation of our personal lives. Again, the Libertarians are one of the few groups honestly advocating getting government regulation out of our personal lives.
It's easy to fine spammers !!! (Score:1)
just follow the link in my sig. for details
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Sneakemail (Score:1)
Re:Spam is annoying, but (Score:1)
Re:We need this here! (Score:2)
Limiting any kind of electronic communication could quickly become a slipperly slope, and free-speech advocates would most likely fight this (even though it would mean having to deal with spam).
There is a noticable difference between "Free Speech" and spam. I can walk away from Free Speech. I don't have to listen. And if the speaker continues after me, it becomes harrasment, which is not constitutionally protected.
Spam, on the other hand, cannot be as easily avoided. Yes, I can block certain e-mail addresses, or just redirect them to trash, but I have to continually update that, or I get swamped. And some mailer don't have that option. Hotmail, for instance, only allows you to block 50 e-dresses, last I checked.
Spam is not free speech...
This already in Washington state (Score:1)
It's tough to enforce on anyone who doesn't live in Washington though. I know that a guy in OR was taken to court but I'm not sure how it ended up.
-Brian
Re:spoiled brat (Score:2)
Spammer has sent this spam to 1 million people, wasting 3 seconds of each of thier time...
Thats 3 million wasted seconds, or about 37 days.
How would you feel if the spammer kidnapped you and held you for 37 days? Thats exactly what he is doing, only its distributed among a million people.
I think 6 months in jail for a 37 day kidnapping is not enough.
Re:Sneakemail (Score:1)
Attention Management (Score:2)
As a personal rule, I do not accept telephone solicitation. For many, filtration software is a needed tool for communication sanity. Too often, the Attention Market has you at a disadvantage, ready to commit you to a purchase, legally obligating you to a recorded whisper of "okay." Meanwhile, you often have no such record of their verbal promises, if you have need of committing them to rendering services. And while Spam on email at least gives you written record, the company's credentials are often every-bit-as-nebulous.
If nothing guarantees success like having Human Attention lavished on a project, then does Love indeed make the world go around?
Not surprising, perhaps? (Score:1)
--
The Tale of the Frantic Shapeshifter
Taco has lost his beans (Score:1)
6 months for spam is the attitude of a fashist state, you dumb jerk.
You grand slashdotters are always complaining about losing your digital freedoms and electric tolerance all but evaporating...
These new digital freedoms are grand for us users, but hell for the conventional industry, since they fear losing revenue (warez, mp3z, bookz, moviez)... that's why they're pressuring for new laws that'll change this stuff from petty delicts to high-cost crime for the perpetrator.
Of course we all bitch about that, right.
But if you're suddenly on the losing side of the new grand digital order, and are "being taken advantage of" by getting spam, then SUDDENLY it's:
"Give those damn spammers SIX MONTHS!"
(it's just SPAM, for crying out load, you want somebody to go to jail for SIX months for spam!?!? YES, I'm am all for fining the guy, but not for incarceration)
Plausible deniability (Score:1)
What seems even more interesting though is that, were the government to take a really strong stance towards prosecution, "fake" spam campaigns would become that much more effective in damaging a company.
Re:My Norwegian is a little rusty... (Score:1)
Be careful who you give your email address. If you participate in news groups, mailing lists or competitions on game sites, you are in the danger zone.
"Spam" is the term for unwanted ads to your email box. Spam (pronounced "spæm") got its name from an old Monthy Python joke, where a bunch of vikings interrupt in the action singing "Spam, spam, spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam.
This spam is mailed by more or less ruthless business people hoping to sell services and merhandise. The method is flooding your mail box with offers.
Illegal in many countries
Spam is illegal in many countries, and on the 1st of March Norway will get one of the strictest regulations in this field, as will Denmark, Finland, Germany, Austria and Italy. A new and more EU-adapted law of marketing becomes effective, and prohibits advertisements via email and SMS (text messages) unless the consumers have given their consent in advance.
Companies violating the prohibition, will have to deal with the Forbrukerrådet (Consumers' Directorate). The reactions for breaking the new law of marketing are definitely harsher. One risks having to pay expensive tickets or having to serve up to six months in jail. Or both.
Re:Education always beats regulation. (Score:2)
It's not spam, its UCE that has been outlawed (Score:2)
With regard to your friend, your prior contact with him would probably get you free, you are not selling anything so you would not be covered by the law, and finally, it is not criminal law in Denmark, so you would not get in jail (even though spammers should be shoot).
Re:Commercial vs. Political Speech (Score:2)
Maybe the future is more about web sites, boards like Slashdot etc. and less about 'commercial email' or even 'this is very important to you' email.
