MS Speaks Out Against New Zealand's Anti Spam Bill

out_sp0k1n writes "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'. He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers. From The Article: 'Though often criticized as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers.' Anyone else think that one message doesn't count as spam?"

oh, so that's why

[omeomi]

He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers.

Oh, so that's why I don't get any spam any more...

Well, off to clean my Inbox of spam.

Tom

Too meek...

[Nuclear Elephant]

Though often criticized as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers

Well the first draft, which involved a carving knife and a band-aid, would have been more effective.

can't can spam

[dankelley]

"He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers"

Yeah, right. And there's this swamp land you might want to buy.

Impinging for fun and profit!

[Lord_Slepnir]

warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.

What follows is my train of thought:

Impinge? Are they making things up now?

Correction: Impinge is a cromulent word.

Baring the sarcasm, I'm also concerned that laws outlawing murder will impinge (I'm learning new vocab!) on the amazing industry of selective human elimination services.

What's up with his title?

[Nuclear Elephant]

Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group

Is it just me or does his title sound like the Microsoft equivalent of an airline stewardess? And how come everyone we hear from Microsoft is the head of something? Were they all promised head to come work at Microsoft?

Re:oh, so that's why

[Tackhead]

> > He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers.
>
> Oh, so that's why I don't get any spam any more...
>
> Well, off to clean my Inbox of spam.

That's not spam, those are amazing offers to which you just haven't opted out yet! Haven't you listened to Gator, uh, Claria, uh, the new Microsoft Secure Safety Technology that gives you access to the Amazing Vehicle of E-Mail Marketing?

In other news today, Microsoft executives report that dipping your balls in sweet cream and squatting in a kitchen full of kittens may be hazardous to your health.

Re:oh, so that's why

[omeomi]

In other news today, Microsoft executives report that dipping your balls in sweet cream and squatting in a kitchen full of kittens may be hazardous to your health.

Phew. I was just about to do that...good thing you stopped me.

Re:There's a better idea...

[AaronStJ]

Your post advocates a
 
( ) technical (X) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
 
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
 
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
( ) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
(X) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
( ) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
(X) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
( ) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
(X) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
 
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
 
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
(X) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
 
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
 
( ) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
( ) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
( ) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
 
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
 
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!

Err, no offest, but someone had to do one.

I actually think this isn't a bad idea, it would just never work. The "Requires too much cooperation from spammers" point in enormous. They just simply wouldn't put where your email address was obtained, and there's be nothing we could do about it, and life would go on as normal.

The Russian Method

[GlL]

I'm in favor of the Russian anti-Spam method for dealing with spammers. http://www.scmagazine.com/news/index.cfm?fuseactio n=newsDetails&newsUID=5eead5c2-50ca-40e5-9c59-a8da 453de038&newsType=Latest+News [scmagazine.com] I could even envision a new arcade smash hit: "Whack-a-Spammer" Sorry, I work for an ISP, and get to deal with the annoying results of these idiot spammers' actions. I couldn't resist

Opt Out

[Anonymous Coward]

I think Ryan Hamlin needs a lesson in the limitations of opt-out systems. To teach him this lesson, all /. readers who happen to meet Mr. Hamlin should kick him in the nuts. Keep kicking him until he asks you to stop (e.g. opts out). There is often a delay in processing opt out requests, so it's OK to kick him a few times even after he opts out. After you've accepted and processed Mr. Hamlin opt out requst and have stopped kicking him in the nuts, feel free to begin kicking him in the ass. After all, just because he opted out of being kicked in the nuts, doesn't mean he also opted out of being kicked somewhere else.

Re:Spam is spam

[corpsiclex]

i suppose if you're not going to tell ANYONE your email address, you could even get rid of type A; just block incoming mail! oh wait. has the spam defeated the usefulness of email, or have you?

Re:Once I signed up for Hot Mail... got spam inste

[Dr. Mystery]

"I once signed up for a Hot Mail Account"..."Within days my inbox was loaded full of Porn". From the sound of things, you should have been expecting it (or maybe you'd have preferred a 'Hot Male' account?)

Re:Spam is spam

[itchy92]

TO: <entire address book>
RE: GUYS READ!!1 IMPORTANT!!

Just got this and I thought I should warn you!

>> TO: <entire address book>
>> RE: SPAMMERS HARVESTING EMAIL ADDRESSES!
>>
>> ok please everyone i was watching cnn today
>> and they were saying that spammers sometimes
>> take forwarded jokes and warnings and collect
>> the email addresses off of them! for those of
>> you who do not know spammers are not canned
>> meat enthusiasts LOL they are hackers who send
>> out pornographics and viruses through email so
>> please be careful when forwarding emails to
>> your friends and family.
>>
>> Please forward this warning to everyone in
>> your address book.