Slashdot Mirror

Doc Ruby writes "The Congressional chatter about 'canning spam', in the CAN-SPAM law since January, has turned out to really mean 'they can still spam'. TechWeb News reports that 'In July, compliance fell for the first time under one percent to a measly 0.54 percent', from its 3% max. The researchers claim the ball has been dropped by 'law enforcement'. Those police are probably too busy deleting the 80% spam from their email, like everyone else."

friedo writes "Four people in Detroit have been charged with emailing fraudulent sales pitches under the new federal CAN-SPAM Law. 'They were accused of disguising their identities in hundreds of thousands of sales pitches and delivering e-mails by bouncing messages through unprotected relay computers on the Internet.'"

Anonymous Coward writes "The Globe & Mail has a story about an Ontario, Canada man who is being sued, along with his father and brother, by Yahoo under the CAN-SPAM Act. The Yahoo suit claims that Eric Head, along with his father and brother, were sending out millions of spam emails per month, as well as compiling lists of email addresses to sell to other spammers. Eric's company, Gold Disk Canada Inc., gathered lists of email addresses and sold them for $29.99 for 100,000 email addresses on up to $1,599.99 for 10 million addresses."

ooby writes "MSNBC reports that Bush and Kerry plan to shoot off a million or so emails to their closest friends. By using the Internet to distribute ads, presidential candidates believe they can reach more people using less money. I guess that's why they wrote that loophole in that awesome new spam law."

We lead with news that the U.S. 'anti'-spam law, written largely by the Direct Marketing Association, will enter into effect on January 1. The bill preempts existing state laws which are tougher (states' rights anyone?), so for many citizens, this is purely a pro-spam law. The FTC is thinking about bounty hunters to enforce the new law (which you can and probably should read for yourself).

fermion writes "The FTC has settled with the Austin, Texas-based company, ClickForMail.Com, Inc, on a charge of deceptive trade practices. The FTC charges that ClickForMail promised a preapproved credit card through AllPreApproved.com but failed to deliver the product. We all have heard that such spam and schemes can be very profitable, but do we ever believe a large number of people will fall for it? In this case, thousands took the bait. The victims allowed AllPreApproved.com to deduct $49.95 from their bank accounts. In return the victims received not a credit card, but a list of hyperlinks which could be used to get credit cards." (Read on for more.) "As is usual, the settlement does not assign blame. The FTC made ClickForMail pay $815,000 and promise not to lie about its services in the future. Apparently ClickForMail is not prohibited from sending out future UCE. This investigation is part of an FTC task force which is filing actions against 45 companies. One of the scams is an update of the eternal scholarship con.

If anyone gets spam from Texas, or if you live in Texas, make sure to use the new Texas Spam Law. Individuals can sue for $10 per UCE, up to $25,000 a day."

Slashback tonight brings you more on recent RIAA madness, the readability of scrambled words, word of the return of Nullsoft's WASTE, another decision against the FTC's do-not-call list, and more -- read on for the details. The issue is greyer than you might think. SirFozzie writes "A Denver, Colorado judge has blocked the implementation of the Do-Not-Call List for a 2nd time, hours after the House and Senate passed the bill overwhelmingly, claiming that telemarketer's free speech rights would be infringed if this was to take affect. In the MSNBC story, judge Edward Nottingham ruled that "The Federal Trade Commission has chosen to entangle itself too much in the consumers' decision by manipulating consumer choice and favoring speech by charitable (organizations) over commercial speech." What's next? Constitutional Amendment?"

Follow-up: Can You Raed Tihs? meal worms writes "A Slashdot article appearing last Monday, which reported on the claim that scrambled words are legible as long as first and last letters are in place, was circulated to the University of British Columbia's Linguistics department. An interesting counter-example resulted:

"Anidroccg to crad cniyrrag lcitsiugnis planoissefors at an uemannd, utisreviny in Bsitirh Cibmuloa, and crartnoy to the duoibus cmials of the ueticnd rcraeseh, a slpmie, macinahcel ioisrevnn of ianretnl cretcarahs araepps sneiciffut to csufnoe the eadyrevy oekoolnr."

As demonstrated, a simple inversion of the internal characters results in a text which is relatively hard to decipher."

Addendum to Tough California Anti-Spam Law Signed On September 23, we mentioned California's new spam-ban law; srmalloy writes "The text of the new law, added by S.B. 186, is here."

Now you can WASTE away again in Margaritaville. adamsmith_uk writes "WASTE is open source small P2P network software supporting IM, group chat, file browsing/searching, and file transfer. It was released by Nullsoft and then removed by AOL, its parent company, in matter of hours. WASTE is now up to version 1.1 and back on Sourceforge. Get it while you can!"

