MS Speaks Out Against New Zealand's Anti Spam Bill 334
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?"
FUCK YOU MICRO$OFT! (Score:0, Insightful)
That's the idea. (Score:5, Insightful)
Microsoft follows the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Mailinator [mailinator.com] lets me avoid getting spam in the first place. Good luck microsoft.
Spam is spam (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't care if they send me 'just one' or a million, either way it is infintley more than I want.
Do Not Call List (Score:3, Insightful)
That's how I read it. (Score:5, Insightful)
He also suggests that his product has been effective in enlarging members from 100% to 200%.
From The Article: 'Though often criticized as too meek, click here for a free IPod - which relies on people starting their own home business - has proved effective in supporting the former great king of Nimbabwatsu' through verification of you PayPal account.
Re:Do Not Call List (Score:3, Insightful)
Translation: If MSFT doesn't make money on it (Score:2, Insightful)
The "support" services sector to "stop spam" is very lucrative, just as the "anti-piracy" services sector to "stop virii and worms" is very lucrative.
If someone did something about spam, people might not buy the planned Microsoft Anti-Spyware product that's in beta now, when they'll be made to pay for it on release.
And thus, MSFT can't support a bill that might harm their market share.
Sigh.
As a kiwi (Score:5, Insightful)
"Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak and has been rejected.
"We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you have to opt out of spam?"
And that common sense is prevailing over US law.
*duck*
Simon
Re:CAN-SPAM effective? (Score:5, Insightful)
Are you sure it hasn't actually "made the problem worse" by giving spam an air of legitimacy?
Re:What's up with his title? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Spam is spam (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Translation: If MSFT doesn't make money on it (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does it matter what M$ thinks about a proposed new anti-spam bill - or any bill, for that matter? Shouldn't the only thing that matters be what the *people* of New Zealand think?
Re:Spam is spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's a big clue, IF YOU DON'T MAKE SPAMMING DIFFICULT IT WON'T STOP.
Re:In other news, Microsoft sues 235 spammers (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam? (Score:2, Insightful)
"We are checking that you want to receive e-mail from , about their super product . For more info on , click here"
would be spam.
Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam? (Score:1, Insightful)
I rather believe that is ACME's problem if their opt-in method doesn't in fact work. "I couldn't figure out a way to do what I wanted legally" is generally not seen as an excellent defense.
How about ACME do not send promotional email until they have solved this?
Duh! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Microsoft follows the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:CAN-SPAM effective? (Score:2, Insightful)
And TV, Billboard, Radio , Film and Hommy Tilfiger Logos on cloths don't have exactly the same effect?
I'm not saying I support spam, just that spam is another form of advertising. If other forms of advertising come unsolicited from companies.
Why is spam any worse than someone wearing a krappa t-shirt, drinking a can of Koke and eating a MukDonalds, why is spam any worse than traditional junk mail?
Re:oh, so that's why (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:It's not Law Yet, But M$ Lost (Score:3, Insightful)
Sale of their list(s) to other companies would be illegal unless you "opt in."
"Unsolicited" e-mails about your product and possible defects do not count, as you expect the company to notify you of recalls, usability issues, etc.
I, like an earlier poster, can't imagine anyone wanting to opt in. That's probably why a lot of the stuff coming out of US-based companies tell you to "uncheck here if you do not wish to receive...." It's how they capture those who don't pay attention.
Microsoft serious about squashing SPAM? (Score:5, Insightful)
i.e. So that businesses could continue to SPAM.
"He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would be able to e-mail information about new products and services to customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other services they had bought from the company in the past."
So if I tell a company that I don't want their penis enlargement ads they can SPAM me with an ad for their latest p0rn and so on and so on and. .
"Though often criticised as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers, he says."
Right, that's why my filters catch move SPAM every month than the previous. It's only the filtering technology that keeps email usable.
Is Microsoft really serious about squashing SPAM or just in finding another cow to milk? What was this I heard about Microsoft wanting to buy the company that use to be called Gator? Seems to me that SPAM and AD ware go hand in hand.
