Cornucopia Of Spam Bills 186
frankie writes "Anti-spam legislation is getting serious attention from the U.S. Congress and the media. Several bills are on the front burner, including REDUCE, CAN SPAM, and a RICO amendment. However, the strongest contender is a new bill sponsored by Billy Tauzin (R-La.). It would allow spam from any company you've done business with in the past 3 years, override stronger state laws, and block private lawsuits. You can complain now or complain more later."
I think I'll complain now. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:5, Insightful)
That is not the main wrecking clause. The wrecking clause is the requirement for individual opt-out from every mailing list. So the spam sender can create a new 'division' once a day and send you new spam no matter how often you opt out.
A global opt-out list is not such a problem, provided it is one-way encrypted (an old MIT suggestion) so the opt-out list can be used to see if a particular email is opted out but not as a source of addresses to spam. Yes we know the spam senders will ignore it, however making people sign up to get a right to sue a spam sender is not a major obstacle.
The real problem is the Republican's attempt to take out the private right of action. AOL and Earthlink have been very effective in suing the spammy bastards into the ground. They have judgements for millions against a lot of spammers. OK they will not collect it all but they will make the spam senders miserable.
In one case they got the spammer's lawyer who set up fake companies for him - now liable jointly and severally for a $6.9 million contempt judgment
Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:4, Interesting)
Very effective? My spam volume certainly hasn't gone down. Winning a few lawsuits, for which they probably won't even get back their court costs, could hardly be considered "effective" in the grand scheme of things.
Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:2)
Dictionary attack (Score:2)
A global opt-in list is different. It would be a mapping of email address to allowed email address pattern (presumably a domain). If your domain is on the list, bulk emails that include that email address will go through. Otherwise, they don't.
Re:Dictionary attack (Score:2)
Only if the only addresses you add to the list are valid ones. You can also add invalid addresses to the list that are not in use but are being spammed anyway.
But thanks for pointing that out since I had forgotten to mention it in my paper for the legislators.
I don't see a big difference between opt-in and opt-out for the first spam legislation. The majority of spam senders are out and out crooks who do spam to s
Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:4, Funny)
Why don't you send a letter to Alan Ralsky [yahoo.com], one of the largest spammers around [usatoday.com], and ask him this question.
Or better yet, order him a pizza and a few cabs.
The stupid moron was dumb enough to use his home address to register his business.
I'm gonna drive over there right now and take picures of the next 24 hours.
Cheetos,
Darren
WHOOPS - here's a REAL state.mi.gov link (Score:4, Informative)
Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:2)
The blacklists in the past have forced even the largest isps to clean up their spam policy and it's time we apply that preassure to the political realm as well.
Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:4, Informative)
And yes, Alan Ralsky appears at the top of the list. But only because it's in alphabetical order.
Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:2)
Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:3, Insightful)
Does that mean that old gas station I stopped at in the middle of Kansas once is going to send me e-flyers?
Worse than that, if stopped at the gas station to ask for directions that could consider that a past relationship. This law is worse than no law becuase, like the article said, "an attempt to legitimize SPAM." The law is horrible, it is no bite, loose definitions, and remove's enforcement of state laws, WHO, BTW are the one's who have been protecting consumer rights instead of the federal governm
heh.. a Viking dream.. (Score:3, Funny)
A Horn of plenty that gives nothing but SPAM!<br>
spam, spam, spam, SPAM!
extrans (Score:2)
Ironic... (Score:2, Funny)
What's next, the spammers getting spammed?
Oh wait...
In case the 1st link was /.-ed... (Score:5, Informative)
In recent weeks, several pieces of legislation have been proposed in the US Congress. We are currently preparing analyses and will publish them on the website as soon as they are available. However, at present we have seen no legislative proposals that CAUCE is prepared to endorse.
On April 30, 2003, CAUCE joined a number of other consumer groups in expressing opposition to the Burns-Wyden CAN-SPAM Act:
[This letter was published April 28 for delivery to the FTC April 30.]
