Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam Your Rights Online

Cornucopia Of Spam Bills 186

Posted by timothy from the yes-my-lord dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Cornucopia Of Spam Bills More

Cornucopia Of Spam Bills

Comments Filter:

  • I think I'll complain now. (Score:3, Insightful)

    by aeinome ( 672135 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:26PM (#5951289) Journal
    Any company I've done business with in the past three years? Does that mean that old gas station I stopped at in the middle of Kansas once is going to send me e-flyers? What is the world coming to?

    • Re:I think I'll complain now. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:36PM (#5951358) Homepage
      Any company I've done business with in the past three years? Does that mean that old gas station I stopped at in the middle of Kansas once is going to send me e-flyers? What is the world coming to?

      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)

        by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:41PM (#5951390)
        AOL and Earthlink have been very effective in suing the spammy bastards into the ground.

        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.
        • Maybe your spam volume hasn't gone down, but the cases have created legal precedent that will be very useful in the future. The fact that several courts have found in favor of AOL and Earthlink adds weight to the argument that spammers are the scum of the earth and makes it more difficult for them to sue for the right to send their trash.
      • A global opt-out list with one way encryption is still susceptible to dictionary attacks. No longer will spammers have to dictionary attack ISPs one by one (fixable by silently dropping email with no valid recipient now), they will be able to do so all at once.

        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.
        • A global opt-out list with one way encryption is still susceptible to dictionary attacks.

          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)

      by swordboy ( 472941 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:42PM (#5951392) Journal
      What is the world coming to?

      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

    • 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)

    by marcushnk ( 90744 ) <senectus@[ ]il.com ['gma' in gap]> on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:28PM (#5951301) Journal
    <i>"Cornucopia Of Spam Bills"</i><br>
    A Horn of plenty that gives nothing but SPAM!<br>

    spam, spam, spam, SPAM!

  • Ironic... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    that congress is being spammed with spam laws.
    What's next, the spammers getting spammed?

    Oh wait...

  • In case the 1st link was /.-ed... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:29PM (#5951309)
    Here is the text from the first link posted:

    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)

      by aardvarkjoe ( 156801 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:35PM (#5951356)
      The definition of a solicitation should be carefully limited to avoid any impact on non-commercial speech, such as speech about religion or politics.

      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)

        by Stephen VanDahm ( 88206 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:34PM (#5951678)
        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.

        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)

          by capologist ( 310783 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @01:08AM (#5952142)
          I disagree. A content-neutral "time, place or manner" restriction would be more consistent with the spirit of the First Amendment, and with existing case law, than a content-based restriction.

          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.
      • "People shouldn't be allowed to spam me with unsolicited advertising for their church or political party..."

        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

      • Remember, this the guy is the one who threatened to block the federal "Do not call" list poroposal. That time, he backed off when he realized he was going to get crucified because the FCC let him get attacked by the media. This time, he may have his shit in order. The most disturbing thing is that he's on the commerce committee. One more example of the fox guarding the henhouse, eh?

        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)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:31PM (#5951320)
    "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. "

    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)

    by guacamolefoo ( 577448 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:33PM (#5951330) Homepage Journal
    Tje issue of spam is a classic interstate commerce issue that needs to be addressed within one unified framework. Jeffersonian experimentation, while indicative of broad frustration with spam, is unlikely to do anything to allow email to be used reasonably (ducking) as a marketing tool. A patchwork response to this is just going to be unworkable.

    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.

  • "Generic Viagra" (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Spikeman56 ( 543509 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:33PM (#5951332) Homepage
    Spam is so damn annoying my last 20 e-mails have all been about viagra of some sort,
    • every single one

  • Ack! (Score:4, Funny)

    by B3ryllium ( 571199 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:33PM (#5951335) Homepage
    Spam Bill Spam!

    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)

    by Phroggy ( 441 ) * <slashdot3@ p h roggy.com> on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:33PM (#5951336) Homepage
    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.

