Still No Federal Spam Law 255
jdedman4 writes "Declan McCullagh writes in c|net that the Congressional Republicans and Democrats are quibbling over proposed federal anti-spam legislation. The root of the disagreement is the class action, a specialized joinder rule in lawsuits which needs little or no introduction, and which is prohibited in one version of the legislation. The new anti-spam legislation in Texas, which is to take effect September 1, has a similar prohibition. (See here for an analysis of the new Texas anti-spam law.) It is certainly true that the class action joinder rule can take a relatively frivolous individual claim that an attorney would not pursue and transform it into a lucrative and dangerous claim with a potential for high recovery. However, the measure can be appropriate when large number of individuals' rights are violated by a defendant's course of conduct but the cost of vindicating those rights is too great. With spam, the latter situation seems to be the most logical, as recipients of unsolicited commercial email are harmed, but their economic damages are not severe enough to merit an individual lawsuit on their behalf. Even with relatively high statutory penalties against spammers, the cost of locating the offender and investigating its corporate structure, if any, might dissuade a plaintiff's attorney from pursuing the claim. Plus, it seems the problem with class actions in this context would be practical, not philosophical, as most spammers would be either judgment proof or out of the jurisdiction."
It's not a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:5, Interesting)
Laws against spammers just makes the problem more complicated. Sure, it looks like you are doing something. Maybe you even collect a few settlements.
But the people making spam just change their methods. Maybe they start hijacking machines overseas, or using Trojans to spam from others machines.
The spam problem is huge no doubt, but the answer is not some silly anti-spam law.
The answer is a technical one. The systems we use for email were designed without any regard for trust. We live in a different world today.
Don't invest your time in trying to get laws passed to deal with a problem we ourselves created.
Lets instead try and move to trust based systems for communication. I don't have the technical expertise to provide the systems, but a lot of people who do are working on such systems right now. Let's direct our efforts to getting those systems implemented.
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:2)
All I have to do then is start blocking all messages from asian domains (and eventually all non-us ones if they switch to another continent to send their stuff from).
I WANT them to start trojaning people's computers to send spam. This will (a) force clueless admins to start securing their networks better, and more importantly (b) as soon as it gets traced back
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:5, Insightful)
And the fact is they're still spamming, and would still be affected by the law.
The answer is a technical one.
Why, exactly? Spam is a social problem, just like any other type of fraud. Please list one social problem that had a technological solution.
The systems we use for email were designed without any regard for trust.
Why is this an issue? I've seen dozens of papers outlining a "spam-free" email system, and in every one of them, there are two outcomes: email becomes useless, or spamming is no more difficult than it is today.
To use your own words, all that will happen is that the people making spam will change their methods.
Anti-spam laws are a good start, because they send a clear message that it's unacceptable. The average computer user finds spam annoying, but doesn't do anything about it, because it's not illegal. Some stupid people even say "well, people do it, and it's not illegal, so I might as well do it too."
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:4, Funny)
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:2)
Why, exactly? Spam is a social problem, just like any other type of fraud. Please list one social problem that had a technological solution.
Excluding the fact that there is no clear definition to a 'social problem', your argument is still invalid. You advocate the use of laws to fix this social problem, but can you tell me one law that has ever fixed a social problem? The war on drugs is unsuccessful, and a war on spam would be no more so. Technological solutions always ar
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:2)
You're right. The answer is not a technological solution, the answer is a contractual one. Spammers are using the property of the ISPs. They are not permitted to use that property without the permission of the ISPs. Therefore it should be the duty of the ISPs to police spam, not the duty of the government.
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:2)
Sure. STDs and unwanted pregnancies. Both can be fixed with proper condom technology.
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:2)
I think the point of the parent post is that spammers have no regard for the law anyway and by hijacking computers they can remain anonymous.
You can't even go after the company that hires them because that company can claim that they didn't. Well, unless they're stupid enough to leave a paper trail.
"The answer is a technical one.