We, the undersigned groups, representing consumer interests, urge Congress to pass legislation to empower individuals to act against senders of Unsolicited Commercial Email (UCE). The leading bill currently before Congress, S.877 (CAN-SPAM Act of 2003) does not meet two requirements that we consider essential: an opt-in policy, and a private right of action.
Because spammers impose costs on recipients, the correct policy is to prohibit it, just as Congress prohibited junk faxes in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991 (TCPA). An acceptable alternative would be to enable network owners such as ISPs to post an electronic No Spamming sign, as was done in the 106th Congress's H.R. 3113, which passed the House. An opt-out policy, which is taken in S. 877, will not significantly reduce the widespread damage to consumers' interests and confidence.
The second essential requirement is that recipients of UCE have a private right of action. Liquidated damages of $500, as in the TCPA, are appropriate. ISPs should also have a right of action, but leaving enforcement solely to them, or state or federal regulators would leave far too many spammers breaking the law.
Beyond these fundamental requirements are numerous details, including a narrow exemption for existing business relationships such as the one that Federal Trade Commission (FTC) arrived at in their Telemarketing Sales Rule this year.
The definition of a solicitation should be carefully limited to avoid any impact on non-commercial speech, such as speech about religion or politics. Measures against typical spammer tactics such as the falsification of return addresses and other headers are desirable but not sufficient.
We urge members of Congress to pass anti-spam legislation with an opt-in policy and a private right of action. We also ask the FTC to recommend and support such legislation.
Respectfully
Jason Catlett, President, Junkbusters Corp.
Jeff Chester, Executive Director, Center for Digital Democracy
Tom Geller, Secretary, SpamCon Foundation
Beth Givens, Director, Privacy Rights Clearing House
Ken McEldowney, Executive Director, Consumer Action
Scott Hazen Mueller, Chairman, CAUCE.org (Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email)
Chris Murray, Legislative Counsel, Consumers Union
Gary Ruskin, Executive Director, Commercial Alert
Re:In case the 1st link was /.-ed... (Score:5, Interesting)
I really don't agree with this. People shouldn't be allowed to spam me with unsolicited advertising for their church or political party any more than for a new penis enlarger. It may not be "Unsolicited Commercial E-mail," but it's certainly spam.
This is a property rights issue, not a free speech issue; people need to stop treating it as if it was the latter.
Re:In case the 1st link was /.-ed... (Score:5, Insightful)
I know it's a property rights issue, and that political and religious spam is just as bad as commercial spam. But as a practical matter, it may not be wise to mess with political and religious spam because there's no telling how the courts might see it. Commercial speech is not protected under the First Amendment, and Congress is explicitly allowed to regulate "interstate commerce," so if a spam bill is limited only to commercial spam, it would most likely be safe from a Constitutional challenge.
Steve
Re:In case the 1st link was /.-ed... (Score:4, Insightful)
Spamming, in terms of its public nuisance value, is somewhat like blaring your message with multikilowatt speakers in a residential neighborhood at 3:00 A.M. It doesn't matter whether those speakers are playing a commercial advertisement, a political message, a religious message, music, gibberish, or anything else. The annoyment of the residents has nothing to do with the content of the message, and the behavior is illegal regardless of the content of the message. Spam should be treated the same way.
Re:In case the 1st link was /.-ed... (Score:2)
I agree with you from a moral perspective -- all spamming is wrong whether it's religious or commerical in nature. I'm just saying that, from a purely practical perspective, it might pay off to wait until later to go after
Re:In case the 1st link was /.-ed... (Score:3, Interesting)
Yes, but this needs to be done carefully. First, we ought to accept any good spam bill. If it is effective against commercial speech, that will reduce spam from a serious problem to a nuisance, for two reasons. One, non-commercial speech doesn't have the powerful engine of money driving it, so it won't be so explosive. Two, if commercial spam dried up, there would not be spamming operations and too
Just one more from Tauzin...and...Ralsky Time yet? (Score:2)
Hey, anyone think it's time to give this Tauzin fucker the Ralsky treatment? See if THAT changes his tune.
