Slashdot Mirror
Spam King Living High in the Bayou
mikey573 writes "Connecticut's main newspaper, The Hartford Courant, decided to bring the issue of spam to the forefront with a top headline front page story Spam King Living High In The Bayou in its Sunday print edition. The article goes into describing the spam marketing company "Opt-In Marketing Services". The article goes too much into glorifying one person's success with spam, while failing to underscore the potential problems he has caused for others."
Well, the civil rights movement stopped that. I guess his argument is that they cannot deny him of service simply because of his choice of business. Now, I agree, beeing black is different than being a spammer, I just thought I'd play devil's advocate for a moment.
Fault loves the past, worry loves the future, but content enjoys the present.
I consider his claim of great wealth and money making to have the same level of truthfulness...
At 80 million emails per day and 3 seconds average to delete each, that means 7.6 _years_ are wasted of people's lives for each day he blasts his spam.
---"He seems to missing a fundamental point: You do not have a Constitutional right to an internet connection."
However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet).
---"You cannot (or should not be able to) force a company to do business with you if they don't want to."
I believe that isn't the case when the company is a monopoly, and possibly discriminating against you on speech. Yes, it could get that nasty.
---"If Qwest sees that they are losing customers because they provide internet access to you, they have a fiduciary duty to terminate their business relationship with you."
Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO. The spam idiots pay for the media, and pay for postage to my house. I just toss it away. Some are crafty and make it look like legit-like bills. Some promise prizes. It all goes to the shredder. My point is, if they pay through the nose for constand bandwidth, give them what they asked.
---"I think I'll start buying stock in telecoms and ISP's just for the purpose of filing shareholder lawsuits against companies that cave in to spammers like this. Breach of fiduciary duty is extremely serious to large companies, and you can sue individual CEOs/board members/etc as well as the company. He wants to use the courts to force companies to provide services, the shareholders have a right to use the courts to make sure the companies DON'T provide those services to him."
I dont like either solution. Either result sets a precident I DONT LIKE.
So who is the real moron here? The people buying goods. If everybody started boycotting any product advertised by SPAM this would end very very quickly, either by companies stop using the advertising service or filing for chapter 11. Maybe writing a little letter to those advertised resorts might help too. "Hey I really like to visit your pretty island. However as long as you do buisiness with spammers I you don't meet the standards required for me to do buissiness with you". 99.9% of all people boycotting you is a pretty nice argument, isn't it?
Besides SPAM is also Interstate commerce, which congress may regulate. And in most places outside the US this advertising would mostly not be viewed as free speech (I am not promoting that point). E.g. Herbicides can be considered pharmaceuticals which will very quickly subject you to pretty stiff regulations.
Thorsten
If he wants to spend the money to send spam, let him.
Fine, when it stops costing me money. Ever heard of metered bandwidth? His constitutional right to freedom of speech ends when I have to pay for it.
If he's running such a legitamite business, why does he have to hide who he is when he's conducting business? The last time I got an advertising flyer from Ford, it didn't have Car Sellers, Inc. or Max Cohen Motors as the return address...
/.ers: we should pool our resources and setup a fund to put hits out on people like this.
Actually, junk mailers are largely subsidized by first class mail (that's the mail you send when you pay your bills, etc). Postal rates on first class go up fairly regularly, postal rates on bulk (third class) do not. Ask 100 mail carriers about third class mail and I would be willing to bet 99 of them would rant and rave about the subsidy. Your point that if they want to pay through the nose isn't a valid comparison to snail mail, because snail mailers don't pay through the nose, they pay about 1-3 cents per item.
My point is that a business has a right to say "We don't want to do business with company X". This spammer is trying to use the courts to force Qwest to provide service to him when Qwest sees a valid business reason to NOT do business with him and therefore doesn't want to do business with him.
this is getting old and so are you
blog
Stupid job ads, weird spam, occasional insight at
Hey, robbing banks pays pretty well too.
I don't understand what you're saying. Is it that anti-spammers should lay off Scelson because what he's doing is so profitable for him? That doesn't even begin to make sense.
What are you saying?
However, data transmission SHOULD NOT be considered as long as you're paying the correct price for the bandwidth (perferrably per K-packet).
That's crazy. Kiddie porn and death threats are absolutely intolerable. Paying to transmit obviously illegal speech doesn't legitimize it.
Spam is a gray area, but it's certainly not true that you can transmit whatever you like without any limits as long as you've paid for the bandwidth.
---"If Qwest sees that they are losing customers because they provide internet access to you, they have a fiduciary duty to terminate their business relationship with you."
Does the same analogy hold true for the snail mail industry? NO.
Two words: Mail Fraud.
There are plenty of long standing laws and rules that regulate postal mail. Aside from prohibiting fraudulent advertising (as much of today's spam is), correct identification of who sent the letter is also required.
The spam idiots pay for the media, and pay for postage to my house. I just toss it away. Some are crafty and make it look like legit-like bills. Some promise prizes. It all goes to the shredder. My point is, if they pay through the nose for constand bandwidth, give them what they asked.
It's much more accurate to compare electronic spam transmission to other electronic mediums, such as telephone solicitation and advertising by sending "junk" faxes.
For telephone soliciation, a 1992 law regulates callers to identify themselves within 30 seconds. Companies who call are required to maintain "do not call lists", and the FCC imposes harsh penalties on soliciters who repeatedly call after requests to place that number on their do not call list. Many states have laws allowing individuals to sue for $200 to $1000 as well.
For junk faxes, which are the closest analogy to spam email (same or similar message sent to many numbers, to be read by receipient when they notice it later on), JUNK FAXING IS ILLEGAL.
