Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Privacy

Circumventing CAN-SPAM 127

Posted by ScuttleMonkey from the brought-to-you-by-the-us-government dept.
Dekortage writes "The iMedia Connection newsletter is running a story on how some politicians are violating CAN-SPAM with impunity. Apparently so-called 'political speech' e-mails do not fit the legal definition of spam, even if they are wholly unsolicited and unwanted. In this particular case, the spammer is the attorney general of Florida, who considers himself an anti-spam crusader."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Circumventing CAN-SPAM More

Circumventing CAN-SPAM

Comments Filter:

  • Send it back to him ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by tomhudson ( 43916 ) <barbara DOT huds ... a-hudson DOT com> on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:33AM (#14707132) Journal
    a hundred times ... and also by fax ... burn out his fax machine and keep him from getting any legit faxes.

    He'll get the message.

    • and also by fax ... burn out his fax machine and keep him from getting any legit faxes.

      Keep in mind who you're dealing with. This would very likely land you in some pretty hot water, seeing as how unsolicited faxes are illegal, and don't carry an exemption for political speech.

      Not to mention that you would very likely get nailed for spamming for sending the emails back. Don't forget, the rules apply to you, not those in power.

      • Re:Send it back to him ... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by TheRaven64 ( 641858 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:43AM (#14707267) Journal
        I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice. That said, most of these spam-laws have exemptions for existing 'prior business relationships' and I think it could be argued that, by emailing you, he has formed such a relationship. If you sent him a fax request, one letter per page, requesting that he terminate this relationship, then you could (presuming sufficiently deep pockets) get away with it. Of course, you are safe until after the election anyway - he's not going to want to all of the bad publicity he would get from 'suing a constituent who asked him to stop spamming them' (as the newspapers would be sure to spin it) in the run up to the gubernatorial elections.
        • hmm... I doubt a political spam could be construed as a business relationship.

          • Poster wrote:

            hmm... I doubt a political spam could be construed as a business relationship.

            FTFA:

            Apparently so-called 'political speech' e-mails do not fit the legal definition of spam

            So, send him back his spam 100 times - its political speech, not spam. And if you send it back 100 times, its definitely a political statement, and protected speech to boot!

            Better yet, turn his spam into a bmp (a jpg or png won't be big enough) with a big "F. U." on it, and make his ingox go over quota. Better y

          • Who do you think he works for?
      • Political comunications are exempt - remember? So sending him back his political communication is exempt from the law. As for the "burn out the fax" by everyone faxing back a hard copy - its been done quite successfully by other lobby groups, and you want to be SURE he gets the message. Send back a negative =- uses up a LOT more toner.

        r do like one of my friends did - he sent it back via one of those manual-feed faxes, and as the top came out of the machine, he taped it to the bottom of the page, so it be

      • I think this is a very insightful post - especially the part about "Don't forget, the rules apply to you, not those in power." It's the truth and its a shame.
    • No need to go that far. Just don't vote for him. If it becomes a trend, other politicians will notice that those techniques backfire and stop using them. ...Ok, that's not likely, but it would stop him from spamming, most likely. And burning out his fax machine is likely to cause him to buy another. Paid for by your taxes.

      • And burning out his fax machine is likely to cause him to buy another. Paid for by your taxes.
        He has a certain budget for his office operations. If he has to start dipping into his "discretionary funds" instead, that's not so fun - those "discretionary funds" are one of the perks of the job. Spending it on actual expenses, instead of self-indulgence, would be a bummer.
      • Of course, you can't do that in a really cheap easy way like sending all his constituents unsolicited email telling them that he's a spammer (or at least, not without diluting your message a lot...) - but it's certainly worth embarassing him in public. He can't see the difference between political spamming and commercial spamming - but he calls himself a "Jeb Bush Republican", so counting is probably not one of his strong points either.
    • No, make a lexical generator, that generates random political statements
      about SPAM, and mail those to him.....

