Stronger Anti-Spam Law Proposed 291
NumberField writes "The fight against Spam is making for some strange bedfellows. A new bill sponsored by Senator
Charles Schumer (D-NY)
and the right-wing Christian Coalition
that would let individuals sue spammers for $1000 per message. What isn't clear is how they will define spam broadly enough to outlaw it, but narrowly enough to avoid making it a bonanza for lawyers. For more information, see Schumer's
fact sheet (PDF), or his
press release." Update: 06/13 14:20 GMT by M : The draft bill (pdf) is available.
Why bother (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why bother (Score:5, Insightful)
Funny thing is, it still won't end spam.
Re:Why bother (Score:4, Insightful)
What is MAY do is help reduce new startups for spam, since the potential for lawsuits and charges will reduce the appeal to new spammers. If this narrows down the field, it gets easier to find the hardcore professional spammers.
One of the more important things that I think it accomplishes is psycological. It finally establishes a legal basis that spam is bad. Many people see spam as an irritant only (ie: my mom, Joe Sixpack, etc.), but once the common perception finally sees that it is a crime that robs resources and costs us ALL money, you will see changes in attitude from ISPs, access providers and rack services. This won't happen overnight, but it IS key to eventually reducing spam from 1/2 to 3/4 of all mail, to just background noise. A small, but necessary start.
Not necessarily (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad idea (Score:2, Insightful)
Such a provision would make it easy for anyone to cause harm to a company or individual by forging spam that appears to be benefitting them. It's a bad idea.
Re:Not necessarily (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a law to deal with this kind of organized criminal activity, it's called RICO. I fail to see any legal reason that the federal government can not apply RICO laws to spam. It's an organized illegal activity, and the people who pay spammers to send it are just as guilty and in my view just and culpable as the spammer who sends it.
Just draft a basis antispam law at the federal level -- make Ashcroft earn his money enforcing it. Tip
Re:Not necessarily (Score:5, Interesting)
RICO is not intended to be used this way. It was created to allow vertical destruction of a criminal organization, where the people at top insulated themselves from the crimes committed by the rank-and-file. This isn't quite the same. It's also rather hard to compare spammers to the Mafia- Alan Ralsky and Ronnie Scelson are shitbags, but until we find the RBL creators dismembered in the trunk of a Cadillac, spammers are still just petty crooks.
Just draft a basis antispam law at the federal level -- make Ashcroft earn his money enforcing it. Tip
We have this troubling little thing called "The Constitution", which makes it difficult to pass a sweeping federal law like that. Ashcroft is currently busy trying to destroy the Constitution, but I see no reason to assist him.
Get it through your head - the government can not help you here. Besides, do you really want our Congress micromanaging the way the Internet or technology in general is uses? That sort of mentality is what led to obscenities like the DMCA and the library filtering act. I'd rather keep bombing the spammers with catalogs.
Re:Why bother (Score:5, Insightful)
Huh... about 70% of all internet traffic happens in ONE country. Contrary to public posturing, this ONE country houses most spammers. Most anti-spam s/w firms operate in this ONE single country, and they make profits. Most porn also originates from this SINGLE country.
There can be a simple solution to spam originating from outside - a penalty on the beneficiary of the spam (not the conduit). Confusing the issue further only delays a meaningful solution.
Incidentally the SINGLE biggest software firm operating in this SINGLE country OPPOSED anti-spam legislation. This firm also acquired an anti-virus firm, instead of writing virus-resistant code. Food for thought?
Re:Why bother (Score:2, Insightful)
so If i wanna screw my business competitor I just send lots of spam out advertising his/her company?
Re:Why bother (Score:5, Insightful)
Watch it! Since you seem to be interested in competing using such sly techniques, your competitors products might actually succeed...
You'd do better improving and selling YOUR product, than screwing competition. One Microsoft is enough for One World.
Re:Why bother (Score:4, Funny)
Nigeria?
Re:Why bother (Score:2)
I'll assume you're in the United States. Now, assuming your experience is typical of all US of Aians, then the US should be getting bombarded with spam mails from these other countries.
