Do-Not-Email Registries? 794
prgrmr writes "Wired has an article about Colorodo and Missouri's latest legislative proposals to deal with spam and with spammers. There appears to be actual consumer-protective teeth in these bills which mirror the telephone 'do not call' lists. A nice example of a government perpetuating a working concept instead of trying inventing new ways to break things."
Hmm (Score:3, Informative)
Next step: (Score:4, Funny)
Accident (Score:3, Insightful)
*phone rings*
"Excuse me, sir, are you interested in..."
"I thought I was on a fucking do-not-call list!"
"Sorry sir, you are, it was an accident. Sorry sir."
Direct marketing is here to piss the hell out of us for a long time yet.
-Mark
Re:Accident (Score:3, Interesting)
Out of Country Spam (Score:2, Insightful)
I don't know how much this list will help.
What about the rest of us? (Score:5, Funny)
Might work if.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Washington State already has it (Score:5, Informative)
To help argue against spammers saying "we didn't know this address originated from Washington State", there is online registration for users who reside in the state and do not want to receive spam. You can find it over here:
http://registry.waisp.org/
-trout
Re:Washington State already has it (Score:3, Informative)
Pros:
Cons:
My conclusion is this site is a joke. Do they expect to handle millions of lookups an hour?
What they should do is distribute a list of the 160-bit SHA1 [openssl.org] checksums of the registered addresses. Then it's simply a matter of the spammer hashing each email in their mailing list and looking that up against the list. If there's a match, bingo.
The difference is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Why Legal and Not Technical Solutions (Score:2)
Re:Why Legal and Not Technical Solutions (Score:5, Insightful)
Because it's not a technical problem- it's a social problem that happens to involve technology. I suppose the phone company should come up with technical method to stop telemarketers as well, but the failure of technical solutions in solving the telemarketer problem was what prompted the creation of the do-not-call list. Technical solutions to spam have so far been a failure as well. The most you can hope for is a perpetual arms race.
It reminds me of the litgation induced from "deep linking," when in reality the web master simply needs to better configure his/her server.
That's a case of corporate idiots bursting onto the scene and applying political and legal pressure to destroy the protocols that made the web successful, because they want to shape it into something that favors their own myopic interests, and they think they can spend the money to get the courts to back them with a poorly reasoned decision. The fact that there's a technical solution to what they're whining about is convenient but irrelevant. Even if there weren't a technical solution to prevent deep linking, their case would be bankrupt.
Similarly there are technical solutions to this. If I'm on a "do-not-email" list, then why don't I configure my email client to only accept emails within my address book? Many email clients can do this filtering, even web based ones, so what's the problem? Effectively, this is what these people want and there's a solution so why the red tape?
Because we shouldn't have to resort to whitelists. I cannot compile a list of everyone in the world who isn't an asshole and who I might want to get email from. Maybe you never get mail except from six people, but some of us have to distribute our contact information.
I was wondering (Score:5, Funny)
DUh, enforceability (Score:2, Informative)
opt out? (Score:2)
-Philip
Why this won't work (Score:4, Insightful)
With email, it is far more difficult to stop. First, the jurisdictional issues. Second, it is trivial for an email spammer to hide his identity -- there are plenty of open relays to bounce through.
I already receive spam for "500,000 opt-in email addresses on CD!" -- when do-not-email lists are in place, I'm sure I will be getting adverts for "500,000 do-not-email addresses on CD!". And nobody will be able to stop them.
Re:Why this won't work (Score:3, Interesting)
The type of spam which will probably be decreased by this type of law is that from businesses which put you on their mailing list because you purchase something from them (or download software)
State v. Spam (Score:2)
Good idea (Score:2)
Having met a spammer IRL (Score:2)
1 such loophole with this would be foriegn spam outfits, big deal if the US has a "don't spam me" list, doesn't stop them from setting up shop in china, new zealand, or
Won't this be ignored by the eeeevill spammers? (Score:2)
Yes but... (Score:2)
Thank you DMA (Score:2, Insightful)
No antispam bill has passed because the DMA wanted to reserve the right for their members to spam you.
