Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Your Rights Online

Yet Another Anti-Spam Bill In U.S. Senate 198

Posted by timothy from the they're-against-underwood-too dept.
ackthpt writes "Another bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate, according to CNN/Technology, by Sens. Conrad Burns (R-Montana) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) Yahoo supports it, but DMA and AOL want to polish it a bit more. Version 0.9 beta would require States Attorney Generals to sue spammers on consumers behalf. (So long as I get some moola from these jerks, I'd be happy with that) My wishes are: craft a strong enough bill to stand 1st Amendment challenges and punish violators in the pocketbook enough and a few prosecutions will bring most of the domestic junk to a screeching halt. I tend to daydream about winning the lottery, too. Contact your Senators and Representative with your wishes, maybe this time something will get a move on."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Yet Another Anti-Spam Bill In U.S. Senate More

Yet Another Anti-Spam Bill In U.S. Senate

Comments Filter:

  • sure anti-spam but... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eenglish_ca ( 662371 ) <eenglishNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday April 12, 2003 @03:52PM (#5717059) Homepage
    Sure I am tired of my spam but its not really an inconvenience, a couple clicks and it is gone. Isn't all this legislation going to start infringing on rights in the future if not now?
    • To the end-user it may not be an inconvenience, but it zaps up valuable bandwidth. So, even if you may not be feeling the effects, someone is...
    • Spam costs ISPs quite a bit of money in storage space and processing time.

      Spammers are thieves. Spammers belong in jail or, better, in torture chambers until they die.

    • Degree (Score:2)

      by gidds ( 56397 )
      It's a matter of degree.

      If you get one spam email a week, it's unnoticeable. If you get one a day, it's not a problem. If you get one an hour, it's an inconvenience. If you get one a minute, it's a big problem. If you get one a second, it makes normal email extremely hard (unless you have some amazingly accurate filters, and broadband or an ISP with a huge mailbox)...

      I'm relatively lucky; I get something like 10 a day (after BrightMail has filtered out a few more than that), which is an inconvenience at

    • Sure I am tired of my spam but its not really an inconvenience, a couple clicks and it is gone. Isn't all this legislation going to start infringing on rights in the future if not now?

      When my 85 year old grandmother gets spam advertising animal bestiality porn on her "internet appliance" a few days after it's set up...that's just downright rediculous(and not just on the "animal besitality" count. Her username was so obscure that it was clear MSN ratted out her email address to spammers, and boy did they

    • Re:sure anti-spam but... (Score:4, Insightful)

      by KC7GR ( 473279 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @11:24PM (#5719174) Homepage Journal
      You write...

      "Sure I am tired of my spam but its not really an inconvenience, a couple clicks and it is gone. Isn't all this legislation going to start infringing on rights in the future if not now?"

      No, because you're missing an important fact, and it can be summed up in three simple words; 'Private Property Rights.'

      Contrary to popular belief, the Internet is not now, nor has it ever been, a truly "public" resource. It remains today, as it was in its humble beginnings, a vast collection of privately-owned computers, routers, switches, and data pipes.

      The respective owners of all this stuff have, for the most part, graciously allowed others to use the resources in exchange for periodic fees appropriate to the type of usage. Spamming is not 'use;' Spamming is 'abuse.' Period.

      Think about it; If the Internet really were a "public" resource, then there would be free or government-subsidized access for everyone, funded by Your Tax Dollars. Under such a setup, anyone who had a system connected to the 'net would likely be required to carry whatever traffic the government says they have to carry, especially if they're drawing government funds to keep their 'net presence operational.

      I can state with absolute confidence that no one is paying me to maintain my servers. All the costs associated with maintaining my 'net presence -- electricity, bandwidth, maintenance and repairs -- are coming straight out of my pocket. No one's helping me; I do it because I want to, because I think the 'net can be a very valuable and useful tool in many ways.

      As Jim Nitchalls once put it; "Free speech is not free when it comes postage-due," and that's exactly the problem with spam. When someone spams me, or one of my other users, they are literally stealing my resources for their own personal gain. I will not permit that under any conditions.