Have you ever known the US to be passive against foreign countries whose only aim is to bring economic and social (yes, spam is a social problem as well) harm to itself? The contrary is true, generally.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It probably still came from the U.S. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It probably still came from the U.S. (Score:2)
I receive vast numbers of spam emails every day, most of which is only applicable to US citizens. I very rarely get anything that is applicable to anyone in Europe...
Re: (Score:2)
Re:It probably still came from the U.S. (Score:2)
Now the porn is applicable worldwide...
And one more thing... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Why bother (Score:2)
Considering the fact that I am not from the US, and 99.999999999% of the spam I get is from the US, yes, it will help!
Re:Why bother (Score:2)
A US-only law would still shut down at least half of the worst spammers [spamhaus.org]. But more importantly, Senator Schumer is proposing both a US law and an international treaty [senate.gov].
Assuming you can identify the spammer.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Assuming you can identify the spammer.... (Score:2, Interesting)
And hence it would have to be a spammer very confident in his/her anonymity to risk it.
It might be difficult in court, but it sounds to me like this law would act majorly as a deterrent too.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Assuming you can identify the spammer.... (Score:2)
Why would that be difficult? Virtually all of the spam I receive is promoting a business service or product. For the spam to be anonymous, the spammer would have to remove all references to both his business and his product... so what message is he left with? Nothing.
Re:Assuming you can identify the spammer.... (Score:2)
One of the Supreme Court Justices (can't remember which) once replied, when asked to define what was obscene, "I don't know, but I know it when I see it". (Those aren't exact words). I feel the same way about spam. If I receive the same message (same pictures, same 5 second HTML job) from 10 different people in one day, that's spam for sure.
There will be no lawyers (Score:4, Funny)
They too get spam, you know (or they'll make sure they'll get it.)
Re:There will be no lawyers (Score:5, Funny)
From: david@ironico.com
Subj: Spammed? You MAY be intitled to compensation!
Dear Potential Customer,
Have you been spammed lately by some legimate business owner offering you endless underage pornography, ways to enlarge your small penis and those plans that can make you a millionare overnight?
If so then call us now! Ironico: Spam Attourneys at Large promises YOU a BIG CASH SETTLEMENT for every spam mail you've receieved. Act now to get this free jar opener!
Thank you for your attention
David Mirkoff
Ironico: Spam Attourneys at Large
Bonanza for Lawyers (Score:2)
Re:Bonanza for Lawyers (Score:2)
How about sanctions instead? (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Get local spam under control.
2. Start sanctions agaist countries / ISPs from which spam originates.
Not sure this makes any sense though, but if countries like China find themselves at a disadvantage due to a handful of local spammers I would think they would be more motivated to deal with the problem.
I'm not proposing any tehnical solutions though... anyone have ideas on that?
Re:How about sanctions instead? (Score:2, Informative)
An earlier article [slashdot.org] about this. (google [google.com])
But the best tactic is not having an email, period.
Re:How about sanctions instead? (Score:4, Interesting)
1. Get local spam under control.
Er.. how do you define 'local spam'. I got a Nigerian-type mail from a Hong-Kong based system on my Hotmail (More Useless Everyday). The Niegerian account is hosted by an American entity and the beneficiary seems to be an American as well.
2. Start sanctions agaist countries / ISPs from which spam originates."
How does one detet the origin of the spam? It could have been added as payload during a virus infection on a Windows PC. Since ALL countries in the world have Winows PCs, and even Microsoft's systems have suffered from spam and virus attacks, whom do you start sanctions against?
Re:How about sanctions instead? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:How about sanctions instead? (Score:3, Interesting)
You know, backbone providers used to take sanctions against their customers if they allowed spam to flourish, and they in turn took sanctions against their customer's, etc. down to the individual spammers.
A case could be made for requiring networks to take measures against spam, and to tax networks that do not, or that are connected to networks that do not (
Won't work _in my opinion_ (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think many individuals would bother with this, it's easier to just the delete the spam mail than it is to risk loosing money on some lawsuit, and even if they did decide to sue them they would only have "defeated" one spammer (or his team or whatever it could be). 1 down 50000 to go.