    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)

      by spoco2 ( 322835 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:47PM (#5951434)
      As the article states though, there are loopholes... which include the companies that you've 'had a relationship with' including those you may have just visited and looked at (They've 'provided information', therefore you have a relationship). Or what about companies with multiple other company relationships? The bill is vague around this point and may allow a company that you have a valid relationship with decide to send you mails from all its associate companies... and you'd have to Opt out of each and every one of the associated companies.

      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.

    • 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:5, Insightful)

      by graxrmelg ( 71438 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:53PM (#5951472)
      Junk mail from legitimate companies isn't much of a problem now, because spam has not been legitimized and is associated mainly with scams and porn. Once spam has a federal stamp of approval, there's nothing stopping "legitimate" companies from flooding your e-mail box as well. They already flood you by phone and snail mail, but they'll send much more by e-mail because it's so much cheaper for them.

      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)

        by bluGill ( 862 )

        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)

          by Phroggy ( 441 ) * <slashdot3@ p h roggy.com> on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:56PM (#5951788) Homepage
          the number of false positives hasn't changed, just the number of unwanted messages.

          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.
        • Coca-Cola has a lot of affiliates. They don't do it, because the timing isn't there yet, but if "legitimate" commercial e-mail gets legislative protection of this type you can expect all of those affiliates to start bombarding you regularly. Maybe not Coca-Cola, but what about the USPS, which is now a psuedo-private corporation? Miller Bottling Company? Kraft? ABC, NBC, Disney, or worse... FOX? Now i'm creeping myself out.
      • Actualy there is an upper bound. When enough consumers drop TV, Cable, DVD's, Going out to movies, etc, this will be cut back. It's just seeking the balance point between advertising dollar revenue and loss of market share. They are looking for the max profit point.

        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

    • 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

    • As another reply to this post has pointed out, there are loopholes in the Bill. But all in all, I agree that eMail from companies I do business with is no big problem.
      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
    • 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.

      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)

    by m00nun1t ( 588082 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:34PM (#5951342) Homepage
    It would allow spam from any company you've done business with in the past 3 years

    Damn, and I just bought some penis enlargement tablets. Now I have to wait 3 years to stop receiving spam from them!!
    • Now I have to wait 3 years to stop receiving spam from them!!

      Yeah, but think of all the walls you can beat down with your mighty c*ck while you're waiting!!

  • Loopholes (Score:2, Insightful)

    by KrispyKringle ( 672903 )
    I think the really important issue hardly even mentioned in the Post article is what punitive measures, if any, would be used to actually fight spam. When spammers are so difficult to track, will a bounty system like that proposed by others be used? Will those who's products are being advertised be held accountable? What about ISPs? Clearly, spammers cannot just be tracked down so easily when they break this law, but sometimes those associated with them can be.

    As for the "prior relationship" exception, p

  • that's good and all (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward
    but what does this bill do to keep spam from originating from Nigeria or China, et al? Do we try to sue the business of the guy in vietnam who peddles porn or what? How can we do that without it having a business presence in the US?

    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)

    by the-build-chicken ( 644253 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:40PM (#5951383)
    The only people that _can't_ spam you are people you've done business with. The privacy laws dictate that, unless you have to keep records for legal reasons, or your _primary_ purpose for the records is marketting, then you have to remove them upon request. Which I found really weird. I don't mind if my bank/mechanic/energy company have my details, I _do_ mind that some impossible to track down marketting company called Sydney Promotions Pty Ltd sends me email from pgraysepw@yahoo.com (very professional guys) can get my records from who knows where, keep them for as long as I want, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it :(

    • Re:In Australia... (Score:3, Insightful)

      by spoco2 ( 322835 )
      I tend to agree. Most 'legit' companies are quite good about e-mail. If they're not, they build up a lot of bad will. It's the public image moreso than laws that stop them spamming. (And I recently watched a show where they tested the theory by creating a number of e-mail addresses and disseminating the e-mail addresses in a variety of ways. Those that only gave their addresses to companies had far, far less spam than those who simply had their e-mail address viewable on the web by way of it being on a webs
    • That has to hurt, as from what i've been told for atleast broadband in australia, there are monthly megabyte caps, and per megabyte fees among major telcos.