I know that if every single political fringe, environmental activist group, union, whatever that I AGREED WITH AND SUPPORTED felt free to send me email whenever something happened in the world that interested me, I would STILL BE BURIED in email and my email account would be unusable. I can't overemphasise this. It's not about my consent or interest in what's being sent, it is about the fact that the world contains more information than I can process, and always will. In this light, mass mailing of _any_ sort is a disturbing mechanism to me, because it always keeps the potential to go right off the scale and become impossible volume.
I think it's time to redefine email as 'private communications only'. There's no way to consider it a public resource without causing trouble. I can have an email account on my web page about Stratocasters, but this doesn't mean that everyone who sells Stratocasters can proceed to email me about what _they_ want to sell. The trick with the internet is that one aspect to the loss of privacy means that sellers can research and identify potential buyers: in the future ten thousand people a day can research what I really want and need, and then email me entirely personal letters asking me to buy something that I specifically want. That doesn't change the fact that ten thousand emails a day is still impossible, unmanageable... the ability of the world to produce RELEVANT information is far greater than the ability of a person to process it.
THAT is why spam is a crime. In a peculiar way it is more akin to rape than theft. "You _are_ going to love my special offer now! Your attention belongs to me now. Don't try and get away!"
Re:Spam is annoying, but (Score:1)
So you're saying that if I see your posting on
Re:Spamcop (Score:2)
If your list is tainted, possibly because its opt-in procedures allow or once allowed abuses, why not throw it away and begin assembling a new one? It sounds like your list is tainted.
The deal: (Score:1)
The companies are forced to check their lists for a certain time before they send the spam, and have to remove any matching names permantently from their records.
The link is here: http://www.brreg.no/oppslag/reservasjon/index.htm
If want any charitable orgs to continue bothering you, there's an option that will let them, but not any profitable orgs, continue sending you spam / call you etc.
You may very well hide it, but deep inside I know you Americans envy us the right to jail a telemarketeer...
Re:Norwegian Hotmail Service? (Score:1)
banning spam. (Score:1)
if a person in Brazil, or more likely, Malaysia, sends you spam, and it's not illegal where he sends it (which it's not in both those countries), wha's Norway going to do? Hold its breath until it turns blue? Extradite you (oops, Brazil doesn't have extradition treaties) and charge you with a misdemeanor?
what is Norway's definition of spam? is it generally accepted and legally unambiguous?
it's great they're banning spam. i'm all for it. Now -- how do you enforce the ban? Especially since almost all of norway's spam starts somewhere other than norway?
Re:This would only benefit spammers (Score:1)
it's nice to see though. someone has been harvesting ebay.co.uk recently and about 70% of my spam is addresses to my ebay spamtrap. grr...
dave
Jail?! (Score:1)
Yes, I get spam too, and yes, I hate it too, but realistically, the bother of having to delete some extra emails every day does not deserve the same kind of punishment as, say, rapists, car thieves, bank robbers, etc. The world's prisons are crowded enough.
Re:Sneakemail (Score:2)
This much appreciated endorsement of Sneakemail was not solicited or sanctioned by the management of Sneakemail in any way.
8-)
All shameless promotion of Sneakemail on
Re:We need this here! (Score:1)
Tell that to the doctors and patients at abortion clinics that are harrassed and abused by Operation Rescue under the claims of Free Speech.
chuq (this posting self-moderated to -1:flamebait)
Re:it is UCE in Denmark. (Score:1)
Re:It is *not opt-out, it is opt-in. (Score:2)
> list!
I don't think the Norwegian government provides such a service, I suspect anyone can set one up. Someone else refered to the Norwegian phone company.
Re:Spam is annoying, but (Score:1)
If there were no feasible way for the private sector to regulate itself, regulation might be worth considering. However, that is not the case. Upstream providers can filter mail, refuse to route packets from offending domains, use tools such as ORBS to block mail, etc. That's not even getting into personal efforts to deal with spam.
And, if all this fails, a person can use the civil courts as a last resort to arbitrate particularly offending cases.
Getting the government involved is usually a bad idea, because once they have the authority, they never let go. Everybody should take seriously Thomas Jefferson's admonition that government governs best which governs least.
Re:This would only benefit spammers (Score:2)
One solution, endorsed by CAUCE [cauce.org] is to instead rely on a "NO UCE" banner added to the mail server's banner. This has some obvious drawbacks (it's not per-user and requires administrative intervention).
A slightly better solution for an opt-out list (I won't argue the merits of opt-out versus opt-in) would be a list of the MD5 hashes for each email address. The downside would be that this would prevent regular expressions to handle any and all valid variants of an address. One partial fix would be to require that the spammer query a number of variants of a given address. For example, if the address were "erasmus@foobar.invalid", we could require that the query both "erasmus@foobar.invalid" and "@foobar.invalid" for MD5 matches.