Scary (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Scary (Score:3, Interesting)
Don't think it would work (Score:2)
beyond reasonable doubts (Score:5, Informative)
and with the "Do Not Spam" registry of e-mail addresses, wouldn't it make it easier for spammers to request such do-not-spam list and spam it??
If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. like the article stated, it might endanger legitimate Internet services.
Re:beyond reasonable doubts (Score:4, Insightful)
1) Automatic loss of suit if return/reply address is faked/unreachable or there is no unsubscribe address
2) Recipient must reply requesting to be removed from list or mail unsubscribe address to become eligible.
3) If Recipient receives more mail after 28 days have passed then suit is proven.
Seems easy enough to me. Do it!
J.
Re:beyond reasonable doubts (Score:3, Interesting)
2) this just gives them a validated list of addresses for the next round.
3) A lot of spam companies play shell games with companies making a new company for every ISP they try abuse. 28 Days is a LONG time to legitimatly spam from a front.
How about this:
1
Re:beyond reasonable doubts (Score:2)
On which criteria do you base this figure ? Your sister's period ?
Delighted to be discussing this one so erudite.
J.
Re:beyond reasonable doubts (Score:2)
J.
Re:beyond reasonable doubts (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, absolutely. This is the biggest problem with the idea. Even if the list is only provided in the form of one-way queries (look up a particular address to see whether it's listed, without seeing the whole list), spammers outside the US would be able to brute-force the list and get a list of confirmed e-mail addresses. They'll figure their success rates should be pretty high, since these people aren't getting other spam from the US to distract them from whatever crap they're peddling. And of course once this is done, the resulting list will be for sale for about $500 per CD, and we'll get spam offering to sell it to us.
Do not Spam list not effective for ROW (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't see the point in having a 'do not spam' list for the US, when the majority of spam the rest of us are receiving on this planet comes from the US. Is the US govt seriously going to compile a list for all 6 billion of us?
This proposal still makes it a civil matter for the recipient, having to sue the spammer for damages. What's needed is a federal US law making mass junk emailing a criminal offense. Instead they are just pushing it back onto the people to fight in civil courts. The only winners here are the spammers and lawyers.
Re:Do not Spam list not effective for ROW (Score:2, Insightful)
Definitely goodnews.... (Score:4, Funny)
Dude, I feel the Nigerian [slashdot.org] spammers already trembling;o))))....
I'm just a Bill on Capitol Hill (Score:5, Informative)
If you'd like to see it passed, ask your Senator [senate.gov] to cosponsor
Re:I'm just a Bill on Capitol Hill (Score:2)
Except, Chuck Schumer is an Evil New York City Liberal who is only one step away from being a Commie -- at least that's what my conservative Western New York co-workers told me when he was running for senate against "Pothole" Al D'Amato.
Schumer working with the Christian Coalition certainly makes for strange bedfellows, e
Press Release -- Text (Score:3, Informative)
Christian Coalition endorses Schumer bill that would for the first time impose tough criminal and civil penalties on spammers; New law would create no-spam registry like highly-effective do-not-call registries that have stopped telemarketers
Political odd couple find common ground protecting children from obscene emails
Pornographic pictures appear in 1 out of every 5 spams; 1 in 5 kids are sexually solicited on the Internet; and 1 in 4 had an unwanted exposure to obscene pictures
US Senator Charles Schumer and Christian Coalition President Roberta Combs announced today that the Christian Coalition is endorsing Schumer's Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act (The SPAM Act), legislation aimed at cracking down on pornographic email spam that is sent to children. Internet and email use among children has skyrocketed over the last few years, with America Online and MSN reporting millions of child users.
The avalanche of pornography being sent to kids by spammers makes checking email on par with watching an X-rated movie. Parents need to be able to keep offensive material out of the family room and I'm working with the Christian Coalition to do just that, Schumer said. The bottom line is that America's children have been under attack for a long time from violent TV shows, racy music videos, and now pornographic spam. The v-chip gave parents control of the TV. My SPAM Act will give them control over the computer.
I stand side-by-side with Senator Schumer in the fight against pornographic email, Combs said. Parents need the ability to keep their children from being subjected to lewd material and Schumers legislation will do just that. I am proud to stand with Chuck on this issue and we will continue to work together until this bill is law.
