Direct Marketers Association Asks To Be Regulated

alanjstr writes "Recognizing that with all the spam out there, the legitimate messages don't get through, the Direct Marketers Association (DMA) has decided that they will no longer oppose federal anti-spam legislation, but that forged headers should be illegal."

Comments

still doesnt solve much

[PissedOffGuy]

from article: But, Cerasale said, a federal requirement that consumers "opt in" instead of "opt out" of bulk e-mail is unacceptable. "We think the opt-in creates a true noneconomic model," Cerasale said. "We don't believe you get a viable economic model in opt-in."

so the Direct Marketing Association is still a bunch of scumbags after all...

Re:still doesnt solve much

[Waffle Iron]

I don't understand how anybody could expect my inbox to be a part of their "economic model".

Maybe some of these people have nice cars or swimming pools. If so, I'd like to make those part of my economic model.

Re:still doesnt solve much

[km790816]

Ahhhh! The anger swells in me...

Media Companies, Communications Companies, Oil Companies...they all yell about how new technologies will ruin their business models and how they need to be protected!

Who fucking cares!?!?

Governments exist to protect the people, not to forward corporate interests. I'm so sick and tired of companies using legal bull shit to protect their business model. Why don't we have bloody subsidies for horse shoers?

*Sigh* I feel better now.

Different degrees

[YrWrstNtmr]

Please Mr. Legislator, shut off that spam (which doesn't come from us), so that we may send our spam messages in peace.

opt in by reference

[develop]

i've noticed that a great deal of the spam that has the "opt in" notice is by reference and changes on a daily basis.
1. you opt in on just one, let's say amazon
2. warner bros makes a "patnership" with amazon. warner bros starts spamming you.
3. warner bros then makes a partnership with the bestrate loan company who starts spamming you.
4. bestrate loan company makes a "paternship" with joe's porn palace and before you know it your p*nis is being enlarged!

The "Honest Spammer"

[Embedded Geek]

The obvious flaw in this scheme is the presumption that the Direct Marketing Association speaks for all spammers. The ease with which one can set up a spamming operation, the exact thing that makes spam so attractive, works against this. After all, if some sleezeball can set up an operation on a few junk servers in his basement, why would he bother joining a "professional" organization and adhere to a set of "ethics" in the first place? (And, yes, I use both terms very loosely in talking about "legitimate" direct marketers).

Additionally, since a vast amount of spam is fraudulent (or so my Nigerean Finance Ministry contacts tell me), assuming ethical standards for any of these people is absurd.

Let's face it - spamming is no more a profession than being a heroin dealer. To expect professional standards out of them is equally fruitless.

Re:The "Honest Spammer"

[Lemmy Caution]

The reason why some companies will ask for regulation is that they are in a situation in which the market, by itself, will reward unethical behavior. So, by asking for a regulatory standard, those who do not wish to engage in that unethical behavior will not have to suffer competitively for their ethics. This is why the first and loudest cries for legislation against child labor in 19th century England came from factory owners, who wanted to end the practice in their own factories, but couldn't do so as long as their competitors were engaging in it.

DMA Opt-Out Wouldn't Be Bad

[jratcliffe]

If (and it's a big if) SPAM was opt-out, but the opt-out was centralized, and as effective as the DMA's mailing and phone opt-out lists, this wouldn't be that bad. Those "physical world" lists work quite well. Difference is, of course, that, if you hate junk postal mail and telephone solicitations, the DMA _wants_ you to opt-out; why spend postage, phone charges, and staff time soliciting people who aren't going to buy? It's a waste of money. For email SPAM, though, the wasted money is so minimal as to be irrelevant...

Secure the software! Don't pass the laws!

[rice_burners_suck]

The word "forged" does not fit in the phrase "forged headers." I believe a better word is "modified."

As with all computerized information that can be modified, I strongly believe it should not be illegal to modify headers in an email message. The possibility of such modification is extremely useful for the computer professional in fields including programming, debugging and network administration.

Instead of having laws passed to dictate what can be done with a particular tool, I believe resources should instead be spent on securing and strengthening software, and on otherwise improving this field technically. To prevent the reception of email messages that appear to come from a trusted source, all email clients should automatically apply encryption. Nearly all mail sent through the postal service is enclosed in envelopes. I strongly believe the electronic realm would benefit from the electronic equivalent of an envelope.

Re:Corporations are not people!!!

[WCMI92]

"Corporations are people to! i'm serious. They also pay taxes!

Paying taxes does not make an entity into a person. While there are lawyers who have perverted the word to refer to both corporations and human beings in the same way, we don't have to accept their twisting of the English language."

Corporations also DO NOT pay taxes. The myth of corporate taxation is one of the biggest ones that most people believe.

Taxes to a corp is an EXPENSE. Corporate taxes get passed on 100% to their employees (in lower wages), and to their customers (in higher prices).

It's really just a mass charade to make people THINK that corps actually PAY taxes. And it honestly should be ended, as the cost in paperwork and government bureaucracy is a drag on the economy.

Worst of all, most people don't realize that it is THEY who are actually paying corporate taxes, simply by buying their product!

They could double the corporate tax rate tomorrow. All that would happen is employees make less, and customers pay more.

Really, our whole tax system is a sham. Numbers were just released today that showed that in 2000, the top 50% of wage earners ($26,000 a year or so or more) are paying 96% of all taxes...

Corporations are NOT people. They are a legal quasi-person, a fiction. Honestly, I think that they should be abolished. In a way, they are, as the new laws being passed in the wake of Enron/Global Crossing/WorldCom ARE putting personal liability back into corps, by making the CEO's personally liable for fraud.

And it's long overdue... If corporate executives were personally liable for what the corporation does, there'd be a lot less chicanery.

My best solution for spam regulation would be to hold the company being advertised liable for spam sent.