The Mardi Gras State (Score:4, Interesting)
I can see it now, no private lawsuits would screw everyone else. Is it just me or do we see people taking this part of the laws to the supreme court?
This comes from the state that gave us MCI.
And also the one who has been fighting against independent ISP's and wanting to force it so that only the Telco's can give internet access.
Oh well...at least they still have Mardi Gras
Federalization is the answer, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem with federalization is that it is federalization, and the solution must be a very good one. Unfortunately, spam isn't something like, say, drug dealing or murder for hire. It hasn't been around for a long time (relatively speaking) and the best ways to deal with it are not entirely clear. In addition, commercial interests will bear heavily on legislation.
In a nutshell, I fear that the end result is that a first attempt at a federal solution will get it wrong. There is only one way to try to prevent this. Get involved now.
This is one issue that dramatically affects our networks and working lives. If there was ever a time to call your local congressthing and offer your expert advice (with a C.V. perhaps), it is be now.
GF.
Re:Federalization is the answer, but... (Score:2)
The proposal or existence of a public solution should not halt private methods of addressing the problem. If this happens, great.
However, is there really a clear solution to drug trafficking or hitmen either.
RICO worked pretty well for hitmen. The offense still occurs, but at least there is a conceptual, workable framework for dealing with the crime. Drugs are problematic. The conventional wisdom (throw 'em in jail!) clearly hasn't done much but fi
"Generic Viagra" (Score:3, Interesting)
Ack! (Score:4, Funny)
Quick, find a spam bill and forward it to 15 of your friends, with a note that says Bill Gates will give them a thousand dollars if they forward it to 15 of their friends.
Bill Gates will give you a thousand dollars if you do.
Perhaps not that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
I know, some people think anything they don't want is spam and will report it as such via SpamCop or other tools. That's dumb. If it's stupid chain letters from your uncle, it's not spam. If it comes from a legitimate company, they'll offer an opt-out link that will actually works, because they don't want to piss off potential customers and they know how much people hate spam.
With that in mind, what are the other serious problems with this bill?
Re:Perhaps not that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
OPT OUT is not a good model. If a person wants to know things from a company, wants to have a relationship of that sort, then they should OPT IN.
So you say that you have no problem with companies you've voluntarily given your address to contacting you... I'm thinking you'll be ending up with e-mails from all sorts of companies you never new you had a 'relationship' with, or that you gave your e-mail to in the first place.
Re:Perhaps not that bad? (Score:2)
A legitimate company that cares about not spamming people would not be emailing me without me signing up for their emails in the first place in the first place.
Any commercial email I receive that I didn't report is reported as spam. Because it is.
Re:Perhaps not that bad? (Score:2)
This is pretty much the definition I use (from spamfaq.net).
2.1.1 What are UBE and UCE? What is SPAM?
These are all types of email abuse; that is, abuse _of_ the email system. They differ from abuse _on_ the email system (e.g. stalking, sexual harassment) in that they endanger the usability of electronic mail as a communications medium.
UBE stands for "Unsolicited Bulk Email" and is an email message that is:
Unsolicited
i.e. it wasn't explicitly requested by the recipient
Re:Perhaps not that bad? (Score:5, Insightful)
And where did you get the idea that companies care about pissing off potential customers with advertising? You may have noticed that we're moving toward a time when every visible surface and every moment of your life is filled with advertising. I haven't noticed any slackening in junk phone calls, paper junk mail, advertising before movies, product placement, or percentage of TV time taken by ads -- they're all increasing, with no apparent upper bound.
