Spammers Pleased with 'Anti'-Spam Act 468
grung0r writes "A post at Ed Foster's Gripelog explains why the new anti-spam law that Congress is passing isn't a good idea: 'it's clear that only the Direct Marketing Association, Microsoft, AOL and a handful of others had any input into the law, because it's carefully crafted to allow the big marketers free reign. And the loopholes it provides them will be more than big enough to provide aid and comfort for the smallest and sleaziest of spammers as well.' More about the problems with the law can be found at cauce.org." The direct marketers are dancing in the streets over it.
Yay government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Yay government. (Score:5, Insightful)
Labelled how? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the text of the bill [spamlaws.com], the mail must provide
But what does that mean? Putting "[AD]" in the subject title? Adding a "is-spam: true" header? Ending the message with "BTW, this is spam"? Some of them? All of them? Any could be could be considered a valid indentification but the vast variety of methods and phrasings could make it very difficult to actually filter out based on these "clear" identifications.
If it's anything like the spam I get... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Labelled how? (Score:5, Informative)
"The Commission shall transmit to the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation and the House of Representatives Committee on Energy and Commerce--a report, within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act, that sets forth a plan for requiring commercial electronic mail to be identifiable from its subject line, by means of compliance with Internet Engineering Task Force Standards, the use of the characters `ADV' in the subject line, or other comparable identifier, or an explanation of any concerns the Commission has that cause the Commission to recommend against the plan."
That's pretty loose language, including the ability to say it shouldn't be done, but I doubt IETF is going to side with marketers here.
Clear, conspicuous and amorphous (Score:4, Informative)
This is such complete bullshit!
Re:Labelled how? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yay government. (Score:2, Informative)
When spam reaches the point that other, more profitable ecommerce activities can't function, we'll see some real rest
no, it's meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Spammers will ignore the law. Which leads to the next point:
2. Laws are meaningless unless enforced. How will it be enforced? When I get hit with spam that violates this law, who do I complain to? Who will investigate my complaint and then pursue and punish the spammers?
3. Where will all the money and resources come from to enforce this law (see point #2 above) -- to actually enforce this law will take FAR more money and resources than anyone realizes or will admit.
And even if significant money and resources are allocated to enforce the law:
4. What about all the spam originating from servers outside the U.S.
Re:no, it's meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
I shouldn't *have* to complain to someone, or rely on someone else to protect me - if I'm spammed, I want the ability to file a lawsuit - which this legislation prevents. The SEC is supposed to protect me from fraud, too - but they haven't been doing too good a job recently. If you call the FBI about fraud, they won't do anything unless your losses are above xyz amount. The point is, the government should be enabling the individual to protect himself, not forcing the individual to rely on an underfunded, overworked, special-interest-and-politically-compromised body.
Re:no, it's meaningless (Score:4, Informative)
maybe the spam you get does, but most of the spam I get comes from Asia and South America. I sincerely hope you don't just see the masses of email that say they are from aol.com, hotmail.com, msn.com, and yahoo.com and believe them without tracing the headers (have a look at spamcop.net [spamcop.net] if you're not at all familiar with it). Basically Spam only comes 'from' the U.S. en masse in that there are people in the U.S. who offer the service of sending it. But they actually use offshore PCs, mostly in Asia and South America, because they would be perpetually signing up for new service providers if the used domestic servers, as the ISPs drop customers very quickly for such actions.
Re:no, it's meaningless (Score:4, Informative)
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
Congressional scum meet spamming scum. Who is worse?
Re:RTFA (Score:3, Informative)
I had the same question after reading the blog entry. Apologies in advance for the length of this reply, but I wanted to cite the portions of the bill that I think are relevant (as opposed to just declaring "yes" or "no" without providing any supporting evidence).
Technically, I believe the blogger is correct in this assertion, but after reading the full text of the bill I suspect the prohibition isn't qui
Re:Yay government. (Score:3, Interesting)
But not with any specific label and the law forbids the FTC from setting a standard label. Thus, one message might be marked "ADV", and the next one marked "SOL" (solicitation), and the next marked "FOO", and the next marked "Sparky the Sample Bot", and on and on... This will make it pretty much useless to filter as it would raise the false positive rate by adding too many triggering words and phrases (ie: AOL labeling with "Hi ____, here's your update
Yes, you "can spam" all you want! (Score:3, Interesting)
As an added bonus, we're going to require, at no extra charge, already included in your kind and generous campaign donations, a special feature whereby your victims have to go to your very own webpage to hunt for some "opt-out" mechanism - wink wink!