Also illegal under the 1992 act is telephone solicitation (without opt-in or previous relationship) using pre-recorded messages. There are a few folks doing this today, as well as some companies junk faxing, and it is illegal.
Before 1992, junk faxing was not against the law, just as today there is no federal law that prohibits sending unsolicited advertising by email. Today there is no law that regulates usasage of correct headers and identification of the party who transmitted the message. Today there is no (federal) law that requires actually honoring the receipients request to not receive future mailings.
That's today. Soon there will be laws to regulate unsolicited commercial ads by email. Just as some advertisers abused telephones and faxes and lawmakers eventually responded, so they also will with spam.
And they rightly should. Just because you've paid to send some data via an ISP, you should not have any more right to send fraudulent ads with forged headers than you would to send a similarly illegal message via the USPS with a fake return address. Just because you've paid to send that message gives you no more right to ignore "don't send me any more" than a telemarketer has under the 1992 law.
There is quite a bit of legitimate use for email marketing, but at least IMHO, there's no excuse for forged headers, fraudulent advertising, and not properly honoring request to avoid more messages from the same sender. Sooner or later, these acts will be illegal (at least in the USA), and assholes like Ronnie Scelson are only serving to expedite the need for lawmakers to respond.
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
And herein lies the problem. Even if we assume that he has 80 million valid registered customers (all legitimately obtained and verified), he is still engaging in tactics that should be illegal. An email, particular a commercial email, should have a real and accurate return and from address, and should have real transmission headers. If these are forged , the email is spam, even if there is an opt in list.
Furthermore, i feel the spammer should get sued by those greatly affected by the act. For instance, if the forged address is a domain not related to the spammer, that domain should have every right to sue the spammer for costs of dealing with the misdirected replies, the cost of dealing with angry customers, and the costs associated with defamation of the domain. The ISP that the spammer is doing business with should be able to cut off the spammer immediately, sue for the costs of resources used to send the spam, and any other costs associated with the spam. Maybe, in both cases, treble costs.
Let me be clear, forged headers should a sufficient condition for a commercial email to be considered spam and invoke any all liabilities associated with spamming.
Scelson, who designed the software, says it will penetrate virtually any system designed to stop ads from reaching the intended mailbox.
Of course this is another problem. I may in fact want to receive commercial email. That does not mean that I want it in my in box. Perhaps I have another place, that I review daily, that I want to filter commercial emails into. It seems reasonable that a reputable sender of commercial email would want to help me in this endevour, and in the process create a positive relationship, by using consistent mail headers. For instance the New York Times does this. On the other hand, a scum of the earth spammer, no disrespect to scum intended, would actively try to thwart my reasonable and rational system of prioritizing emails in hope of forcing me to view a message.
Furthermore, don't we have legislation about programs that actively penetrate systems without the owner's consent? Seems like this might be a good application of that law.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Perhaps the author could have made the article into an attack on the Spam King, but instead he presented the facts and let the reader decide. Most readers don't need to be told how annoying spam is.
Of course, maybe I'm viewing this in the wrong light because I already knew how much I hated this guy before I read the paper; someone who doesn't really mind spam or have email may have interpreted it differently. But for the mostpart, it was clear to me that this article was not condoning what he does.
It's journalism. I don't think it's worth being put on the front page, but there's no reason to get pissed at the Courant for it. Write an editoral about it and mail it to the courant. But posting information about Tribune to slashdot really suggests you're more mad than that; to me it suggests that you want the writer fired or somesuch. Relax a bit. The Courant didn't spam me.
-bugg
Everyone who lives within 10 miles of him should get a cinder block, write their favorite spam on it("MAKE MONEY FAST!"), and drop it on his property. On a weekly basis.
After 20,000 or so maybe he'll start seeing the point.
1) Lay off the "let's kill this guy" stuff. Last I knew, things like that could be considered threats. I.E. illegal. Don't do it. I *hope* that no one is serious about causing any sort of criminal mischeif or harassment, but...
e nc efile=1070
2) BTW, if you'd like to politely contact him and tell him that you disapprove of his spamming, especially in so far as his 'free speech' forces us to pay for it, a rather apropos way to do that would be to contact him via his 1-800 #'s... In fact, there's a lovely page detailing how to reach this guy:
http://www.spamhaus.org/rokso/search.lasso?evid
ABUSERS: Ronald R. Scelson
[Birthdate: 12-11-71 or 72, New Orleans, LA, married]
avsrscelson@aol.com / cajunspam@aol.com / avsrscelson2000@yahoo.com / dff@yahoo.com
Amy Hoolahan [wife/sister?]
43 CYPRESS MEADOWS LOOP
SLIDELL, LA 70460 US
Home: (504) 646-2225
Work: 504-649-6248
PHONE NUMBERS: 888-365-0000 ext. 1648 / 800-242-0363 EXT. 2427
888-724-3108 x5413752
504 781 8117 / 504-957-1037 / 504-847-1232 / 504-649-7751
504-781-6615 / 504-649-6248 / 504-781-6655 / 504-831-1595
504-646-2225 / 504-641-0876
FAX: 504 641 0810 / 504-456-0995 / 504-781-6615
Please try to be civil. There are laws against harassment. There's no law against politely explaining to him that you never want to hear from him again. Just tell him that you'll keep calling him until he leaves you alone...
I am curious how much spam he likes receiving? I would be curious how many are tempted to add him up to their distribution lists and send tons of spam to him until his email boxes are overflowing.
It's time to start playing the game with them.
If someone is inclined to stoop to his level, bounce a "few" anonymous junk mails to his boxes for the rest of us. I'm sick of idiots like this.