Enforcement May Be Harder (Score:2)
Will it work? (Score:2)
Flawed on so many levels (Score:2)
"The Colorado Junk E-Mail Law would require companies to pay an annual fee of up to $500 to access the registry. It would award consumers $10 for each unwanted message that they receive, assuming they are willing to take the spammer to court. If they win the case, their attorney's fees would be reimbursed.
In Missouri, companies would have free access to the list, but residents would be able to sue marketers for up to $5,000 for violating it.
Critics say the proposed opt-out lists are a futile version of equally futile statewide spam laws. (Both Colorado and Missouri already have statutes regulating unsolicited commercial e-mail.) "
Look, I hate spam as much as the next guy (I postmaster over a dozen domains), but the leagal history of most topics on Slashdot clearly shows that an ill-considered "solution" often does more damage than no solution at all (if only because when companies start lobbying for these *known* ineffectual measures alongside the clueless public, they be come (politically, pragmatically))
unstoppable in the eyes of politicians
Stupidity ensues.
The anti-"fax spam" laws only worked because faxes were still heavily concentrated in the offices of companies and professionals. They were affordable, but as someone who'd had faxes at work, school, as part of professional organizations, etc., since the 80's, I can assure you that when that law was passed, the fact that I had one at home 24/7 still surprised people. Though the standard modem was already a faxmodem, few had them configured and on (not to mention the whole consumer OS crash problem, which was a major problem, even if it was often better than it was in the mid-late 90's)
Don't be a FOOL! (Score:2)
*shudder*
There are people AGAINST this, and not spammers! (Score:4, Insightful)
They (CAUCE [cauce.org]) complain that it shifts the burden onto the consumer to be a member of the opt-out list (which is free, and easy to get into). The complain that we are treating the symptoms and not the cause.
Bull. It costs the spammers money to even SEE the lists, and they face $500+ penalties if they don't check and mail first. Hence, this is a real financial deterrent (at least in those states). This artificially raises the transaction costs, which gets at the cause (that is, email is cheap and free).
Instead, CAUCE wants it to be like junk fax laws wherein no one can send you email without having established "a business relationship" with the recipient. I see too many ways of twisting this around in court that would prevent legitimate email from being sent to people when your first contact with them would be through that medium. It would scare people away from just sending email notes because they won't know how it'll be interpreted at the other end. I can envision paranoid use policies sprouting up in IT departments all over our fair land. Nooo!!!!
What is unclear is whether both the spammer and the spammee (sp ?) have to be in the same state (or in states with similar laws) for this to be effective. In that case, all the spammers will just base their operations in Florida where half the GDP comes from MLM and other scams.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:There are people AGAINST this, and not spammers (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the intended effect of the labeling is to get rid of spam altogether by means of everyone filtering the spam, the true intent of labeling provisions is to silence both a wide class of speakers (commercial speakers) and content (commercial messages), such that they will no longer even be sent.
And of course, the means are so crudely tailored to the intent that I think there's even a question per a rational basis analysis, much less the no-brainer against regulation under a strict scrutiny test.
The registry is pretty similar... it might be equated to a 'no tresspassing' sign on one's door (which is allowed), but OTOH mailboxes are IIRC held to be inherently somewhat open to the public regardless of the recipient's wishes, because it's so trivial a matter to get rid of mail that is unwanted, and the burdens to speech would be so high.
As for the unsolicited nature of the communication, I would regard it as being insufficient to hang one's hat on. All discussions HAVE to begin with an unsolicited comment.
Throughout the latter half of the 20th century, commerical free speech has grown to be nearly the equal of private free speech. Labeling requirements, truth requirements, and TPM restrictions are about all that's left of note. False headers, content, or addresses might be something you could try to ban, but again it's almost entirely unenforcible.
Private filters are the way to go -- it may be a little bit more burdensome, but it's better than the relatively short trip junk mail takes from mailbox to trash can.
Give unemployed techies $ to bring down spam (Score:2)
Right now the job situation for us tech-folks really stinks. So how about paying at least some of us highly-educated-but-unemployed to work fulltime, hunting down those deceptive spammers and shutting them down?
Think of the many hours you've wasted fighting the spam in your inbox--wouldn't you be happy to see your tax dollars go to a project like this?
May work for US entities which follow laws... (Score:2)
If ever there was a bad idea.. (Score:2, Funny)
Can you imagine what will happen when the spammers get the list?