Why, exactly? Spam is a social problem, just like any other type of fraud. Please list one soci
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:2)
Second, the law needs to address theft of network and computer services - again no matter where the theft occurs. It's ALREADY illegal (in the US and some other countries) to break into a machine and install a trojan.
While laws don't cover every case (foreign spammer from foreig
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:2, Insightful)
Please cut the FUD. Ashcroft & Co. can't get into your computer, nor do they really care to.
With that out of the way, please explain to me how an anti-spam law would give the Justice Department permission to break into the secure (you are behind a firewall, aren't you?) computer systems of Whoever-The-Hell-They-Want-To(tm)?
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:It's not a bad thing (Score:2)
If it's too strong, it does damage while it's in effect. If it's too weak, though, then things are at least a little bit better than before, no damage has been done, and the bill can always be amended later. Taking as long as needed to debate the bill is of course as you said a good and necessary thing, but for my part, I think if the bill wound up being passed without the class-action option,
Lets make people more aware. (Score:5, Funny)
Lets forward it to all our friends, and tell them they have to forward it all their friends.......
Re:Lets make people more aware. (Score:4, Funny)
Here is a good idea, lets get a huge mail list and send it to everyone in the world. Like some sort of mass e-mailing.
Re:Lets make people more aware. (Score:2)
But how are we going to get all the e-mail addresses from everyone in the world? I propose we buy it from corporations willing to sell this information, and then include an "unsubscribe" button with each e-mail...we will use the responses from the people who click "unsubscribe" to determine whether an e-mail address is still active or not.
We also need to format our e-mail in a way that will get past those people with ba
Better to have no federal law... (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe a little cruise missle diplomacy is needed. (Score:5, Funny)
Try this to convince them.. (Score:5, Interesting)
W<!--46jq8c1th8zav-->e c<!--aj9ljc101w7w3-->an conso<!--da7zq11y1s-->lidate
yo<!--fvuygn1ybyh0e3-->ur bi<!--fadm0927fjcz-->lls in<!--7c04qy2madz6k-->to
ju<!--c6vh5j2rrxgn41-->
mon<!--8abwm21wqapw-->thly pa<!--trnntizw6rn72-->yment
a<!--592r8h3ym1u-->n
t<!--eoor4v63f2-->he foll<!--m74b39gb19df-->owing:
When viewed with an email program that understand HTML, the above fragment is displayed as "We can consolidate your bills into just one monthly payment and help achieve the following:". However, notice the random characters inside the comments -- what if they were encrypted orders to detonate a bomb at some specific location?
And I'm only half kidding...
Recruit the RIAA, spam me with some Britney (Score:2)
Then we just unleash the RIAA on them and the spammers will be sued for $18,000,000,000,000.39 and all their machines will be hacked into and rendered inoperable. After all we all know that spammy pirates (not the pork-eating swashbuckling variety) are way more dangerous to the world than any sort of hate-filled terrorist or unethical bulk advertiser (that's what the **AA tells Con
No more spam (Score:2, Funny)
Re:No more spam (Score:3, Funny)
Won't make a difference (Score:2, Insightful)
Murder
Rape
Speeding
What makes them think that this will even make a dent in the spam load? Speeding and murder are easy to prosecute! Spamming, OTOH, is really hard!
Re:Won't make a difference (Score:2)
~Berj
Re:Won't make a difference (Score:2, Insightful)
Or how about this
Not everyone who breaks the speed limit is caught
Re:Won't make a difference (Score:2)
Re:Won't make a difference (Score:2)
Another law (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not continue working on more effective spam traps and stop legislating morality.
Re:Another law (Score:4, Insightful)
And once that's done, blocking network traffic from countries that refuse to get spammers under control will cojoin it as an effective solution.
I doubt you will see much of that. If the spammers can be located, and the entire premise of a law is that they can, it would be easy to demonstrate that this was what was happening, at which point we could slap the offenders with charges appropriate to corporate espionage or anticompetitive practices as well as spamming.