Just think of all the pop up ads you can sell!
Spamming has never been so profitable and thanks to your very own congresspeople, such as Billy Tauzin, every legitimate business trying to pump up next
I agree, it's not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I agree, it's not good enough (Score:3, Informative)
Best way is still just to grab the headers and complain to the account from which the e-mail came.
Re:I agree, it's not good enough (Score:2)
OTOH, it might be good if all spammers to want to pretend they're from the US... maybe they'll finally learn some god damn English!
Re:Opt-out? (Score:3, Interesting)
Not if your firewall prohibits your email client from connecting to port 80.
In my setup, my email client is only allowed to connect to ports 25 and 110, and those only at my host's mail server.
So all those web bugs and pictures come through as broken links. I can still click on URLs in an email, because clicking a link passes the address to my web browser, which is allowed out (not directly out, of c
Re:I agree, it's not good enough (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh but it's worse than that. The opt-out provision only applies to the specific company being advertised. Start a new shell company (maybe $50 in some states, less in the carribean) and you can spam everyone all over again, 100% legally. Plus you've got all those freshly confirmed addresses!
In fact, I don't think the law prohibits selling your opt-out list to other spammers, for use as their new spam list. Isn't life grand?
Further problems with the law:- no private right of action. 99.98% of spammers don't cause $5000+ worth of damage and therefore will never be prosecuted by the FBI or FTC. Individuals, companies, and probably even state governments will have to take it up the ass.
- Meanwhile, the big names on ROKSO [spamhaus.org] will know how to abuse the loopholes [spamhaus.org] free and clear.
- Nulls out all existing state spam laws [geocities.com], most of which are stronger than this crap.
But all the Congress-critters get to go home to their districts and say "I voted to protect you from spam!" without even realizing that they're lying (except that as usual their lips are moving).It's even worse than you think (Score:5, Informative)
No. It's even narrower than that. It only applies to the specific line of business of the specific company being advertised. So one spammer can send you a Viagra spam, a mortgage-refinancing spam, an inkjet cartridge spam, a long distance spam, a cigarettes-by-mail spam, an extend-your-warranty spam, an online greeting card spam, a dating service spam, a credit card spam, a debt-consolidation spam, and a wireless video camera spam. You then have to opt out of each one separately.
Yes (Score:2, Interesting)
Those that can't do: Spam.
I assume they are dancing in the streets because (Score:2, Funny)
Pro-business (Score:2, Interesting)
What more would you expect from a capitalist country?
John.
Did anyone fool themselves.. (Score:5, Funny)
Nothing can stop spam outside of God.
Blogzine.net [blogzine.net]
Re:Did anyone fool themselves.. (Score:2)
It's a total scam. (Score:4, Insightful)
..just like the anti-virus industry. The laws have glaring loopholes through them but were worded well enough to calm down the masses. Now the anti-spam software industry will grow like mad as spam continues to flood inboxes. It's no coincidence that Microsoft was consulted on the spam laws, they have a vested interest in the after market antispam business.
Re:It's a total scam. (Score:2)
And that would be? (Score:2)
Loopholes, eh? (Score:4, Interesting)
(Just Kidding)
Re:Loopholes, eh? (Score:2)
Spammers need to be SHOT (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Spammers need to be SHOT (Score:2)
Re: Spammers need to be SHOT (Score:3, Interesting)
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few and nobody needs spam except the amateur P.T. Barnum's of the world who know that some fool somewhere is going to think the email they just recieived is anything more than a "ping" with a bandwidth "hoover" attached to it.
The law is of no use to anyone here except the politicians, who see another way to take taxpayer dollars and a possible vector to ratcheting more control over what people do or
The law was not about stopping spam (Score:4, Insightful)
Obligatory defeatest, cynical comment (Score:2)
From the you've-got-spam dept. (Score:2)
Re:From the you've-got-spam dept. (Score:2)
A Bill Name that Makes Sense (Score:4, Interesting)
I don't know how signing a bill called "CAN Spam" is going to help anyone get re-elected.
Re:A Bill Name that Makes Sense (Score:3, Funny)
Re:A Bill Name that Makes Sense (Score:4, Insightful)
1.c. Used to indicate possession of a specified capability or skill: I can tune the harpsichord as well as play it.
That's the can that got passed here.
Re:A Bill Name that Makes Sense (Score:2)
Re:A Bill Name that Makes Sense (Score:2)
It's the same doublespeak that brought us Operation Enduring Freedom.