But it is manageable (Score:3, Interesting)
I don't want to get email from every place I've ever done buisness with, but at least that list of places is manageable. I can unsubscribe from them all if I have to, and if they are a legitimate buisness I even have reasonable confidence that the unsubscribe will remove me from their list, forever.
Compare that to the 80 spam messages I deleted just today! I hope I didn't delete anything that is not-spam but was automaticly tagged as spam. At one time the false positive rate was 5% so it was worth my
Re:But it is manageable (Score:5, Informative)
Quite so. I do still glance through them, but the legit messages SEEM less and less common in relation to all the junk.
Good thing so many spammers put "Re: " in the subject line, since "Re: hey" from an unrecognized address is obviously spam while "hey" could be legitimate.
The list of places I've don't buisness with that will email me is much smaller yet though, because most places don't get it. SubWay didn't get my email address last week, the local cafe didn't get it yesterday. Cub didn't get it today. Those are all places I do buisness with fairly often that don't have my phone number or email address. They don't need it.
Precisely! In fact, each time I give out my e-mail address, I add a new alias at my domain, so if I do get spam I can find out how they got my address and it's not a big deal to change it. The ONLY time I get actual spam at these addresses are the ones that get posted to web sites, such as the addresses I use for eBay and Bugzilla. As long as I periodically change those addresses (and never re-using the same address, since once it's gotten spam it will always get spam), it's really not that much of a problem.
REAL spam, not advertising from known companies, is what clogs my mailbox.
Who hasn't had a Coke(tm) in three years? (Score:2)
Re:with no apparent upper bound (Score:2)
How many blockbuster movies have you avoided because the start was delayed half an hour to push advertisements. How many times have you arrived late to a move because you knew you wouldn't miss the start. When enough people show up 15 minu
Re:Perhaps not that bad? (Score:2)
Actually I'm not sure this is such a completely bad thing. Junk mail from legitimate companies that I have given my e-mail address to voluntarily is such a small problem - compared to the other crap flooding my mailbox - that I usually don't even count it as spam, even if it is unsolicited.
The point is that the Tauzin bill states you can't even opt-out of spam from companies you have dealt with previously. In other words, once you deal with a company, they own you for the next three years and you have no
Re:Perhaps not that bad? (Score:2)
Running my own server I can use "disposable addresses", which would tell me exactly who has proliferated it. And it has happened in just a single case (where I might have been tricked into not unchecking that "share email" box).
Also, all of the "legitimate bulk eMailer" have honored remove requests.
IF "has done business with" is propperly defi
Assuming you opted in somewhere... (Score:2)
At least the way the law here (Norway), you must have opt'ed in at some point. But even if I recieve something that might have been legitimate because it said so on the EULA page 23 section 5 paragraph $42, I consider it SPAM. And I never *ever* respond to SPAM.
Responding to SPAM means:
a) The e-mail address exists
b)
The wait begins (Score:5, Funny)
Damn, and I just bought some penis enlargement tablets. Now I have to wait 3 years to stop receiving spam from them!!
Re:The wait begins (Score:2)
Yeah, but think of all the walls you can beat down with your mighty c*ck while you're waiting!!
Loopholes (Score:2, Insightful)
As for the "prior relationship" exception, p
that's good and all (Score:2, Interesting)
Most of the Spam I can't get rid of (ie opt out) doesn't come from the US anyways.
In Australia... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:In Australia... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:In Australia... (Score:2)
This is something spammers don't take into account, there are some users who indeed pay per byte fees.
what i'd like to know... (Score:5, Interesting)
Did they learn something from the junk fax law? (Score:5, Interesting)
Prior to that law I was getting zero junk faxes, and now I'm getting an average of 5 a week.
Re:Did they learn something from the junk fax law? (Score:2)
What difference will that make? (Score:3, Insightful)
Spammers will still get added to black lists, they'll still threaten to sue those who use black lists, and they'll still lose. Life will go on.
Spam has to be solved by technology.