Next time, Gadget Grandmother ... next time! FrankBama writes "The RIAA sued a grandmother for sharing over 2,000 songs (including 'I'm A Thug' by Trick Daddy). The EFF got involved and RIAA dropped the suit. This was done as a 'gesture of good faith' but the record industry spokesperson says they still think it's the right account.

260 other defendants still outstanding."

More of Orson Scott Card on Net music sharing. happy_place writes "FYI, you reported the first part earlier, here's the PART 2 of Orson Scott Card's political discussion on the stupidity of the record industry subpeona frenzy."

This part of the agenda is not supposed to be hidden. Stealthgirl writes "Note to everyone on the Hidden Agenda Contest that was mentioned over the weekend: There was a lot of feedback about only undergrads being eligible for the $25,000 prize. The rules have been clarified and full time grad students are welcome as well."

Update: Ah, yes: The Fortran bit. Thomas Beuthe writes "With regards to your slashdot Fortran article of the 16 Sept 2003 entitled 'Is GNU g77 Killing Fortran?,' I just wanted to make you aware of a fully featured alternative to g77 that perhaps everyone should consider using. Please go to Walt Brainerd's site: www.fortran.com (yes, he was the one who got *that* site!) and have a look at the "F" compiler.

I discussed the problem of the lack of a good freeware compiler and its influence on the lack of Fortran education and propagation of the language with him personally when he was here giving a Fortran course. He pointed out the "F" compiler to me. This is a fully compliant compiler which he put together himself.

The source code is actually the NAG compiler, I believe, except that he's hobbled it a bit to allow it to go out for free. This means that he has restricted the syntax a little, but not the functionality. So what you get is a fully funtional compiler which is restricted to what Walt considers to be the 'best' syntax for Fortran! This makes perfect sense for education, but also allows full useage for big projects as well!

Neat eh?"

The Seattle Times reported a while ago that Microsoft is pushing for Washington State Senate Bill 5734 which will overturn most of Washington State's laws that specify monetary penalties for companies who send out spam. This will completely exempt ISPs from current Washington spam laws, which Microsoft just happens to be. It seems that they are jumping the gun a bit. They are having a company named Digital Impact (save that address for you spam filters) send the email for them. Thankfully I live in Seattle so maybe I can collect an easy $500 before Microsoft guts the current law.

Compulawyer writes "I recently came across this website, SpamLaws.com, which has a fairly comprehensive list of laws covering unsolicited commercial email. My new favorite is the Ohio Statute. Spam must include the full name, either residence or business address, and email address of the spammer and provide an opt-out notice in the same type and size as the majority of the text of the message itself. The statute provides not only for damages of $100 per offense ($50,000 cap), but also allows for an injunction against the spammer. ISPs can also sue for $50 per violation ($50,000 cap - $500,000 cap if the violations were willful). The best part (for the non-lawyers and those who want the executive summary) is that forging headers is a FELONY."

Compulawyer writes "I recently came across this website, SpamLaws.com, which has a fairly comprehensive list of laws covering unsolicited commercial email. My new favorite is the Ohio Statute. Spam must include the full name, either residence or business address, and email address of the spammer and provide an opt-out notice in the same type and size as the majority of the text of the message itself. The statute provides not only for damages of $100 per offense ($50,000 cap), but also allows for an injunction against the spammer. ISPs can also sue for $50 per violation ($50,000 cap - $500,000 cap if the violations were willful). The best part (for the non-lawyers and those who want the executive summary) is that forging headers is a FELONY."

Joe Wagner writes: "Criminal penalties for spam, yeah baby! It has just been announced that California State's spam law has been ruled constitutional and valid by California Court of Appeal for the First District: '...we hold that section 17538.4 does not violate the dormant Commerce Clause [of the United States Constitution].' The actual ruling is here. Congratulations to Mark Ferguson and his lawyers (1, 2) for fighting it out for the rest of us..."

tgeller writes: "David Sorkin, a Chicago-based law professor who also runs spamlaws.com, just published "Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail" in the University of San Francisco Law Review. I think it's well-thought-out, intelligent and complete. Spam litigation (which The Suespammers Project tracks) has been slow, partly because few lawyers know much about the issue; this paper will have an impact on legal community cluefulness."

tgeller writes: "David Sorkin, a Chicago-based law professor who also runs spamlaws.com, just published "Technical and Legal Approaches to Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail" in the University of San Francisco Law Review. I think it's well-thought-out, intelligent and complete. Spam litigation (which The Suespammers Project tracks) has been slow, partly because few lawyers know much about the issue; this paper will have an impact on legal community cluefulness."