A slightly different alternative would be a query-only list maintained by a trusted party. So internally the list might have "erasmus(\+[^@]*)?@foobar\.invalid" but all the spammer would get back would be a "do not spam this address" when they attempt to query "erasmus@foobar.invalid", "erasmus+foo@foobar.invalid", and so forth. The downside is that this requires a central authority that can be trusted with email addresses (not too hard) and is extremely competent with security (much more difficult).
My Norwegian is a little rusty... (Score:2)
Spamcop (Score:2)
Really, paying them money is to support their work, but you also get a spam-free email forwarding service where yourname@spamcop.net gets forwarded to your favorite mail drop without any of the spam (which they do a very good job of filtering).
I'm using harmil@spamcop.net now as my primary "public" email address for things like slashdot and USENET, and it works pretty well.
Their spam reporting service is very cool. It tracks down the ISP of the spammer, submits the IP address of relays to ORBS, and also tracks any URLs in the spam body. Plus, ISPs who play ball with SpamCop can mark accounts as deleted and otherwise feed back into the system to reduce their request-load. Such things can be appealed by paying SpamCop users, but for the most part, ISPs are pretty good about it.
For the record, I'm just a customer.
This would only benefit spammers (Score:2)
Spam is annoying, but (Score:4)
How I deal with spam... (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Email redirection? (Score:2)
Does anyone know if this legislation covers email redirection? If so, does anyone know of a good norweigan
--
All browsers' default homepage should read: Don't Panic...
I hate spam as much as the next guy, BUT... (Score:3)
Does anyone have an Eigo translation of this article so that we can get the specifcs? The fishy don't do Norweigan.
"Sir, you're under arrest for spamming your coworkers."
"But they *asked* me to send them 'The Big List of Blonde Jokes'! Honest, officer!"
it is UCE in Denmark. (Score:2)
The article isn't very specific, unfortunately. The Danish law is pretty specific, and leave out a lot of cases that are usually considered spam, such as non-commersial UBE, and UBE directed at companies rather than individuals.
spamgourmet - disposable addresses, opting, etc. (Score:2)
And what is this about opting in and opting out, anyway? I think what we're seeing is that the email protocol is just too trusting and open-ended for the current net environment. I mean, lots of sites will tell you I 'opted in' to receive their junk and a bunch of others', and, if I don't believe it, I can go back and [find and] read the small print that was hovering closeby when I tried to download something or other. It would seem that we're constantly letting other people define 'consent to receive spam' for us.
Disposable email addresses are the way to go -- by this I don't mean a hotmail address or something like that, but, rather an address that is only good for x uses. My favorite site for this is www.spamgourmet.com [spamgourmet.com] (free and ad-free) because the addresses are created as used -- this means there's no maintenance on the site, and, theoretically, you'd never have to go back to the site unless you changed your forwarding address, or whatever. The psychology behind this is that taking control of my inbox away from the spammers has to be easier than receiving and deleting one piece of spam, and I have to perceive this fact at that critical moment when I'm signing up for something...
From the faq:
Q. How do I create a disposable email address?
A. First, set up an account here, if you haven't already, and save your real email address in the space provided (don't skip this important step!). Remember your username. Later, when you need a disposable email address, just think of a word (any combination of letters and numbers (20 characters max), provided you haven't used it before), and decide how many messages you want to receive at the new address. Then, put the word, the number, and your spamgourmet username together with dots to form the disposable address. For instance, if your Username is "spamcowboy", then you could make a disposable address like so:
someword.2.spamcowboy@spamgourmet.com
Then, you can use the address to sign up for your favorite spam-prone website, get a confirmation message, get your password in the second (and final) message, then smile and consider for a moment that no one, no-how is going to send you email with that address again.
Please note: This service summarily deletes any message that doesn't pass muster with the forwarding rules, rather than preserving it for future viewing -- I love this!, but you may prefer something that saves your spam -- you may have to put up with ads or small payments to accomodate the higher cost of saving the spam, though.
The price is too high! (Score:2)
Spam is an annoyance. Government registration of internet users is the foundation for technotyranny. I'll gladly put up with the former to prevent the latter.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Spam is annoying, but (Score:2)
A lot of these idiots do get past my filters, and my filters also screen out legitimate messages. It's not that easy to filter out everything. And I am a "tech head". BTW, what about the people who are not ? And what about the ISPs whose bandwidth (that the users pay for) is wasted by the spammer ?
