Slashdot Log In
Microsoft Fights to Weaken Washington Anti-Spam Law
Posted by
michael
on Tue Feb 25, 2003 08:54 PM
from the self-serving dept.
from the self-serving dept.
An anonymous reader writes "According to the Seattle Times, Microsoft (probably their MSN arm) is pushing for a change in at least Washington's anti-spam law. Some analysts claim that the changes contain holes that will allow Microsoft to be exempt from the law." Odd that Microsoft is simultaneously trying to stop spam sent to Hotmail users, and to make sure that it can send unsolicited commercial email without penalties.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Odd? (Score:4, Interesting)
No, it's not. Laws that apply to everyone but you are very handy.
I'd rather have (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:I'd rather have (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I'd rather have (Score:5, Interesting)
To them it's very simple. If they get their way they can make more money while cutting costs. Its what any business should do in America right? Personally i take this as evidence that our system is flawed. I am not going to bitch and complain about our system and exploitation but i do believe we should fight companies that try this, keep them in check.
Parent
eh comrades, eh? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is also important to remember that the opposite extremes (socialism and communism) suck in that the community exploits the individual. Corporations, despite their wanton disregard for human rights are still bound by the laws of profit. We need to start taking advantage of this.
For example, start a petition for network admins that would allow Office attachements if, and only if, the spec was publicly released. If enough of us, the ones that control mail servers, do this it could force M$ into releasing the spec to save Office's viability.
Winshit boycotts would not work. We are not the sort of people who buy winshit, we are either boycotting it for ethical reasons of using a warez copy.
The Warez industry has been decimated by the OSS movement. Who would want to hurt a good ol' honest business like that!?
Parent
Time to change the icon (Score:3, Insightful)
"I don't break the law... I am the law!!"
Erm... on second thought, scratch that... might be too close to the truth to be funny.
Re:Odd? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. I just can't help pointing out that in a discussion a couple weeks back, the absolutists among us felt that the whole spam problem could be solved by simply shoving a bill through Congress.
When folks like me said that it wasn't going to be quite that simple, we were met with scorn. I actually said that any national antispam measure would, by the time it became law, be riddled with exceptions, made for the benefit of powerful corporations like MS.
Am I a prophet or what?
Parent
Re:Odd? (Score:4, Funny)
2. ???
3. Prophet!
Point out any government limitations and you are bound to be proven right.
Parent
Re:Odd? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh, BTW, MS is not the only one. Yahoo is another huge seller of addresses. In fact, they may be bigger, but I am not sure. I wish congress would have done more to address the texas-style accounting and had all corps show more of where their income comes from.
Parent
Re:Odd? (Score:5, Interesting)
I had to deal with a company that gave up trying to block spammers from hacking into their (windows) servers for spam-routers. All I could do was watch as, over a period of months, just about everybody seemed to block emails from their IP address. Hotmail was one of the few exceptions -- certainly it was the only name I recognized.
I never could figure out why HotMail never banned them.
Parent
wise man once say, (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:wise man once say, (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
odd? (Score:5, Interesting)
That's not odd at all. That's just how microsoft works. They want to protect their monopoly, and perhaps extend it to new products (Microsoft Brand Penis enlargers anyone?).
Microsoft has never played by the rules before, I don't know why anyone would think they'd start doing it now. . .
Re:odd? (Score:5, Funny)
Ah, this time the bloat would be a good thing.
Parent
Re:odd? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:odd? (Score:5, Funny)
Perhaps not the best brand name for that type of product.
Parent
Re:odd? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:odd? (Score:5, Insightful)
Getting a spam law written that will past first ammendment scruitiny is not that easy. The biggest problem is the requirement that any measure be as narrow as possible. The junk fax law has been found uconstitutional in one court on that basis, the judge in question is an oppinionated ass but it is quite likely that the courts will ultimately decide that banning all adverts was unnecessarily broad.
Anti spam legislation is not entirely useless but is not going to be a panacea. I believe it will significantly slow the growth of spam and increase spam sender costs. It will allow them less time to respond to the technical measures in development. But equally we must be very careful that legitiate bulk senders don't get hammered with bogus claims.
Parent
Re:odd? (Score:5, Funny)
Why do I have that sadistic image of the device crashing and little Johnny turning blue?
Anyways, Microsoft doesn't need to sell any penis enlargers; they've got everyone by the balls already...
Parent
Bill 1618, Title III is NOT A REAL LAW (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Odd? (Score:5, Funny)
1. We advertise MSN/Hotmail as anti-spam...
2. We spam the living snot out of every other ISP on the planet
3. We put neat little check boxes on our web based email pages that say "ULTIMATE ANTI_SPAM FILTER" and the like
4. Everyone switches to MSN/Hotmail
5. Profit.
So you see Microsoft has it all planned out...
QED...