Stupid Risk (Score:2)
Email is global, it's hard to believe that any state is going to come up with a way of significantly controlling spam.
It'll never work (Score:2)
Incremental? Are we there yet? (Score:2)
Clearly legislative solutions are going to happen. People are angry, and even politicians must get junk mail that their staff complain about. What I'm perplexed about is why the federal junk fax law was passed so (relatively) quickly and (relatively) easily. Surely the interest groups are more or less the same.
Oh, I almost forgot: Die spammers, die. My spam % has hit about 60, through no fault of my own (some idiot managed to "opt-in" my email address for his; now that the address is burned into some commercial CD-ROM I'm hosed). Because teh geomatrically expanding junk email reduces the email technology to uselessness, I will not accept any solution short of opt-in only.
in uk... (Score:2)
So basically you have to pay up or you could be breaking the law! It's like a telephone spam tax!
Actually- that's a good thing, isn't it?
graspee
P.S. First post
No contact info?! (Score:2)
For crying out loud. If you are going to spam 1,000,000 people with a penis replacement advertisement, then you'd at least better give an address so that people know where to send you money! Does a lot of spam, nowadays, not include any way at all to contact the spammer? How can that be profitable?
--panties [slashdot.org]
Will it work for email coming from overseas? (Score:4, Insightful)
So what good is it?
cat thing has my (Score:2)
Jay Nixon's History with This (Score:5, Informative)
He has been very active [state.mo.us] in ensuring his office in on the net and useful.
He has made great strides in the nocall [state.mo.us] area. His legislation is used as a template by most states.
Here is an older story [state.mo.us] with much more info on the legislation and what it brings to the table.
Good to see state government making a national impact.
register and the govt. will spam you (Score:2)
Did you know that the State of Texas has some great special offers this month?
To find out more why not visit our Website [redneck-rampage.com]
-----
You received this message because you registered for the junk-mail opt-out list.
To opt out of opt out click here [slashdot.org]
More Spam (Score:2)
Suckers! (Score:2)
Nice! But I expect it to get struck down (Score:2)
(1) Deep pockets to lobby the elimination of this bill; or
(2) Fly-by-night or off-shore types that could care less.
Pity, as I would love to see the end of spam in my lifetime.
Nth invisible post! (Score:2)
graspee
p.s. don't mod me down, fucknutz, I am highlighting a problem with slashdot- it is accepting comments but not showing any new ones.
Probably won't work.... (Score:2)
Ohio has a law that says you have to provide full identification on unsolicited email advertisements, and that you must provide a way out for the consumer. But I still recieve plenty of spam with no identification other than a forged header, and certainly no way to tell the spammer that I don't want their stuff anymore.
Good intentions, but, just like every other law covering the digital realm, it's too hard to enforce.
slash is borken (Score:2)
graspee
No Spam (Score:2)
And my blantent spam: Check out Digital Teenz [digitalteenz.com]
Burden still on the consumer (Score:2)
In contrast, the proposed spam law still puts the burden on us to track down the spammers, and for our trouble we'll get the princely sum of $10. Thanks, but no thanks since I already have that right for the 99% of the spam I receive that doesn't have "ADV:" in the headers. Meanwhile the $10 won't come close to compensating me for this asshole passing my address along to everyone he can in retaliation.
What I want to see is the right of the AG's office to go after anyone who violates some common sense rules. $100 fine/message for forged headers. $1000 fine/message if the forged header pointed at a Colorado resident. $1,000 fine/message if the forged message was bounced through an open relay located in this jurisdiction. $1,000 fine/message if a commercial message did not contain a valid "remove me" link, and $2,000 fine/message if the message was not acknowledged and acted upon within a reasonable period. (Say 3 business days.) With stacking fines. One night with a spambot and even a low-level spammer could be facing tens of thousands of counts, and millions of dollars in fines.
That won't stop the Nigerians or the jerks bouncing mail through Korean ISPs, but it should stop the spammeisters who brag to the WSJ then bitch when they get tons of unsolicited physical mail.
Response to the obvious objection (Score:2)
If spammers can avoid prosecution under these laws, they can use the do-not-email list as a source of emails to spam. We know they would do this because of how they use the "reply-to-remove" links to see if an email address is live and unfiltered.