Because we cannot afford to tie the entire industry and every system administrator up in an spam vs anti-spam arms race. The fundamental problem that makes spam such an issue (cost-shifting to the receiver) is just exacerbated in this model. Not only do networks have to waste resources processing the spam, they have to purchase additional tools to defeat it? Uh-uh...
I generally agree that morality should not be legislated, but I don't think that's what's going on here. Spam is an economic problem, not a moral one.
Re:Another law (Score:2)
The point is that one of the proposed laws would legislate going after the people who hire spammers, since the spammers themselves can't be located, or are located offshore where US law
Re:Another law (Score:2, Insightful)
Nonsense. Spam is commercial speech, and as such is denied first amendment protections. Moreover, it is not the content of the message that is the issue, it is the method of delivery that is being regulated. I cannot stand by your window with a bullhorn and shout my (otherwise protected) political opinions if you do not want me to; it is prefectly legal to restrict the way a message is presented.
Re:Another law (Score:2)
Spam is commercial speech, and as such is denied first amendment protections.
Yeah, cause Larry Flynt and Hustler Magazine were completely non-commercial.
Moreover, it is not the content of the message that is the issue, it is the method of delivery that is being regulated.
I thought you said spam was only commercial speech. Sounds like you're restricting certain content, not just methods.
I cannot stand by your window with a bullhorn and shout my (otherwise protected) political opinions if you do not
Re:Another law (Score:2)
You're confusing freedom of speech with freedom of the press. Hustler is press. Corporate communications are always commercial speech.
Re:Another law (Score:2)
You're confusing freedom of speech with freedom of the press. Hustler is press.
And email isn't?
Hustler Magazine v. Falwell was about freedom of speech. The question presented was "Does the First Amendment's freedom of speech protection extend to the making of patently offensive statements about public figures, resulting perhaps in their suffering emotional distress?" Emphasis mine, obviously.
Learn something about the law before you make idiotic statements. The First Amendment protects commercial spe
Re:Another law (Score:2)
What? Can you please list the part of the constitution that states that you have the right to steal from people? Where exactly does it say that you are entitled to harrass people you've never met?
Also, please list your address, so I can come by your house when you're sleeping and scream in your window with a bullhorn. After all, if an anti-spam law is unconstitutional, then so must every harrassment or disturbing the peace law.
Re:Another law (Score:3, Insightful)
you may say im a dreamer but im not the only one (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:you may say im a dreamer but im not the only on (Score:4, Interesting)
- You are no allowed to collect personal data (including e-mail adresses) without prior written consent by the person itself
- You are not allowed to sell personal data (e.g. CDs containig millions of adresses)
- You are not allowed to send UCE to people you have no business relation with, or which do not have explicitly requested for it (opt-in)
And yes, it works. There are virtually no spammers in Europe. Well, there are some who try once in a while, but at least they get sued and put out of business real fast.You may argue, you got a lot of spam from EU countries, but did you look at those originating IPs? It's 99% open relays/proxies, which unfortuntely cannot be eliminated by law, beeing the result of amins' ignorance/stupidity.
Spam usually originates in the USA and is targeted to US-citizens. Europeans have no way to benefit from all these penis-enlargements, cheap viagra, breast-increasements, ...
Anti-spam laws and freedom (Score:5, Insightful)
What I would not mind seeing, however, is a system of torts that would allow users to take on spammers the same way that people get to take on telemarketers and junk mailers who do the same things. There are all sorts of scams, frauds, blackmails, etc... that come over the phone and through our postal system. Currently, US law provides for people to be able to sue up to $5,000 for teleblackmail and telefraud scams. Although this number is pitifully small, there does seem to be some interest in raising the bar a little.
We don't need a law banning spam. It would just be circumvented somehow anyway. What we need is a weapon for the people to fight back against the spammers with, a law that allows us to take them to court for practices already illegal that they have carried over into the digital domain.
