Can-Spam Increased Spam 362
andy1307 writes "According to New York Times, spam has actually gone up [Free registration required. You gave real info, right?] since the CAN-SPAM act went into effect. There is a graphic in the article that illustrates this increase. Before the CAN-SPAM act was passed, spam was about 60% of all e-mail traffic. Now it's 80%. In a we-told-you-so quote, Steve Linford, the founder of the Spamhaus Project, says CAN-SPAM legalized spam by giving bulk advertisers permission to send junk e-mail as long as they followed certain rules. Slashdot covered this story last year. For companies that offer offshore "bulk advertising" servers, business is booming. A survey from Stanford University estimates the global cost of spam in terms of lost productivity to be at 50 billion $ and 17 billion $ in the US alone. CAN-SPAM does give prosecutors some leverage to go after the merchants - but it must be proved that they knew, or should have known, that their wares were being fed into the illegal spam chain. " The BBC has a related story talking about rates of spam, viruses, and scam mail.
Correlation != Causality (Score:5, Insightful)
Correlation != Causation (Score:5, Insightful)
Could this have nothing to do with Can-Spam? (Score:2, Insightful)
Slashdot, Jxyama. Jxyama, Slashdot. (Score:5, Insightful)
--LordPixie
Oh well... (Score:5, Insightful)
And this is exactly what we have been saying all along. No matter what laws are passed, no matter what we do to combat spam, the spammers will always find another way to make a buck.
One of the spammers quoted in the article claimed that he didn't care about the lawsuits... He was making too much money to stop.
If you're making too much money and they somehow make a law that actually works stick do you think that they are just going to go away? Yeah, I do, to other countries where those laws won't mean anything...
Keep those firewalls banning entire countries (.kr and
Stats appear at least vaguely correct.. (Score:4, Insightful)
I have to wonder if you can really say that CAN-SPAM made it get worse. To me it looks like there was a brief drop off, and then it resumed the normal climb. Do we seriously believe that a significant amount of spam wasn't sent before CAN-SPAM, because the originators were worried about it being illegal? Seriously?
Coincidental Correlation (Score:5, Insightful)
Definition:
The name in Latin means "after this therefore because of this".
This describes the fallacy. An author commits the fallacy when
it is assumed that because one thing follows another that the
one thing was caused by the other.
Examples:
(i) Immigration to Alberta from Ontario increased. Soon
after, the welfare rolls increased. Therefore, the increased
immigration caused the increased welfare rolls.
(ii) I took EZ-No-Cold, and two days later, my cold
disappeared.
Proof:
Show that the correlation is coincidental by showing that: (i)
the effect would have occurred even if the cause did not
occur, or (ii) that the effect was caused by something other
than the suggested cause.
References
(Cedarblom and Paulsen: 237, Copi and Cohen: 101)
Re:Correlation != Causality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correlation != Causation (Score:3, Insightful)
Exactly. Look at the graph. What exactly do they think that graph shows? To me it looks like a perfect trendline.
Not quite... (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, in plain text: It didn't accelerate SPAM. It just didn't do anything to stop it.
The problem wtih trying to outlaw spam (Score:3, Insightful)
The only way we'll actually see a reduction in spam is to put true measures in the MTAs such that there is absolutely no way to mask the sender's address or host, and completely disallow any form of relaying. Then, you have to start setting up the MTAs to not accept any mail delivered by older versions.
Yes, I realize the impact this would have on the internet and e-mail delivery... but if you want to eliminate it, or at least be able to truly identify the sender, this is about the only way to actually do it.
Re:what's to attribute specifically to CAN-SPAM? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Can Spam legalized spamming itself," said Steve Linford, the founder of the Spamhaus Project, a London organization that is one of the leading groups intent on eliminating junk e-mail. And in making spam legal, he said, the new rules also invited flouting by those intent on being outlaws.
Not everyone agrees that the Can Spam law is to blame, and lawsuits invoking the new legislation - along with other suits using state laws - have been mounted in the name of combating the problem. Besides Microsoft, other large Internet companies like AOL and Yahoo have used the federal law as the basis for suits.
It's hard to know what to believe, really. Personally, I tend to lean towards the notion that spam is simply too large a problem, and the money involved is so great, that combating it with laws alone is simply futile.
Re:Correlation != Causality (Score:3, Insightful)
(For the USA) As I understand it, this started in the mid 80's during the Regan Administration. (Not because of Regan) When Network News started to consider themselves more as Entertainment rather than Information.
Re:Correlation != Causation (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correlation != Causality (Score:5, Insightful)
And I see that R'ing TFA is still lost on most Slashdotters these days...
This is not an article about how CAN-SPAM has increased spam. It is an article about how spam has increased despite CAN-SPAM. That is a very different thing. Several viewpoints are given from all sides involved on why it's happening, but at no time does the article itself suggest CAN-SPAM is the cause - only that it has not been an effective deterrent.
I think that's something we can all agree on.
Correlation, not causation (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Here's the problem (Score:3, Insightful)
Response rate for junk-mail in the real world is something like 2%, maybe less. Yet advertisers throw piles of money into doing it, because the income that 2% brings them is worth it. To them.
Spam is even easier.. there's no material cost involved to print up paper. Assuming spammers charge normal advertising rates, their profits are up a considerable amount.
Re:Here's the problem (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Duh... (Score:4, Insightful)
Then stop creating webforms that automatically check the box saying that people want your spam.
Re:Duh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Corrolation != Cause & effect
Re:Offering opt out doesn't help (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Correlation != Causality (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Correlation != Causality (Score:4, Insightful)
Including whoever named this
Re:Duh... (Score:3, Insightful)
Spam is **** NEVER **** sollicited.
resources are out there... (Score:5, Insightful)
They say that spam accounts for so much lost productivity, but they fail to mention that spam has spawned a whole new race of products and services that keep people employed. The Anti-Spam industry is thriving and contributing to world economic growth. As with everything, spam may be a nuisance, but it does have its benefits. As usual, regular users are caught in the crossfire.
Cause and Effect (Score:3, Insightful)
Certainly the spam I'm receiving isn't conforming to can-spam, which would be expected if there was a correlation.
Most of what I see is either fake viagra, hosting services, free rolexes, or Nigerians that just want me to take their money. None of which complies with can-spam.
Just because spam has increased in the period since can-spam was passed doesn't mean that can-spam's responsible for it.
Mod parent up! (Score:4, Insightful)
Not only was this law SUPPOSED to reduce spam (by the charts, it hasn't)
But it was also supposed to make it easier to prosecute spammers who failed to follow it
AND it REPLACED state laws that were far stricter in their definitions and punishments.
It's a damn sight more difficult to get a FEDERAL case filed than it is to get one in your STATE courts.
We need to get rid of that stupid law and let the state courts handle it (they need the money from the judgements, anyway).
Re:Duh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Not really. Spam is, by definition, unsolicited. The fact that somebody has your email address doesn't give them the right to flood you inbox, and bandwidth. You have to give them permission to do so.
Re:resources are out there... (Score:3, Insightful)
That's the broken window fallacy [wikipedia.org].
It probably hasn't pushed up overall employment, at best it has employed software engineers instead of other forms of employment, and the end users have lost out with what else they could have bought with that money.
Re:Duh... (Score:3, Insightful)
According to who??????? (Score:2, Insightful)