  • how can this be a surprise? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by assantisz ( 881107 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:36AM (#14707169)
    You can sign up your phone number for the nationwide don't-call list and politicians are still allowed to call you. Just the other night some dude from the democratic party disturbed my dinner. Are you surprised that e-mail is not treated any different?
    • You can sign up your phone number for the nationwide don't-call list and politicians are still allowed to call you. Just the other night some dude from the democratic party disturbed my dinner. Are you surprised that e-mail is not treated any different?
      The most "remarkable" part of it is that those calls only started AFTER signing up on the do-not-call list. Expecting politicians to regulate themselves is like... expecting a fox to faithfully gard a hen house.
      • with sufficient training, in theory a fox could be trustworthy.
      • That isn't quite right. Both political parties have used phone calls as part of their campaigns for generations. Very often they are trying to identify who is planning to vote their way so they can make sure they get to the polls. Early on, they are looking for hot issues and identifying people who might be tipped by being sent a relevant position paper. Later, if you are planning to vote a straight ticket, you can schedule a free ride to the polls.
    • And yet people still keep voting for democrats. And people who receive these phone calls from the republican fundraisers keep voting for republicans. If you vote for an incumbent you deserve what you get. ANY incumbent.
      • And yet people still keep voting for democrats. And people who receive these phone calls from the republican fundraisers keep voting for republicans. If you vote for an incumbent you deserve what you get. ANY incumbent.

        Crist is a Republican, not a Democrat. This is likely to be a bipartisan issue though.

        Well this is the point, you can vote spammy politicians out of office, the situation is self-limiting. Commercial spammers do not face the same penalties.

        CAN-SPAM was written very tightly to avoid unin

        • CAN-SPAM was written very tightly not to avoid unintended over-reach or be avoid being struck down (those concerns never seem to stop them on any other subject). CAN-SPAM was written to a) confuse all of the sub 100 IQ voters into thinking that something was going to be done, and b) placate the DMA wonks (who provide more trips to Hawaii than the voters do).

          Throughout the 90s I repeatedly approached my elected with pleas to do something about spam and offered to help in a variety of ways. The two D-MI Se

    • Absolutely! (Score:3, Insightful)

      by csoto ( 220540 )
      This is so ridiculously not news. All such legislation has loopholes that protects politicans and their lobbying interests. For example, it's not illegal for AARP to ignore the "do not call list," and as such, the only annoying telemarketing I get is from sham "clothing donation" groups (where the telemarketing firms take 50% or so of the "donation"). Anybody bitching or even insinuating that politicians are somehow "circumventing" CAN-SPAM is an idiot. Such use was pre-ordained in the legislation.

  • SPAM is SPAM ... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by xdesk ( 550151 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:38AM (#14707187)
    ... and the fact that american politicians have created a loophole just for them is almost normal from that sad scene ...
    • > ... and the fact that american politicians have created a loophole just for them is almost normal from that sad scene ...

      I find your presence of faith disturbing.
      What's this "almost" of which you speak?

  • Faux-Spam (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Foxman ( 101838 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:39AM (#14707200) Homepage
    Is it spam or not?

    Spam is often referred to as UCE "Unsolicited Commercial Email", which his emails were not. We tend to apply a broad label to spam. Often "Any email I don't want.", which may not be fair in all cases. In any case the law seems fairly clear that he was not technically breaking it.

    However, as someone who says they are a proponent of anti-spam, engaging in "spam like" behavior can only undercut their position.

    • Re:Faux-Spam (Score:3, Informative)

      by TheRaven64 ( 641858 )
      Spam is also often called UBE (unsolicited bulk email). If it's part of a mass-mailing, and you didn't opt-in, then it's spam. If someone sends you an email that you didn't want, then it's an irritation, but it's not spam. If they send that same email to a load of other people, then it is.

    • Re:Faux-Spam (Score:3, Informative)

      by Vellmont ( 569020 )

      Spam is often referred to as UCE "Unsolicited Commercial Email", which his emails were not.

      Well, from what the people interviewed say it certainly sounds like the emails were unsolicited. I guess they weren't "commercial" though. (Actually I'm pretty sure most people use the term "Unsolicited bulk email). This stuff easily fits that definition, so I think by most peoples definition, this is spam. It may be all nice and legal, but that doesn't excuse this guy from being an asshole.
      • When it comes to spam, the hair can be split fairly finely I'm more than willing to concede. But I completely agree that its no excuse for his behavior.
    • You seem to feel that politics is not a form of commerce...?