Re:What difference will that make? (Score:2)
Not if it meant revealing yourself to federal charges.
We need three factors to solve the spam problem:
Blocklists, Challenge/Response, etc, are almost good enough to satisfy part 1. Most of the industrial world dislikes spam, but not quite enough for part 3 yet. Having part 2 would make it clear that spam is not a legitimate business practice, and lead to the completion of t
spam is just like... (Score:4, Insightful)
Missing link (Score:4, Insightful)
Where do I complain more? The link is missing ;^)
Please suh' (Score:2)
Ridiculous.....my ISP can sue yet I can't? This is good and bad. For one, it would put pressure on the ISP's to stop spam mail, but on the other hand, ISP's who aren't keeping up with the spam could lose customers.
Its my internet connection, I'm paying for its bandwidth, I should be able to sue those who decide flood me with absolute crap.
Define "ISP" (Score:5, Interesting)
I have more users than some ISP's I know. I just happen to also EMPLOY them and they use computers supplied by me getting data from servers I own.
I can't sue? PUHLEEZ...
Which "ISP" should I call for my spam then to sue on my behalf? Apple? Earthlink? MCI? and a couple of dozen multi-homed "ISP"'s feeding me. Heck, I even back feed many a employee @ home through some wireless connections on a tower erected on one of the properties.
Can I sue yet? Oh -- I need to call SBC or Verizon I guess.
Isn't public networking fun. Fuck 'em, my rules just changed too. Spam me once and that
+11,000 subnets blocked. ~150 new daily recently. THOUSANDS just blocked. Three phone calls in YEARS so far. Problem ISP's will just go away as their "good" users will leave if they don't clean up their act.
Re:Define "ISP" (Score:2)
I assume that you need a business license that says Internet Service Provider on it, and some reasonable books to back that up. If you meet these very modest criteria, then I think any court would find that you are an ISP and allowed to sue under this (proposed) law.
Hmmmmmm....
No I don't like proposed law this any more than you do, but I bet there's ways around it if it comes to pass.
Problems with the Tauzin Bill (Score:2, Insightful)
Instead, the draft would require commercial e-mail to allow users to "opt out" of future mailings and to provide accurate electronic and physical addresses of the senders. It also would prohibit the "harvesting" of e-mail addresses that spammers using special software obtain from Web pages.
Something that I would like to know is how exactly a law that prohibits use of software that harvests e-mail addresses from web pages can
Re:Problems with the Tauzin Bill (Score:2, Interesting)
Then, all you do is use different e-mail addresses for everyplace you are forced to supply one. Joe-Bob's Meat Cleavers site won't let you browse his site without an e-mail and you just have to read the link you
Constructive... my personal boundries (Score:3, Interesting)
I will not accept SPAM from some place I bought flowers for someone from or other internet based gift shop. While I appricate the fact that I was a customer, and some people might enjoy this sorta promotional mailing, this should be an elective not a given right. But I can always setup a seperate hotmail account for this eventualy.
I will not order viagra online... i'm not in the market viagra, nor do I wish to see, "Gay Canadian Studs" nor am I seeking herbal meds for metapause(sp).
I will not order porn from the Adam and Eve catalog. MST3k the movie had this joke when doing their spoof on "This Island Earth". Enter a room filled with boxes, "Oh, must have been ordering from the Adam and Eve catalog again". I know some people who wanted some gag gifts, and were rather distressed by the multitude of free gifts. They have since moved, but the gifts are still comming. Thanks to this I got the joke.
If Echelon is listening ... (Score:3, Informative)
That firstgov.gov site tries to set three cookies on page load and two on page exit.
Meh. Blacklisted. Yay Moz.
Sorry for the horribly off-topic post.
