Spamming Gets Expensive in Utah and Ohio 307
bradipo writes "A large number of lawsuits have been filed against companies that have not complied with the anti-spam statute in Utah. I'm not sure how this will turn out, but it should be interesting nonetheless." And reader spoton writes "The governor of Ohio has signed into law a bill that allows internet subscribers to sue for up to $50,000 and ISP's for up to $500,000. It allows you to sue for $100 per email + court and lawyer fees incurred. Looks like the cost of spamming is going up."
what about jurisdiction (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:what about jurisdiction (Score:2, Informative)
Re:what about jurisdiction (Score:2)
Re:what about jurisdiction (Score:2, Informative)
5. JURISDICTION. Transmitting or causing the transmission of unsolicited bulk electronic mail to or through an interactive computer service's computer network located in this state shall constitute an act in this state.
That legalese, I think, is sufficiently clear to stand by itself. That said, of course, IANAL.
On another note, Utah and Ohio are somewhat known for tighter legal control.
After all, they are among the states that get special mention on those satellite channels that give titillating promos for the porn channels.
And they're the states that were the reason for the "you may have other rights, which vary from state to state" you find in most license agreements; these states are the ones that have laws that specify that even a license that completely disclaims all liability can't be held up in court.
In short, if I agreed a little more with some of their more unconventional laws, I'd move to Utah in a heartbeat.
But FWIW, I have begun documenting my spams. Occasionally I do unsubscribe, but most I just send to the Federal Trade Commission [mailto]. I figure that someday there might be a precedent, and I wouldn't mind making $500 per unsolicited email. :)
Anyway, I got the idea for spamming the FTC from here [ftc.gov].
HTH. HAND.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:How sad! (Score:2)
It still doesn't make sense to go after the ISP, no more so than it does to sue telcos for the actions of telemarketters. Making the ISP responsible will have a chilling effect on Ohio's internet services, and that could only hurt the state's technology sector. Go after the spammers yes, the ISP no. Nice "save the children" hot-button press though.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
False argument that ISPs need spam revenue (Score:4, Insightful)
If the Spam-needed-for-competition argument is true, then China and Korea would have the best hosting companies around.
Re:what about jurisdiction (Score:3, Insightful)
The spam may be from dial up European sources, but they are usually US spammers using services from there. Go after the people hiring them. If I tell you to break the law, I am still breaking the law.
Re:what about jurisdiction (Score:2)
The best one was an open proxy spam for Russian Babes through the firewall machine for the South Korean naval HQ. (And right after I reported it and suggested they tighten security, the whole naval crisis between North and South Korea happened. Coincidence?)
It might catch on (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It might catch on (Score:2)
How can this be redundant? It's one of the first posts in the story!
Interesting (Score:2, Funny)
What a great way of making money (Score:3, Funny)
Laws are great when they are enforced (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Laws are great when they are enforced (Score:2)
IF SPAM IS OUTLAWED, ONLY OUTLAWS WILL USE SPAM!
(sorry - had to)
Re:Laws are great when they are enforced (Score:4, Insightful)
I compare these to the current junk fax laws on record. They are part of the TCPA act passed in the early 90s that, among other things, made it against federal law to send unsolicited faxes. The penalty is $500. Yet the machine at work averages about 10 a week. Why haven't all of us retired with a bank of fax machines generating income from the junk faxers? Because it is up to us to file against the faxer and pursue them to collect. Some judges believe it is an abuse of the court system to try to collect on these. Others listen to the junk faxers and believe it is a free speech issue. Aside from that, the time and effort involved in tracking down the faxer aren't always worth the money.
Tracking down a spammer for $20 or $100 will be the same. Sure, it will feel good to collect that money from someone. You might even be able to track a number of spams to one company and make it worth your while. But it will be a losing game of whack a mole. 3 more will pop up and the tide of trash in your inbox will not abate.
Curious as to what the laws are in YOUR state? (Score:5, Informative)
It is likely that... (Score:2)
Which would make the business of being an ISP suck, but would probably eliminate the problem.
Re:It is likely that... (Score:2)
We can't boycott unless we know the ISP's name.
Bounty Hunters (Score:3, Interesting)
If you could, then I predict a small industry would spring up of bounty hunters who would go to any lengths necessary to track down the origin of a spam message. Heck, they would even pay you (or other affected parties along the route) to put in necessary monitoring equipment/software, etc. in order to be able to track down the origin of a message without interferring with the operation of your mail server.
So this law needs to be ammended to allow you to recover costs associated with tracking down the spammer. Bounty hunters would be knocking at your door to offer to help track down spammers. After all their fee becomes part of your cost to track down the spammer, and therefore part of the amount you could sue for.
Re:Bounty Hunters (Score:2)
Simply sue the provider of the good or service offered in the spam (ie, whoever is paying the spammer to spam.) He'll probably be happy to tell you who he hired to send it.
Re:Bounty Hunters (Score:2)
Actually, I can see the Russian mafia folks wanting to get into this business. Get the legal stuff straight on this end, offer them a cut to get the bucks out of the hide of the Russian spammers. Might work in China too. If there's enough money in it, you might even get their governments involved for a cut of the pie. And if you're talking about really, really big money, the U.S. Congress might even want to get their fingers involved in solving the problem.
Okay, that last one is a stretch.
Personally, I'm waiting for... (Score:5, Funny)
Subject: GET RICH QUICK! READ THIS NOW!
Make money in your spare time suing spammers! This is a once in a lifetime opportunity!
For instructions, send $20 to...