Re:Anti-spam laws and freedom (Score:2)
The hard-to-regulate thing is a problem, because the Internet supports things like news organizations, banks, and companies. The fact that people can just go DDoS a company and affect the livelihoods of the employe
Re:Anti-spam laws and freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
You understand that what you propose is pretty much exactly the sort of legislation that groups such as cauce [cauce.org] have been proposing for years?
Also, it may be just a consequence of my massive ignorance of the law, but I'm finding the distinction you make between "anti-spam law" and "a system of torts..." a bit subtle.
--Bruce Fields
Wow (Score:2, Funny)
In any event, I find it feasible enough to write up very simple litigation concerning spam that pretty much models the anti-telemarketer bill/law/whatever. That is, make a national registry on the state level. If you sign it, you don't want spam. If someone spams you, you report it, and the people are punsihed
Re:Wow (Score:2)
By whom? Interpol? The UN?
Would that spammers were as US-centric as Slashdot...
Re:Wow (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Virtually all these spammers want you to give them money. And credit cards are about the only viable method. Just freeze their credit card merchant accounts, which must be based in the US to remit US dollars, and you've stopped them.
Re:Wow (Score:2)
I was referring to the ones collecting the money (or hoping to) and paying the guys who actually send the spam.
Like if you pay a guy to kill someone, you're guilty of murder (and so is the actual hitman, of course). Basically, follow the money forward, rather than trying to trace the spam back.
They get paid no matter what.
Not if everyone (or most) of the guys who hire them are busted. If you prevent money going into the spam economy it'll collapse soon enough
Re:Wow (Score:2)
Don't Legislate (Score:5, Insightful)
Spam laws suck (Score:5, Funny)
Spam should be protected as Freedom of Speech (Freedom of Expression in Canada). How else would I have learned about how unsatisfying I am with my small penis? Oh, let me also tell you about the great deal I got on herbal Viagra! And I'm not "seek of spam", thankyouverymuch! If people would quit bitching and actually responded to some of this informative mail they'd be MAKING MONEY FAST! In fact my contact in Nigeria, DR. FRED MBOGO assures me that I'll have millions more in just a few days as I sent my banking details to him!
Laugh away, cretins, spam made me what I am today!
Give me a break... (Score:4, Interesting)
Spam is a problem that should be taken care of by the free market, not government. Just because it's easier to pass a law than deal with the actual issues doesn't mean that's the better choice.
Re:Give me a break... (Score:2)
What is this mythical "free market" beast, and why is it so often a miraculous panacea? Spam is a consequence of having a free market. It is a form of advertising where the tarket market (not the advertiser) bears the majority of the costs, such that virtually any response rate above zero represents a positive return on investment.
The "free market" does not exist--virtually all commerce is regulated in some way or anothe
Re:Give me a break... (Score:2)
I pay for spam: indirectly through my ISP's fees
Are you implying that none of your upstream ISPs have spammers as their downstream customers?
You pay indirectly for the ads which are sent to you on television, as well, through higher product costs. Should we ban that too?
Hint to advertisers: your First Amendment would not be abridged. Rent a billboard. Buy a newspaper ad. Set up a website.
Just because there are alternative methods of communication doesn't mean that your First Amendment rights aren't
Re:Give me a break... (Score:2)
Are you implying that none of your upstream ISPs have spammers as their downstream customers?
No, but that isn't exactly on point. Unless those spammers send their mail only to subcribers of the same ISP, then they (the spammers) are deciding that other ISPs--without the express permission of those ISPs--should bear part of their mass mailing costs.
You pay indirectly for the ads which are sent to you on television, as well, through higher product costs
Re:Give me a break... (Score:2)
No, but that isn't exactly on point. Unless those spammers send their mail only to subcribers of the same ISP, then they (the spammers) are deciding that other ISPs--without the express permission of those ISPs--should bear part of their mass mailing costs.
The express permission is provided in the ISPs peering agreement.
You pay indirectly for the ads which are sent to you on television, as well, through higher product costs. Should we ban that too?