There's a way to avoid this problem: don't publish the emails; publish a one-way hash of the emails. Cracking the hash would take enough resources that it wouldn't be cost effective for the spammers, but "ethical" spammers who are trying to obey the law would be able to use the hashes to check if emails already on their list were opted-out.
Oregon in the lead again (Score:2)
The Domain Level (Score:2)
I claim the first (Score:2)
graspee
Come on, congratulate me or something!
great idea... (Score:2)
Silly Colorado (Score:2)
They should at least make the penalty as costly as the court fees needed to collect it.
Appalling risks of unintended consequences (Score:3, Insightful)
Second, if you don't verify the information carefully, at minimum with double-opt-in and some kind of Turing test (e.g."type the number from the gif into this box"), there'll be all sorts of abuse, signing up people who don't want to be there, automated h4X0r b0ts trying to kill everybody in the state, random crap like that. Do you trust your average state government to implement something like that right? (If you answered "yes", and live in California or New Jersey, you obviously don't bother reading headlines about state government computer project debacles, and if you live somewhere else, your local government is just as stupid by I haven't been paying attention to them :-)
Third, there are ways to provide some privacy protection while still maintaining a blocking list. For instance, instead of keeping a database of addresses that pass the double-opt-in test, publish a list of harder-to-abuse hashes of the addresses:
Fourth, this doesn't always mix well with newer tagged-format addresses ("username+tag1@example.com") or domain or subdomain addresses ("anything@mydomain-example.com" or "anything@username.fastmail.fm") unless the rules are tediously explicit and accurate for how to use them. These kinds of addresses let you give every recipient a unique address, which your email programs can filter on to discard stuff that's obviously abuse and sort stuff that's from real people.
Under penalty of... (Score:2)
Being beaten with sticks doesn't seem to unfair to me, considering how much I loathe spam.
Just wait... (Score:2)
No spam in years, and yet... (Score:2)
I only bring it up because it's the sensible temporary personal solution while public policy continues to fail us. We can't count on Washington, and few can count on state legislatures. An e-mail address, like a pair of aces, is something to hold close to your chest. Use Microsoft's spam trough for public communication.
The optimal solution to spam is simple: thunderously vicious overkill, an art in which the US (thanks to the Drug War) is now well-practiced. But we can't get legislation from our servile lawmakers, who well understand that to even think of hushing the roar of unbridled greed is to sacrifice their usefulness to the Machine, and hence their careers.
The registries are promising, but feature one tremendous drawback and other subtle ones. The main problem is that you don't want to leave these matters open to the vagaries of shifting political control. Here in Minnesota, our state opt-out telemarketing registry will take effect in a matter of weeks -- if the new radical right wing government here deigns to operate it correctly. In an age of fiscal and moral deficits, I'm not holding my breath.
More subtle are the problems of collection and control of information. First, registries place the onus of education and participation upon citizens when properly the onus of desisting should fall upon spammers. Second, registries collect the very data after which spammers lust, and hand it to them. Toothless penalties will only encourage massive abuse, making spamming easier.
States should not regulate E-mail (Score:2)
If state regulation of E-mail is upheld, it means every time you send an E-mail you must figure out what state it is going to, learn the laws of that state, and then obey them. Sounds fine if it's an anti-spam law, but the principle would apply to any regulation the state might dream up. You would get 50 different sents of rules about what emails were legal and which were not. For example, New Mexico tried to pass a law regulating decency in internet traffic to New Mexico. No thanks to granting states that sort of authority.
If you want an opt-out list, it's got to be global or at least federal. Global's hard to do. Unfortunately, unlike phone numbers, I have an infinite number of E-mail addresses so an opt-out list is not so practical. If you allowed patterns you could cover it but you would need a way to authenticate the ownership of the pattern.
You also don't want the list published in cleartext, though it's hard to avoid this. While you could publish a list of hashes of excluded e-mail addresses, it's not hard to extract a lot of the addresses since the real ones come from a finite space. After all spammers have managed to harvest well enough.
historic day! (Score:2)
So maybe slash is down for upgrades, as I haven't heard of this before- though I think that they would have had a piece informing people of it if that were the case.
If it knows this comment existed maybe it was stored after all.
JESUS CHRIST this topic is going to have about 1000 first post claims on it! It could go down in history!