Excessive litigation? (Score:3, Interesting)
The real reason to limit consumer is exactly these types of laws. Companies have been spamming consumers and ISPs to death. We have tried to establish voluntary laws to solve the problem. We have tried opt-in list and verified opt-in lists. We have begged web hosting companies to make sure commercial email sent from domains they host have real headers with valid email addresses, and clearly identify the source of the product and emailer. All has been to no avail.
So we are at a point where the only recourse is litigation. Is this the fault of greedy consumers or lawyers? Or is the fault of an industry that does not have the integrity to define and enforce rules that insure consumers and agents are treated with respect.
I am sure that conservatives have and are going to complain that this law and litigation are indicative of a decline in the basic moral fiber of the American consumer. At the same time, they will be raking in profits from the backs of those same consumers.
Utah law--good or ineffective? (Score:2)
I found the Utah law here [state.ut.us].
It looks like you still have to opt-out, so I'm not sure how effective this law will be at stopping spam. One good point, it seems to make forging headers illegal.
I'd hate to be the poor bastard who (Score:2)
Re:I'd hate to be the poor bastard who (Score:3, Interesting)
No one has complained to either me nor my provider,though.
The only reason I know of it, is that I got all the bounces. Fortunately, there's procmail for that.
Just happened again (Score:2)
I wouldn't mind, if any of you were to call them, and give them a piece of your mind
Not a good idea (Score:2, Interesting)
What irks me the most about some of the SPAM I get (over a hundred a day, so many that I've just started filtering whole domains, especially foreign ones) are the ones from LEGIT companies and sites, stuff I've signed up to get.
Such as news headlines from All Access, etc (I run a radio news site, and like to keep up on news items to post). Well, they, among others, have started using the lowball techniques that VeriSign's SPAMM'ers (easily the MOST obnoxious non-porn or scam SPAM on the net), in randomizing their e-mail sender.
The purpose of which is to defeat you inbox filtering (I use Agent) which I use to shunt mailing list e-mail, and news updates from All Access among others to their own folders so as to make the 200+ emails a DAY I get organized so that I MIGHT actually be able to make sense of them...
All of which is done, of course, because for some reson, marketers think they MUST be in your Inbox or else, they don't want you filtering.
In my case, getting into my Inbox makes you LESS likely to be read...
Also, I've pretty much had to make up folders and filters for the domains of all the popular "free" e-mail services, such as Yahoo! and Hotmail, so much SPAM arrives from those addresses daily. Which makes it LESS liklely that anyone needing to send me something using one of those services to get my notice, as 99% of the stuff I receive from those two domains are SPAM.
Anyone else resorted to this? I'm starting to get more and more SPAM from aol.com, as well, making me consider doing the same to them...
libility and finding the bastards (Score:5, Informative)
also - who is truely responsible for the *sending* of the email e.g: the guy who was on
so - if you go after spammers and you find that the email you are getting comes from someone like this said spammer guy, do you have the legal right to demand client info from him - and can you sue both him (sender) and his client for 100/email each (totalling 200/email)
the other isue is the time it will take to try to track down these people when you have false headers etc.. and when they are in china or some such country where it would be hopeless to track them....
How do spammers make money? (Score:2)
How do spammers make money if they are difficult to track down? If a spammer uses false email headers and routes his spam through China to hide his identity, how does he expect me to pay him? How do spammers hide from law, but not from "MAKING MONEY FAST"?
Re:How do spammers make money? (Score:4, Funny)
Then when those independent people spam every email address on the planet, if you go back to the company to complain, they would say (if you could pin them down), "oh dear, the independent advertising agent we hired must not have followed best practices, we asked them not to spam!"
"No, we can't really help you track them down and sue them, we just have a post office box address and a cashed cheque..."
"good luck... (giggle)"
So then you think: The solution is to make it explicit in law that companies are responsible for the actions of anyone they hire to advertise for them.
No, won't work. The company will claim to have never paid anyone to advertise (spam) for them. How will you prove it?
All you have is the company name and phone number on a spam bounced off some anonymous relay in Korea, and the company claims they had nothing to do with it. They will claim that someone is trying to make them look bad by forging spam from them. It might even be true.
My best idea is public execution of spammers, preferably by hanging. After the first few die on live TV, the others might become discouraged.
Re:libility and finding the bastards (Score:2)
In essence, we want to make it as socially and legally difficult to admit to being in any way distributing or profiting from spam as, say being in any way distributing or profiting from stolen car parts.
finding them and making them pay (Score:2)
Then the trick is to show that the business being advertised actually paid for the spamming, and than they weren't framed. You can expect them to deny it.
Re:finding them and making them pay (Score:2)
A well crafted law would induce virtumondo.com, VMC Satellite and DISH Network to cooperate in tracking down the spammer. The law should support suing and/or fining non-cooperating businesses.
It's entirely possible that VMC Satellite and DISH Network were framed. If so, they should be happy to help track down the spammer(s).
I live in Michigan, which doesn't have any anti=spam laws yet. It's election time. The state legislature is easy to contact now. What law should I suggest they pass for Michigan?
Re:finding them and making them pay (Score:2)
It's entirely possible that VMC Satellite and DISH Network were framed. If so, they should be happy to help track down the spammer(s).
And how much cooperation would you expect from them? Would they be more liable to cooperate than, say, the tiny company I own? What if someone forged spam to look like I sent it. How much do I have to do to clear my name?
Nope, sorry, that won't work at all. Under the Constitution (for us 'merkins), we are considered innocent until proven guilty. You can't force an innocent person to do any such thing as track down their impersonators.