Re:Microsoft follows the money? (Score:5, Insightful)
The cleverer ones do understand this, which is why they're trying to poison word-of-mouth recommendations as well (see: astroturfing).
Yeah? Well as an American (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:CAN-SPAM effective? (Score:3, Insightful)
One message isn't spam, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
If they send one message to 100,000 people, that's not one message any more. That's 100,000 messages.
If 100,000 people send one message back to Microsoft saying "take me off your list" that's still not one message, that's 100,000 messages.
No, one message isn't spam. But I don't think that they really mean "one message". Do you?
Re:There's a better idea... (Score:2, Insightful)
What prevents the person sending spam from lying about where the spammer got the email address from?
The problem I see is enforcement.
A variation on a theme is to use disposable email addresses
Re:I don't get it. (Score:5, Insightful)
How about: Microsoft has plans to sell an anti-spam serivce.
Re:There's a better idea... (Score:5, Insightful)
Send spam in your own name. Blatently lie about where you got the addresses. Someone objects? Their word against yours.
Send spam from offshore. Don't bother with the legally required trailer. How's it going to get enforced?
Conspiracy (Score:3, Insightful)
How absolutely insidious (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spam is spam (Score:5, Insightful)
First you slice them, then you dice them (Score:2, Insightful)
Anyway, as I've said eleventeen times, spam is an economic problem and non-economic solutions are not going to fix it. The fundamental assumption of SMTP is that email is free as in beer, and there is no such thing. Even the free beer was paid for by some method.
Actually, I think there should be two economic models incorporated into an opt-in improvement. (And it can be done while maintaining good compatibility with SMTP, too.) The first model should apply to normal correspondence on basically a mutual exchange basis. As long as you receive roughly the same amount of email as you are sending, then the accounting is just to make sure that things stay roughly in balance.
For advertising email, we need a separate economic model. My own goal for that model would be to soak the advertisers, but if they're legitimate businesses, then they can pay for it. Specifically, I want to specify how much advitising I'm willing to receive, say 15 minutes per day, and then the advertisers would bid for my time. Highest bidders would be allowed to deliver their email. The bidding should reflect such factors as what kinds of things I want to buy, my own economic situation, and past dealings with that company (good or bad).
Re:Once I signed up for Hot Mail... got spam inste (Score:3, Insightful)
I've had that happen with email accounts on private mailservers. It's from spammers sending to a@hotmail.com, b@hotmail.com, c@hotmail.com, etc, etc.
Re:Spam is spam (Score:5, Insightful)
There are roughly 25 million businesses in the US alone. Let's say each of them sent just one spam per year. Let's also assume that your software automatically junks any further mail from someone who has spammed you already. That would be 68,493 emails hitting you per day.
Let's say you could opt out at the rate of one every 5 seconds. That would be 12 per minute, 720 per hour, or 28,800 per 40-hour work week.
Assuming you take a couple of weeks vacation a year, in 50 weeks you can deal with 1,440,000 out of the 25,000,000 spam emails you got this year.
At that rate, it will take you 17.36 years to opt out of just the first year's spam.
But wait! There's more! New businesses open up every year. Just pulling a number out of the air here, let's say that they are established (and send out their annual spam) at a rate of 1 million per year. So by the time you've cleaned out your first year's spam, you have 17,360,000 more to go.
That's another 12 years of opting out
So, 53 years from the date every business in the USA sent you one single spam, you've finally opted out of all of their lists.
You're still getting new ones, of course, at a rate of 2,740 per day, or 4,000 per working day. The first five and a half hours of every working day -- 70% of your workday -- you spend cleaning that day's spam out of your work email account. When you get home, you spend another 3.8 hours cleaning your home account.
And that's assuming ONLY spam from US-based spammers, and ONLY one from each, and ALL of them honor opt-out instructions (which are, of course, usually just verification of a live address)
53 years to opt out of all of it.
If you start work at age 18, you'll be 71
The Yes-You-Can-Spam act was a Bad Thing.
I want to be able to use my emailbox for EMAIL. Not to provide free advertising services for companies I want nothing whatsoever to do with.