      To that end, I make use of SPEWS, Spamhaus, other DNSBL's, and my own local blacklist to stop spam before it even enters the mail queue. Other Internet providers, motivated by user complaints, are taking the same measures. To many (myself included), the small risk of losing legitimate mail is worth it if it stems the flow of crap that threatens to overwhelm legitimate traffic to begin with.

      If you're happy with spammers stealing your ISP's resources, and adding to your monthly costs as a result (it has been estimated that handling spam adds between $3-$5 to each Internet user's monthly bill), well, that's your privilege. However, don't ask me to accept any traffic from ISP's that are weak about terminating connectivity to their pet spammers, because I won't.

      My servers, my bandwidth, my rules. Free speech does not apply in this context any more than it would if someone were to attach a big billboard to the side of your house without asking you, or arranging any form of compensation.

    • Just. Not a whole lot. Automatic delete on everything "NAME, get ..... /number-letter-thing/". Semi-automatic delete on "I can't contact you!! 232". Delete on "make yourself B-I-G". Delete on "rooms for rent", "LEARN ENGLISH NOW" (Huh? How'd I read this subject if I did not speak English?), delete "free access!" and a number of other things.
      Whose rights it's going to infringe? What would you say if someone followed you on the street shouting "GET YOURSELF A BIGGER MEMBER". Politely say "No thank you" each t
    • Well, for many people, it's more like a couple *hundred* clicks, and since /.ers tend to be technically savvy, they have the longest-standing email addresses, and get the most spam... CmdrTaco would be a prime example of that.

      However, you don't even need a couple clicks. You could setup a filter that trashes any mail that doesn't contain a specific keyword (Douglas Adams just started using this method), or you can spend $30 per *year* on a spamcop e-mail address. Incidently, you could also either buy sp
    • Isn't all this legislation going to start infringing on rights in the future if not now?Isn't all this legislation going to start infringing on rights in the future if not now?

      Forgery is not a 'right' it is a crime. When spammers use false information to get past spam filters -- in order to try and convince me to buy their useless crap they are committing forgery.

      You can say what you want, but I don't think it's unconstitutional to demand that someone wanting to do business with me:

      • Identify themsel

  • What is this going to do? (Score:4, Informative)

    by Blaine Hilton ( 626259 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @03:53PM (#5717065) Homepage
    How is this going to stop them in OTHER countries? How much spam is really sent from within the US of A?
    • The key thing is that worthwhile legislation must also apply to US persons or corporations who use spam, whether or not they send it themselves.

    • Re:What is this going to do? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Zeebs ( 577100 ) <rsdrew@@@gmail...com> on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:11PM (#5717131)
      Well two words, Regime Change. Countries who posess weapons of mass annoyance will be DDOS'd off the political map.
    • Well... I for one live in Sweden, and I can tell you this:

      Any spam I get is trying to:
      1) Give me good banking offers (provided I live in the US)
      2) Make me participate in pyramid games/etc. trying to make me believe there is no loser in such a game (and with all the people who're supposed to recieve $xx living in the US)
      3) Make me download porn dialers/etc. (and with that, virii I suppose)
      3) Send me virii straight out
      4) Advertise

      Well... Most of the spam that enters my inbox have got american mail headers (
    • Yes. This is the point. I agree totally.

      Most spam is sent (or relayed) via other countries. Many originators of spam benefit US companies... but are not in the US.

      International regulation is hard... and hell, I'd rather action against human rights violatioons against residents in other countries than spam in my own.