Re:finding them and making them pay (Score:2)
In the USA, you can be compelled to testify in a court of law, if the judge decides that your testimony is material to a case. Likewise, the judge can approve search warrants for your property and/or business records.
The trick is crafting the laws such that innocent parties are not unduly burdened, while preventing companies from using commission based sales as a means to avoid anti-spam laws.
Re:libility and finding the bastards (Score:2)
It is illegal to kill. Both the hit man and the person who paid him to kill are liable.
I think a basis is that you cannot shield yourself from the law by having someone else break the law in your stead.
Just my 2 Eurocents.
It workes without legislation. (Score:3, Interesting)
Write your government officials (Score:2)
Vote-Smart.Org [vote-smart.org]
will help you to look up the Postal and Email addresses of everyone you need to write to.
Sorta OT, sorta not (alleged "opt-in" spams...) (Score:3, Interesting)
On the subject of spam and legalities, I've lately gotten a couple of those "blackmail" spams, you know the ones politely worded "we request your permission to contact you" in the subject, but with instructions that essentially boil down to "If you don't want us and our affiliates to spam you senseless, reply to us so we can confirm your email address and sell it to another spammer".
Is this even legal? Basically, they are asserting that if I don't actively decline their "offer", (and open myself up to be spammed by anyone they sell my "confirmed" address to), they claim I am "consenting" to be spammed by them and all of their affiliates.....
If I refuse to contact them and they spam me anyway, will that constitute harassment of some sort?
Ironically, BOTH of the last two spamming companies (both of them seem to be set up specifically to spam on behalf of others) that have done this claim on their websites that they only use "triple opt-in" addresses, which is obviously a falsehood considering they wouldn't be contacting me at all if they weren't harvesting my email address from some other not-opted-into spam list or a website or something...and only the twisted mind of a spammer thinks "refusing contact" is the same as "Oh, please, spam me!"...
Re:Sorta OT, sorta not (alleged "opt-in" spams...) (Score:2)
That wouldn't do me much good when they take my name off of THEIR list then sell it to some other spammer with a different IP address...
I think public beatings may be the only potentially effective deterrent to spammers sometimes...
I've said it before.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Spam works simply because the marginal cost of 1 additional email is so low that the marginal gain of 1 additional email sent will ALWAYS be greater (which means that some kind of nation-wide policy like this stands a chance at fixing the situation by raising the marginal cost of email).
For example....
Suppose I do television advertising. As I buy more and more advertising, I come closer and closer to saturating my potential market with exposure to my advertisement. Say I'm buying advertisements during sitcoms. For each add I buy, I reach fewer people who have yet to be exposed to my advertisement than the last ad that I ran. Thus the marginal value of each ad I purchase goes down, while the cost remains equal (all other factors equal).
That means that eventually I will reach a point where the marginal cost of the ad is greater than the marginal value. At that point, I'll start losing money on the campaign, and quit running the ad.
Now, let's look at spam....
Each exposure still costs some finite amount of money. The difference is that the cost is TINY compared with television advertising. Suppose I spend $1,000 on a co-located server and the associated bandwidth (a totally arbitrary number). That server can probably send literally millions (if not billions) of emails in the month that my $1,000 paid for. It's obvious that the marginal cost of the spam campaign is TINY compared to the marginal cost of the television ad campaign.
That means that the spam campaign takes MUCH MUCH longer. Indeed, as the marginal cost of the spamming approaches zero (which it gets very close to), the number of mails it takes to reach the point where marginal cost = marginal value approaches infiniti (which means you won't ever stop sending mail).
It's simple economics. The only way to lessen spam (from a purely free-market standpoint) would be to increase the marginal cost of the email (or decrease the marginal value, but that's not going to happen, because there's always an idiot out there that can be scammed into sending you a $5 check). Increasing the marginal cost of the email could be done in lots of ways - but they mostly all involve giving up some of the freedoms which we're probably not willing to give up in exchange for freedom from some spam.
mcafee spamming for anit-spam (Score:3, Interesting)
These guys are worse than insurance salesmen...
Honestly, not trying to troll... (Score:2, Insightful)
When are we going to see law suits against junk mail? I'd love that.
When SPAM is outlawed (Score:2, Troll)
Outlaw everything you don't like and soon no one will be able to do anything. I would much rather seek technological methods of spam filtering (e-mail, faxes and phone calls) than see any more rights revoked.
The quickest way to an authoritarian state is to pass laws that make everyone an outlaw, and selectively enforce those laws.
----
A nation may lose its liberties in a day and not miss them for a century.
--Baron de La Brede et de Montesquieu
Re:When SPAM is outlawed (Score:2)
I just want to point out that the Hormel people have been incredibly cool about the use of the word "spam" to describe junk email. They could have been right bastards about it, but instead all they ask is that the public use "spam" to talk about junk email and reserve "SPAM" (all caps) to talk about their food product thing.
So let's avoid calling it SPAM, if for no other reason to just show the Hormel people the respect they deserve.
I also want you to know that this comment may have sounded sarcastic, but it really, really wasn't. Amazingly.
Re:When SPAM is outlawed (Score:2)
Even if that was not so, they did not just ask that Spam be refered to in all caps. In fact, they suggested as follows: So, you might have had a point if I said "When SPAM Luncheon Meat is Outlawed...".
Given the context, I don't believe confusion between the two is a problem.
Also, the term, although trademarked, can really be considered public domain at this point.
So, I really don't care:
Don't come over here
And piss on my gate
Save it just keep it
Off my wave
--Soundgarden, 'My Wave'
Re:When SPAM is outlawed (Score:2)
Naturally, if you want to announce that you "really don't care," nobody can stop you. Of course, that would make you an asshole, so that course of action comes with its own set of problems.