In other words, anyone who is enough of a tech-head to care is quite capable of blocking spam.
It's not just the "tech heads" who don't like being spammed.
The marketplace of ideas has come up with multiple solutions, therefore frivolous laws are not needed.
Well, one could argue the same thing with home security and breaking and entering laws.
services like hotmail, yahoo, etc. can institute their own filters as a service to members. Again, the marketplace has provided.
No, it hasn't. No filtering system is perfect.
There is no reason to put an entrepreneur simply trying to promote his e-business in jail with hardened criminals.
Those who abuse the resources of others without conscience are nothing more than common criminals.
[ crackpot communit conspiracy rant snipped ]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:it is UCE in Denmark. (Score:2)
Actually... (Score:2)
Re:while (opt-out && only email) cry (); (Score:2)
#2, what is the problem? Political spammers are just as bad as any other kind of spammer, and deserve to be shoot.
In any case, enforcement is unlikely to be an issue. Only Norwegain spammers are really covered by the law, and the main effect of the law will be that a nice letter will make them stop, without the need to involve law enforcement.
#3, please reserve your paranoia for US politicians, and in any case, who cares about their motives as long as the do the right thing (as in this case).
BTW, in Denmark we already *have* an opt-out system for unadressed junk snailmail, it has worked well for years. We also recently god an opt-out system for direct snailmail, and I haven't received any since I opt'ed out.
Comment removed (Score:5)
Making sure to specify exactly what SPAM is (Score:2)
Nor can you simply add "unsoliciated email advertizing" , as I've seen spam that is generally a plea for help, though poorly targeted and still going through the classic spam patterns. The content of the message does not guarentee it being spam.
And of course, you can't simply add how headers and recieverships might be hidden or such, because there are spammers that actually follow proper protocols -- they don't stay very long at one ISP, mind you, but they do continue to spam.
I think that any spam punishment provision must include the fact that if the person attempted to out-opt and yet recieved the spam from the same people after a sufficient timeframe passed for the opt-out request to be processed (2 weeks), then if they are spammed again, then the penalties start. This would allow those that run mailing lists, for example, to be free of concerns of ruthless subscribers, as well protecting casual one-time emails, while most spammers, who'd refuse to prune email lists, would be caught pants down.
while (opt-out && only email) cry (); (Score:2)
I suggest 2 other explainations:
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I don't like this... (Score:2)
Such laws are completely ineffective. Firstly, why assume opt-in and force users to opt-out ? I would have thought that most users would prefer opt-out, so it seems to make a more sensible default.
I can also see problems with the opt-in thing though. One problem would be how to decide what is and isn't spam. I often get unsolicited email that is written to me personally (sometimes job offers from publishing companies for example), and I certainly wouldn't want the senders charged. I would propose that for a spammer to be charged, several complaints should be brought against them. (in other words, it really has to be bulk mail for action to be taken)
I propose that for email to be spam, it should satisfy the following:
Re:Spam is annoying, but (Score:3)
Re:Spamcop (Score:2)
Here's what you want to do:
1. Unblock the mail
2. Follow the URL in the spamcop messages
3. Follow their instructions for a) noting that the problem has been addressed and b) sign up as an ISP and set your domains' abuse email addresses appropriately.
SpamCop sends email to you only when a) you have not registered a given URL or from-email address as being spam-free or b) someone with a spamcop account appeals your assertion. Since you've never bothered to feed back into the system, they keep pestering you (and rightly so).
I discovered spamcop as an "ISP" who got mail from them, and I joined because I love the way they deal with complaints (even those directed at me).
YHBT! (Score:2)
Anyway, the reason this whole post is not worthy of its rating is that, a) we passed the unsolicited fax law in the U.S. and we have not yet joined the communist bloc, if there even -is- a communist bloc anymore, and b) we have lots of laws like 'do not steal' and 'do not speed' but we don't tag everyone with remote transmitters to enforce those laws. Neither does outlawing UCE necessitate that we will pass laws to monitor every computer. If you're worried about it, join the EFF to make sure privacy issues are watched in any anti-spam legislation.
--Parity
An effective solution: forced disclosure & fines (Score:2)
Also, ISP's should be allowed to sue individuals who use their services for spam. Network bandwidth usage, and spoofed domain names cause monetary damage to ISPs' business.
Re:how enforceable is this? (Score:2)
The Norwegian authorities were tripping over themselves to hand over the guy who wrote DeCSS; I reckon the US State Department owes them a couple of spammers in return.
Re:This would only benefit spammers (Score:2)
Even if this were an opt-out scheme, how would that benefit them? I once added my address to a public list of addresses which did not want spam -- the hope being that spammers would remove these addresses from their mailing lists by their own free will. That project didn't really get anywhere, and I'm assuming that's down to spammers just being lazy.