That's a false analogy.
It wasn't an analogy, it was
Re:Give me a break... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Give me a break... (Score:2)
spammers are using a public resource, created and paid for in large part by the US Government.
The internet is a private resource, not a public one.
this is about protecting rights. Your right to spam ends the moment you infringe my network (aka property rights) to do it.
Your property rights are not being infringed. How are you saying they are? Am I infringing your property rights by sending this reply? Am I infringing Slashdot's property rights?
the free market might be able to mitigate the proble
Re:Give me a break... (Score:2)
Spamming is equivalent to sending out paper junk mail, postage due.
Is there a law against that?
Tell me, why on earth should we as a business pay for a pipe that's used to send our customers advertisements that they didn't ask for and universally don't want?!?
Umm, why do you do it? No one is forcing you to.
We aren't being compensated, or given a choice.
Of course you have a choice. Just like you have a choice whether or not watch a television show which has commercials, or buy a newspaper which h
The Key (Score:3, Interesting)
I think, perhaps, the best way to get rid of spam is to find out what ISP has the account that the spam is being sent from, then tell them how much you hate that they let that happen (one letter for every spam may add up). Maybe one day they will take precautions to prevent spam if consumer demand really means anything any more (and, yes, I think there are more people that dislike getting spam than people that want to send it).
No, No, No !!! (Score:3, Insightful)
We don't WANT the government to get involved with the internet, EVER!
Do you really want to hand over all that power? Do you want TONS of crappy legislation? Do you want to conform to guidelines and regulations for all of your messages? Do you want the NET POLICE monitoring your communications and writing citations? Do you want a "War on Spam" that does nothing other than to suck up billions of dollars?
NO. Keep the Feds out of it! Stupid idea!!!
Re:No, No, No !!! (Score:2, Insightful)
I completely agree... I dont want government involved in internet at all. Lets say that the US makes some legislation --and actually enforces spam laws-- what the hell prevents someone from across the world from still doing the same old thing?
The ONLY thing that will stop spam is a better protocol for email.
Re:No, No, No !!! (Score:2)
Yeah, we wouldn't want the "gubmint" to do anything stupid and wasteful, like pay for the internet to be created [zakon.org] and then pay for the internet to be publically available [google.com].
If it were up to pseudo-libertarians like you, the internet today would be like AOL circa 1985 -- a balkanized mess of incompatible corporate-owned protocols. Governmental standards bodies are probably the most effective way to manage shared communications resour
Re:No, No, No !!! (Score:2)
Anti-Spam laws (Score:2, Interesting)
If nothing else, I wouldn't mind seeing some kind of ruling against header spoofing and taking over others' server bandwidth. Spammers have been going to great lengths to keep themselves anonymous and to steal bandwidth.
There's a move afoot to have telemarketers reveal their identities on caller-ID systems, so why can't there be a similar restriction regarding email headers? And, regarding stolen bandwidth and server space...stealing is stealing and should be pursued as such. If they have their own server
Re:Anti-Spam laws (Score:2, Interesting)
I agree violently with this. I use my real name in my email address, and won't likely ever change that. "I" have no reason to lie to anybody about who I am.
Now, if it were legislated that the return address of a piece of spam must be to the
You'd think... (Score:2)
Will it help? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Will it help? (Score:3, Interesting)
You say that as if it's a bad thing. I'd like to see moderate fines imposed on those people who - for example - still have unpatched IIS and still attempt to spread Code Red. Ditto for those who run an open mail relay.
Not a complete solution by any means, but it would help. Call it "maintaining an attractive nuisance" and we might not even need new laws.
Simpsons and Congress (Score:3, Funny)
government has snapped into action. We go live now via
satellite to the floor of the United States congress.
Speaker: Then it is unanimous, we are going to approve the bill to
evacuate the town of Springfield in the great state of --
Congressman: Wait a minute, I want to tack on a rider to that bill: $30
million of taxpayer money to support the perverted arts.