Re:When SPAM is outlawed (Score:2)
But hey, you've got a good tactic. If it's something you don't like, call it a bad name. So, go after the
Where do these laws pertain? (Score:3, Insightful)
My question is as follows: if the message originated in my own home state, Minnesota, I am sure I could bring legal action against the perpetrator. If, on the other hand, the message originated in another state, perhaps North Dakota, where there are no laws prohibiting spam, or even another country, perhaps Canada, would I have precedent to bring action against them? They cannot make a case that they do not know what state I am in, considering the fact that my email address is in the
I know these are a lot of questions, but I am surprised and delighted to learn that in my home state I can bring action (and get reimbursed) for each and every unwanted spam email message that I get, and I want to be armed with as much knowledge as possible. Thanks for your time if you have anything to add to this conversation.
Combine this with Vipuls Razor and... (Score:2)
Combine Vipul's Razor [sourceforge.net] with lawsuits against spammers [wired.com]
When you get spam, you forward it to a special email address, which aggregates it and keeps your address. When there are enough copies to justify a case, the lawyers track down the spammer and file a class action, using whichever spam laws apply. They disperse the damages back via PayPal, keeping a percentage themselves.
republished from my weblog [blogspot.com]
California's first case is still being litigated (Score:3, Insightful)
California anti-spam cases are mostly stuck waiting for this case to be finally decided. But I think that once there's a win in this case, the floodgates will open. Not many spammers are in Utah, but there are lots of them in California.
The next big issue that has to be litigated is whether you can sue the beneficiary of the spam, not just the spammer. It's probably not a valid defense that the beneficiary hired a third party to spam for them. It can probably be argued that the actual spammer was acting as their agent. It gets complicated, with discovery needed to force disclosure of the transaction between the spammer and the beneficiary of spam. But that's how to go after the deep pockets, big companies that use others to spam for them.
There's a problem I see with this. (Score:2)
So, we are left back at square one... The opt-in mails are bullshit, if you try to unsubscribe, you only end up on yet more lists, having confirmed that the email address is valid. Further, I've seen exploits even without even requiring javascript to be enabled by the emails using cgi http requests for the embedded pictures, which can do all sorts of things, like send a confirmation to a server that your email was valid - and that you read the email. I only stumbled across this by accident about a year ago when I was using a straight text email program to read some incoming mail and saw the content of the SRC= parameter on an IMG tag. I do not know for sure that it is used for this purpose, but I can see how it certainly _could_ be.
Without it ever being possible to hunt these spammers down no matter what mechanisms they might try to use to ensure their anonymity (which would, even if such mechanisms _did_ exist, cause serious problems for honest people who may simply want some privacy), we are, I am afraid, stuck with spam.
Re:Hmm, nice income (Score:2)
Re:Hmm, nice income (Score:2)
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:2)
You're right. Those arguments could not possibly have occurred to the legislators and people who advised them. *cough*
Have you tried reading the linked articles, or even reading the laws as passed? Maybe then you could show us which parts are unconstitutional?
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:2)
Beware the strawman! (Score:4, Insightful)
Are you sending them to people that you've never met in any way? If so, then how are they personal? Otherwise you are just sending email to someone you know. I am sure that they know how to ask you to stop, unless they fear offending you.
I don't think that we need to go into a definition of "spam" here. We all "know it when we see it".
Now on to my rant!
Sending thousands of unsolicedted emails (spam) is not "communicating freely". It is an electronic slap in the face. You don't respect me as a person to keep yourself from wasting my time and resources. You have no right to my time and resources. Telemarketers are nobler than spammers, at least they bother you on a one-to-one basis rather than vomiting their filth onto every person they can possibly find at once.
Finally, I at least get to play mind games with telemarketers!
Re:Beware the strawman! (Score:4, Funny)
Ah, yes. My personal favorite-- I can't take credit for this, but I don't remember where I first heard the idea-- goes something like this:
Me: Hello?
Bastard: Can I speak with Mr. (absurd mispronunciation of my last name), please?
M: Speaking.
B: Sir, I'm Tim calling from Wanyermoney Enterprises, and--
M: Did you say Tim?
B: Yes, sir, my name's Tim and I'm calling from Wanyermoney--
M: Tim, huh?
B: That's right, sir, and I'm calling to offer--
M: Hey, Tim?
B: Yes, sir?
M: What are you wearing?
At this point, either Tim hangs up or I crack up. The way I see it, they're asking for it.
My girlfriend pulled a good one about a year ago when she saw the caller ID. She picked up the phone all breathless and shaky and screamed, "Oh, god, help me! Oh--" and hung up. I was actually a little afraid that the police were going to show up, but of course they never did. I can only hope that a Bastard got a little shaken up by that one.
Make 'em work for it, that's what I say.
And has spam ever given you such joy? (Score:2)
But they do provide a release that isn't available unless you are a shameless AC.
Re:And has spam ever given you such joy? (Score:2)
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:5, Insightful)
What's at issue is the attempt to transfer advertising costs from the seller to the potential buyer. Note the key words "seller" and "buyer" - this particular issue only applies when somebody is trying to sell something to somebody else when there's no prior sign of interest. Today it's annoying, but without other economic brakes put on this process it will become a real burden on consumers. Already we're hearing of people who lose mail because the spammers have completely filled their 5- or 10-MB mailbox in a short time, and at the rate of increase I wouldn't be surprised to see many people essentially knocked off of email (due to the sheer volume of crap) within a few years.