      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)

    by i.r.id10t ( 595143 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:41PM (#5951389)
    is which bill has been looked over and given a decent thumbs up by people a typical /.'er will have blind loyalty to. A statement from the EFF or some other completely trusted party or something like that.

  • Did they learn something from the junk fax law? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by pphrdza ( 635063 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:42PM (#5951393)
    Two participants said the bill initially was to have been modeled after the federal "junk fax" law that bans all unsolicited fax marketing.

    Prior to that law I was getting zero junk faxes, and now I'm getting an average of 5 a week.

    • So sue the people sending them. The wonderful thing about small claims court is it is cheap to file a suit, and you don't need a lawyer. What you need to do is first in good faith try and get removed form their list, even if you don't believe you did anything to get on there in the first place. Keep a record of what you do, preferably things like voice recordings of the phone calls. If they are like many scummy places that simply never answer their opt out phone, log that. Keep a journal of each time you tr

  • What difference will that make? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Trillan ( 597339 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:42PM (#5951399) Homepage Journal

    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.

    • they'll still threaten to sue those who use black lists

      Not if it meant revealing yourself to federal charges.

      We need three factors to solve the spam problem:

      1. good technology
      2. effective legislation
      3. public shunning of spammers

      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)

    by dollargonzo ( 519030 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:47PM (#5951429) Homepage
    EULAs. they are both very difficult to enforce/fight, yet they exist nevertheless. in both cases they exist simply because of monetary benefit. companies requiring signing an EULA wants to protect its product, while spammers live on 1 out of a million idiots who actually BUY their stuff! even if a bill is passed, i honestly don't think that will stop many spammers, if any, unless there is a mass effort to dismantle them one by one.

  • Missing link (Score:4, Insightful)

    by arvindn ( 542080 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @10:47PM (#5951430) Homepage Journal
    I want to complain more now!

    Where do I complain more? The link is missing ;^)

  • may I have some more spam?

    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)

      by krray ( 605395 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:13PM (#5951592)
      I now have multi-homed bandwidth. Dialup users. Network users from various locations. Inter-connections betwee the offices. Handle all my own forward and reverse (classless) DNS, web, and email traffic. UPS' to generators ranging from T1's to 10Mbit uplink wireless.

      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 /24 subnet is gone. Even have some /8 blocked (210. 211. ring a bell?). MY time frame? _Forever_. I unblock (whitelist) IP's upon a PHONE CALL ... and trust me -- the callers get a copy of the SPAM to pass along to their ISP.

      +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.
      • Can I sue yet? Oh -- I need to call SBC or Verizon I guess.

        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.

  • From the Washington Post article:

    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

    • As to how to tell if a bot has harvested from a website, if you are unlucky enough to have a single e-mail address, it would not be possible. However, if you have your own domain, it is likely that you can set things up so that any non-existing userid@yourdomain.com comes into a catch-all account.

      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)

    by zakezuke ( 229119 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:06PM (#5951550)
    I will accept some spam from my ISP. It's rather a price i'm willing to pay, and I can always choose not to use their e-mail account (Actually I don't so this doesn't bug me). ISPs right or wrong do indeed have the right to make the rules, and i'm willing to live with that.

    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)

    by Mikey-San ( 582838 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:07PM (#5951557) Homepage Journal
    Before I say this, I realize the government probably doesn't care at all about tracking my 'Net habits, but I thought this was particularly unsettling:

    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--
    • Wait, my post here got a +1 informative point? Which part was informative, the part where I mention the cookies, or the part where I mention the horny co-eds in the White House?

      -/-
      Mikey-San
      Leading the charge of cluelessness since 1981.

  • Weird, /. editor actually EDITED my article (Score:5, Informative)

    by frankie ( 91710 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:10PM (#5951572) Journal
    FWIW, my article submission had links to REDUCE [slashdot.org] and RICO [slashdot.org], and correctly referred to Tauzin as (R-Bell) [opensecrets.org].

    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].
    • I'm a subscriber, so I saw the story early, and the links in the posted story were borked.