However, I got one mail that said "Hah! You put your name on a list of people who don't want spam -- fools, can't you see spammers will use this list and you'll get even more spam". That doesn't make sense to me: spam is a form of advertising. Legit advertisers go to great lengths to reach as targetted an audience as possible. Why would a spammer go out of their way to get a load of addresses for people who are virtually guaranteed to be unreceptive, hostile, or even litiginous?
What I'd really like to know, though, is this: spam is very common. Is it therefore profitable? I honestly can't say I've *ever* recieved spam containing a tempting proposition.
--
Freedom is sacrificed a little at a time (Score:2)
But I will not concede to any government the right to determine what can and cannot be considered unwanted e-mail. When the intent is clearly something that would be criminal when done by other means, such as death threats, fraudulent stock scams, etc., certainly those should be illegal. Consider how far anti-spam legislation may go. Do you want to jail time for a message like this:
To: Not Yet Clueful Newbie <new-b@domain>
From: Open Source Hacker <hacker@lug>
Subject: Come to our meeting next Thursday
Hey, I'm the Linux zealot you met at the
bookstore Saturday. Since you were local I
just fingered the local ISPs for someone with
your name. Are you interested in coming to
our Linux Users' Group meeting next Thursday?
I shouldn't have to consult a lawyer to determine the legality of every action I take.
Translation is wrong in the article. (Score:3)
Opt-out means that I have to send my address to a register in order not to receive spam. Sweden has this system, and it does not work well.
Norway has chosen an opt-in system, which means that I have to actively request the advertisement from the spammer. If they can't show that I've requested the mail, they are acting against the law.
The translation mentions opt-out, which is wrong.
Norway's new law also covers advertisements sent via SMS, the instant messaging service in the GSM mobile telephone net.
US Spammers... (Score:2)
There are some federal laws wrt. do not call lists and all though. I wonder if you could get something like this through here. It'd be a lot easier to prove the spammer was intentionally breaking the law if there were a single federally maintained do not call list...
I'm Sure the Chinese Will Love This.... (Score:4)
Hi!
Everybody hates spam. Everybody thinks spam is a pain in the neck. Everybody thinks spam should go away. And those inclined to expect the government to do everything for them will--not surprisingly--tend to expect the government to protect them from spam.
Which may be a good thing, except for one little detail. If the government is going to protect you from "spam", the government is going to define what "spam" means. And you may not be happy with that definition--because as sure as the fact that the sun is coming up tomorrow, any government is going to figure out a way to protect itself with its definition of spam.
Remember "Junk Fax"?
Back when fax machines first appeared it didn't take office supply companies, delis, and a horde of other advertisers to figure out that they could send you virtual flyers with a local phone call--substantially cheaper than paying for postage.
Lots of people objected to junk fax. Lots of legislators climbed on the bandwagon--junk fax came to be viewed by politicians as an easy target: nobody was in favor of (euphemism) "unsolicited commercial fax."
Then a funny thing happened--except that it wasn't funny at all if you are old enough to remember watching it on CNN. Students in the People's Republic of China staged a demonstration in Tianamien Square in Beijing that quickly became a serious challenge to the authority of the Communist Party. At first the authorities dismissed this as an annoyance--but as the protest continued, the government got more and more scared. The government ultimately crushed the protest with tanks and machine guns--no one in the West knows yet how many students were killed.
What was significant about the "uprising" was that the Chinese government was right about one thing: the PRC kept insisting that the protest was being directed by "outside agitators". They were right--Chinese dissidents, in the U.S. as graduate students, were directing the protests across China from an office in suburban Boston--via fax. The PRC finally figured it out, and blocked phone traffic from the Boston area--but they never figured out concepts like call-forwarding, etc. The students were able to communicate with very little restriction right up until the end.
In the aftermath, the Communists decided that "the people" needed protection from "unsolicited fax". They required every fax machine to be registered. They enacted laws spelling out draconian punishments for unregistered fax usage. They tried their damndest to prevent anybody ever doing this again.
Now the Internet is here.
And try as the Chinese Communists might, they're having a tough time preventing people from getting information. The PRC has worked diligently to block access to foreign news sites, foreign chat sites, etc.--especially anything published in Chinese. I'm certain that one dimension of the PRC's reported enthusiasm for Linux is that they can be certain that the U.S. doesn't have a trap door in their computers--and that they can install a trap door of their own. (Somehow, I'm sure the PRC will--what a surprise!--forget to distribute the source code of their distros.)
But they can't block e-mail.