Welcome to reality, Mr. Morrissey (Score:5, Interesting)
I guess we can't say he's not putting his money where his mouth is, though... he put his email in a clickable link right there on the DMNews.com site.
Of course, some spammers may exclude dmnews.com from their spidering. That does Mr. Morrissey a huge disservice! Clearly, unsolicited email is something he strongly supports, and we should help him in any way we can.
So if anyone would like to include bmorrissey@dmnews.com on their email list, I'm sure Brian Morrissey [mailto] would not mind at all! After all, Mr. Brian Morrissey [mailto] (whose email address is bmorrissey@dmnews.com) is Senior Editor [mailto] of "The Online Newspaper of Record for Direct Marketers." He probably knows the Webmaster [mailto] and the Postmaster [mailto], too, and I'm sure they would never consider UCE to be Abuse [mailto].
This has been a public service of the Slashdot community. Don't worry, you can thank us [mailto] later!
Also (Score:2)
Opt- out works for regular mail (Score:5, Interesting)
I was pleasantly surprised.
Of course one has to wonder how many spams are from legit businesses that are members of DMA?
Foggetabatit! (Score:2)
Re:Opt- out works for regular mail (Score:3, Insightful)
So let me get this right (Score:5, Insightful)
DMNews is Amusing (Score:3, Insightful)
Only improvements to SMTP will fix spam (Score:4, Insightful)
The proper solution is to get off our butts and start migrating away from SMTP.
Not even improvements to SMTP will fix spam. (Score:3, Insightful)
Strong authentication to a mail server that knows you personally? Unforgeable headers? Hash cash? Great ideas, but not ones that will have any effect on millions of compromised Windows systems each sending a small number of messages properly through their own mail servers.
Do you have some improvements in mind which would obviate the zombie-army problem? I'd love to hear them.
Shady Spammers Rejoice! (Score:2, Informative)
AOL/MSFT (Score:4, Insightful)
AOL and MSFT probably deal with more spam headaches than anyone else. I don't really notice them using spam, just trying to filter it in vain from their services.
spam revenue structure (Score:4, Interesting)
It looks like some bizarre vicious circle: the spammer doesn't even care if you are going to respond to the "opt-out" clause in their mailings simply because by the time the opt-out reaches them, they wil already have sold your address to 5 other spammers and made their money on you.
Am I wrong or the bill simply doesn't address the list reselling practice? (Granted, I haven't read the actual legislation - just the press coverage).
Re:spam revenue structure (Score:2)
4.a. In general - If a recipient makes a request using a mechanism provided pursuant to paragraph (3) not to receive some or any commercial electronic mail message from such sender, then it is unlawful -
(i)...(ii)...(iii)...(iv) for the sender, or any other person who knows that the recipient has made such a request, to sell, lease, exchange, or otherwise transfer or release the electronic mail address of the recipient...for any purpose other than compliance with this act.
[Damn PDF for not a
We should ban all forms of marketing (Score:2, Insightful)
How about a world where you simply submit your new product to a system of independent reviews, which then informs consumers of their options? I think it would be much better than the system we have now, where effective marketing tends to border illegality.
Marketing isn't needed. Marketing is
If they spam you... (Score:4, Funny)
At that point, feel free to inquire over, and over, and over again about all of their services, and not purchase anything. And their upstream marketing service providers. Chat up their 1-8xx call center staff. Try to see if they're free on Friday.
You will strangely find the front pages to all their websites VERY interesting, worthy of 200 views per hour. Especially all the images in the
It's pro business, after all. Pro-ISP and Pro-Telcom... hehehe.
Pro-spam (Score:4, Interesting)
I still wonder how the government will justify the fact that spammers use, without paying a red cent, the facilities of others to do their dirty deeds.
This is in direct contrast to other direct marketers. Junk mail? Every letter requires a 37 cent postage stamp. Junk faxes and phone calls? These require payment by the sender of flat phone rates and calling charges.
Spam, however, is virtually free for the sender, piggybacking on other people's equipment. It's the first form of direct marketing *in history* in which the unhappy recipient pays (through increased ISP costs) for the priviledge of receiving messages.
The US government, in effect, has declared that all online citizens will be forced endure, and to pay for, receipt of unsolicited spam -- and, what's more, have no recourse, as private individuals, in the courts. A sad day overall.