      We have to punish those who relay via other countries. As I say, most spam is originated in the US, or by US related companies, so we have to punish those who relay spam, or punish US subs
    • Let's just get Carnivore to take out all the spam from everywhere!
    • How is this going to stop them in OTHER countries? How much spam is really sent from within the US of A?
      From what I see "almost all of it". Well, unless these spammers are advertising for scumbag US "companies" out of the goodness of their hearts...
    • Sure, it gets bounced off of open relays in korea, or whatever, but if the originating company is either a US company, or does business in the US, then they are potentially liable. And that covers the vast majority of spam.
    • It will stop 90% of spam I get
      • Yes, virtually all of spam originates in USA
      • one out of two gets routed via some open relay in Asia, to hide the real origin
      • and quite all is targeted towards US-citizens (which seem to be bankrupt, overweight an have a small penis)
      My .2c
  • Congress has not done a decent job of creating legislation in the past, so why should they start now?

    I'm sure they'll infringe on some type of rights guaranteed by the Constitution.

  • This is all fine and dandy but... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by cliffy2000 ( 185461 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @03:55PM (#5717072) Journal
    Well, we (the collective /. crowd, myself included) seem to be in favor of an anti-spam bill. However, we're polarized against the RIAA, another group dedicated to stopping an quasi-illegal act (music theft, if you can call it that). Now, I'm not saying that the RIAA is justified in their methods or anything, but if they are violating first amendment rights, certainly an anti-spam bill would violate said rights. Can someone explain this to me? Because there are certainly moral ambiguities for both issues.
    • Traditionally, advertisement has been seen as a "second class" form of speech. IANAL, but I think it's the difference between speech by a person and speech by a corporation.
    • You know how Congress works. They'll probably point to their power underneath the Commerce Clause as a viable reason for promoting their anti-spam bill in the name of interstate commerce. Do you really think they care about the First Amendment?

    • Re:This is all fine and dandy but... (Score:5, Interesting)

      by danoatvulaw ( 625376 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:27PM (#5717196)
      An anti-spam bill would not necessarially infringe on first amendment rights, provided the government could show enough of a substantial interest in regulating the speech. That I don't think will be much of a problem. Tailoring it sufficiently so as to only encompass spam.. thats another matter. There the goverment might just well run into an overbreadth problem, but if they can show that their way is the only way to accomplish their goal, then it will be upheld. Commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment just like personal speech is, except to a lesser degree.

      The RIAA action, at least to me, doesn't implicate first amendment protection in the slightest. The constitution only applies to state actors, and the RIAA isn't one of them. The RIAA is attempting to enforce their rights through the copyright clause, to which the first amendment really isn't going to provide a defense to piracy. Fair use yes, First Amendment No. Trust me, I hate the RIAA just like the rest of us, and I don't think that downloading mp3's is that big a loss to them, but it is violating the law, and is punishable.

      danoatvulaw
      Villanova Law School class of 04.

    • Re:This is all fine and dandy but... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Chester K ( 145560 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:34PM (#5717220) Homepage
      Spammers annoy us, so we want them restricted.

      We want free music, so we're against restrictive controls on digital media.

      We're just like any other special interest group, there doesn't need to be any internal consistency in our stands on various issues.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Happy if you get "Moolah"? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Burgundy Advocate ( 313960 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @03:56PM (#5717076) Homepage
    Fuck, man. I just want it to stop.
    • No kidding. Somebody has to get money, since taking money away is probably the only thing spammers will pay attention to, but if the state attorneys general are the ones that will be doing the hard work, what right do I have to the proceeds? It should first cover their costs, and then be put to some other good use, like education.
  • Ok, when I posted the same info from a Yahoo article several days ago, this was rejected, but now it's news?

    I even mentioned the fact that all it's asking for is legit reply addresses and obeying remove requests (of course if the reply address is bogus, you can't ask to be removed, and the attorneys general have a harder time suing anyway...).

    Can anyone explain what makes this reference by Timmy to a CNN story migut be more respected than mine to the Yahoo story?

  • loopholes for politicians/non-profits/surveys (Score:3, Interesting)

    by SuperBanana ( 662181 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:09PM (#5717125)
    craft a strong enough bill to stand 1st Amendment challenges and punish violators in the pocketbook enough and a few prosecutions will bring most of the domestic junk to a screeching halt. I tend to daydream about winning the lottery, too. Contact your Senators and Representative with your wishes, maybe this time something will get a move on."