Speaker: All in favor of the amended Springfield-slash-pervert bill?
[everyone boos]
Speaker: Bill defeated. [bangs gavel]
Kent: I've said it before and I'll say it again: democracy simply
doesn't work.
Legislation cannot make the world a better place (Score:2, Insightful)
There are technological and social ways to handle SPAM. Pressure on the ISPs that produce it, lawsuits against spammers for damages (MS/Gates is pioneering here). These use mechanisms from age-old systems of justice. Their embodiment in modern law has probably decreased their effectiveness.
Lew
Opt out...defeating the purpose? (Score:4, Insightful)
Burr, champion of the RID Spam Act, dismissed the idea Wednesday as thwarting legitimate transactions. "We'd like to get the discount hotel offers," Burr said.
I have nothing against getting discount hotel offers too, as long as they are sent by travel companies which I have signed up with. Companies like Hotwire, Travelocity, and even Airline companies like Delta provide an option to select receiving special travel deals, etc. I don't mind getting routine weekly updates about their webfares, etc...because I created an online account with them. So as such, as business agreement does exist between me and the company. Such mails, according to me, don't even fall into the unsolicited category.
What I do not want is unsolicited mails from companies or faked email ids when I never signed up for any of their services. An optin option would prove to be most effective in countering unsolicited mails, since the optout option defeats the very purpose by requiring to initiate spam before it can be prevented. Doesn't make much sense to me, but ofcourse the companies would love optout.
Who needs more laws? We know our Math! (Score:4, Insightful)
I think that when most of the userbase has trainned filters installed, the spam problem will disappear into irrelevance. The half-a-dozen renitent spammers that will suffer the pains of creating the bland texts capable of fooling the filters can then be blacklisted. Even the Usenet can be retaken this way. And the beauty of it is that each person will have its own set of filters, trainned locally and directed at what that person considers spam.
If you think about it, even the shaddy and inneficient centralized web filters can be thrown away and replaced by this kind of filter, allowing each school and each library to filter only the content its local community considers harmful.
I don't know about the rest of you, but if this dream/wish happens, we (as in "we the people who care about it") will once again have a reason to be very proud, having proved this network is capable of taking care of itself like no previous human technical work could.
Filtering is not the complete solution (Score:2, Insightful)
If you are using your Internet connection for a variety of purposes, then some of that bandwidth is tied up by spammers. Even if your filters are perfect, you are still losing that bandwidth.
For individuals the BW loss may not be significant, but on a large corporate scale it could very well be. We need solutions that prevent the spam from getting sent in the first place.
(And no, laws won't work.)
Re:Filtering is not the complete solution (Score:2)
It seems that they all want spam (Score:5, Insightful)
Who the hell are they kidding? I don't want to hear about cheap airfare or a discount lube job, first because I don't need either of these things (Does anyone randomly decide to go on a trip just because they get a cheap rate on airfare? If you've got 2,500 miles before you need another oil change, would you bring your car into sears now anyway just because it's 30% off? No!) and also because I don't want Sears, Delta or Congress deciding what I'm interested in hearing about at any given time. If I'm interested in a cheap oil change, I'll look for one. If I'm interested in low-cost airfare, I'll look for it. And if I really want them to send me these offers in the mail 15 times an hour, I'll sign up for such a service.
I can't believe that these congressmen don't feel the same way as 99.9999999999999999% of the american public do about this. Maybe it's because they've been living under a rock for their entire term and they don't know that the rest of the country is under attack from these marketing monkeys. The fact that both proposed legislations allow opt-out mailings is insane. The fact that some idiot decides that there are 100,000 viagra buyers using email addresses under my 1 user domain, and so he's going to cost me lots of money sending gigabytes of mail traffic to them every day, but because he's piping his mail through thousands of open proxies I can't do a damn thing about it is insane. If I were to dump several tons of garbage in his living room every day, he'd call the cops and I'd be arrested.
Re:It seems that they all want spam (Score:3, Insightful)
It's probably because, as Congressmen, they have interns reading their e-mail for them..