Then there's the legal issues involved with spammers forging headers, often criminally impersonating third parties. Nobody has the right to impersonate a third party for commercial gain. These victims can sue, but it's difficult and costly and many courts still don't understand how much damage it can cause (e.g., by harming reputations, or having domains added to simple-minded RBLs).
If that's not enough, there's the fact that spammers often bounce their messages off of servers owned and maintained for the benefit of third parties. That's no different than somebody deciding to borrow your car to run some errands since you're not using it. Even if they return it, undamaged, before you need it again it's not acceptable behavior in our society.
Finally (on the commercial spam side), there's the fact that most of the spam is sent out with fradulent names, through hijacked mail relays, etc., since it's flat-out illegal. In an ideal world we could have the FDA go after the diet/baldness/penis + breast growth people, the SEC go after the "sure stock" people, etc., but in the real world they have other priorities and jurisdiction is often unclear. These anti-spammer laws are te best way to get the illegal crap off of the network fast.
As for the moral point that spammers have "the right to speak," you're absolutely right. But more importantly, I have the right to tell them to shut up. Every time I get a piece of mail with forged headers, fradulent subject lines, etc., all I see is some arrogant asshole saying that he's the center of the universe and I have no value other than being an easy mark. If somebody repeatedly knocks on my door, I can have the police arrest him for trespassing. If they repeatedly call me on the phone, I can have the state fine them many thousands of dollars for violating the DNC orders. Yet you would have me believe that I'm have no right to stop somebody from sending me, oh, an announcement of an exciting new insurance policy every single fucking day for close to six months now? Sure, I have the technical ability to filter that crap out (and I do), but because I don't run my own email servers I still have to absorb the bandwidth to get the damn message into the server *and* to get the damn message a second time from the server before it's deleted, unread.
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Point is that I've been reading and posting to
No one faulted the MPAA etc for encrypting DVDs. That was fair and all. We cracked it, but it was fair. We faulted them for making it illegal to try to crack it.
Apply the same logic here. The answer to the spam problem is not legislation, it is technology. Now, I know that those spam filters in place on mail servers eat system resources. They have to... that's a LOT of mail. But I also know how easy it is to forge headers. I know that many programs and websites are capable of sending mail from accounts which don't exist.
Why do these holes in the system exist? Why can't they be patched? Sure... I know we're talking about a protocol which is on literaly millions of machines, but it seems to me that the best way to stop spam is to remove the walls that make it possible to hide behind annonimity with your email. Once that is done... well... it becomes easier to catch these people.
Secondly, micro-pay. We see this tossed around a lot. Now, I don't like the idea of paying for email, but perhaps that's what it will take to remove spammers. Could someone create a "premium" email service which would require that senders pay
I don't know what would or wouldn't work... but these seem like the ideas I see frequently here... why can't they be applied to email rather than just websites and cyphers?
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:2)
The difference is that the MPAA has a leagal (and, in the U.S. a constitutional) right to protect their content; to prevent its copying. The MPAA paid for the research and development of CSS. (although they didn't get their money's worth). The MPAA invested millions to make DVD's a widely-accepted standard. The MPAA recoups the investments a few pennies at a time for every DVD sold. Consumers pay for it in the end-- but they get a real product in return. There's nothing forcing us to buy the movies. We aren't required to pay for DVD's encryption if we don't use it.
Spammers & spam is a totally different story. Consumers (and businesses) are involuntarily forced to shoulder nearly all costs (free netzero here, a hacked server there; no bills, no money to pay), and recieve absolutely nothing -- no product, no service -- in return.
The only other form of involuntary, forced payment is taxes and fines-- but the payment provides products and services (education, roads, police...). While taxes & fines take, they give back.
Secondly, micro-pay. We see this tossed around a lot. Now, I don't like the idea of paying for email, but perhaps that's what it will take to remove spammers. Could someone create a "premium" email service which would require that senders pay
A big reason why people don't like micropay is that it requires personal information (how else to pay?). The other problem, of course, is the idea of paying for the service (the same one as outlawing weapons): Only legitimate, leagal users would respect the system.
However, since spammers already use forged headers and hacked servers -- not to mention the con jobs involved -- there is no reason why they would send via a cost-per-message service.
In addition, there's the other, real problem: What's to stop spammers from creating their own servers to (Which they already do) to bypass the fees and restrictions involved?
Think of it like waste water (sewage):
There is the leagal, lawful way that costs money, and for which there is a bill. In some cases (chemical plants, hospitals, food processing plants) the sewage is monitored, and 'dirtier' water costs more.
There's also the storm drain, which is free and untraceable.
Spammers often create their own software; perfectly secure, patched software only means they won't be using my server. It doesn't mean they can't roll their own software that flat-out breaks e-mail addressing standards: Leave incorrect routing, source IP address, invalid everything to make it untraceable. Our e-mail system is designed to deliver mail -- not to be traceable. Even if everything else is bogus/forged, as long as the message contains a valid destination, the message will be delivered. Creating a system that ensures the message arrives at the recipient is easy; having a valid, traceable trail is much harder-- espescially when everything can be forged.
The only real method I can think of is a forced abandonment and change of the entire e-mail system to a completely closed, centralized, audited, encrypted, and controlled email system, with an unforgeable key for each user-- and that would only reduce spamming until the system is compromised.
And how do you force everyone to abandon an old, free email system for a new, metered system of dubious security/privacy & de-spamifiedness?
So, making it leagal to target spammers (both the spamming bodies, and the organizations/people they send spam for.) is the only fair way to combat it-- if advertisers actually have a financial penalty per victim, it won't be the rampant problem we now have. And if it's more expensive than alternatives, then advertisers will choose a cheaper method.