Purveyors of spam have exploited the popularity of the Internet and e-mail to gain access to millions of consumers from all sectors of the population, advertising everything from herbal remedies to get-rich-quick schemes to adult web sites. The traffic in explicit images is particularly acute according to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which reports that pornographic pictures appear in almost one out of every five emails that spammers use to advertise adult web sites. Many of these explicit images reach the in-boxes of millions of young e-mail users.
In a June 2003 survey by the California-based Internet security firm Symantec, 47% of children reported receiving junk email with links to pornographic web sites. According to the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, one in five kids between the ages of 10 and 17 are sexually solicited on the Internet, and one in four had an unwanted exposure to pictures of naked people or people having sex but only 40% of these children told a parent.
According to a 2001 Department of Commerce study, 75 percent of 14-17 year olds and 65 percent of 10-13 year olds use the Internet. The same survey also found that forty-five percent of the population now uses email, up from 35 percent in 2000, including millions of children. As of November 2002, America Online had 16 million screen names limited by parental controls while MSN, the operator of the popular free e-mail site www.hotmail.com, had an estimated 3.6 million subscribers under the age of 18.
Schumer and Combs said that the implications of these studies are disturbing: parents are not only powerless to prevent such imagery from being sent to their childrens in-boxes, they also often d
Christian coalition (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Christian coalition (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Christian coalition (Score:2, Funny)
Or better yet, start a chain e-mail denouncing spam!
Re:Christian coalition - God Against Spam! (Score:2)
Harvesting bots outlawed? (Score:2, Interesting)
Prohibit Harvesting of E-mail Addresses and Dictionary Attacks:
The bill will also prevent spammers from assembling e-mail lists through the practice of address "harvesting" carried out by software known as spam "bots" that mine web sites, chat rooms,
I really wonder how one can prevent harvesting, and how that could be enforced without making non-spammers pay.
Re:Harvesting bots outlawed? (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe when spamming becomes a felony they can confiscate the spammer's equipment and perform forensic analysis too see if the were running spam harvesters.
Tax Spam (Score:5, Interesting)
Recently there was an article posted here about taxes on cable modems here [slashdot.org], but it occurs to me that spam, like postal junk mail, could help pay for infrastructure just as easily.
Not an original idea, but like a state sales tax (or one of several European VATs), the onus would be on the merchants, or in this case those relaying spam, to collect and pay up.
Now, since American companies are being required to collect and disperse VAT for sales made in Europe, surely there will be some sort of reciprocity there, and in general America (or the states therein) would impose sanctions on countries that did not abide by these new spam tax laws.
With spam in the news as much as it has been lately, surely some government types will take notice, that there is cash sitting in their inbox (or in their filtered spam folder if they're smart). And SpamAssassin catches a huge percentage of the spam I get lately, so if my mail machine has to do a little bit of filtering so that middle America can get cable modems and dsl, and so that maybe the last mile can be fiber someday, well, I'll bite the bullet, as long as I don't have to pay cable modem taxes or any other such things and get this spam.
Mission impossible (Score:3, Insightful)
It's useless for the same reason P2P can't be wiped out!
Long live the freedom of information!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Mission impossible (Score:2)
--Joey
Re: (Score:2)
open to abuse? (Score:2, Insightful)
one would think that sexual harassment lawsuit is used when you're fired by your female superior, not when you're sexually harassed
Legislation is not the solution (Score:3, Informative)
Spam is so easy to kill: add authentication to SMTP and create a new email network of authenticated email. Servers won't accept email from unauthenticated sources, and spammers will be unable to hide their tracks.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Comment removed (Score:4, Informative)
Not sure about the actual bill... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Not sure about the actual bill... (Score:4, Insightful)
This is a BAD IDEA.
1) Take an existing list of 500 million e-mail addresses. While you're at it, guess a few billion more at random.
2) Check all of these against the super-duper military-grade heavily encrypted top-secret opt-out list. This does not require decryption of the list. Save the results.
3) Compile a new list of every address you found that's in the opt-out list. Burn this to CDs.
4) Send out spam, advertising your confirmed opt-in CDs for $500 each.
5) ???