Um
*tries to steer it back on topic*
I hope they didn't just harvest my e-mail address for bulk, friendly offers from the U.S. government. Apparently, there are lots of horny co-eds in the White House, and they all want my thick--
What? I can't finish this comment, Taco? What the--
Re:If Echelon is listening ... (Score:2)
-/-
Mikey-San
Leading the charge of cluelessness since 1981.
Weird, /. editor actually EDITED my article (Score:5, Informative)
Some synopses:
- REDUCE [house.gov]: Rep. Zoe Lofgren and Professor Lawrence Lessig's plan to set a bounty for citizens catching spammers
- CAN-SPAM [senate.gov]: Sen. Conrad Burns et al, requires valid headers and working opt-out, but doesn't allow private lawsuits
- Do-Not-Spam [senate.gov]: Sen. Chuck Schumer's proposal covers everything from CAN-SPAM plus has a national do-not-email registry and bans address harvesting.
And there's lots [google.com] of others [google.com].The links were borken... (Score:2)
I (along with probably many others) emailed the on-line editor about this, and when the story appeared the links had been removed...
Re:Weird, /. editor actually EDITED my article (Score:2)
>
> CAN-SPAM [senate.gov]: Sen. Conrad Burns et al, requires valid headers and working opt-out, but doesn't allow private lawsuits
>
> Do-Not-Spam [senate.gov]: Sen. Chuck Schumer's proposal covers everything from CAN-SPAM plus has a national do-not-email registry and bans address harvesting.
The Lofgren bill sounds promising.
As for the other two:
The only good thing about this (Score:3, Insightful)
Say that you bought a $15,000 Canon ImageRunner copier/printer/fax/network (auto email and faxing from the desktop/panel) machine next month. During a troubleshooting call, your email address is recorded. A year from now, an update on firmware is available which fixes a severe security flaw in the version of Apache it runs for remote management through a web browser, or perhaps even the mail server it uses for automatic emailing of copied documents. Recently introduced bills would usually block a mass email from Canon alerting it's customers, because the email "appears" to be SPAM. But, since the bill in question was passed, Canon can get this important update to you.
Such a scenario could also apply to software. This is the only good thing that I see could ever come from this.
Of course, this bill would also allow Canon to SPAM you with unrelated marketing material concerning their newest ImageRunner. All in all, I don't like this proposed bill.
Re:The only good thing about this (Score:2)
Seems to me like the DMA is behind this... (Score:5, Interesting)
Which is what the Tauzin bill would create.
As much as we hate spammers, the DMA hates them worse... Why? They are competition. They want to drive them away so they can take their place.
I pay for my bandwidth. "Marketers" should have to PAY ME for what they use of mine if they want to reach me with their copy. If they want to provide free bandwidth in exchange for receiving their crap, fine. Until they start SUBSIDIZING my internet bill (which is considerable, considering I'm running dual-dialups, because I can't yet get DSL or cable out here in the sticks), they have no RIGHT to intrude.
Unlike TV, which throws ads at me in exchange for "free" programming, or even websites that throw banners and even pop-ups at me in exchange for "free" content, a spammer gives NOTHING AT ALL to me in exchange for their intrusion.
I don't think even "prior business relations" should be an exception, unless there is an EXPLICIT OPT IN. But even then someone should be able to OPT OUT at any time they choose, and the spammer be obligated to stop.
Just like legit mailing lists. I opt in. When I want out, I opt out. Mail stops coming from the list.
Honestly, spam has such a HORRID reputation, does the DMA think they will EVER get it accepted?
I want one simple thing (Score:2)
Re:I want one simple thing (Score:3, Informative)
tmda.net (Score:2)
Note: you can also set it up to allow email from people who respond to a challenge. Then at least you know that a real person had to take the time to send you that email.
Re:I want one simple thing (Score:2, Informative)
How do you know in advance everyone who you're interested in hearing from? Sent any resume's out? Used Dice/Monster/etc? Use Ebay or the like for anything? True, throwaway addresses could be used but I'd much prefer a "permanent" address.