Will this interfere with blocking "legit" spam? (Score:2)
Contradiction in Terms? (Score:2, Interesting)
thank god for iptables (Score:2)
Well this sucks (Score:2)
I'm as cynical and jaded as the next genX geek, but it still pisses me off that no one gives a shite about the common good. You get the sense that those in power would laugh out loud if you even mentioned it. Bastards.
Oh by the way, even good legislation would be useless against spam. How is these people
Typical Liberal Thinking (Score:5, Insightful)
"It's not going to solve all the problems, but it's the first real step," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y. "The public is demanding something. It's going to happen. We're going to get it done."
Okay, spam is not a government problem, it is a technical problem and no amount of praying or laws (Smart or dumb) are going to solve the problems of spam. Now here is the list why:
1) Most spam that ends up in U.S. mailboxes comes from overseas, so no US law is going to stop that.
2) Spam actually works on an economic level, if it did not, then no one would spam. Spammers spam, because spam works. Destroy the profitiblity of spamming and spam will go away.
3) Spamming is easy. Make it so addresses can not be spoofed, email headers can't be forged and MX records have to match up with A records (All those modem pool modems would not be able to send because no will accept mail from a machine that does not have an correct MX record). I think if you fixed this, then a lot of the spam would just go away.
Criminals Aren't Phased By New Laws (Score:2)
How is a new law going to suddenly convince them they're doing something wrong, morally or legally?
The law we actually need... (Score:2)
Only once the Department of Justice has done everything they can to enforce the current laws should new laws be passed.
Anti-spam registry and opt-out... (Score:3, Interesting)
On naievity... (Score:4, Interesting)
Every single word of this bill was intentionally crafted to do what it does -- make Congress look anti-spam to everyone except spammers. This is a Congressional "wink and nod" to all the scum out there who are more than happy to cost you money to try to sell you something.
Remember, kids, messing with other peoples' computers "for fun" is bad and wrong and the FBI will hunt you down. If you're going to make money at it, and of course you allocate some of that money to bribing^Wlobbying Congress, thats a whole different story. Sigh.
Laws Don't Stop Spam Technology Does (Score:2, Insightful)
Technology on the other hand is the way to go. I recently got feed up with my hotmail account due to spam and I switched to another free site called Shadango.com. It allows me to check both my students address and hotmail thr
The accusations don't make sense (Score:2, Insightful)
I have to believe that Microsoft understands what spam is doing to the internet, and they must want it to continue working. They are the ones running hotmail after all. No one can buy them off, and any money they might make off spam wouldn't even b
I have some hope for this bill (Score:2)
1. For "legitimate" spammers, it will be easy to filter them out, preferably at the server level. (I wonder if we could convince, say, AOL to bounce all email self-designated as spam.)
2. For illegitimate spammers, we will now have some sort of legal recourse. I know that this won't be easy, since illegitimate spammers don't include valid return addresses, but it's a start. We can also use it to punish legitimate companies who use
Get a clue guys (Score:2)
The point (Score:3, Funny)
The REAL point (Score:4, Insightful)
How can you tell if a law is unjust? If it makes **ANY** provision at all preventing people from suing those who break the law.
We have been denied access to the third branch of government in order to protect the business interests of spammers.
We must act NOW! (Score:3, Offtopic)
Take a few hours of spam, and fax it to your congress person and senators. Include a letter that explains how the bill is such a bad idea and it will increase the spam. I sent 25 pages to my people with a letter that explained that this was 6 hours of spam on a Sunday. That the bill, if passed will make this much worse. That only opt-in will work and that there must be statutory damages and a private right of action.
Of course, they are welcome to opt out of this campain, from each of us who add them to the list. They may get the point if 500 people do the same thing every few days, and they have to opt out from all 500.
An Alternate Strategy... (Score:2, Interesting)
Forget the politicians (Score:4, Informative)
I encourage the population to engage in a number of active efforts to negate the value all these advertisers have, and their tendency now to bombard us all into oblivion with their repetitive, misleading and obnoxious messages.
* When you get spam, report it to Spamcop [spamcop.net]. Don't even bother with cutting-and-pasting the html source, the web hosting companies of spammers don't care about complaints. Make sure the complaints go to the ISPs who manage the IP space the spammer is operating from. But more importantly, when you report spam to spamcop, the source gets immediately flagged as a spammer and thousands of systems around the world refuse to accept mail from the source. It's VERY effective and the sooner you report spam, the more effective it is. The crap messages don't even get to peoples' mail servers this way. It WORKS!