Wait a minute - missed a step (Score:4, Funny)
5. ??????
6. Profit!
Parent
How dare they! (Score:4, Funny)
Re:How dare they! (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (EXAMPLE!) (Score:5, Funny)
sex [slashdot.org]
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:3, Interesting)
Even though technically, I did sign up on their list way back when, this might end up being catagorized as SPAM, and as such, Microsoft may end up with one hell of a penalty... I'm of the opinion, that they are simply trying to cover their asses, since it's rather easy to claim what they sent is spam from one of the "I hate Microsoft" zealots, and real difficult for Microsoft to provide hard evidence that says, "Here, you opted in to be on your mailing list back in 1998"... See the potential problem to be screwed over by ANTI-MICROSOFT activists? It's not a plot to give Microsoft control over bulk unsolicited email distribution, it's just some lawyers and accountants going... HOLY CRAP! We need damage control, and we need it NOW!
Of course, that's just my opinion, and I've been wrong before...
Re:Why? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think it has more do with MS wanting to send e-mails to Windows users about security updates, without people finding creative ways of suing them over it.
I doubt that my suggestion will go very far here because everybody knows MS's real intent is to be the primary service provider to people who want to work from home or desire longer penises.
Parent
Re:Why? (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course this comes down to the basics of economics (guns, booze, cars, etc) is a company responsible for the actions of it's customers? Does a company become liable if they don't shut down a users that violates the law or TOS in a timely manner? What is a timely manner? when does it become corporate negligence? How much investigation needs to be done before you shut someone off? How do you avoid mistakes?
I think this lobbying monies would be better spend to address these legal issues instead of removing tools from 'victims'
Parent
Vile Spam (Score:4, Funny)
I'm sure his spam is pretty bad... bu the most vile on the planet? I doubt it. I bet that cmdrtaco@slashdot.org gets the vilest (sp?) spam on Earth.
--sex [slashdot.org]
Where is the logic? (Score:3, Interesting)
Does MS activly court spammers? Does MS actually SELL it's OWN SUBSCRIBER LISTS to spammers? This doesn't make any sense to me, unless MS will soon start spamming everyone on the planet to buy XP, Office 2k3, and all 12 million unsold copies of MS Bob. On the plus side, that would make MS more hated by the general public ;)
Re:Where is the logic? (Score:5, Informative)
Microsoft want to be able to reduce their costs from being spammed but still want to benefit from eing able to send bulk email to their subscriber base.
Parent
Just like them.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like anyone who charges $$$ for software, but ducks responsibility when it has flaws, risks, and other defects. This activity only helps their cause by letting them cover their asses if they can't do it.
Odd? Ha! (Score:3, Interesting)
Odd that Microsoft is simultaneously trying to stop spam sent to Hotmail users, and to make sure that it can send unsolicited commercial email without penalties.
Odd? Hardly. Microsoft feels it is above the standard of most Good Corporate Citizens because they have a monopoly. Remember when MS' updater said no info would be sent back to MS? Well just have a look at what XP is sending back to MS [tecchannel.de] for an example of their power-crazed mindset.
No holes here (Score:4, Insightful)
Spam is ineffective. (Score:4, Interesting)
I swear, if the Internet didn't boom so quickly, banner ads might still have been looked upon as a viable outlet for advertising. I mean really, what makes banner ads so much worse than radio ads? I ignore radio and TV ads just as easily by changing the channel. The only advertising worth a damn was the small posters on the railroad. I'll be damnned if each and every one of those ads weren't burned into my memory from staring at them during my hour commute each way, 5 days a week.
Why is that odd? (Score:3, Insightful)
How is that kind of obvious scheme odd, except in that it is allowed to exist in the first place...
Remember, investing in MS is risking having your own money used against you in the marketplace.
Say it with me. (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, say it to the reps in Washington State before they let Microsoft out of the cage to devour all of us.
Anyone got the emails for these people?
I bet they don't even know... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ted
The biggest problem... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to mention the whole "previous business relationship" is total BS. Companies swap email address lists and call each other 'partners'. It's a bunch of crap. I think they ought to rase the fee to $5000. Make it worth someone's time to sue.
Reasonable (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my take:
The "done business" change is iffy. The justification is probably that it allows a company who sold a defective product to contact their customers with information on a security patch, or whatever. I can see how Microsoft would feel that such communications would be absolutely necessary for their business.
However, it also allows every FlyByNight company I ever ordered RAM from to send me spam without repercussions.
I don't like the broad opening, but I think some exemption should be allowed for messages that concern failings in a product that I've already purchased.
The ISP change is less iffy. I don't get much spam directly from ISPs. All it needs is a clause that specifies that the ISP can only send messages that directly concern the details of their customer's current account. So, sending a warning about a violation of the terms of use should be fine. Advertisements about additional services such as domain name registration should contain the ADV: tag.