After reading about it here, I believe a challenge/response whitelist is the way to go, Active Spam killer [paganini.net] [paganini.net/ask] knocked m
Holding the spam beneficiaries responsible (Score:5, Insightful)
Easily abused (Score:2)
Still, there should be some enabling legislation allowing lawsuits against companies selling this stuff. Mainly to allow discov
Re:Easily abused (Score:2)
Re:Easily abused (Score:2)
What we were talking about was the companies who are providing product (who may or may not actually know about the spam). I would like some kind of responsibility for companies that benefit indirectly from spam. In other words, if Pfizer sells Viagra to someone who then uses spam to sell it, I would like Pfizer to be responsible for paying back the profit they made as an indirect result of spam. If it is shown that they knew that they were selling to som
Re:Easily abused (Score:2)
What I am saying is that if someone sells a product with the knowledge that it
Sometimes, just let em know... (Score:2)
A few months back, I started receiving spam advertising for Netflix. Checked the origin, and there was an "opt-in advertising agency" sending the e-mails. So, I sent a polite letter to NetFlix telling them how much I loved their service, and how much I HATED spam and how this particular advertiser was behaving. I also pointed out that I NEVER do business with anyone who advertises with spam.
Didn't get a response, but haven't gotten any more
The DMA's idea of "responsible" (Score:5, Informative)
This is really weak.
"Narrow opt-out" is a major issue. It worries the DMA that opt-out could mean "put me on the global do-not-email" list. They don't want an easy-to-use "opt-out" option that means that no DMA member can ever spam you again. A DMA member could lose a valuable mailing list by letting it be used for some obnoxious mailing that generated many opt-outs.
Re:The DMA's idea of "responsible" (Score:2)
The CRE agrees that marketers must not falsify the sender's domain name or use a non-responsive IP address without implied permission from the recipient or transferred permission from the marketer
Implied permission could come from just using a site with one of those multi-volume "Terms of Use" things with the permission buried in it. Note too that this makes it legal to use a non-responsive IP address (ie faked) under all kinds of condi
Why doesn't this surprise me? (Score:3, Interesting)
Its interesting because its not just our executive branch that gets their news from CNN and Fox. Our financial analysts get their information from the same companies. Its funny to think that perhaps the dotcomcrash would have never happened if CNN and Fox didn't make it a financial best seller when the time was right.
In other news... (Score:3, Informative)
Just goes to show... (Score:3, Insightful)
Where are these issues in our government's agenda? Spam will go away on its own - we have the tools to fight it, so legislation is not needed. Laws should not be a first resort.
PcMag.com Article (Score:2, Informative)
Companies you do business with won't spam (Score:2)
thad
I wrote my senator (Score:5, Interesting)
This is in regards to the so-called anti-SPAM bill being written by Billy Tauzin, here [washingtonpost.com].
I believe that this is a terrible bill that will only lead to increase in the amount of unsolicited commercial email received by internet users. The bill will legitimaze the mass sending of unsolicted commercial email, and puts the burden on the consumer to "opt-out" of receiving these unwanted messages from hundreds or thousands of different organizations. For example, I could be required to opt-out of receiving these emails from dozens of subsidiaries. Further, this weak federal legislation will pre-empt state laws, and prevent consumers from seeking compensation against unsavory spammers.
I believe that strong anti-spam legislation should be enacted, but the bill being written by Rep. Tauzin will only make the problem of unsolicited commercial email worse.
free speech doesn't mean right to impose costs... (Score:2)
None of this is protected speech. Since when does free speech mean you get to impose a multi-million dollar cos
Laws won't stop the meat-like substance (Score:4, Interesting)
I'll offer Internet gambling as a case-in-point. Bills have been floating around Congress now for several years - at least since the late 90s - that seek to eradicate Internet gambling. None of them have passed to this point and none of them will get the job done because they can't effectively stop the money flow out of the US. Credit card companies have basically stopped dealing with Internet gambling transactions and even PayPal stopped providing money transfers, yet there are more ways to deposit today than there were 5 years ago! If Congress tries to cut off the money in some way, the casinos will find a way around it. After all, they aren't governed by our laws.