* Turn off your TV and refuse to let yourself be turned into a quivering ADHD blob with the constant barrage of commercial suggestions. If you must watch TV, do yourself a favor and get a TiVo [tivo.com] (it will be the best money you ever spent) and record what you want, when you want, take back your life and best of all skip the commercials!
* If you're feeling the need to waste time complaining, send a letter to your congressman and senators telling them that if they don't put more resources into cyber-crime enforcement you'll make it the center of your life to ensure they can't get elected to anything ever again.
* Spread the word that the only realistic solution to spam is licensing outbound mail relays via a sanctioned body that is nowhere near as incompetent as ICANN. We need an opt-in, international SMTP mail relay whitelist with ethical rules for being included.
* If you've had any bad experiences with companies who've ripped you off, do us all a favor and put up a web page on it and list it with the search engines. Peoples' apathy towards getting railroaded encourges the continuation of these scams. Know someone who's been burned by home-mortgage scams? Publish it! Put it out there forever. Every little bit helps to educate the feebleminded populace,make them more skeptical of suggestions (as well as editorial packaged as "news") and negate the value of quantum advertising.
* Forget client-side e-mail filtering as a spam solution. It will never work and it is a black hole of resources, time and money. Filtering is good for viruses and idiots who still insist on clicking attachments, but it won't ever do much for the spam problem.
* Encourage your ISP to employ relay blacklisting [dmoz.org] to thwart spammers so they can't even connect to remote systems.
* If you still find yourself occasionally watching tv and are annoyed at misleading ad campaigns, do what I do: dial the 1-800 number repeatedly over the course of the commercial's airing, making the advertiser's efforts counterproductive and sending a message that you're tired of being bombarded, emotionally manipulated and lied to.
* Don't buy any products advertised in any manner in which you find offensive or annoying regardless of the quality/desireability of the product.
* If you still feel your penis isn't big enough, just go to the local store and buy some multi-vitamins or just deal with it. You don't need a bigger penis, newer car, a George Forman grill, closet organizer, no-money-down real estate, second mortgage, questionable mexican placebos packaged as drugs, or to see Holly hump a German Shephard. Pick up the phone and go hang out with friends who like you for who you are and don't buy into the media's constant message that you're inadequate and money will solve this.
87.26%.... (Score:2)
I am very thankful for popfile.
Is there any possible form of active counter measures that can be incorporated into spam filters? I like the idea of having a spam filter down load and ignore the contents of every URL listed in every spam I recieve. *BUT* that would allow someone to ddos anyone by just sending an obvious spam with a bogus URL in it to a few million of us.
Stonewolf
Why don't companies understand... (Score:3, Informative)
I don't want you to mail me with advertisements, I'll mail you.
I don't want you to knock on my door to talk to me, I'll knock on your door to talk to you.
I don't want you to send me an e-mail, If I want your product, I'll send YOU an e-mail.
I don't want to drive down the street and look at your signs, I want to see the trees.
I, like many other intelligent people, like to buy things that we need, or want based on research, or discussion with friends and their experiences with the product or service.
So, in conclusion, remember two things,
1. Forcing your product on me is a good way to NOT sell it to me.
and
2. Don't call me, I'll call you.
Changes Made to the Bill by the Senate on Tuesday (Score:3, Informative)
Some of the changes are listed in a news release [senate.gov] from Sentator Burns' website:
The final CAN SPAM Act includes changes not in the earlier Senate passed version, including increased damages up to $250 per spam e-mail with a cap of $2 million that can be tripled for aggravated violations. For e-mails using false or deceptive headers, the cap does not apply. Additionally, the revisions to the earlier bill enhance FTC enforcement authority.
This means that the House gets to vote again on the revised bill - probably after Thanksgiving
And the name of the Act: (Score:3, Funny)
This is just the groundwork (Score:3, Interesting)
And viola`-- they will have conned us into begging them to "tax the internet", which is something they have been trying to figure out ever since it showed up on their radar screen. Sure it's neat, but how can we TAX it?
Like a tolling bell (Score:3, Funny)
Seriously speaking, I have absolutely no idea whatsoever why anyone is bothered by spam. My ISP runs SpamAssassin, which spam-scores every inbound message and munges the headers with that score. My procmail sorts anything over a particular score into a spam folder, which I periodically empty, usually with a cursory glance to see if there are any false positives (I haven't seen one for four months, by the way). Anywhere from zero to five spams reach my inbox every day, which I delete; if the number starts to creep higher, I might lower my filter threshold. And that's it. Total labor input from me is about fifteen minutes a week. I spend more time than that rinsing out the office coffee pot. So why all this outrage and law-making and angst?