    While you're at it, make sure they don't sneak in BS exempting various groups.

    Like the telemarketing bills, the usual exempted-from-spam-and-telemarketing-legislation parties include:

    • Politicians(big surprise. Make it CRYSTAL clear to them that if they exempt themselves, your vote walks)
    • Non-profit organizations(uh, if it's not valid for for-profits, why is it valid for non-profits? Spam is spam. Plus, we've seen non-profit org status is easily abused)
    • Survey companies. Which part of "unsolicited" do these guys not understand? I'm personally sick and tired of getting survey phone calls- they're almost more plentiful than telemarketing calls...and I suppose it's only a matter of time until they figure out they can use email more cheaply.

    Personally, I'd love a ban on election TV advertising; politicians should be required to submit detailed biographies, full position statement(s), and if they're incumbants- their voting and attendance records, as well as campaign contributions. All the information should be distributed by the state(just like tax forms, available in libraries, post offices, town halls, etc). Let voters decide from that and public debates- not 30 second sound bytes.

  • Don't like it (Score:1, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    I don't like the idea of my state's AG having to sue on my behalf. I don't like the states with anti-spam laws that say I must have my AG's permission to sue a spammer. That's BS. I'm the victim. I don't need the AG's permission to sue for damages under the law. I don't want to have to rely on a political person like an AG to take action either. I'm the victim and I should be able to seek restitution.

  • State attorney generals (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OYAHHH ( 322809 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:16PM (#5717148)
    Basically,

    Having SAGs being the only ones who can sue means that nothing will happen. Your elected representatives are crafting a feel good bill.

  • This bill is a bad idea... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dimensio ( 311070 ) <darkstar@LISPiglou.com minus language> on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:23PM (#5717173)
    ...because it wouldn't outlaw spamming, rather it would outlaw one particular tactic used in spamming.
    Even though the bill doesn't say that it's perfectly acceptable to send junk e-mail with valid return addresses, spammers will still appeal to the wording as 'proof' that their postage-due garbage is 'free speech' and as such their ISPs shouldn't terminate them.

    Spam should be outlawed, period. We don't need laws that define 'legal' spam, all spam should be illegal because all spam is postage-due advertising. Anything else will give spammers something to toss into their e-mails as a 'disclaimer' to 'prove' that their mailings aren't spam (notice many spams that STILL reference a bill that died in committee as though it had been passed into law, not only citing a bill that never made it into law but also completely misstating what the bill would have done).

    All spammers are thieves and liars. Don't give them any ammunition.
    • ...because it wouldn't outlaw spamming, rather it would outlaw one particular tactic used in spamming.

      True, this will not eliminate spam. It will, however, reduce spam, in addition to making some spam easier to identify and filter.

      Even though the bill doesn't say that it's perfectly acceptable to send junk e-mail with valid return addresses, spammers will still appeal to the wording as 'proof' that their postage-due garbage is 'free speech' and as such their ISPs shouldn't terminate them.

      ISPs are pri
      • ISPs are private companies, and they have clearly posted terms of service. An ISP has the right to terminate the service of any customer they don't like, whether they're spamming or not.

        Yes, but I've seen some clueless ISP admins cave in to spammer whinings regarding nonexistent first amendment protections.

        OK, so what is spam, legally?

        Unsolicited bulk e-mail. E-mail sent en masse without the consent of the recipients on the mailing list.

        Does it count as spam if it's sent unsolicited to 25,000 peop
    • Spam _is_ free speech.

      As for whether you don't like the fact that it might, and I emphasize might, cost you money, then I suggest that you only allow in emails that you want. After all, you're the idiot that has an email address open to the world, open to strangers. Are you so stupid that you didn't expect that people you didn't know might send you mail?

      No, you don't like spammers because of their MESSAGE -- not because it is merely unsolicited. If you only wanted solicited mail, you'd whitelist.

      Discrimi
      • Solicited != Known sender

        How do you whitelist mail you've solicited (say, comments on slashdot or usenet or address on SourceForge), but don't know where they're coming from?