      I (along with probably many others) emailed the on-line editor about this, and when the story appeared the links had been removed...

    • > 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.

      The Lofgren bill sounds promising.

      As for the other two:

      • "[Several forg

  • The only good thing about this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mao che minh ( 611166 ) * on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:13PM (#5951591) Journal
    The only good thing about this is hardware or software manufacturers sending you service related updates concerning your product.

    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.

    • "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 emai

  • Seems to me like the DMA is behind this... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by WCMI92 ( 592436 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:14PM (#5951598) Homepage
    While I want to see the likes of Ralsky wiped from the face of the Earth for their crimes against Humanity, I DON'T want to see them replaced with today's telespammer types.

    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'd like to see someone start offering an email service that flat out doesn't accept anything but what the user says can come in. Basically you start out with a mailbox that blocks everything. Nothing anyone sends you gets through by design. Then you add the addresses you are willing to accept mail from and mail starts being accepted from those Every time you need to start getting email from someone else you have to add their email address before they start sending. Colossal pain in the ass yes but I'd be
    • Thunderbird [mozilla.org] has an option to junk everything from anyone who isn't in your address book. This might be something close to what you want. And if not, get the source [mozilla.org] and make it do it.
    • You can configure tmda.net the way that you want. There are several others that offer the service itself rather than the software.

      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.
    • I'd like to see someone start offering an email service that flat out doesn't accept anything but what the user says can come in.

      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
  • I've heard this mentioned once or twice, but haven't heard of any real law about it. How about just holding the beneficiaries of the spam accountable? That is, someone somewhere wants your money for some reason. If you can't identify who is sending the spam, etc., you sure as heck can identify who's collecting the money. If you were able to fine those that hire the spammers, then demand for generating spam would dry up right quick. Am I missing something?
    • It is easy to see who is collecting the money. It is hard to see who is sending the spam. Under a system where one could get fined for benefiting from spam, there would be an incentive for the competition to hire spammers to get a company fined. This possibility should be kept in mind, so that any prosecution must demonstrate that some of the money eventually goes to spammers.

      Still, there should be some enabling legislation allowing lawsuits against companies selling this stuff. Mainly to allow discov
      • Still, there should be some enabling legislation allowing lawsuits ...
        While I'm for this (mostly), I would still like to see good penal law against spammers. It's a very different thing when you can get law enforcement to be the heavy. And I think that most anyone pays more attention to a law person at their door than a court server.
        • Jail spammers (those actually sending the emails).

          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
    • I've subscribed to NetFlix for years now. I love the service.

      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)

    by Animats ( 122034 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:38PM (#5951691) Homepage
    The Direct Marketing Association wants to spam "responsibly". This is what they mean: [interactivehq.org]
    • 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. (It's OK to fake the sending address with "implied permission?")
    • The CRE agrees that marketers must not falsify the subject line to mislead readers about the content of the e-mail message.
    • The CRE agrees that all e-mail marketing messages must either include an option for the recipient to unsubscribe from receiving future messages from that sender, list owner, or list manager, or valid and responsive contact information of the sender, list manager, or list owner. (Not only is this opt-out, it's narrow opt-out. It's not clear what's supposed to stop if you opt out.)
    • The CRE agrees that marketers must inform the respondent upon online collection of the e-mail address for what marketing purpose the respondent's e-mail address will be used. (Inform either online or via e-mail.)
    • The CRE agrees that marketers must not harvest* e-mail addresses with the intent to send bulk unsolicited commercial e-mail without consumers' knowledge or consent. (Note "knowledge or consent", not "knowledge and consent". Something hidden in a terms of service page could be construed as "knowledge")
    • The CRE opposes sending bulk unsolicited commercial e-mail to an e-mail address without a prior business or personal relationship**. (But their idea of "prior relationship" includes any marketing contact, however vague. Clicking on a web page that returned a cookie is good enough for the CRE. That's far weaker than California law right now.)
    • *Harvest is defined as compiling or stealing e-mail addresses through anonymous collection procedures such as via a Web spider, through chat rooms, or from other publicly displayed areas listing personal or business e-mail addresses.
    • **Business or personal relationship is defined as any previous correspondence, transaction activity, customer service activity, personalized marketing message, third party permission use, or proven offline contact.