What about accidental e-mails? (Score:4, Insightful)
Am I now going to be fined thousands of dollars because of ONE wrong e-mail?
Re:What about accidental e-mails? (Score:2)
If you say your name is "Cheap Viagra Now", your email address is "clinton@whitehouse.gov", and you send your email through some AOL users' machine that you planted a Trojan horse on, yes.
Jay (=
Re:What about accidental e-mails? (Score:2)
That's why I keep saying: From/To RFC822 fields are not enough. We need PKI and we have to sign our email messages with a recognizable key to make messages TRACEABLE. Then and only then some law can be applied.
Class action? I can see it now... (Score:4, Funny)
You have been selected as a recipient of spam. Go to this website to collect your damages. Make money fast.
Spam Fam Bo Bam, Bananan Fo Kam (Score:3, Interesting)
I fear that in the end, not much is going to change.
What is with all this "opt-out" crap anyway, what it needs to be is an "Opt-in" list. It should be assumed by default that consumers do not want spam. If they want to receive exciting information about a penis enlarger that gives you a larger bust size and a fixed 2.8% intrest rate they could send an e-mail to the spammer giving them permission to mail to them.
A salesman can not enter your home without your permission, why should I be forced to endure advertising that I am not interested in?
What is this, 1997? (Score:5, Insightful)
First of all, the "opt-in" vs "opt-out" debate was cute and everything in 1997 when we didn't get more than a handful of spam, but it's embarrassing that anyone is seriously maintaining that there's a need for debate on this issue. Opt-out roughly translates to "anyone can spam the living hell out of you and get off scott-free." The notion that it should be OK to send ANYTHING unsolicited, regardless of its advertised removal procedure is simply ridiculous. Imagine if just a fraction of every business (in the US alone) that wanted your attention sent you an email [clifto.com] - email would instantly become useless. But on top of that, rule 1 of spammers is that spammers lie, and hence the burden of trust must NOT be on the end user to trust that the spammer will do what they're supposed to with those removal requests. Sure he'll remove you, from list 12499-B, but add you to lists 12499-C through -Q. Hey, it's a "functioning opt-out procedure", whaddya whining about? Only someone that is either clueless or is backed by advertising money [opensecrets.org] would advocate something as idiotic as "opt out" as federal policy.
Next is the notion that it's okay as long as you put some token in the subject or promise not to fake headers. Here's where I make some bad joke that ends with "...and which one picks up the $100 bill first? The man-hating dyke, because Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, and Spammers That Give A Shit About Not Forging Headers are all FIGMENTS OF YOUR IMAGINATION." But seriously, this [Adv] subject line stuff is a joke. First of all, it's a bad way to filter spam because you have to accept the entire message in the DATA section before you can reject it, as opposed to rejecting it based on blacklists or other details of the "RCPT TO " phase. In other words it still costs your mail server bandwidth, time, and space. Additionally, this whole "put a tag so we can block it" makes the implicit statement that EVERYONE wants to block this unsolicited swill... which pretty much means that no marketer that wants to play by the rules is ever going to spend the time, effort, or money to send out email that's been self-immolated in such a way, and no spammer is going to give two shits about what he is or isn't supposed to be doing, otherise he wouldn't be a spammer. Therefore, adding "[Adv]" is a completely worthless idea, a conclusion that most clueful people made, about, oh, 5 years ago.
On top of that, I would really like to see any of these US lawmakers do something about the anonymous proxies strewn about Korea, China, Argentina, Brazil, Nigeria, and a handfull of other third world places. "Forcing" spammers to not forge headers is like "forcing" a mugger not to stick a knife in your gut and rob you when you stroll down a dark back-alley street with a huge wad of cash bulging out of your pocket.