      Justin.

    • Spam is often referred to as UCE "Unsolicited Commercial Email", which his emails were not.

      Yes, some people call it that.

      But it is important to remember the origin of the term "spam" in this context. It refers to posting/sending the same (or almost the same) thing over and over and over ...

      So, it is possible to "spam" a USENET discussion board with non-commercial postings.

      So his emails are "spam" ... but may not meet the criteria for that specific sub-category of spam known as "UCE".

      All UCE is spam ...
      Not

    • Spam as UCE is a recent invention. Before the term spam was used for email, it was used for Usenet postings. And before that, for various online games (for behavior that today might be called flooding).

      Spam is basically "the same many times" as in the Python scetch.

      The "commercial email" only became part of the description because most spam is both commercial an email. So newbies will naturally believe that is part of the definition.
    • Spam is often referred to as UCE "Unsolicited Commercial Email", which his emails were not.

      That's such an unusual definition I wonder if you came up with it yourself. We usually use "Unsolicited Bulk Email" - anything that lots of copies were sent of. Which I suspect applies to his messages.

    • Re:Faux-Spam (Score:2, Insightful)

      by dosquatch ( 924618 )
      Often "Any email I don't want."

      I fail to understand what is so wrong with this as (at least) the first half of the definition. My full definition is "Crap I don't want and didn't ask for." Regardless of the message's intent (viagra, pr0n, "vote for me") I count it as SPAM.

      Mailing lists are not. I asked to be on those.

      Mail from friends and family is not. The relationship is implicit permission.

      Mail from companies I do business with* are not. The relationship is implicit permission.

      Most everything else,

    • Spam is often referred to as UCE "Unsolicited Commercial Email", which his emails were not.

      I think it's reasonable to assume any political activity is at its heart, at least in part, commercial.
      • It is very easy to determine if political email is commercial. If the people who wrote, or initiated, or pressed "send" are being paid (or expect to be financially rewarded in the future) to do that as a job or as any part of their job, then a direct commercial mechanism is involved (money for services) and the email is, in fact, commercial.

        I can (just barely) imagine emails from an all grass roots, all volunteer, all living-in-their-own-homes campaign who are trying to elect someone for the purpose of ra

    • We tend to apply a broad label to spam. Often "Any email I don't want.", which may not be fair in all cases.

      Yes it is fair, because of how amazing computers are at automating information tasks (like sending e-mail), it's not "any e-mail I don't want", it's "millions of the same copy of the e-mail noone wants, delivered to noone in particular". I really dislike it when some asshat decides that our domain is their personal poster board and jams our mail server shut with their crap. Our customers hate it even
  • then any of the other spammers that ignore the can-spam act???? I get more spam now then i ever did!
  • Do this outside. Get a pane of fiberglass and belt-fed sanding machine. Turn the fiberglass pane into fiberglass powder. (Carefully) sprinkle the power around the home of [insert enemy's name here], being sure to reach each carpet, set of clothes, and piece of upholstered furniture.

    With any luck, he'll have to burn down the house and salt the earth it stood on to get that itching to stop.

  • CAN-WHAT? (Score:5, Informative)

    by bennomatic ( 691188 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:41AM (#14707242) Homepage
    I met someone not too long ago who ran a SPAM outfit, and he boasted that he was 100% CAN-SPAM compliant, because he always gave his recipients an option to be exempted from future SPAMs. Apparently, the first contact can't be considered a SPAM, according to the law.

    So guess what? This guy had hundreds of domains, officially different companies which would act as agents for his clients, so that he (the spammer) could use the same mailing list over and over and over, because it wasn't "him" that was using it; it was his clients.

    So basically, CAN-SPAM is really SWISS-CHEESE. There are so many holes in it that any idiot can figure out a way to avoid being penalized.

    Unfortunately, there are no holes in the laws protecting these guys from great bodily harm...