I have mail in my in-box from a young Chinese man. He and his wife are deeply fond of my mother--she and my late stepfather helped them escape from China in the immediate aftermath of Tianemien Square. They are still actively in touch with friends and relatives back in China--by email. And if the need ever arises, they can maintain those communication links: through open relays; through "anonymizer" relays; through throwaway accounts--in short, using exactly the same techniques as the spammers.
We live in a free society--with the advent of the Internet our freedom of expression and (if only virtual) assembly are practically limitless. It doesn't work that way everywhere in the world. There are places in the world where defaming the Imam earns you a fatwa--a price on your head. There are places in the world where refusing to pledge allegiance to the Dear Leader and embrace the "scientific truths" of Kim-Il-Sungism means that your family doesn't get food rations, and is left to starve. There are places in the world where billions of people are "protected" from "unsolicited fax" and other such dangers.
Those places all have governments that would be more than happy to "protect" their citizens from "spam."
Yup. Spam is an annoyance. By golly, I have to press that Delete key four, sometimes five times a day. And I'm sure that having the government decide what email I can see, and making sure that I only see "unsolicited" mail from people they approve of, will make my life so much more enjoyable. So much more buoyant--so much more vibrant--so much more liberating. At least, right up to the point where I want to send or receive messages the government doesn't approve of.
Thanks, but...
For me and my household--we'll just use SpamCop [spamcop.nettargetblank], and the Delete key.
Re:cellphone, schmellphone... if you're so clever. (Score:2)
- A.P.
--
* CmdrTaco is an idiot.
Re:Spam is annoying, but (Score:2)
Some of the spam that winds up in my inbox is stuff that I certainly would not want my future children to see until they're old enough. I don't want to receive it myself, but I know to spamcop.net it, and then delete it. Just recently I received something along the lines: "If you are under 18, delete this message. If you're not, then click this link for a ***** licking good time with ****** girls who *****". I find it personally offensive, but the thought of my future children seeing it makes feek sick. How the hell am I supposed to try and keep that crap away from them? I could filter all their incoming email, but I'm sure some stuff will get through. I could personally screen, but then that would be an invasion of their privacy. However, this won't work for email addresses beyond my control. It's no wonder sensorware is springing up all over the place. This is something that only the government can help us with.
Comment removed (Score:3)
Re:Sneakemail (Score:2)
Postfix has a Delivered-To header that will tell you what mailbox it was delivered to, so even if it's not in the headers, since it was in the envelope you'll know.
--
SPAMCOP (Score:2)
You will get a reply back that will allow you to parse headers and send a complaint with just a couple clicks. Try it, and you'll never go back to reading headers yourself.
Are there any mail bouncers for Windows? (Score:2)
* Operates as either a plugin for my mail client (Netscape), or more preferably:
* Operates as a local POP3 server, thus any mail client can use it.
* Can be configured to grab mail from multiple POP3 servers.
* Can utilise ORBS/MAPS
* Will allow me to review my email before accepting it. Any suspect emails to be placed in a separate list which I can check for bouncing as if the email address were invalid. Perhaps integration with spamcop.net, although they alreasy provide similar services.
A trick for helping with Spam (Score:2)
IMO, this works much better than munging your email address, as the fake address does work (as opposed to having a legit email sender try to figure out how to demunge your munged address), and it's rather easy to turn off the mail feed for a particularly spammed account.
My toolkit against spam (Score:2)
The Spam Bouncer [spambouncer.org], a procmail script to identify incoming spam and either tag it, move it to a different mailbox file, or bounce it.
SpamCop [spamcop.net], to file official complaints about the spam that gets through.
Sugarplum [devin.com], to stick lots of irrelevant fake email addresses (and the addresses of other spammers) up on my web pages. If spammers want to harvest addresses from MY pages, they're going to fill up their databases with useless data and end up spamming each other.
And finally, Web Ad Blocking [csuchico.edu] is a site which provides a new 'hosts' file which redirects major web page ad sites to 127.0.0.1, which removes a whole lot of banner ads from web pages.
Re:My Norwegian is a little rusty... (Score:5)
Stop the e-mail adds.
By: Jon Martin Larsen
From now on, in Norway, nobody are allowed to send advertisement to your e-mail, unless you let them. Of course, it requires more than an EU adjusted law to stop the flow advertisement on the internet.
RECIEVES SPAM: Jan Ingvoldstad (28) are a student doing his main subject in computer science, and he recieves between thirty and fifty spam mails per week. Last weekend he got 17 such messages.
Make sure you trust who you give your e-mail address to. If you participate in newsgroup, mailing lists or competitions og gaming sites, then you are specially vulnerable.