We can get into the issue of whether or not transactions that are processed by a server offshore - yet are originated in the US - are governed by US law another time.
The only way to stop spam is to make a fundamental change to the way we handle email across the Internet. As much as filters have helped in the spam battle, they clearly aren't a viable answer. A good solution to this problem will be a change that will enable me to avoid getting spam on a new Hotmail account that I've never even used. I can also only deal with a blacklist/whitelist concept until the blacklist gets to a certain length - then it becomes hard to manage.
</rant>
Whew! I feel better. Time for a b33r.
Idiots (Score:3, Funny)
Have any of you ever actually *tried* any of the offers you get in your inbox?
I'm not as stupid as all of you. I have taken advantage of every fantastic offer. My penis is now HUGE I can no longer leave my chair on account of my stupendous GIRTH and solid mass. A female friend came over the other day and saw my TREMENDOUS BULGE and ran away screaming in shock!
Ha Ha HA! Soon my penis will be so ENLARGED that I will rule the world !
How about this... (Score:2)
Just require that all commercial mail have a *valid* street address included. Post-office box is unacceptable.
Tick off your customers and watch as they come down for some personal satisfaction.
Billy Tauzin (Score:2)
Tauzin is unfortunately pretty much in the pocket of telecom and marketing companies. If you don't agree with this seemingly pro-spam legislation, call your congressional representatives [senate.gov] today
Add IL to the list of states considering spam laws (Score:3, Interesting)
The Chicago Tribune story [chicagotribune.com] [Free registration required] There's an online poll on that Chicago Tribune page on whether the anti-spam bill should be signed.
Vote!...in the Chicago tradition - Vote early and often
Just mandate the adv: header in the email.... (Score:2)
Mr. Tauzin should find other work (Score:2)
As I recall, Mr. Tauzin was a vocal opponent of legislation that would have identified and prohibited the obvious conflict of interest between accounting firms that provided both auditing and consulting services. Mr. Tauzin was also the recipient of some fairly significant contributions from none other than Arthur Anderson/Anderson Consulting, which turned out to be the cornerstone of one of the biggest breaches of public trust in this nation's history. If he's sponsoring legislation in favor of any commer
Re:The Next Stage... (Score:5, Interesting)
Except he had no campaign to speak of. I can remember maybe one advertisement in each of two local news papers, but that's about it. If you look closer at his expenditures, all he seems to do with most of his money is funnel it off to the national GOP. I wish I had some of the "excess funds" he seems to be troubled with...
The man has been in office since the 1980's and has continued to get obnoxiously large numbers of votes, even after he changed parties in the mid-90's. At this point I'm afraid the only way he'll leave the House is voluntarily.
"Complain hard and loud now or else we lose."
I tried [state.la.us]. And there's still a lien on my car after that stunt. I should have followed Bill Bier's example and not spent anything.
Does your state have. . . (Score:2)
If it does, you should be able to figure out where his votes are coming from [blackboxvoting.com] and more to the point, who his loyal constituents really are.
Re:Does your state have. . . (Score:2)
And why should the state pay a private institution to do all this vote analysis when the state seems to do it just fine by themselves. [state.la.us]
Re:R ?? (Score:3)
A hundred times? (Score:3, Informative)
Also, what about the damage to me when someone who would have liked to receive my email accidentally deletes it because he doesn't recognize my new email address?
Re:politics as usual (Score:2)
sounds like an easy way to win campaign points.
That's the whole point. They give you what you want, and then you vote for them again. Ideally, this is how it is supposed to work. I'll vote for anyone who's looking out for the citizens more than the companies. After all, SPAM IS BIG BUSINESS. Alan Ralsky a