    • Re:CAN-WHAT? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by keraneuology ( 760918 )
      This has been pointed out repeatedly both before CAN-SPAM was enacted (and it went through) and afterwards (and it hasn't been fixed). And the people who put that law into place are STILL THERE . I have had personal, face to face conversations with two US Reps (Knollenberg R-MI and McCotter R-MI) over the issue and neither one care. Both will be reelected to their underpaid offices in DC this year. Both will probably receive tens of thousands of votes from people who claim to hate spam but are too @*

      • EVERY incumbent should be thrown out of office. This is the ONLY way to get anything useful, meaningful, honest or good accomplished: all of the elected congresscritters know that no matter what they do they'll be back in office. Three cycles of single term US Reps will solve the problem nicely and convince them that they had better start staying the course or they won't get those annual raises-that-aren't-raises.

        This sounds good, and it seems like a hopeful sign that general approval ratings of congress

        • This sounds good, and it seems like a hopeful sign that general approval ratings of congress are at 30% (plus-or-minus), and as a result one might be willing to believe that a "throw-the-bums-out" movement is building.

          Even if it were, until we in the US fully embrace the idea of third-party candidates, very little will change. Sure, we may throw all the US Representatives out, and what would we have then? Instead of 232 Republicans and 202 Democrats, we'd have 232 Democrats and 202 Republicans. And whi

    • Re:CAN-WHAT? (Score:4, Informative)

      by jfengel ( 409917 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @12:04PM (#14707574) Homepage Journal
      Unfortunately, there are no holes in the laws protecting these guys from great bodily harm...

      No, but I believe that the CAN-SPAM law does require a valid physical postal address. It would be really, really illegal if somebody were to use that information to beat the sh*t out of him.

      If he's not including that valid postal address, then he should be arrested under the law. My concern with CAN-SPAM isn't the loopholes as much as that they don't seem to be enforcing the rules. No law does any good if it isn't enforced.

      I'd really like to see him try the "But it wasn't really me, it was my multiple domain names" excuse in front of a judge.
      • If you read the terms of CAN-SPAM, compliance is trivially easy. And a "valid physical postal address" just means that the Post Office can figure out where to deliver it - it doesn't mean that the miscreant sleeps there. Doesn't even need to be in the US.

        I've tracked down one spammer's WHOIS registrations and got the address of The Company Corporation in Delaware, which is the canonical place to spend $100 to register a Delaware corporation - so there's a file folder in a desk drawer there that has the

    • Re:CAN-WHAT? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by tritone ( 189506 )
      How much spam can CAN-SPAM can
      If CAN-SPAM can can spam?

      Not very much, evidently.
    • So basically, CAN-SPAM is really SWISS-CHEESE. There are so many holes in it that any idiot can figure out a way to avoid being penalized.

      No, CAN-SPAM means that spammers CAN-SPAM you with impunity!

  • What I've found (Score:4, Insightful)

    by OYAHHH ( 322809 ) * on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:42AM (#14707251)
    Is,

    That if you get on the phone and call these idiots often enough to complain they sometimes get the message.

    Just tell them that you will call each time you receive that unsolicited email or phone call from them.

    Make absolutely certain that you put the poor staffer on the hotseat. Make sure they fully understand that who they represent is invading your privacy and that you will not tolerate it.

    If they try to hang up on you then simply tell them that if they don't hear you out that you are a constituent that will be walking through their front door to give them the piece of your mind in person otherwise. That usually really gets their attention.

    Being a bit obnoxious can have it's benefits.

    Don't accept crap from those boneheads, you bought and paid for them to be there, get your money's worth!

    • I had a certain senator who got my e-mail address from somewhere (no idea where) and started spamming me on almost a daily basis.

      What worked for me was to first e-mail them with a polite request to be removed from their lists. When that request was ignored I then followed with a handful of warnings that I would begin reporting them to various anti-SPAM groups and blocklists if they continued to send me spam.

      They stopped shortly after.

  • Not Surprised (Score:3, Funny)

    by gtzpower ( 928065 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:42AM (#14707253) Homepage
    Just like a politician preach that they are anti-spam, via spam.
  • Politicians have always done this. There is always a clause in the law that allows them to communicate to the masses. A politician doesn't have to use the DO NOT CALL service to screen their calls, because the specifically put in the law that they are allowed.