So, that's my opinion. The changes Microsoft is lobbying for are bad, but they could be motivated by reasonable goals. I hope Washington State lawmakers can find a way to address the goals without providing such gaping holes in the spam laws.
In other news . . . (Score:4, Funny)
Obligatory.. (Score:3, Funny)
2) Spam all customers.
3) ???
4) Profit!
ISP Exemption (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder how their ISP exemption is worded. If I, as Joe Spammer, buy at T1 from a provider (say UUNet), and spam off it 24/7, but I also have one hosting customer on the line, then I am an ISP. Am I at this point exempt by their law?
Little mis-wordings leave big loopholes. Most of the spammers that I've talked to buy fairly big lines (T3's, 100Mb/s dedicated, etc, etc), and usually have at least one box hosted with them for whatever reason. Not by design, usually as favors to friends, but they're still providing an Internet Service (ISP = Internet Service Provider).
The company I work for, we buy huge amounts of bandwidth, and for the most part host ourselves.. Does that qualify us to send spam? We don't, and know our customers don't like it, and our provider wouldn't allow it (I've talked to our providers abuse guy several times on other issues, but I already know he's hard against), so we never will, but by that new law we should use our new-found ability.
I wonder if the market for toner cartridges and hair growth formula are really that good.
I can see some of the reasoning, but a bad idea (Score:5, Insightful)
For this I could see the "prior relationship" reasoning - much like the current telemarketting stuff.
However, the ISP part doesn't make much sense, unless they wanna be able to send tons of junk mail to their MSN subscribers about other MS junk.
Either way - a) how hard would it be for a spammer to forge a database showing how recipient a had clicked on a web site and signed up b) act as an ISP (yeah...we have 2 subscribers, but we're an ISP) and spam away.
Then again, I'm one of those old folk who remember the Internet before business took hold
BillBlocker! (Score:5, Informative)
For those who want to do similarly, and who run their own mail servers, let me save you a little research.
If you run qmail or a similar package with rblsmtpd, make the following entry in the
207.46.:allow,RBLSMTPD="Microsoft: Access denied." (Or whatever text you want in there).
There are other domains. You may want to add:
207.68.128-207.:allow,RBLSMTPD=(Text as above).
65.52-55.:
213.199.144-159.:
For those using postfix, simply add these to your client_check and sender_check lists, and recompile with postmap.
microsoft.com 554 Go away, Bill. (or whatever you want to say).
msft.net 554 (whatever you want to say)
msn.com (if desired)
Hotmail spam filtering (Score:4, Informative)
Microsoft does an ok job at Hotmail, but there is one thing that it misses - itself.
My mail is set to exclusive on Hotmail, meaning if you are not on my safe list, your mail gets dumped into my Junk Mail folder. Seven day old messages get erased from Junk Mail permanently. This applies to all emailers, except Microsoft, whose 75KB Hotmail ads trying to promote paying for more services show up in my Inbox, not Junk Mail. I have to manually delete these.
Two things I want changed at Hotmail:
1. Microsoft better learn how to filter itself. Properly.
2. Junk Mail should not contribute to my space usage on Hotmail. If I get a lot of spam, Hotmail sends me a message saying to erase it, flooding it further. God forbid I fet another ad. When you have 2MB of space, and Junk Mail counts towards it, 50KB hurts. It wouldn't hurt to make the initial page after logging in say in big red letters "Erase some mail, dammit!"
Quantum Skyline
"previous business relationship" - bullshit (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems to be a common belief that it is okay to send anything you want to anyone you have a prior business relationship with. Fuck that. If I buy stuff off someone, it does not mean that I want them to pester the hell out of me so I can buy more stuff.
Scott Hazlegrove some background (Score:5, Informative)
Scott Hazlegrove is the Microsoft lobbyist they are talking about.
Here is Scott Hazlegrove, "environmental policy director with the Association of Washington Business" arguing against stepped penalties for river poluters, instead he wants a nice flat fee (which would favour the bigger poluters over the little ones).
http://www.crcwater.org/fish/npfish35.html [crcwater.org]
Here he is as a Surefoot customer:
"I am writing to express my thanks and appreciation for the first decently fitting ski boots I have ever worn.", "I wouldn't think of buying a pair of boots anywhere else."http://www.surefoot.com/surefoot_-_customer_letter s.html [surefoot.com]
Here he is at his lobbying firm (this page has disappeared from the site, but google still has it):
The google cache link [216.239.39.100]
Live on CSPAN (Score:5, Funny)
Microsoft: Chairman, I will yield my time to the Senator from ADM.
ADM: I yield my time to the Senator from Allstate.
Allstate: Thank you Chairman, Microsoft, ADM, Allstate. We are here representing the people of America.
Senate: Hear, hear!
Allstate: We must lower taxes on corporations to help the American people!
Senate: Profit!
Parent