Interesting idea to get the message to politicians (Score:3, Informative)
Maybe this has been done before, but if not, it seems like a great idea:
How about if we get everyone within their local calling region with the resources to hang a modem on their PC and map an e-mail address that goes directly to the fax machine of their local senators, representatives and district attorneys?
While letting spammers hit these e-mails and bombard politicians' fax machines seems appealing, it might be even more effective to make it very easy for people within their regions to send an e-mail that goes to a politicians' fax machine. (We know most of them don't read e-mail)
I'd be willing to do this in my region. What if we got enough people to do this so we had a nationwide network of e-mail/fax gateways? It seems it would be much more effective to bombard a politician's fax machine with frustrated cries from their constitutients than home-mortgage scams.
The Opposite of the ADV Subject (Score:3, Interesting)
"(2) PROHIBITION OF DECEPTIVE SUBJECT HEADINGS- It is unlawful for any person to initiate the transmission to a protected computer of a commercial electronic mail message if such person has actual knowledge, or knowledge fairly implied on the basis of objective circumstances, that a subject heading of the message would be likely to mislead a recipient, acting reasonably under the circumstances, about a material fact regarding the contents or subject matter of the message (consistent with the criteria are used in enforcement of section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45))."
So if you were to write a negative test on "this is not an ad" in the subject line, any spam getting through would be breaking the law.
Not realistic, just an illustration that this bill isn't COMPLETELY useless. At least it makes forging headers explicitly illegal, that alone is a big step.
Re:article text (Score:4, Insightful)
Like that's stopped those spammers that trojan machines. They'll just keep going, and now add "legitimate" spam to the mix. Stuff is going to get a *lot* worse
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
"The bill bans harvesting of e-mail addresses from goatse.cx sites and breaking into computers to send spam."
Why did you add that junk to the article? Was it supposed to be funny or something?
Mod parent down.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:3, Insightful)
Your only friends here are cynicism and pragmatism.
Re:Whats the point? (Score:2)
Oh well.
Re:Only way to fix this... (Score:3, Interesting)
In the end, it would probably be up to their technicians to solve any spam problem, and the screaming load on the servers would just be footed at the expense of taxpayers.
Re:Only way to fix this... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you don't vote, then guess what? You don't get the right to bitch and moan when things don't go the way you want them to, plain and simple. It's fucked up, this political system we have, but at this point in time our only voice is by voting. I know you feel rebellious to say it, but understand that this is a very real case where if you aren't trying to be a part of the solution, you are, by default, a big part of the problem.
Post you politician's e-mail addresses everywhere you can
Politicians doubtfully are the first to read their email. More than likely you'd be targeting an intern, whose job is to wade through the inbox to pick out the handful of real emails. I don't think your point will get across to them, do you?
Re:Only way to fix this... (Score:2, Insightful)
Does the OP pay taxes? yes? well, yeah, then he's got a right to bitch.
Re:Only way to fix this... (Score:3, Insightful)
While true, when the politician has to pay 8 interns to read their email instead of 1 intern, and they all complain about the amount of disgusting porn they are seeing, they might be more likely to do something about it.
Re:Only way to fix this... (Score:3, Interesting)
What's needed is a significant change that empowers *the people* to have the final say on attempted government abuse of rights and excesses.
Although this paper was written with a different political system to the US in mind (the Westminster system) it's still every bit as applicable to the USA.
Take a look and ask why citizens aren't demanding this "final say" in laws that are passed?
Recoverable Pr [politics.co.nz]
Re:Only way to fix this... (Score:3, Interesting)
Never make the mistake of thinking that the majority of people are less stupid than the average person.
Re:Only way to fix this... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you don't vote, then guess what? You don't get the right to bitch and moan when things don't go the way you want them to, plain and simple.
George Carlin has a hilarious routine that argues just the opposite: those that participate in a system they know to be wrong have no right to complain when it behaves as expected. Only those who do not vote can reasonably say they are not responsible for the misdeeds of those who have been elected to office.
It's fucked up, this political system we have, bu
Re:Only way to fix this... (Score:3, Interesting)
"You don't get the right to bitch and moan when things don't go the way you want them to, plain and simple"
No. nowhere in the constitution does it say the right to speech is governed by whether or not you vote.
The fact that they feel disenfrnchised mean us voters need to work at showing them that getting involved does, in fact, work.
I would hate to miss a good point someone may make because they didn't vote.
" but at this point in time our only voice is b