6) Profit!
Re:Not sure about the actual bill... (Score:2, Insightful)
That way, email filters would catch more unwanted messages.
Re:Not sure about the actual bill... (Score:2)
Whenever I read about military-grade encryption I remember this [interhack.net].
Bad Idea (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem can never be fully solved by technical means, being a sociological problem, but technical solutions can do a much more effective job in curbing the problem than any legislative solution, and cause fewer additional problems in the process. Rather than try to get the government to pass ineffective feel-good laws, let's fix the problem from our end. It's time to replace SMTP with a less trusting protocol - the Internet is clearly a very different place than it was when SMTP was originally created, and we need a new mail protocol to match the times.
Keep the government's laws off my Internet, people. It is a medium that spans the entire globe and is not under the jurisdiction of any one government anyway, so laws will never do the job. They'll just cause more problems and never solve anything.
Re:Bad Idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Tell that to the people whose genuine addresses have been used as return addresses by spammers.
There ought to be a law about it. (Was: Bad Idea) (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem I have is with the effectiveness of the technical solutions to date and the likelihood that they'll become much more effective in the medium-term future unless they're accompanied by legislation.
fighting spam (Score:3, Interesting)
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/06/09/10550
TPS (Telephone Preference Service) (Score:5, Informative)
I like the sound of this. Defining Spam would be a problem.
If you could prove that there is either no way of requesting an end to the spam or that it didn't work when you clicked on the link then that might stand up in court.
If you still get spam then you should be able to forward it onto some Government organisation who would deal with the company with an army of beurachrats.
Here in the UK, we have a good system for stopping unsolicited phone calls and text (SMS) messages. It is called TPS (Telephone Preference Service) [tpsonline.org.uk]. You basically register your number(s) with this organisation and marketeers aren't allowed to use that number. If they do you can report it, they can check phone records or something and fine them something like £5,000. This system does work.
Re:TPS (Telephone Preference Service) (Score:2)
Re:TPS (Telephone Preference Service) (Score:2)
From my experience, TPS works well -- I now get hardly any telemarketing calls, and those that do get through (c. one a month) are from amateur outfit
Opt-out lists don't work (Score:5, Insightful)
From the fact sheet:
Anyone who sends spam to these addresses will be subject to stiff fines. The database will be protected by military-caliber encryption to ensure the protection of its contents.
Nonsense. How can the database be encrypted if all potential spammers are deemed to have notice of every address on it?
Re:Opt-out lists don't work (Score:3, Insightful)
Sue the suppliers - not the spammers (Score:5, Insightful)
My suggestion is that the SUPPLIER of the advertised goods is fined, not the spammers. The supplier is, after all, paying someone to send the spam, and they're easily traceable (otherwise they'd have trouble fulfilling your orders for Viagra, septic tank cleaner and goat pr0n).
An approach I haven't seen mentioned before, (Score:4, Interesting)
Why don't we ignore the spammers and punish the companies who's products are being advertised?
Spam wouldn't exist if people weren't paying the spammers to spam.
Target the advertisers contact details, like how BT disconnects numbers advertised on tart cards in London phone boxes.
"Sure you can advertise by spam it'll cost you $10000 for 2^8 mails unfortunatly within 12 minutes of the 1st mail going out your contact email and website will be deleted."
Alex
Register how many addresses? (Score:5, Interesting)
How many of my email addresses will I be allowed to register? Let me see, assuming a maximum of 64 characters per username (it's probably more), and 36 different characters (actually there's more there, too), that would be potentially 40119919145476304800650533877024438126904024877418 12225955731622655455723258857248542161222254985216 addresses. Of course no one would have that many and no database could store them all. But spammers could dynamically generate random ones. As more and more mail services support tagged addresses, spammers will likely start adding random tags to make sure they have a defense of "no match in the do-not-spam database".
I use a different email address for every mailing list I subscribe to. Should I register every one of them with the database? Most of them have already been spammed (probably harvested from online archives of those mailing lists).
One possibility is requiring that tagged format address be matched with respect to the base address (tag characters usually being "-" and "+"). Another is registering a whole vanity domain making it applicable to every username possibility. I'm sure aol.com will get registered like that, as will just about every domain out there. Mine will be.