What other inane things have congress-critters proposed? A national do-not-email list? Oh that's rich. Did the idea that it could be abused ever once cross their mind? Don't even get me started on this "prior business relationship" loophole either. It's not so much a loophole as a gigantic gaping gash. They've been playing that game for years already: "At some point in time you visited some web site of some affiliate of ours, and therefore this is a previous business relationship." Uh-huh. Riiiight.
Here's the point of this rant. I'm glad they can at least recognise the need for action but their attempts to do anything about it are so pathetically awful that I'm GLAD no such laws have passed. In my opinion, the best way to effectively combat spam is to force ISPs to enforce their own AUP's/TOS's. Spammers pay good money for so-called
no class action meant to help spammers (Score:2)
Not allowing class action lawsuits are not going to stop frivolous lawsuits. Most of the frivolous lawsuits and appeals that waste the courts time, such as the patents suits, the RIAA suits, SLAPP suites, among many others, are filed by firms who wish to use the court system to
Spamers will only change tactics. (Score:2)
Instead of sending individual messages to lots of peole, spammers will send one message that has a huge audience. The will also sucker you into reading somthing by making it interesting - MAKE MONEY FAST www.monetfast2002.org!
Missing the point..... (Score:2)
The anti-spam legislation should aim to prevent spam. Is that too controversial? Unfortunately, lawsuits, no matter how structured, are only a disincentive for people who have money. But I don't get offensive sexually orient
Proposed anti-spam law for Texas (Score:2)
Identifying Spammers (Score:2)
- to correctly identify spammers
- to make them pay for the damage they do
- to be compensated for the hassles they cause me and everyone else
- to take away the financial advantage of spamming
- to make an impression on them, preferably with some sort of heavy object
I had advocated spammer licensing in the past, complete with bright orange eartags. I'd probably even volunteer to work as a tagger.;)
I hate spam, *BUT*, (Score:2)
I use RoadRunner in Texas and they filter my email now for viruses. They say it's for my own good and the common good of the RR community.
I get several messages a day from RR trumpting the fact that I was protected from an evil virus and that the offending attachment was deleted.
Whoopty-doo.. I use Linux. I don't need a baby sitter or a Big Brother to protect me from the big, scary world out there. I can do it myself,
Class punishment. (Score:2)
Instead of a class action, how about a class punishment?
I.e. Allow laywers to sue for reasonable fees,
plus 5% of the punitive damage award that is paid to the the general fund.
I'm sure congress would get behind that.
-- this is not a
Who's side is Texas on? (Score:2)
That could make trying to recover damages from several spammers a pretty expensive proposition. I wonder how many people who haven't read the law will be sucked into this? Rest assured, the spammers will be on the lookout
Good Idea (Score:2)
Antispam laws are a waste of time. They won't stop spam, and at the end of the day, they will succeed in:
Making the internet more expensive
-and-
Making the internet less usefull for communication.
the federal anti-spam law SUCKS (Score:2)
Re:Still no....news? (Score:2)
Cancer not yet cured
Moon Colony not created
Linux not #1 on the desktop
Re:What do you expect (Score:3, Interesting)
The mail protocol is making the recievers pay (and not the senders as with phones, real mails,...). In fact, as anybody knows it, there is no real price in sending or recieving a mail beside the cost of the internet connexion. But, there is a price for the recieving mail server : disk space.
When a mail is sent, the incoming server has to store the incoming mail. That's why, when lots of users of a single mail server are spammed, t
Re:What do you expect (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good idea in theory, but in reality I doubt it would work.
The header would have to have at least enough information for the receiver to make an intelli
Re:I expect this: (Score:2)
Spam isn't a grievance?
Re:The solution (Score:2)
How do you know for sure that the company hired the spammer?
Re:The solution (Score:2)
Recently there was a bunch of spam that purported to come from a company, based on a legitimate email they had earlier sent to customers, but the links had been changed to another server with tags identifying the email recipient and pointing to another server.
The goal was to validate email addresses for the spammer, but the company mentioned in the email had in no way been involved except as a deception to get people to click the links.
Re:The solution (Score:2)
Also, any business that pays for spammers could deny it.