The unsolicited mail which are sent to your e-mail are refered to as Spam. It has gotten it's name from an old Monthy Python sketch, where a bunch of viking constantly interrupts and sings Spam, spam, spam, lovely spam, wonderful spam.
The spam is distributed by more or less unscrupulous businesspeople which hopes to sell services and product. And their way of doing it is to fill your e-mail.
In many countries this is allready illegal, and from the 1st of march will Norway have one of the strictest regulations in this area. Other countries are Denmark, Finland, Germany, Austria and Italy. A new marketing law which is more suited to EU becomes operative and makes it illegal to send advertisments through e-mail or SMS (Short Messaging Service) unless the consumers has given their explicit permission up front.
Anyone that breaks the prohibition, will explain onesself to the consumers ombudsman. the sentences in the new marketing laws are also a lot stricter. You now risk getting large fines or up to six months in jail. Or both.
Norwegian companies and companies who markets themselves in Norway can be held responsible if they send you spam, provided you haven't explicitly requested it up front. "The consumer gets more power." concludes chief information officer Anne Nyeggen in the Data Inspectorate. "The new marketing law overlaps and surpasses the personal information law(NOTE: In Norway, it's hard getting personal information and you also need clearance for keeping databases) when it comes down to rights, and it results in a much stronger protection against advertisments and sales through e-mail and SMS."
"We think this is a kind of marketing that enters into the private areas, and thusly we think the recipients should give their permission in advance", says Harald Hilton. He is counceler in the consumer branch of the Children and family departement.
Some companies are allready following the lines of the new law. These are mainly compaines that operates partly or completely on the internet. One example is the new telephone directory on the net. You have to register to recieve information, and the e-mail address are your user name. The service is closed to accomodate the demands from the Data Inspectorate demands about protecting private information and to hinder abuse.
This means you have to identify yourself to get access. Telenor Media have been given permission to verify your identity by requesting your social security number and checking this against the national register. You are also explicitly asked if you want your e-mail to be available to others, both for private and for businesses. You are also specifically queried about if you wish to recieve unsolicited e-mails.
But Norwegian law does not govern the internet. When you are surfing the net, you have to watch out. If you find you are being massively spammed, it might be because you were careless.
When you are surfing on the net, you can easily be tempted by offers and links. You're surfing along, maybe downloading an image and you click on another link.
Don't be surprised if someone has a small data mining script on one of the pages. Such a program would attempt to gain access to your e-mail address through your browser. The address is stored, then sold, and sold and sold to everyone that wants it. And that's how you get offers from the strangest places about all kinds of weird things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:This is almost useless (Score:2)
Base Price per month $17 for 10 hours Cost for additional hour $2.90 per hour
Re:Spam is annoying, but (Score:2)
Use of the "SPAM" topic icon (Score:3)
Like Tetris? Like drugs? Ever try combining them? [pineight.com]
Big Brother (Score:2)
Re:This would only benefit spammers (Score:2)
Re:Resources... (Score:2)
Dude, get a fscking clue! WWW is not the Internet. E-Mail dates from the early '70s.
Sneakemail (Score:4)
From their website: http://www.sneakemail.com [sneakemail.com] - Neat.
------------
CitizenC
Re:Sneakemail (Score:2)
Re:Resources... (Score:2)
The sender pays for junk snailmail. YOU pay (in increased ISP costs, and -- for europeans -- connect time) for junk email.
Re:Spamcop (Score:2)
Problem is, Spamcop REDACTS the complainant's email address, so we are totally in the dark about who wants to be removed from our mailing list! Fat lot of good that does anybody!
Spamcop messages are now blocked at our incoming relay. They are useless for getting people off of mailing lists who don't want to be there.
Re:Use of the "SPAM" topic icon (Score:2)
Too bad there isn't a dedicated site for Hershey's Chocolate Syrup (tm).
I don't like this... (Score:2)
The way I'd do it is as follows. All advertising sent over the Internet, solicited or not, must have the option attached in some manner to not receive advertisements from that company at any future date. Whether this is via a Web form, replying to an e-mail with specific commands, or whatever does not matter, so long as the option exists.
Once a user opts out, they are sent one final message confirming this, as a sort of receipt so they can prove that they opted out. If the company ever sends them advertising over that channel again, they can be held liable for harassment.
Another possible implementation of this would instead require all direct-marketing advertising to be opt-in; a company may not send advertising to someone who has not previously given his or her explicit consent. This one leaves more of a bad taste in my mouth, though; it has the potential to set some rather nasty precedents.
A third approach would be to ban direct-marketing outright, on the grounds that it is necessarey to violate a person's privacy in order to obtain the requisite data. This one's only arguably good, though. It's true that no speech is actually being banned (you simply have to resort to mass-marketing techniques in order to say it, in the case of advertisements), but again some very dangerous precedents could be set here.
