Virginia Anti-Spam Law; FTC Forum on Spam 186
kiwimate writes "According to this press release, the state of Virginia has just passed a statute making 'the worst, most egregious and fraudulent kinds of spam' legally actionable. And yes, this includes header forging. The article reads like a big AOL PR piece in some places -- the VA governor led the signing at the AOL HQ in Dulles. The story also states this comes on the eve of the first-ever FTC forum on spam in Washington D.C." The FTC also made the insightful discovery that most spam is fraudulent in some fashion.
Sadlly of shore spam would not be stopped (Score:5, Insightful)
Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
If the state representatives don't have the balls to outlaw all spam outright, perhaps the residents of Virginia could grow some balls and vote these jokers out of office.
Oh boy (Score:4, Insightful)
If you think this will help – you’re right. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong (Score:5, Insightful)
You cannot have both sides of this argument. Any restriction the government places on things like this can be interpreted by some people as too broad. Either you take your government in small doses and shy away from government regulation, or you allow the government to regulate. You cannot be wishy-washy and take whichever side of the argument you feel like supporting that day.
Spam with forged headers is bad. I dont pretend to think that this will elimnate the mass amount of email i recieve, but I can only hope.
-Dan
Re:Going after header forgers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong (Score:3, Insightful)
A legitimate business should stop bothering you if you tell them to.
A legitimate business with legitimate advertising should be oneou have done business with that you haved opted into.
Spam is none of these things.
Whoring to Capitalists is The Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Hm, thats what I want, my Legislators delivering law directly from the BoardRoom. The same people who send you "buy this penis pump" emails will, next month, be sitting next to this Virginian Politician at a $5000-a-plate fundraiser... and the viscious cycle begins again.
FTC recruits rocket scientists (Score:3, Insightful)
Duuuh. That's because nobody selling something legitimate wants the negative side effects of spam- mainly, the disgust it causes. Hell hath no fury like a consumer who's just been spammed for a product; they'll probably, even out of spite, go for your competition, if they just so happen to be in the market for your item. Remember those stupid little remote control cars? They learned the hard way that spam didn't work; retailers reported a backlash from the spam, people coming up to them and chewing out -the store employees- for the spam other resellers were sending.
Re:This isn't new (Score:3, Insightful)
Meaning Verizon itself or a customer using Verizon services for the initial internet connectivity? Very big difference. Claiming the provider responsible for the actions of specific users is a very sharp double edge sword that has far more reaching effects then spam.
They don't act on complaints, and willing let scumbags and thieves operate on their network.
Your perception of what they do behind the scenes may not be exactly what is going on. If that is the common practice of theirs, then it is a problem.
Re:Sadlly of shore spam would not be stopped (Score:2, Insightful)
I find the idea that the providers are supposed to be in a controlling role offensive. I am the customer, I am paying for the service, I should be resonably free to do what I want with the connection. The attitude you present will lead us down the road of everything being blocked or filtered except for what our provider approves for us.
I agree that something needs to be done about spam, and that the providers should help, but please don't advocate them "controlling" us.
Re:At last, a fair use for slashdotting websites (Score:5, Insightful)
I've also gotten "newsletter spam" where there are dozens of websites with different owners, none of whom are related to the spammer, nor given permission to have their website advertised in such a manner. I got one for a bunch of casinos - none of whom were thrilled at the attention. Since my complaint was CC'd to all of them, they had a handy mailing list to band together and take the spammer to court for defamation of character in a class action suit...
Re:Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong (Score:2, Insightful)
Please dont construe what I am about to say next as supporting spammers, cause I hate 'em just like everyone else, but you cannot just ban spam outright... not without tossing the 1st Amendment in the process. Both commercial and noncommercial speech is protected (like it or not), and here, a prior restraint banning spam will likewise not pass consitutional muster. Forcing truth in advertising, true header information, true return addresses == fine, but not banning spam entirely.
Where do I turn myself in? (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever seen such hogwash?! What, pray are, "a technical characteristics"?! Since when are headers and routing information common to "unsolicited bulk mail", but not "normal e-mail messages"?! Ok, so where do I trun myself in? I've certainly generated $1,000 from a specific transmission (we in the spammer game call it an "invoice") and I (just like tens of thousands of other evil spammers like me) forge headers and alter routing information. For example, I have mailing list managers that alter headers and routing information and then take that single modified message and send it to DOZENS of users! I also send mail from my laptop at home and claim to be me at work and visa versa!
Before tonight I didn't know I was a spammer, but if Virginia says I'm a spammer, I must be one! Is there a reward for turning my evil spammer ass in?
I'd add a smily, but this is just creepy!