  • Legal reform (Score:4, Informative)

    by mccalli ( 323026 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:43AM (#14707261) Homepage
    From the summary: "The iMedia Connection newsletter is running a story on how some politicians are violating CAN-SPAM with impunity. Apparently so-called 'political speech' e-mails do not fit the legal definition of spam, even if they are wholly unsolicited and unwanted.".

    By definition then, if political speech emails are not legally spam, then the politicians are not violating the CAN-SPAM law. The summary is contradictory.

    Should you* want politicians to conform to an anti-spam law, the solution is to lobby and vote for either the extension of CAN-SPAM to apply to political speech or alternatively for the creation of a new law. But currently, the politicians are not breaking an existing law. This is a hrader task of course, but that's the only way forwards.

    Cheers,
    Ian
    (*by 'you' I mean US voters, I'm in the UK)

    • Re:Legal reform (Score:3, Interesting)

      by DDumitru ( 692803 )
      The CanSpam law was already on somewhat shakey legal ground. In the US we have the 1st ammendment, you know, the one about free speech. Regardless of how much you might dislike it, spam is a form of speech. Usually, it is a form of commercial speech.

      The interpretation of the constitution deals with speech issues differently depending on the type of speech involved. There is very little protection for fraudulent speech, so this can be made a crime and you can be put into jail. The same goes for yelling

      • Except that anti-spam laws aren't a free-speech matter. Free speech means your right to say what you want. It does not mean your right to use my hall without my permission to say what you want, nor does it mean your right to demand that I listen to you. If you're paying for the venue/publication, or you're using public property, then talk away all you want. But I don't see you paying my ISP subscription and my e-mail inbox (which is part of that subscription) isn't public property, and the First Amendment d

        • But you are wrong. Email is absolutely speech. Your argument is that receiving an email is somehow trespassing. Unfortunately, you invited this trespass (or at least you did not take any action to prevent it). It was you and your ISP that made the decision to receive un-authenticated email from the public internet. If you don't like the email, filter it, don't read it, or just delete it. You are not required to read it anymore than you are required to read a billboard on a public sidewalk.

          The real iss

          • I no more invited trespass by having an e-mail inbox than I invite trespass of my house by having my house number and my name on a sign by the street. If I don't ask someone to speak to me, I've given no invitation to them.

            It's not a matter of inbox clutter. It's a matter of the companion right to your right to speak: my right to not listen. If you want to pontificate on a street corner that's fine, but the right to do that doesn't give you the right to grab and detain people to make them listen. If you wa

            • Your logic is all wrong. You have setup a mailbox that accepts, from the public, inbound communications. This is no different than having a mailbox with a street address. By setting this up, you are accepting speech from the general public, including from those that are anonymous. You did this by your choice. Now you are saying that the government, using its ability to commit violence on its citizenship, should pass and enforce a law that restricts what someone can say to you, and moreso, what someone

              • There's one big difference: with snail-mail the sender is paying the freight with the postage they have to put on the item to send it to me. If they're paying, they can do what they want. But as I also noted earlier, you (ie. the people sending spam) aren't paying for their use of my mailbox and they're not asking permission to use it. It's the same as someone sending me snail-mail postage due and claiming their right to free speech gives them the right to do that. Sorry, but no.

                Your living room is your pr

                • There is the obvious issue of "cost to deliver", but that does not change the speech. If you rent a mailbox at the local post office, junk mail and can does cost you real money. This is probably a lot more money than your email box.

                  If someone sends you an email, they can only send it to you because you have setup your mail server to receive it. They did not break into your computer system to deliver the mail to you. You setup a server that is designed to accept exactly what the spammer is sending to you
      • SPAM has nothing to do with free speech. A politician can't stand on my front lawn with a bull horn at night telling me why I should vote for him. Email is no different. Just because someone has a right to express themselves doesn't mean they are guaranteed an audience.
        • I get really amazed at the people that think that SPAM is equal to mass murder.

          SPAM is many things to many people. To some, it is an email message, commercial in nature, and unsolicited. To some it is any unsolicited email. To others, it has to be sent in bulk (whatever that means).