Can we beat the highest post count on a story ever? Will they let the record stand?
Am I really sad for playing slash like a game?
Am I going to lose lots of karma along with lots of other people as the mods who get up don't realize the problems slash was having with showing posts?
AHHAHAHAH Historic day!
graspee
hate to be a downer (Score:2)
basically they're getting a huge verified list of email addresses.
what I'd do is put some test addresses in there before my personal one and see if it gets spammed first.
should be interesting either way.
I gave written testimony to the Missouri House. (Score:2)
Testimony [pingalingadingdong.com]
The house bill 228 wasn't perfect, it still needs a lot of work. It was suppossed to be voted on last Monday but I didn't hear the results.
What bothers me about this idea. (Score:2)
Let's save the 'net for the people. Keep government out of it!
Sure...... (Score:2)
Oh, and you may receive a few notices as to other great products we offer, such as appendage enlargement, ways to meet women, and wonderful investment opportunities.
Best Scam Ever.
$10? Come on.... (Score:2, Insightful)
Are more laws really going to solve the problem? (Score:2)
Can we really stop spam through policial solutions? Seems like things must be done on a technical level first before laws can become effective.
It's not a working concept though. (Score:2, Insightful)
Practically speaking I'd like to see international law recognize that those profiting from spam (the people who are actually taking the money for the products) are responsable for the spam even if the spam cannot be traced directly back to them. Fines with teeth would be needed for enforcement.
I have one of those too! (Score:2)
btw please fill in those field about stuff you like while you are at it.
"Do-not-email" lists *can't* work (Score:3, Informative)
DNE lists *can't* work, for several reasons:
* There's not a one-to-one correlation between people and email addresses. Many (most?) people have several addresses: Even AOL members get up to eight. So do those people have to "unsubscribe" eight times? What about those of us who invent new email addresses for different uses? It's not unusual for someone to have dozens or even hundreds of addresses.
* Let's not forget role addresses: root, webmaster, postmaster, etc. Someone would have to put those on the DNE list.
* What about the poor schmuck who gets "fallback", i.e. [anything]@domain.com? That's the default in many systems.
* Some email addresses have several people connected to them -- for example, mailing lists. Who unsubscribes those?
* Some email addresses have *no* people connected to them -- for example, those controlling processes. Would anyone even know to add them to the DNE?
Some proposals have included a provision that allows one to add entire domains to a DNE list. These are somewhat better, but they have several problems with them. For one, it would trump the individual preferences of those using the domain.
But ultimately, the main problem is that *the burden shouldn't be on the recipient*. Unlike phone (a common carrier) or postal mailboxes (government property), email boxes are private property, requiring private funds. Access without permission is trespass.
BTW, see law.spamcon.org [spamcon.org] for a list of states with current antispam laws. I live in one with an opt-in law: California Business and Professions Code 17538.45.
--Tom Geller
Founder, SpamCon Foundation [spamcon.org]
Nice Idea, bad practice (Score:2)
While a law like this may stop a few honest (if they exist) american spammers, the scumbag majority will probably just plunder these lists for addresses.
what? (Score:2)
Colorado Do Not Call List (Score:2)
Where is the... (Score:2)
yes but.... (Score:2)
Wellllll... (Score:2)
I should not have to opt-out (Score:2)
There seems no need for an op-out list. There is already a federal law that prohibits spamming fax machines, and it has been enforced. My state even has an anti-spam e-mail law, but you can't get the lazy government employees in the consumer protection department to enforce it. What we really need is to recognize that spam wastes/(steals) a lot of money in time and resources in many ways and to pass laws against unsloicited spam without making people publish their e-mail addresses that they don't want spammed.
An ISP who passes tens of millions pieces of unwanted messages each day for penis pills and pr0n and "make money fast" and "I need your help to sneak 14 gazillion US dollars out of my country" shouldn't be spared delivery of only the 1% who are willing to sign up on an opt-out list, they should be spared all of this bullshit by the strength of an anti-spam law that is enforced.
Enforcement should be a snap too. Put a nice dead-or-alive bounty on the spammers heads and watch how fast they are tracked down and put out of action. The lazy bastards at the consumer protection department wouldn't have to lift a finger.