Technology is expensive and even worse than our imperfect leagal system. Spam-blocking often also blocks valid emails (like when I opt-in to a list that tells me a patch is available for my software). Using a techical solution still forces the consumer to shoulder the full cost of blocking spam. It doesn't cost spammers anything if the spam is blocked. They don't pay for the spam-blocking software. They don't have to invest time and talent in implementing it.
When I see ads on TV, in print, or hear them on the radio-- there is a real, desireable product (media, news, etc.) delivered in exchange for the chance to advertise to me. I accept the intrusion of advertisement in exchange for the products and/or services I recieve between commercials.
At least NetZero gives me free internet access in exchange for having ads pushed to my desktop.
However, spam provides me with absolutely nothing-- no product, no service. What's more-- I am the one shouldering nearly all the cost! I have to take the time to download (even parts of) them. I pay for the bandwidth. I pay the price for the email box; either directly (ISP) or banner ads (Hotmail). And I have to go to the effort of identifying and deleting them. The spammer's only cost is time.
Advertising is a heavily regulated & legislated industry for a good reason. Legislating spam is the continuing efforts of lawmakers to regulate the advertising industry. Thanks to legislation, advertisers cannot:
Drive down the street with a thunderous PA system blaring their piece at maximum volume (ice cream trucks can only play music-- but they can't have any lyrics or other non-instrumental content)
Solicit wares door-to-door (without a licence to identify them and provide leagal accountability)
Telemarketers can only call during certain hours-- and they bear a great financial cost to make the calls.
And in all 3 of the above cases, there is a significant operating cost to 'reach the audience'. In the case of spam, there is no financial difference between one and one million targets, and they provide no service or good for the privelige.
Try to remember: Every law can be broken-- but every technology can be defeated. The difference is breaking a law has a penalty.
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:2)
atrowe says: Um
So no personal emails would qualify under this law, but advertisements would still be safe, provided they provide accurate email contact info and a clearly laid out method of opting out of future advertisements from that source.
Not that this law will really stop the flood of spam, but it also won't cause you to get fined for a single email to a person who's not particular fond of you.
Additional legislation *IS* the solution (Score:2)
Yes, give the lawyers (like them or not), CASH INCENTIVES to stop spam now and GET RICH QUICK!!!!! HURRY--DON'T DELAY. SPAMMERS ARE STANDING BY!
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:4, Insightful)
Spam prevents personal speech by forcing the recipient to deal with it instead of communicating with an individual's email send to the recipient.
Technological methods of stopping spam will only require spammers to get better technological methods themselves. This is quite similar to copyprotection mechanisms, if you can hear the song, you can copy it. If you want to allow arbitrary people to send you email, they will.
While I concur that bureaucracy runs amok, this is perhaps a case where the government should give people legal recourse against something that is near universally abhored.
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:2)
"atrowe: Card-carrying Mensa [mensa.org] member. I have no toleranse for stupidity."
Intuition BEATS atrowe over the head with his Mensa card.
I have no TOLERANCE for your spelling errors in your sig. I digress
"Our society is already far too full of bureaucratic red tape and unnecessary or unenforcable laws."
There is no bureaucratic red tape surrounding these laws. Send SPAM and you are liable to be sued. Explain to me exactly what red tape this law creates. No new goverment agencys, no red tape, no additional paperwork. nothing. All these laws do is internalize the costs of spamming to the spammer, much like anti-pollution laws do.
"Legislating one's right to communicate freely goes against everything this country was founded upon"
Anonymous Coward BEATS atrowe over the head with the Constitution of the United States.
and with the ceremony completed...
Hey card carrying mensa dude - The United States was founded with legislated free speech as core to our values. Maybe you have heard of the first amendment? Or perhaps you just live in China?
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:3, Insightful)
Companies don't have a right to free speech (and this includes everything from mom-and-pop businesses to multi-national corporations).
Many of the personal e-mails which I send are unsolicited and, while I am certainly not a spammer, could violate anti-spam laws because the recipient did not specifically request to be sent e-mail.
No violation would exist, because you are not sending bulk unsolicited e-mail. The key word here is BULK. While I know that the definition of bulk is open to quibbling, most such arguments are disingenuous, and ridiculous.
Legislating one's right to communicate freely goes against everything this country was founded upon, and anti-spam legislation is just another example of an overly powerful government taking away the rights of its citizens. I, for one will not support any such law, or any lawmaker who supports such a law.
That statement is so rah-rah and flag-waving that it is cloying. Our country was presumably founded by individuals with common sense (remember Thomas Paine?). I imagine that if spamming would have been possible in their day, the spammers would have been summarily executed.
P.S.
As an aside, I consider the founding father's original intentions to be largely irrelevant. When they framed the Constitution, women and blacks were excluded from its protection. We are now going through a similar fight and readjustment with homosexuality.
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:2)
Ha! What country do you live in because I want to move there! In the USA we have the strange concept of corporate personhood [iiipublishing.com] which grants companies all the rights of a citizen! Luckily a corporate citizen can't hold elected office, but in the USA they have greater political influence than your average human citizen. And yes, they do have freedom of speech.
As an aside, I consider the founding father's original intentions to be largely irrelevant. When they framed the Constitution, women and blacks were excluded from its protection. We are now going through a similar fight and readjustment with homosexuality.
Also as an aside, how long have homosexuals been unable to vote? In what way does the constitution exclude them? Are you proposing a constitutional ammendment to correct this oversight? Yes I realize that there are issues to resolve but I don't think they rise to a constitutional level.