The fact is, we do have a right to free speech, and this is a Very Good Thing. But we also have the right to not be harassed, and that's basically what spam does. It's all about striking a good balance. I'm not sure what the ideal balance is. Anyone else have thoughts on this?
----------
Re:Big Brother (Score:2)
It *is* an EU regulation (Score:3)
Re:Spam is annoying, but (Score:2)
The government is necessary in some instances of life to instill a sense of control. The constant blathering about freedom on the internet will lead to the death of the beast unless we realise who we have to protect ourselves from (the bloody corporations who are trying to take over the net). The government protects citizens from unscrupulous telephone solicitation, so why not expect the same for spammers?
Resources... (Score:2)
There is also an article on The Register [theregister.co.uk] about Europe considering a ban on spam.
I've [beebware.com] also got a collection of Spam resources [beebware.com], along with details of WIndows spam prevention [beebware.com] and details of spam filters [beebware.com].
Richy C.
It is *not opt-out, it is opt-in. (Score:3)
Denmark has a similar law, allthough it only covers UCE, not UBE, since it is part of the marketing law. We also have an opt-out system for snailmail, including a central list for direct snailmail.
Identifying Marks (Score:3)
That would be great to have at home, wouldn't it? You get a range of 100 telephone numbers, and you can assign them how you like. Based on the incoming number (and the caller ID too, if you like) you can give an engaged signal, direct to a screening service, have the phone ring with one of several identifying tones, etc. The possibilities are endless! Pity it's only available on ISDN-like connections, and usualy only the really high bandwidth ones. Still, sooner or later...
But this whole "identifying marks" thing is something you can use in a broad sense. I'm one of the privileged many (many on Slashdot at least) that can create new email addresses at whim because I have one or more domain names and administrative control over the mail for that domain. But how about physical mail addresses?
I use a PO Box, of course, but that doesn't stop companies sending me junk. But what I make a policy of doing now is tainting every postal address I'm obliged to give out. The address for a PO Box is very short, and it usually gives me one spare line to fill in with irrelevant data. I use this to fill in a "care of" address. Thus, if I'm obliged to give my postal address to buy-a-cd-online.com because my employer gave me credit there as a Christmas gift, I tell them that I'm "Air Supply, c/o C.D.Overmeyer, PO Box blah blah etc". The "C.D.Overmeyer" guff is enough to remind me who I gave that address to, and to write "return to sender" on unpoened envelopes to that address if they start spamming me postally.
As an aside, the most annoying junk mail I get in my PO Box is the stuff that the Post Office puts there, having accepted money from someone else to do so. I think if I'm paying for the box I should be able to say no to this, but I've yet to take it up with the staff. In the meantime, I hurl said junk back through the PO Box onto their floor. Why should I put their junk in the bin for them? Always aim for the bottom line. If everyone did it, they might at least ask us all whether we wanted the junk in the first place instead of stuffing it straight in.
I hate spam, in all its forms.
Re:I'm Sure the Chinese Will Love This.... (Score:4)
In my more paranoid days, I agree with a thesis I saw on news.admin.net-abuse.email.
Briefly, the thesis is that the best way for the PRC's government to control email use is to get themselves firewalled by the rest of the world.
It would explain the complete negligence I've seen on the part of the admins of open mail relays in .cn. The more spam that comes from .cn, the more likely that "the rest of the world" will simply add any .cn host to their DENY lists.
It won't stop you from telling your Chinese friend what's going on... but it will stop him from mailing you. And that's a big win from the point of view of the PRC government.
(Me? I bounce Chinese-relayed spam with "550 - Free Tibet" or "550 - Falun Gong thanks you", followed by a random set of characters. Makes the relay operator sweat, confuses the PRC gov't. Win-win.)
It's opt-in, not opt-out. (Score:2)
This is almost useless (Score:2)
Even if US and EU banned spamming, what would be the result?
Small spamming companies would be founded in Cayman Islands, I guess.
Re:Spam is annoying, but (Score:2)
However, consider the facts concerning current spam: It's usually from some unknown source, complete with forged envelope headers, sent from some free ISP using uu.net dialups via open relays on the Western Pacific Rim. Is there any question about the label UCE on messages that fit this criteria?
As I said earlier, make an antispam law similar to the Junk Fax law, where the complainant can sue in small claims for $50 per message (echostar.com would owe me about $1000 right now) and give ISP's the legal right to charge cleanup fees. Make it so that it begins to cost spammers money to send their garbage and you'd see the spamload die a slow, horrible death.
Rich