I don't think it's gonna work (Score:3, Informative)
I'll illustrate with a snail-mail example:
A few years back everybody could get a sticker (the yes/no* an no/no* stickers) which we could stick on our mailbox to prevent "unadressed mail" (read: yunkmail) from flooding your mailbox. Good initiative: saves paper, time, money and irritation. BUT: Suddenly all yunkmail got addresses prionted on them and we were stuck with the same pile of paper we didn't read and had to take out to the paper recycle bins.
Nice initiative, didn't work. Wait, that's not entirely true; it still has a function: It blocks the local newspapers.
* yes/no for local (free) newspapers; no for unadressed mail.
Make Money Fast (Score:3, Funny)
Everytime you do this, it adds $990 to your account. I couldn't believe it either until the $$$ started to flow my way! My wife does it, and now we have no more financial worries!!!!!!!!
Don't feel left out, check your inbox today and start to make money!!!!
By the way, this mail is not spam. No, Sir. Honest. It just a one-time mailing. Really. Trust me.
Spammers are Brain Dead (Score:2, Informative)
Spear the spam-merchants with this [adyx.co.uk]! It won't stop it altogether, but at least it'll give you evidence as to who is harvesting y
Spammers resorting to illegal methods (Score:3, Interesting)
laws banning the use of technology... (Score:2)
Class action suit? (Score:2)
If intdividuals could pool their damages and start a class action suit, spam kings could be sued for more $$$ than the RIAA could dream of.
As an internationalized US citizen (Score:2, Insightful)
As for spam in general. laws will not help but will just serve to allow lawyers, RIAA and others loop holes to screw over the internet. When it is time to err it needs to be in favor of the freedom of speech-take care of spam yourself with a good filter, dea
Is it time to give up? (Score:2)
Now it seems that there are many supporters of this guys ads but none of these people see where its going if one person is allowed to put up and ad, how about 10 or 100 or 1000 every day?
A month ago I go down the the local pub to find out a guy there just paid $2000 for an opt-in mailing list that is telling him stories. The guys
A lot of my spam is FROM the Christian Coalition.. (Score:3, Interesting)
Back in 1999, I posted this [google.com] message to NANAE, about getting spammed by a Jerry Falwell-backed ISP. Well, it has been a long time since 1999, and now I get a lot of messages from various CC-related organisations, most of whom are telling me to vote for various RNC initiatives.
Curious.
This would stop it (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Enormous amount of money (Score:2)
Re:Spam (Score:5, Insightful)
The press release is only about Porn targetted at children, shouldn't that be unwanted email targeted at everybody??
As they stand, the proposals seem to target all spam, not just porn, although it's clear that the christians are in it to stop the porn. It makes me uneasy when reasonable people ally themselves with crazy people, even if the end is good. How long before some of the christians realise that the bill does nothing to combat the exchange of pornographic materials between consenting adults?
Re:Spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Most Christians aren't that naive. They know that kinky and perverted things go on between consenting adults every day. That doesn't mean that they want to see it. And if someone doesn't want to look at porno, why should you assault their conscience with it? Just like you wouldn't go to Egypt and start throwing sausage at every Muslim you saw.
Doesn't freedom of religion grant them the freedom to go on blocking the crud coming at them as long as they are not impinging on the rights of others?
Re:Spam (Score:2)
Re:Spam (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Spam & my choice in it. (Score:2)
This has nothing to do with choice. If you want to choose to look at pornography, want to shop around for penis enlargement treatments, or even investigate refinancing your home, nobody is going to stop you. What these laws are doing is stopping those people from seeking you out (or your kids) when itâ(TM)s not wanted.
Putting an
Re:Spam & my choice in it. (Score:2)
Gee, it's one thing not to read the link, but you didn't even read the inital blurb. It stated that the law "would let individuals sue spammers for $1000 per message."
If YOU want to stop getting spam, YOU can sue. No one could protect you via this law but yourself.
Re:Isn't it interesting how. . . (Score:3, Funny)
Not only have you demonstrated there is a market for them, but that the target consumers are afraid of any laws to stop the messages.