    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.

    • I just want to underscore some of the excellent points made here :

      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)

    by Cyno ( 85911 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:51PM (#5951762) Journal
    Because I think I understand a little about how our media system works. See, a few weeks ago CNN was running several front-page headlines on their Technology section covering the topic of internet spam. One of the articles was how AOL was fighting it in Virginia or something by using legislation that was enacted in that state. These types of articles being published on CNN or Fox can easily be the catalyst for action from our representatives, who probably keep well informed about the News.

    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)

    by dcavanaugh ( 248349 ) on Tuesday May 13, 2003 @11:59PM (#5951808) Homepage
    Congress has given up on all spam legislation, having deemed it unnecessary in the wake of Pres. George W. Bush's decision to launch "Operation Unsubscribe" [trailervision.com]

  • Just goes to show... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by whereiswaldo ( 459052 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @12:14AM (#5951907) Journal
    What kind of a world do we live in when the top priority is stopping spam from hitting our inboxes? What about social issues facing us every day? Cleaner air, water, nutritious food, mental health, affordable living, I could go on and on.

    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)

    by elid ( 672471 )
    There was an opinion piece at PcMag.com written about a week ago regarding the CANSPAM bill. Link here [pcmag.com]
  • You see, everybody hates spam, and 99% of the people who get spam from a company causes them to hate that company. No business owner in their right mind would abuse the trust and good will of their current customers. Any business that started spamming its customers would soon go out of business -- and that's a good thing!

    thad

  • I wrote my senator (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fname ( 199759 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @01:29AM (#5952219) Journal
    This is what I wrote:

    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.
  • Whether it be advertisers or political groups, free speach does NOT MEAN the right to impose the costs of YOUR speach on ME. No-one has the inherit right to impose their cost of speech on me. Thus, unless these religious fucks and these advertising fucks send me a check compensating for my LOST TIME, LOST COMPUTER RESOURCES, and (in the case of faxes) LOST INK and PAPER, they are STEALING FROM ME.

    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)

    by hipster_doofus ( 670671 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:15AM (#5952372) Homepage
    I don't really think that anyone here believes that a law of any type will effectively stop spam. Spam is just like any other "problem" that the government has with the Internet: there is no effective way for them to legislate it because the Internet is a worldwide tool.

    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)

    by io333 ( 574963 ) on Wednesday May 14, 2003 @02:36AM (#5952430)
    You naysayers, skeptics, nerds, virgins, stupid geeks all of you.

    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 !
  • Seeing all those "Here's his home address, send him a pizza or letter bomb..." posts gives me an idea:

    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.
  • Let's not forget that Billy Tauzin was one of the two Congressmen involved in the Tauzin-Dingell bill [internet.com], which was previously covered on Slashdot. If you recall, this was the bill that would make it legal for the Baby Bells to offer DSL over their own lines, but not open their lines to other providers, such as Covad.

    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
  • In today's news is the story that new Illinois governor Rod Blagojevich is considering signing anti-spam legislation for Illinois

    The Chicago Tribune story [chicagotribune.com] [Free registration required]
    SPRINGFIELD -- On-line marketers would be required to clearly label unsolicited "spam" e-mail sent to Illinois residents as advertising or pornography under a measure passed by the Illinois Senate Tuesday and sent to Gov. Rod Blagojevich. Designed to reduce the flood of unwanted e-mail, the bill also would penalize businesses that sell customers' e-mail addresses after they have requested removal from mailing lists. It would require a spammer to set-up a toll-free telephone number or valid reply address that consumers can call or write to demand removal from the company's solicitation lists.
    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 ... /. em!
  • And every ISP in the country will offer "NO advertisement email" within 2 weeks.

  • 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

Slashdot Top Deals

Love makes the world go 'round, with a little help from intrinsic angular momentum.

Close