          Regardless, if the email itself is political in nature, it is covered by free speech. If you don't want to read it don't. If you want to filter it out fine. If you want to only get email from your frields, blacklist everyon
          • To say that political speech does not belong in email is just unamerican (and I use that phrase intentionally).

            I never claimed that political speech does not belong in email. I get plenty of emails that are political in nature. Some I read and some I don't. I merely claimed that not all methods of sending political email messages are protected as free speech, just as not all methods of going door to door to talk to your (potential) constituents are protected. The example I gave was an example of a metho
            • I am happy to agree with you, but I suspect that I will draw the line at a quite different point than you might.

              If you want to argue that a candidate cannot send you an email once a day (or once an hour) then I think you are wrong. If you want to argue that a candidate cannot send you 1000 emails per hour shutting down your inbox, then I think you are right. You really do have to go to extremes to find cases where restricting political speech is justified and constitutional.

              If the speech itself makes your
              • If you want to argue that a candidate cannot send you an email once a day (or once an hour) then I think you are wrong. If you want to argue that a candidate cannot send you 1000 emails per hour shutting down your inbox, then I think you are right. You really do have to go to extremes to find cases where restricting political speech is justified and constitutional.

                Actually, I don't really care how oeften they send emails to me. As far as I am concerned, there should be two restrictions.

                a) Since I didn't pr

  • makes sense (Score:3, Insightful)

    by WindBourne ( 631190 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:44AM (#14707276) Journal
    In this particular case, the spammer is the attorney general of Florida, who considers himself an anti-spam crusader."

    CAN-SPAM was never designed to prevent spam. It was designed to codify what could legally happen, provide a way for web-sites to harvest e-mail, and finally, to prevent the states from enacting new laws against these companies. For all purpose, it was a giveaway to BIG money that does spam (and inheritenly, the lobbyists). SO anybody who voted for it, supported spam, but could declare that they were fighting against it i.e. bait via name, but switch via action (think patriot act).

    • Oddly enough we went over this ground when the bill was announced and "everyone" here was so hep for some sort of antispam legislation of any kind that I got a pretty good reaming for pointing out that this is what the law would lead to.

      I'm still waiting to see the true circumvention though, when the charities get in bed with the spammers and offer a bigger penis with a suitable donation, and by law that will not be spam.

      KFG
      • Yeah. It seems that a lot of people here do not think about the implication of the laws. After all, if there is any issue about it, then the politicians will go to great lengths to hide their real intention while wrapping it in a nice name.
    • Personally, I don't see how they were baiting anyone with the name. The way I look at it, the name makes it perfectly clear that the specific intent of the law was to legitimise spam (or at least to define legitimate spam, which may or may not be the same thing depending on your point of view).

      Maybe if they called it CANT-SPAM I might have believed that it was at least a token attempt at preventing spam...

  • Does this really surprise anyone? (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    One of the basic premises of government is "do as I say, not as I do". After all, government is the organization holding the unique right to employ coercion as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. Do as I say, not as I do.

  • Regulation is not effective on the internet for this type of thing. We're seeing that with pr0n too. I know people under 18 who can easily get it, and no laws can easily change that, not even the one currently in the courts. Unless every porn site does "nofollow" on all their links (to stop image searches), there's nothing they can do on the internet end. And that doesn't stop torrents, etc. The only answer to pr0n is client-side control, and parental monitoring.

    Ditto Spam. The only way to block spam

  • It is not a matter of the definition of SPAM (Score:3, Interesting)

    by will_die ( 586523 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:50AM (#14707368) Homepage
    Both political and charity based mailing are exempt from from the CAN-SPAM law; same as they are exempt from the Do Not Call list. So it is not a case of definition or a loop hole, they are specificly allow to do so.
    What was really funny in the Florida case is that they guy had campaigned on SPAM and had pushed for tough anti-spam laws. Then to top it off they released a message saying "This is not spam. This is truthful, it's straight forward. We're honest. To be spam it has to be, under Florida law, defined as being deceptive." No matter how it goes that is all just funny.
    BTW there has been a court case over the exemption for political and nonprofit organization, the FTC argued that they were less likely then for-profits to abuse the practice.
  • Because after all, spam is now defined to exclude the political mailings this guy uses, so he's not "spamming" at all.