Re:Additional legislation is not the solution (Score:2)
So you've never heard of "equal protection under the law"? What constitution are you reading, Alabama's?
Did you read my original post or just decide to get offened? What part of the US constitution does not protect homosexuals? You are citing a section that DOES. That only furthers my argument that the constitution does not need additional changes to protect homosexuals. Other additional laws might be needed, but not an ammendment to the constitution.
If you reply again as AC the you will have the last word.
SPAM is not Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
Just because I have your cell phone number, does that give me the right to call you 20 times a day?
Cutting off Spam Doesn't Threaten Free Speech (Score:5, Insightful)
With email spammers are utilizing my resources (the bandwidth I pay for, the processor time my computer requires to handle them etc) to send me an uninvited message. They do not have any right to use my resources to disseminate that message. Nor do they have the right to use public resources to disseminate a message. If someone paints a message on the wall of the town hall, no one is censoring that person when they paint over it. People can use their own resources to say whatever the hell they want, but as soon as they start using my resources, they need my permission. Spammers automatically do not have my permission.
Regardless of the content of the spam, and regardless of the intention of the spammer, they do not have a right to send me anything. If they have a message, they can either pay to circulate it and then I will fight to the death to defend their right to do that - or they can rely upon agreed upon public forums. My inbox is not a public forum.
It isn't even a legislation issue. Spammers are trampling on other people's rights. The one thing that pretty much everyone will agree upon is that the government's role is to protect the rights of the citizen. Giving the citizen a legal recourse to go after people who use their resources without consent is exactly what the government should be doing.
Re:Cutting off Spam Doesn't Threaten Free Speech (Score:2)
Re:Cutting off Spam Doesn't Threaten Free Speech (Score:2)
Commercial speech is not afforded the same protections under the first ammendment as other forms of speech. You'll note that all anti-telemarketer legislation only applies to commercial calls -- non-profits can call you at any time. The same is true of spam laws -- they do not apply to non-commercial emails.
So it isn't that spam can be made illegal because emailing is not protected by free speech. It can be made illegal only insofar as it is commercial.
I think there are certain provisions about communications in which the receiver pays the cost, and email does (somewhat) fall under this. I'm not sure if even a non-profit can call you unsolicited at a cell number -- though maybe they could, I don't know. The cost of email is so low, though, that I don't think you could make that argument unless the emailer was being particularly aggressive -- e.g., sending email to random addresses at a domain.
Re:Cutting off Spam Doesn't Threaten Free Speech (Score:2)
Coming to my door is fine, I have no problem with that because it's personal, it isn't something someone can do at the click of a button to a million people and most of all, it doesn't cost me anything. If I had to pay every time someone rang my door bell, even if it was a trivially small amount, I would not want unwelcome people at my door. If dozens, some days hundreds of people showed up to talk about hot wet teens and penis enlargement, I'd call my local government and pester them to get rid of these people.
Re:Cutting off Spam Doesn't Threaten Free Speech (Score:2)
(Maybe SMTP could be extended with a response to connection code that means "no spammers", but I doubt they'd pay attention to it, and changing all the mail software out there to conform would take years.)
If somebody wants to talk, they can put up a web site or use conventional advertising routes.
Re:Cutting off Spam Doesn't Threaten Free Speech (Score:2)
When SMTP was designed, the Internet (or was it still ARPAnet in those days?) was decidedly, and by law, non-commercial. It is therefor fair to say that the mail protocols were designed to a default of "no spammers", and that any extension to the protocol would be something like an "unsolicted commercial email okay" response from the mail server at first connection.
There we have it: the technological solution is a "spam okay" response from the server. In the absence of that, the user does not want spam, and any such email is trespassing. We probably want some legislation to punish those who go ahead and spam without getting that "spam okay" response.
Funny, that's just what the current legislation does...
Re:Cutting off Spam Doesn't Threaten Free Speech (Score:2)
Do Not Call lists work because telemarketing is more expensive and more accountable than the cheap fly-by-night nature of spamhouses. It's in the telemarketers best interests to save money by not bothering people who don't want to be bothered, or else. It's in the spammers best interests to use a Do-Not-Spam list as a free source of victims to spam(!) because their cost is next to zero anyway and they can change their outgoing "phone number" whenever they like.
Besides filters and whitelists, the best technological way to stop spam is to either increase the cost to send (not necessarily in dollar terms), or require each new sender to pass a test that only a human could pass, before you accept their mail and add them to your friends list.
--
Missing the Point (Score:2)
A couple of people have commented here that there is no right to not receive spam, and they are correct in that there are no rights on paper whatsoever regarding the internet. What people do have a right to do is control the resources they pay for. It's called property. Email is useless if people cannot send you a message, so you can't close it down to the outside world. However, it is totally legitimate to take steps to prevent people from abusing the system - it is totally legitimate to take steps to keep the spammers from dumping their costs on to the recipients.
Going after spammers for money it not the least bit unreasonable, they are advertising - this is an activity that should cost money. I'm not actually saying that spammers have no right to exist, I'm just saying that they have no right to expect other people to bear the cost burden of what they do.
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:It's NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. (Score:2)
That's exactly right. (Although you left out "MY time" to deal with it.)
Re:It's NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. (Score:2)
The spammer can say any useless thing he wants to say, but he has NO LICENSE to use MY property to do so. My computer, my fax machine, my cell phone, and any other device that these degenerate free loaders want to use to steal their ad placements, are MINE, and not THEIRS.