A national do-not-e-mail list might be nice icing on the cake; it would be great to have that too, once there was already an enforced law on spamming me, so the someone couldn't claim they had a business ralationship that didn't really exist (like when Microsoft sells them all of the Passport information). But it's not the right answer as a first step against spam. I'm even disgusted that /. would discuss and promote it; this in some ways gives ligitimacy to the lying "click here to opt out" crap common in lots of spam. We need to "opt out" the spammers, not our own private e-mail addresses.
Combine the two laws (Score:2)
Maybe it's just me, but I think neither state law (Colorado or Missouri) quite fits the bill. I like the fact Colorado charges for access to registry. Without that, what's to stop overseas spammers from using the registry to generate an active email address list. After all, so what if the spammers get sued (and lose). They're overseas so you'll never collect. Having to pony up $500 just to see the list is at least a little deterrent to that. Also, this could help pay for maintaining the list, keeping registration free (hopefully).
However, getting only $10 in damages (plus lawyer's fees) isn't going to encourage much punishment of those who do break the law (and can be found). Here, Missouri's damages of $5000 are a bit more reasonable. This much will encourage more people to go after those violators. Laws without enforcement are worthless.
Of course, both are still opt-out, and opt-in is much preferred. However, if this opt-out compromise reduces the number of spam messages I have to filter out, then I say it is doing some good. There is no one easy solution to the spam problem. If there were, someone would have found it by now (although just extenting the junk fax ban would go a long way toward that solution).
ColorAdo (Score:2)
Call service error tones (Score:2)
Probably easier... (Score:2)
How long before spammers get around this. (Score:2)
The spammers will just claim... (Score:2)
Common sense and why this won't work. (Score:2)
Have you ever received spam from a foreign country? Probably. Why? Because it's no more expensive than domestic spam.
This idea will not get rid of spam coming from foreign countries. And note, I'm not talking about foreign language spam. I mean spam originating from a source outside your country. The people who are coming up with these dumb ideas about how to combat spam obviously have no practical knowledge actually trying to deal with spam. But, wait! It get's better. Even if this manages to deal with domestic spam, what's to stop someone from (illegally) selling the list to a foreign spammer outside the jurisdiction of the US?
If you're a foreign spammer, I bet this sounds like a great idea... Now, the well-meaning, but let's face it ... stupid ... US government will be collecting valid and up-to-date email addresses for you. Even if they don't publish the entire list, there will have to be some way to check if an address is in the list and spammers could use that to verify that addresses are valid without needing to connect to millions of SMTP servers.
Any way you slice it, this idea does not seem workable to me. (e-mail does not equal telephone.)
More Spam Lists for Spammers! (Score:2)
Won't work... (Score:2)
Don't even get me started on the fact that spammers, for the most part, go to great lengths to hide their real identities and addresses. Can't serve court papers if you can't find the person (and I use the term loosely in reference to spammers) to be served.
Part of the solution has always been there, staring legislators in the face. It's just that nobody seems to have the cojones to do it; Specifically, expand the existing Junk FAX law (47 USC 227(b)) to cover spam. It might not have an immediate effect, but at least it would be a good start.
Spam's Bad... (Score:2)
Anyhow... anti-spam = good. spam = bad.
Whoo HOOO! (Score:2)
I some how doubt this will work... (Score:2)
How Would Law Treat Individual Spammers? (Score:2, Interesting)
It also seems a bit negative for anti-spam groups to criticise the laws before they are enacted.
I would have thought they would be all for this kind of thing, even if it doesn't work, at least it is a start and shows that some States are trying to do the right thing.
Just because they haven't done it perfectly first time is no reason to complain. Wait and see what happens, it might work out ok, and if it doesn't then start pushing for it to be reworked.
FP - an hour later (Score:2)
Which strategy is better? Colorado or Missouri? (Score:2)
Payment of $5,000 per violation in Missouri on the other hand, makes it worth while for consumers to sue spammers. FOr this reason, it seems to me that the Colorado law is designed as a state regenue generation mechanism, rather than legislation designed to compensate the victims of spammers.
--CTH
stop the spammers with a central email list (Score:4, Insightful)
Great, we'll stop the spammers by building a huge central repository of working email addresses, and then give access to the lists to spammers worldwide. How could THAT backfire?
scott
I count ~90 "First Post"s (Score:3, Funny)
Finally, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
with a forged packet headers, open relays, and a global internet not subject to any one state or country's laws..is this in any way enforceable?
