Microsoft Fights to Weaken Washington Anti-Spam Law

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.

Odd?

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.

No, it's not. Laws that apply to everyone but you are very handy.

I'd rather have

laws that just apply to me. Such as the proposed Travis-Goodspeed-is-excempt-from-the-DMCA-and-EULA s Act of 2003.

Re:I'd rather have

The problem for MS is that they are more than "pesky". On the one hand they waste huge amounts of bandwidth on spam with hotmail. They recieve a huge number of spam becuase of their huge number of users. On the other hand they make money selling addresses and spamming on their own.

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.

eh comrades, eh?

You bring up the very good point that our system is flawed in that businesses, rather than people control the government.

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!?

Re:Odd?

Laws that apply to everyone but you are very handy.

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?

Re:Odd?

1. Point out limitations of government
2. ???
3. Prophet!

Point out any government limitations and you are bound to be proven right.

Re:Odd?

In fact, MS is one of the bigger sellers of your address. And many of them are not just on their sites. They want to look like the good guys by appearing to crack down, but at the same time, they need to make a buck.
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.

Re:Odd?

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.

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.

wise man once say,

Do as I say, not as I do.

Re:wise man once say,

The needs of the Microsoft outweigh the needs of the many.

odd?

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.

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?

"Microsoft Brand Penis enlargers anyone?"

Ah, this time the bloat would be a good thing.

Re:odd?

Can you say "erectile disfunction"?

Re:odd?

Microsoft Brand Penis enlargers

Perhaps not the best brand name for that type of product.

Re:odd?

Is your Penis MicroSoft?

Re:odd?

Try dealling with K stret lobbyists, they have a habbit of persuing their own agendas rather than ther corporations real interests...

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.

Bill 1618, Title III is NOT A REAL LAW

It passed the Senate but never passed the House of Representatives... It's cited by spammers in order to trick you that the spam is legitimate and that you can't do anything about it. See link here [truthorfiction.com].

Re:odd?

"Microsoft Brand Penis enlargers anyone?"

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...

Odd?

I don't think it's odd that microsoft is fighting spam, and at the same time sending it... come on... think about it...

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... :P

Wait a minute - missed a step

You forgot the most important step in any high-tech venture:

5. ??????
6. Profit!

How dare they!

Who do they think they are? Congressmen?! No loophole for you!

Re:How dare they!

Laws are written by industry groups as often as not, then they pay a congressman to introduce it. Bill from techfocus.org [techfocus.org] explained it all to me a while ago (I'm Canadian... not too much knowledge of US politics). The whole thing made me kind of sick. So much for "For the people, by the people." More like "For the corporation, by the corporation."

Why?

Does Microsoft send out a lot of spam? I haven't gotten much MS spam, and you'd think that having an insurmountable monopoly would preclude the necessity for spamming. I mean, where can they go from the top? That's right, down. And that's where angering their customers with spam could take them.

Re:Why? (EXAMPLE!)

Taken from snopes.com ;-):

Hello everybody, My name is Bill Gates. I have just written up an e-mail tracing program that traces everyone to whom this message is forwarded to. I am experimenting with this and I need your help. Forward this to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list will receive $1000 at my expense. Enjoy.

Your friend,
Bill Gates

sex [slashdot.org]

Re:Why?

"Does Microsoft send out a lot of spam?"

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.

Re:Why?

Well I disagree with the strategy of MS. However, there is one thing that we need to look it. ISPs don't want to be liable for huge damages for their users use/abuse/hijacking (sending spam). This is a valid concern if you get a customer that gets on your network and your staff is to small to deal with it the second it happens (this really cant be a concern of MSN).

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'

Vile Spam

"How about the enlarge-your-penis club or the porno buying club?" asked Sheldon Koehler, owner of Ten Forward Communications, a small provider in Port Angeles. Koehler said he spends much of his time protecting his customers -- and his young son -- from unsavory e-mail. "I have the privilege of looking at some of the most vile e-mail on the planet"

I'm sure his spam is pretty bad... bu the most vile on the planet? I doubt it. I bet that [e-mail] gets the vilest (sp?) spam on Earth.

--sex [slashdot.org]

Live on CSPAN

Chairman: Will the Senator from Microsoft yield?

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!

Where is the logic?

Can someone explain the logic in allowing spam? Spammers cost MS money, so why would they want them? Spammers:

• Use up hotmails/MSNs bandwidth and CPU power
• Sign up for accounts and don't ever look at the ads (because it's done by scripts, I'd assume)
• Annoy the hell out of everyone signed up for MSN and any other service

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?

The logic is pretty simple. Microsoft want to stop other people spamming Hotmail subscribers. It costs them money in bandwidth, storage etc. Microsoft like to send their customer base "email updates and special offers". As the vast majority of computer users use some MS product (be it Hotmail, Windows, Office etc) that gives them a very large number of people to send email to. At the moment, if you use Hotmail you will get a monthly email from Hotmail which will mention some commercial services available and some of their sponsors. If they are unable to do this they will lose the revenue from people who pay to have their products/services included in this type of email. While not unsolicited it is (in most cases) unwanted.
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.

Just like them....

Just like Microsoft to do this. On one hand, they want to fight spam. On the other hand, if they aren't successful fighting it (or at least somewhat effective), then they don't want to be responsible for the consequences.

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!

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

But it would also carve out a broad exemption in the law for mail sent by companies the recipient has done business with, and completely exempt Internet service providers -- including Microsoft. Yeah, that's not a hole. How hard would it be for a spammer to start a side business of being an isp to get around this? And since Microsoft only "done business" with practically everyone who's ever bought or used a computer (I'm sure someone out there is weaning their kids on *nix, but the rest of us...), that means free spam all day every day from our "partner".

Spam is ineffective.

Why the heck are so many groups trying so hard to preserve a form of advertising that no one pays attention to?

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?

MS sells hotmail info to marketers. That means MS profits by selling my email address to spammers. If spammers are constrained, so is a prime MS revenue channel.

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.

Commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Thus, we need not think spam laws are bad, ever.

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...

My guess is that they don't even know that they are fighting aginst themselves. That would be typicial of a large organization.

Ted

The biggest problem...

is the reduction from $500 to $10. For $500, it's actually worth it to try to track the spammers down and sue his ass. But no one is going to go through that much trouble for just $10, unless their time is completely worthless.

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

The original wording of the bill required all companies to put a ADV: tag on unsolicited e-mail. Microsoft is lobbying to exempt ISPs and companies with which the person has done business. It'd be pretty cool to discuss the reasonableness of the changes, instead of jumping up and down going "ook, Microsoft sucks".

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 . . .

Microsoft applies for spam patent.

Obligatory..

1) Establish business relationship with all customers.
2) Spam all customers.
3) ???
4) Profit!

ISP Exemption

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

Okay...Microsoft does a lot of business with a lot of people in a lot of ways and it would be very easy for them to get sued over something they may have accidentally signed up for, etc...

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!

I've been spammed many times from MSN, and from other spammers hiding out in the Redmond Empire's IP range. I've had their entire set of IP ranges in our mail server's 'Deny' list for nearly two years. No regrets whatsoever.

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 /etc/tcp.smtp file, and recompile it.

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)