      • Spam _is_ free speech.

        No, spam _is_ cost-shifted advertising. Free speech applies to content, but my objections and the objections of other anti-spammers are based on consent.

        The First Amendment does not protect people who steal the resource of others in order to advertise. I don't care if they're sending me viagra ads, charity solicitations or political announcements, if it's unsolicited advertising of ANY kind, I should not have to pay to receive it.

        The "frea speach" line is one of the biggest bull
        • The problem with your argument is that you have effectively consented to receive spam, because you are absolutely not discriminating as to what sort of content can be sent to you and which you are willing to receive.

          If you don't want people sending you spam, either undertake to have a mail server that refuses to accept spam sent to it, or refuse to accept any email without your actual consent to recieve it.

          You've set up a mailbox that anyone can send mail to. It's absurd for you to be upset for people to
          • Since when does having an email account = "You're ALREADY willing to pay to receive unsolicited mail, or you wouldn't be getting spam!" That's like saying since you've already been robbed, you must have consented to it.

            • Not at all.

              It is pretty likely that you wanted an email account that anyone could potentially send email to without prior authorization. Much in the way that anyone who dials your phone number can call you. Or anyone who has your mailing address can send packages to you.

              Unsolicited communication -- which is often beneficial -- is part and parcel of having these sorts of lines of communication. It's the Superchicken Rule at work. That is, you KNEW that these services were open to unsolicited communication
          • The problem with your argument is that you have effectively consented to receive spam, because you are absolutely not discriminating as to what sort of content can be sent to you and which you are willing to receive.

            The problem with your argument is that you have effectively consented to be raped, because you have gone out onto the streets without wearing a chastity belt.

            Begone, troll.

  • Bill reference, S. 877 (Score:2, Informative)

    by adenied ( 120700 )
    The bill is S. 877 [loc.gov]. However it's not up on the Library of Congress's Thomas [loc.gov] server yet. Usually takes a couple days for the text to show up.

  • From the article... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Dimensio ( 311070 ) <darkstar@LISPiglou.com minus language> on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:29PM (#5717207)
    Internet portal Yahoo! said it supported the bill, while the DMA and Internet provider America Online said they would work with the Senate to craft an effective bill.

    First, the DMA cannot be trusted. They've long supported the 'right' of advertisers to harass and annoy people and to send cost-shifted unsolicited advertising. They should not be allowed to have a say in any anti-spam legislation. Preferrably, they should all be put to death.

    Second, Yahoo! is a known spam-friendly place. Anyone at stores.yahoo.com is free to spam out advertisements for their Yahoo! stores and Yahoo! will do nothing. Heck, Yahoo! hosted known criminal Jason Vale for some time even though it's well documented that he sells a lethal poison as a "cancer treatment". Yahoo! is run by criminals and they're openly tolerant of criminal activity on their network. They shouldn't have a say in this either.
  • I'm still learning, every day, how the system is set up to let the bad guys screw the innocent, and having more system just doesn't seem to cut it.

    My most recent problem is with www.picusnet.com [really omegacomminc]; because I was headed out of the country, I tried to downgrade my ISP service to email; they said sure. 7 months later I get a bill for ISP service. I try to call their customer service [no answer], so I go to their web site, and discover that if you use their online customer service, you ag

  • Now that Iraq's done, (Score:5, Funny)

    by sstory ( 538486 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:37PM (#5717238) Homepage
    We need Operation Emailer Freedom wherein we shoot tomahawk cruise missiles at spammers, have Delta Force sneak in spammers' houses and 'neutralize' them, and issue sanctions on rogue ISPs which provide safe haven for spammers.
  • make a law that smtp has to go and better system has to come, in 18 months, and push it through both in europe and in states, after that pretty much everyone would HAVE to follow.

    if they think they can force drm/other/digi-tv why don't they force any _good_ crap? if people are willing to pay for ms for stuff they can't use with their old systems why wouldnt they be willing to upgrade their email client if they _had_ to? sysadmins have to patch their servers regularly anyways and i would bet patching/upgrad
  • I just got this little gem in my never-before-given-out-or-listed work email a few minutes ago.