Re:Finally, but... (Score:4, Interesting)
This is not something that will happen overnight but I do believe that some day there will be a sort of Internet law that you will have to obey and if you don't, you'll find yourself banned from most of it.
Also most of the SPAM I recieve on my various addresses is form US companies. After all, it's not real useful to SPAM someone for a product or service that they can't buy since you are from a different country. The spammers may use foriegn relays, but they are working for US companies, and those companies can be held accountable.
Do Not Mail versus Do Not Call (extensions) (Score:4, Insightful)
With a Do Not Call list, one single entry covers all my phone extensions. Since the teleslimers will be comparing only the basic phone number, and not the number with its extension, against the list, by simply having my number without any extension in the list, a proper lookup will match and they can skip that number. None of my extensions will be called.
The issue is how to do this for email addresses. Many mail servers allow for "extensions" by having a certain special character such as "-" or "+" or "." followed by an "extension". By simply having the email account of the part before the separator, you automatically have every possible extension. Some people call this tagged email. And example would be jsmith-foobar@example.net [mailto] where only jsmith@example.net [mailto] would be in the list.
Many people even have their own vanity domain names, and regardless of what username is used before the @-sign character, they get the mail like the whole username were the extension.
For a registry to work, for at least those who are required to use it, it must meet at least these two requirements:
I looked at the registry [waisp.org] run by the Washington Association of Internet Service Providers [waisp.org] and found that the verification process [waisp.org] only works one at a time. This makes their registry virtually useless. Of course, distributing the addresses in the raw will be worse, as it will get in the hands of spammers out of the country, and everyone will just get more spam because now spammers will have a list of address that are even more likely to have someone reading. And some will be mass mailing to such a list just to destroy the effectiveness of registering.
One option is to distribute an SHA1 [openssl.org] checksum of each address. Then all that needs to be done on the mailer's end is to test each address by generating the checksum and looking that up in the database.
But even that has a risk, and I'm wondering if even that should be allowed. That risk is that spammers will run all their millions of email addresses through the process, and produce a subset of those who are registered, and then from out of the country ... they will spam the hell out of just those.
In the end I think the only real solution is for a law that establishes two distinct networks (same address assignment base, but disjoint routing), one where spamming is allowed, and one where it is entirely prohibited under threat of jail time (for the executives in the case of corporations, LLCs, etc). Each ISP can then choose to service one or the other or set up dual but separate facilities to serve both. Wanna bet which network most will choose?
Targetted Advertising (Score:3, Interesting)
Advertisers in general do not care how many people see their advert, but rather how many potential clients see their advert. Sending 50000 spams is no good if no-one buys anything from them, while sending 100 which generate 20 sales is a huge return (at the moment only about 1 spam / month gets past spamassassin, so I don't see the majority of them). While it doesn't cost much to send an email, it does cost something. I would like there to be a central registry of items individuals are interested in, so I can register and gt targetted adverts. I have no interest in penis enlargement, breast enhancement, sanitary towels, buying a new car (at the moment) so anyone who advertises these things at me irritates me, and receives no return. Any company that wastes my time prejudices me against them if I ever do want to buy a product they offer. Right now, I'm thinking of buyng a new dual-head graphics card, so anyone advertising a low cost Radeon 8500 would be providing me with information I want, outcome: I don't have to hunt for prices as much, companies can spend less on advertising but generate more sales, I can watch an hour of TV without having 15 minutes of adverts. I'm happy, commercial enterprise is happy. People who send untargeted advertising are laughed at for being so crude. The solution to spam is not to block it, not to legislate against it, simply to show that it doesn't work. Let commercial Darwinism will take care of the problem
Laws need several things to work (Score:3, Insightful)
2. It has to allow for individual enforcement (i.e., small claims court). Law enforcement, frankly, should be frying bigger fish.
3. It should be a felony to promote anything with SPAM without permission of the entity being promoted.
4. In addition to the spammer, the fine should apply any entity being promoted by SPAM unless they are willing to file a criminal complaint against the spammer (for violating rule number 3). Note that filing a false criminal complaint is also very illegal; so, this would not be likely t be misused.