    Now that Bill Clinton has opened the door to questionable definitions of existing words, both the Democrats and the Republicans have embraced his ideas firmly and run with them as far and as fast as they can.

  • Take a look at any of the anti-advertising laws... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by caffeineboy ( 44704 ) <skidmore.22NO@SPAMosu.edu> on Monday February 13, 2006 @11:55AM (#14707440)
    and you'll find that there is a loophole in there for political solicitation.


    Yes, phone robot autodialers are illegal... except of course if they are talking about something political. Spam and do-not-call as well. It's all in there.


    Imagine the analog for mugging laws; mugging is illegal unless it is being done to raise campaign funds, in which case it is forgivable. Sounds silly, doesn't it, but I don't see a difference from the way they are writing the laws now.


    If a tactic is annoying, intrusive and disliked enough to make it illegal, I have no idea why the politicians involved in this are unable to see that it is not a good idea to be the exception.


    Here is california politicians are perticularly fond of auto-dialers; even the local unions use them.

  • Spam = Florida (Score:4, Funny)

    by Basehart ( 633304 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @12:06PM (#14707602)
    Maybe it's just a coincidence, but most of the articles I read about spam always mention Florida.

    Maybe a big filter between Florida and the rest of the World would work, and while we're at it a 100 ft high wall.
    • Between a 100 foot wall at the border and global warming melting the polar ice caps, I am sure that this situation will take care of Floride soon enough...
    • why does this surprise you? like a friend of mine used to say: Florida is probably the only place where the average age, temperature and IQ is for all 80.

      [just a joke, don't waste mod points here) ;)

    • Maybe a big filter between Florida and the rest of the World would work, and while we're at it a 100 ft high wall.

      I don't know about you, but personally I would also vote for inward-pointing machine guns that will be going night and day until the spam problem stops. Or is that outward-pointing machine guns on the inside, with the spammers lined up against the wall?

      Whatever.
  • violating CAN-SPAM with impunity. Apparently so-called 'political speech' e-mails do not fit he legal definition of spam, even if they are wholly unsolicited and unwanted

    So, uhm, how would they be in violation? Far more than merely "not fitting the legal definition of spam," 'Political speech' emails--particularly from elected officials--IIRC, were explicitly excepted precisely so litigious morons who can't grok that a thing must meet some required legal definition before it can be in violation of a law ref
    • Spam is email sent to many people who didn't ask for it. The content of the email doesn't matter.

      They legally defined "spam" as something that does not include what they want to send, creating an exemption for themselves by changing, under the law, the widely accepted definition. (Stop co-opting the language!)

      They're not telling anybody how they're doing their job. They're sending out the usual misinformation and spun-up bull about how wonderful they are and why you should vote for them.
      • Your definition of "spam" does not matter in any legal sense, nor does anyone else's. What matters IS the legal definition, which _must_ be defined in law for it to have any relevance in law. I didn't write the law, I was simply pointing out that the submitter's statement of this action being in violation of the law was self-contradictory, idiotic and, sadly, rather typical.

  • I'm seeing a lot of comments here about how "those dirty politicians put a loophole in the law to exempt themselves." I, for one, am glad! This is called freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is extremely annoying...especially to those people who don't want to hear it. Guess what...Its one of the U.S.'s founding principles, so get over it. If there wasn't a loophole in the law for political speech, the ACLU would be up in arms about it, and rightly so!

    On a different note, it is stupid that they are
    • Give me my Freedom to listen!

      I am all for someone's freedom of speech, but I should also have the freedom to listen, or not. Filling my email inbox with unsolicited "free speech" is a problem.

      If I was truly interested in someone's opinion, let me subscribe to a mailing list, or make some form of indication that I want to receive their freedom of speech, or go to their blog and read it at my leisure.

      Forcing someone to have to wade through garbage free speech is almost as repressive as censorship. Forcing s
      • In the U.S., you are not guaranteed a freedom *from hearing*.

        If you don't want to hear my free speech, don't read emails from me.