    And for the record, it really says <name>, I'm not editing out my name. How can I not be interest in "Internet Business"?

    This is a one time mailing about "Internet Business", If you are not interest in Internet Business delete this messege now. If you are interest read on.

    Hi <name> check this out before mid-night

    Hi <name>

    Check this out while its still Free.

    It BLEW me away!

  • Spam is theft, Senate bill no good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by bratgrrl ( 197603 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:47PM (#5717275)
    Spam is theft of services; every Internet user subsidizes spammers. We pay for our bandwidth, connectivity, storage, and processing power. Spammers pay minimal fees for sending their crap to millions of unwilling recipients. They do not pay the true cost of distributing their crap, as do senders of paper junk mail.

    Spammers do not pay for the millions of dollars spent by ISPs and network admins who have to deal with the floods of spew.

    Spam is a denial of service attack; anyone who runs their own mail servers sees relentless probes and re-sends. It's also DOS when you have to wait for a bunch of shit to download before you can get to your legitimate mail.

    Spammers are vandals; they ruin every goddam thing they touch.

    There are no Constitutional issues here; none of us are required to listen to anyone's speech, none of us are required to fund the distribution of their speech.

    This Senate bill is crap, it's no good, it merely serves to legitimize spam. It's not good enough to be able to filter it more easily, it must be stopped at the source. Bigger and better spam filters is like bigger and better water filters; wouldn't it be better to get clean water from the source?

    Please read this excellent essay, "Thank The Spammers" http://www.spamreaper.com/thankspammers.html
    • This Senate bill is crap, it's no good, it merely serves to legitimize spam.

      That's the first step. Make a small amount of spam "legitimate" and the rest clearly and obviously illegal, then start suing those responsible for the illegal spam.

      It's not good enough to be able to filter it more easily, it must be stopped at the source.

      True, filtering spam doesn't help ISPs with bandwidth concerns, but it does help end users, and besides, that's not the point.

      Bigger and better spam filters is like bigger

  • All I want is truth in headers (Score:3, Insightful)

    by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @04:48PM (#5717279)
    That's all, just no fraud. I don't even care about lying Subject: headers, that's too subjective (ha ha). But I want honest headers sufficient to track them down, and a removal process that works. Opt-in would be nice, but I would be satisfied with honest headers.

    Oh, and let anybody sue the bastards for fraud, whether ISP, recipient, AG, or anybody else.

    Why is honesty in headers too much to ask for?

    • Not at All (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Jameth ( 664111 )
      I don't want Honest Headers. I never want to be required to tell the world that I sent something. Furthermore, I want to be able to send something without a return address. Similarly, I can send a snail-mail message without any notice of where it originated from (well, I suppose they know the original postal-district, but that's all).

      Why?

      Because I think I have a right to speak anonymously. I don't like spammers, but I'd rather keep the right to speak anonymously.
      • Yes, there needs to be a way to send anonymous email.

        I suppose it all comes back to the cost issue, that as long as sending spam is so cheap that even a .001% return makes it a good investment, it will survive.

        Thanks for keeping my head on straight.
      • They end anonymous mail servers.

        My mixmaster node can continue sending messages to the world at large. I'm just asserting that I sent something in a way that cannot be denied. If I'm sending spam, this is an invitation to call my to task. If I do so frequently, it is an invitation to blacklist me.

        What I choose to do with identifying headers is an entirely different question.
    • What is keeping the software developers from implementing this in their email server software? Why can't an email server or email gateway resolve the mx record and verify the sender's domain? I'd pay for that feature.

  • craft a strong enough bill to stand 1st Amendment challenges

    That statement contradicts itself. One does not make a bill stronger to make it "withstand" the First Amendment, rather, it is made to comply with it. The only way to get something to be strong enough to "withstand the 1st Amendment" is to amend the constitution. Otherwise, you need to make it comply, or hope that that courts interpret it as being in line with the constitution.