Do you believe that you, as the owner of a fax machine, have the right to control what kind of faxes people send you? This has nothing to do with speech, because you're not trying to control what people say. You're merely trying to control what people say to you. Is that a fair statement of your position?
If that's the case-- that you have the right to refuse any message based on content, sender, or other attributes-- then the question naturally arises, how are you supposed to exercise that control? It's not reasonable, as others have already said, that every person sending a fax or an email or a phone call should have to get permission from the recipient first. Among other things, how are you supposed to get permission without making some kind of unsolicited, possibly unwelcome, contact?
So we have a situation in which you have the right to control what comes into your inbox, or your fax machine, or over your phone. But you have absolutely no way to practically exercise that control without putting an undue burden on everybody else.
I don't necessarily disagree with your argument. It's your computer, so I think it's reasonable to think that you should be able to determine what comes into it. I'm just questioning how you would ever exercise that ability.
If you can't exercise the right, then a law prohibiting violating that right is pretty unreasonable, don't you think? The only law that could be both reasonable and effective would be a complete ban on all communication via that method. Anything less either doesn't work (you get the spam anyway, which doesn't solve your problem) or places an unreasonable burden on senders of email (who have to read your mind to know whether their message would be welcome).
I just don't see any way that a law restricting spam can actually result in less spam.
Myself, I would prefer the technological solution. I don't get much spam, mostly because I jealously guard my email address, so I'm okay with hitting the "bounce" button whenever I receive a piece. (Although that usually doesn't work, because my bounce just bounces.)
For my home phone, I would happily adopt a whitelist system, if I could figure out how. Any number that I don't explicitly accept goes straight into my voicemail system. Anybody that really needs to reach me has my private cell phone number; I've given that number to my mom, my girlfriend, my lawyer, and my accountant.
I've been toying with the idea of building a home telephone system using GNU Bayonne, but I just haven't gotten motivated to look into it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It's NOT A FREE SPEECH ISSUE. (Score:2)
Okay, but I think you may have missed my point. You really can't exercise that kind of control. It's just not possible. There's no way for you to know what kind of message will be sent until you receive it, which defeats the whole purpose. So the sender is faced with having to secure your permission before sending the message, which is an unreasonable burden.
It just can't work. You may have the right to control how other people use your phone, fax machine, or in box, but you have no practical means to exercise that control. Other than just disconnecting the device or devices entirely, of course.
we do, but this is not a free speech issue (Score:2)
I am allowed to say "Buy my artwork." I'm allowed to put that on a web site, tell it to my friends, tell it to random passersby on the street, say it in an on the radio or on TV, etc, etc.
But I'm not allowed to say it while standing on your own at 3am with a bullhorn aimed at your window, nor am I allowed to erect billboards wherever I please to get the message across, nor am I allowed to say it in an email message sent to complete stranger, unless I follow the requirements set forth in the laws of Utah, Ohio, Washington, and other states with laws that regulate this sort of thing.
It's not about free speech. It doesn't run afoul of the first amendment, for the same reason that laws about disturbing the peace do not run afoul of the first amendment. Everyone is still free to say whatever they please - they're just not free to use other peoples' resources to say it.
Use of your bandwidth and storage (Score:2)
But putting people into jail for sending emails to lists of people seems as wrong as putting someone in jail for port scanning or other things where there are likely to be legitimate actions that will be outlawed.
If somebody repeatedly sends you unsolicited messages with 120 KB Flash attachments, what are you to do? Let your ISP's provided mailbox fill up?
Re:No one cares about free speech? (Score:2)
What if they use a forged email address, and the mail is not tagged with anything that is easy to filter (like adv) ?
The real difference between portscanning and sending spam is that portscanning does not waste my time or money. Spamming does. Personally, I think each spammer deserves a black eye from me, for having the arrogance to intrude on my personal email facilities. OTOH, someone who scans my network doesn't annoy me as long as they don't attack one of my machines.
Re:Gimme a break! (Score:2)
Junk mail gets discount postage rates, but it still costs money to send; therefore it is self-regulating. Also, a moderate portion of junk mail is stuff that people might actually want, like supermarket flyers. Finally, you can put a sign on your door requesting not to receive junk mail and the postman will respect it. Spam costs almost nothing for the spender, but it uses up a huge amount of disk space and bandwidth to deliver it. I receive much more spam than junk mail, and my automated spam filters are much less reliable than my ability to sort my mail (which I do in the elevator on the way up to my apartment so there is no time wasted).
Anyway, I'm sure that the $100 figure is mean to represent punative damages rather than compensatory ones.
-a
Re:Gimme a break! (Score:2)
Why should a government that tolerates (even encourages) junk mail pass laws against spam? It's simply a matter of proportion.
Hmmm... your message confused me until I realized that my earlier statement was completely ambiguous and could be read either way.
I meant that governments should treat junk mail differently than spam because of the difference in proportion.
P.S. lose the HTML.
-a
Re:Gimme a break! (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:The one problem with this... (Score:2)
As previous
Re:sign them up... (Score:2)
Re:Where's my broker! (Score:3, Funny)
Send $20 to...
How To Get Off A (Snail) Mailing List (and others) (Score:2)
http://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offmailinglistd
There is a similar telephone list:
http://www.dmaconsumers.org/cgi/offtelephonedav
I would recommend *against* registering to opt out of email via this method, since they do not indicate whether the list is published, or if it removes addresses from a list which is uploaded by the marketer (i.e. "remote cleaning"); however, you can do so at:
http://www.dmaconsumers.org/consumers/optoutfor
There is no fee for email opt-out (probably because it doesn't work; I have yet to see an email advertisement with their magic legal statement).
-- Terry