        My right to speak is not based upon your desire to hear my opinion.

        I don't see what this has to do with dictatorship in the slightest. Now it just seems that you've resorted to name-calling.

        In the words of Thomas Jefferson, "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it."
    • Defining spam is tricky business - mostly because none of us can agree. I have friends that are militant about it and will only accept email from whitelists. I also have friends that will forward me every hoax, virus warning, coupon or anything else that comes down the line.

      For me it comes down to two major things. The first is unique content. As you pointed out in your post, anyone that sends you ANYTHING 30 times in a row, in any medium, is spamming. I don't need more than one email with identical
    • Spam is NOT about freedom of speech. Spam is about Unsolicited Bulk Messaging. No one is taking away your right to freedom of speech. You are free to stand on a soapbox and make a speech, setup a website, print posters and flyers and distribute them... On the other hand, my mailbox is _my_ property. Your freedom of speech does not exist there.
  • Found this via the spam kings blog, absolutely hilarious:
    http://spamkings.oreilly.com/archives/2006/01/unde r_attack_spammer_begs_for_1.html [oreilly.com]

    Honestly, I still believe that vigilante tactics combined with laws such as ours in TN (making spam a civil action) are the only realistic way to go.
  • IANAL. Political Speech is held in a different light than other kinds of mass-audience speech (like advertising soap for instance). This is a good thing and this speech should continue to be protected, shielded from laws that may in some way restrict it. Even when the speech or method of speech may seem downright stupid and ill-advised. Why? Because the freedom of this kind of speech is what the United States of America is all about. This is the kind of speech our founding fathers were considering whe
    • Actually, pastors can get in a lot of trouble for sharing their political views with the congregation. It kind of strikes me as odd really. My pastor got in hot water last year for telling people to do exactly what you said; be politcally active, research the candidates and what they vote for and what they stand for. He didn't endorse a candidate. Just told people to be active, to vote, and to think about who they were voting for. Apparently, that is a big no-no. We don't want people thinking about who they
      • Actually, pastors can get in a lot of trouble for sharing their political views with the congregation. It kind of strikes me as odd really. My pastor got in hot water last year for telling people to do exactly what you said; be politcally active, research the candidates and what they vote for and what they stand for. He didn't endorse a candidate. Just told people to be active, to vote, and to think about who they were voting for.

        Got in trouble with whom?

        As far as I know, the ONLY legal issue is that a tax-
      • There are many issues that get addressed politically from the pulpit. Abortion and gay marriage are two current hot-button examples. They are social issues that have been thouroughly politicized, largely because religious leaders have sent the message from the pulpit to make them political.

        Even if gay marriage were legalized, the churches would still have the right to prohibit gay marriage in their church or amoung their congrigation. This is an issue that they want to control outside of their realm of d

  • Politicians above the law? I'm shocked! (Score:3, Funny)

    by CptNerd ( 455084 ) <adiseker@lexonia.net> on Monday February 13, 2006 @01:18PM (#14708571) Homepage

    Shocked I say! To think politicians believe they're above the laws they write! Next thing you'll be telling me is that they rearrange voting districts to prevent them from losing elections...

  • Like it or not, US law (as interpreted by the courts) places a higher value on political speech than commercial speech. As a result, the restrictions that can be placed on political speech are less strict than those that can be placed on commercial speech.

  • Protected Political Speech... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by shrubya ( 570356 ) on Monday February 13, 2006 @01:21PM (#14708599) Homepage Journal
    Just wait until stuff written like this starts flooding people's mailboxes:

    Vote for Hot Hot Cocks

    Write-in a vote for Ron Jeremy this November! http://videos.hothotcocks.com/ [hothotcocks.com]

    Join other supporters of hot hot cocks on our campaign website at http://singles.hothotcocks.com/ [hothotcocks.com]

    Our political platform is the right to huge erections and unlimited C1ALIS for all citizens. http://canadianpharmacy.hothotcocks.com/ [hothotcocks.com]

    Yes indeed, we CAN spam! God Bless America!
  • ...wait...were his lips moving?

Slashdot Top Deals

"It might help if we ran the MBA's out of Washington." -- Admiral Grace Hopper

Close