    I don't go around hoping that our lawmakers make laws to "withstand"

    • I think you missed a word. The phrase you quoted was "stand 1st Amendment challenges", meaning, the new law should comply with the 1st Ammendment so that it would hold up in court as being constitutional if somebody tried to challenge it. It should be able to withstand challenges, not withstand the Constitution.

  • This makes me nervous (Score:3, Insightful)

    by justin_speers ( 631757 ) <[jaspeers] [at] [comcast.net]> on Saturday April 12, 2003 @05:47PM (#5717574)
    I really don't understand why the AG has the right to sue on a consumer's behalf. Why can't those businesses effected by the huge amounts of spam sue the companies directly for eating up all their bandwidth? I'm not sure we need another law here to deal with spam. If the AG sues on someone's behalf, where does the money go?

    I take the personal position that there doesn't need to be any new laws for dealing with the Internet, all the old laws still apply. Government is far more evil and powerful than all the spammers combined, and if we let them regulate this one aspect of the Internet (spam), they're going to see that as permission to run around and regulate everything else too (.kid anyone?) [reviewsnews.com].

    I might sound paranoid, but I really think this timid, politically-correct legislation is a springboard for a more heavily regulated Internet.

  • This is a PRO spam bill (Score:3, Informative)

    by TekPolitik ( 147802 ) on Saturday April 12, 2003 @05:59PM (#5717615) Journal

    This is exactly like a bill (Murkowski - the famous S.1618) that passed the Senate in 1998 that the spammers crowed over because it would allow them to go after spammers under restraint of trade laws. A copy of the original DEAA crowing is below. It would actually increase spam because it would be otherwise respectable companies spamming.

    When Korea introduced similar legislation, Korean spam increased by a factor of 12 within three months. Most of that spam comes from otherwise respectable companies.

    Even if this weren't going to result in more spam, how many people have enough time in the day to "opt-out" of all the spam they get now?

    From deaatop-owner Fri May 22 00:15:34 1998
    Received: (from majordom@localhost) by charlottenet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) id AAA04255 for deaatop-outgoing; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:15:34 -0400
    X-Authentication-Warning: charlottenet.net: majordom set sender to owner-deaatop@biznessweb.net using -f
    Received: from www.deaa.org (root@www.deaa.org [207.204.174.64]) by charlottenet.net (8.8.8/8.8.8) with ESMTP id AAA04252 for <deaatop@biznessweb.net>; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:15:33 -0400
    Received: from hal ( id AAA19072; Fri, 22 May 1998 00:15:55 -0400 (EDT)
    Message-Id: <3.0.3.32.19980522001648.009928f0@deaa.org>
    X-Sen der: dan@deaa.org
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Pro Version 3.0.3 (32)
    Date: Fri, 22 May 1998 00:16:48 -0400
    To: Duane Kimball <legal@deaa.org>
    From: "postmaster@deaa.org" <postmaster@deaa.org>
    Subject: Re: AP Report - The Truth Please.
    Cc: deaatop@biznessweb.net
    In-Reply-To: <3561ACFE.C990B1CF@deaa.org>
    References: <3.0.3.32.19980519002342.00736200@deaa.org>
    Mime- Version: 1.0
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
    Sender: owner-deaatop@biznessweb.net
    Precedence: bulk

    Hello All

    After reading Duane's explanation of where we are , and how the UCC will be the grounds for suits against the backbones, I must admit that what I already know about this lends more credence to the Lega Cte. position and I
    support it wholeheartedly.

    Of course , if we are stuck on 100% of what we want or nothing at all , then we should likely forget working within the system at all and can DEAA would then be relegated to the mountain of purist organizations and parties like the Libertarian Party [ of which I am a registered member for 17 years ] and be completely ineffective for all intents and purposes.

    As it stands now , Fate and hard work have worked together to give us a definite leg up and we must now seize this opportunity and drive our points
    home .

    I am quite pleased and cannot wait until this bill is passed and we can go after the backbones under the UCC .

    Now, I think Media committee needs to concentrate on developing our public campaign that will lead up to the Hearings if they should still occur and
    we must still put out alerts to the general membership to press in and call their congress and exactly what to say to them.

    Any comments??

    Jack???

    Dan Hufnal

    At 12:02 PM 5/19/98 -0400, you wrote:
    >By the nature of your questions, I assume you have not seen all of the emails
    >released by the legal committee. So, let's try and answer your questions one by
    >one.
    >
    >The Senate bill passed by a margin of 99-0. That is acclamation. The bill that
    >passed (the McCain bill) included the Murkowski bill as an Amendment. In this
    >way, the committee hearings on the Murkowski bill which had already been
    >scheduled to begin on June 17th were avoided. Stopping this bill would have
    >been something akin to standing in front of a freight train both for us and for
    >our adversaries.
    >
    >The process from here is that it goes to the House of Representatives. It must
    >be passed there. Rep. Smith from New Jersey has a competing bill in which UCE
    >is outlawed

  • let's junk SMTP (Score:3, Insightful)

    by X_Bones ( 93097 ) <danorz13&yahoo,com> on Saturday April 12, 2003 @06:14PM (#5717693) Homepage Journal
    I don't think Congress should be regulating the Internet at all; besides the fact that any American laws have little to no effect outside of the US, letting Congress decide what information can flow freely seems like the start of a slippery slope.
    What I think we should do instead is get rid of SMTP and replace it with something that provides a little more identification in email headers. It would require cooperation between email client and mail server programmers, but think of how it could be done.
    If the Outlook, Eudora, and Sendmail/Postfix/whoever guys supported this (possibly by supporting SMTP and this new protocol simultaneously and gradually migrating people to the new protocol), they could advertise this as a new feature: use our upgraded product and cut down on spam. Eventually if everyone had mail servers that only supported the new, secure protocol, then spammers could actually be identified and dealt with.
    This is a technological problem; let's find a technological, not political, solution.
  • What's the bill number on this?
  • The US government planning a law that benefits the general public and is a hindrance to sleazy and corrupt businesses?

    Surely not!
  • Since everyone seems to know what SPAM is, but no one knows how to stop the SPAMMER's, let's tax all financial transactions resulting from a SPAM message by 3000%, at the buyer's cost. That should significantly reduce the financial incentive for the idiots that buy SPAM crap. If the company utilizes a true, registered return email address no tax would be incurred. Of course to implement this it would probably take more government monitoring of people's purchases than most would want to tolerate, but at l
  • When someone uses your network to spam and the lazy cops/fbi/whomever don't want to trace it any further; or can't because you don't have logs. Guess who has to prove innocence. You go by-by for someones spam; or broke paying the fines.

    Guilty until you've proven innocence. Ask any ex-con. If your innocent then why would anyone need an "Alibi".

    Oh well; just another thing to get thrown in jail over.
  • "My wishes are: craft a strong enough bill to stand 1st Amendment challenges"

    I've said it before and I'll say it again: Nowhere in the First Amendment does it say you get a free soapbox. You "deserve" to spam the same way you "deserve" a free billboard.
  • Why are people concerned over First Amendment violations when it comes to anti-spamming legislation? Right now our government is handily ignoring the Fourth and Sixth Amendments, imprisoning folks indefinitely without recourse to the law for merely being 'material witnesses' to unspecified crimes.

    Really now, if we can throw people in jail on a whim in direct violation of the basic laws of this land, then what on Earth does it matter if anti-spamming laws violate the First Amendment? Indeed, why can't we
  • Any convicted spammer needs a special kind of life sentence - for the rest of their life, their email address(es) and any and all domains owned by them should be listed on a public web page maintained by an agency of the United Nations. For all to see. Then the wired planet can email these people and let them know just exactly how we feel about them, every single day. A second conviction of spamming or a conviction of circumvention of the first sentence will result in life in solidary.

Slashdot Top Deals

The optimum committee has no members. -- Norman Augustine

Close