Slashdot Mirror
Microsoft Fights to Weaken Washington Anti-Spam Law
An anonymous reader writes "According to the Seattle Times, Microsoft (probably their MSN arm) is pushing for a change in at least Washington's anti-spam law. Some analysts claim that the changes contain holes that will allow Microsoft to be exempt from the law." Odd that Microsoft is simultaneously trying to stop spam sent to Hotmail users, and to make sure that it can send unsolicited commercial email without penalties.
Do as I say, not as I do.
Does Microsoft send out a lot of spam? I haven't gotten much MS spam, and you'd think that having an insurmountable monopoly would preclude the necessity for spamming. I mean, where can they go from the top? That's right, down. And that's where angering their customers with spam could take them.
Lack of eloquence does not denote lack of intelligence, though they often coincide.
Just like Microsoft to do this. On one hand, they want to fight spam. On the other hand, if they aren't successful fighting it (or at least somewhat effective), then they don't want to be responsible for the consequences.
Just like anyone who charges $$$ for software, but ducks responsibility when it has flaws, risks, and other defects. This activity only helps their cause by letting them cover their asses if they can't do it.
But it would also carve out a broad exemption in the law for mail sent by companies the recipient has done business with, and completely exempt Internet service providers -- including Microsoft. Yeah, that's not a hole. How hard would it be for a spammer to start a side business of being an isp to get around this? And since Microsoft only "done business" with practically everyone who's ever bought or used a computer (I'm sure someone out there is weaning their kids on *nix, but the rest of us...), that means free spam all day every day from our "partner".
MS sells hotmail info to marketers. That means MS profits by selling my email address to spammers. If spammers are constrained, so is a prime MS revenue channel.
How is that kind of obvious scheme odd, except in that it is allowed to exist in the first place...
Remember, investing in MS is risking having your own money used against you in the marketplace.
If Microsoft is allowed to rail-road this legislation through, what does that mean for the the integrity of consumer rights? A company that was sued by the government should not have a hold over it.
Just because someone has done business with a company doesn't mean that they want gobs of mail that they didn't ask for. Transactions don't entitle a company to move into a person's life.
Brought to you by the Artificial Idea Factory.
Commercial speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Thus, we need not think spam laws are bad, ever.
Now, say it to the reps in Washington State before they let Microsoft out of the cage to devour all of us.
Anyone got the emails for these people?
In space, no one can hear you moo.
My guess is that they don't even know that they are fighting aginst themselves. That would be typicial of a large organization.
Ted
Fantasy remains a human right; we make in our measure and in our derivative mode... -- JRR Tolkien
is the reduction from $500 to $10. For $500, it's actually worth it to try to track the spammers down and sue his ass. But no one is going to go through that much trouble for just $10, unless their time is completely worthless.
Not to mention the whole "previous business relationship" is total BS. Companies swap email address lists and call each other 'partners'. It's a bunch of crap. I think they ought to rase the fee to $5000. Make it worth someone's time to sue.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
When criminal pays police to look the other way while they commit a crime. Only here, the criminal is Microsoft and their pricey lawyers who are oogling the boys in Washington. This IS news, something new because I don't want this country to be like half the others that allow corrupt governors, policemen, ETC.
I suggest you read Slashdot
from Bill Gates as the Borg, to Bill Gates as Judge Dredd...
"I don't break the law... I am the law!!"
Erm... on second thought, scratch that... might be too close to the truth to be funny.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Getting a spam law written that will past first ammendment scruitiny is not that easy. The biggest problem is the requirement that any measure be as narrow as possible. The junk fax law has been found uconstitutional in one court on that basis, the judge in question is an oppinionated ass but it is quite likely that the courts will ultimately decide that banning all adverts was unnecessarily broad.
Anti spam legislation is not entirely useless but is not going to be a panacea. I believe it will significantly slow the growth of spam and increase spam sender costs. It will allow them less time to respond to the technical measures in development. But equally we must be very careful that legitiate bulk senders don't get hammered with bogus claims.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Exactly. I just can't help pointing out that in a discussion a couple weeks back, the absolutists among us felt that the whole spam problem could be solved by simply shoving a bill through Congress.
When folks like me said that it wasn't going to be quite that simple, we were met with scorn. I actually said that any national antispam measure would, by the time it became law, be riddled with exceptions, made for the benefit of powerful corporations like MS.
Am I a prophet or what?
Here's my take:
The "done business" change is iffy. The justification is probably that it allows a company who sold a defective product to contact their customers with information on a security patch, or whatever. I can see how Microsoft would feel that such communications would be absolutely necessary for their business.
However, it also allows every FlyByNight company I ever ordered RAM from to send me spam without repercussions.
I don't like the broad opening, but I think some exemption should be allowed for messages that concern failings in a product that I've already purchased.
The ISP change is less iffy. I don't get much spam directly from ISPs. All it needs is a clause that specifies that the ISP can only send messages that directly concern the details of their customer's current account. So, sending a warning about a violation of the terms of use should be fine. Advertisements about additional services such as domain name registration should contain the ADV: tag.
So, that's my opinion. The changes Microsoft is lobbying for are bad, but they could be motivated by reasonable goals. I hope Washington State lawmakers can find a way to address the goals without providing such gaping holes in the spam laws.
I used to be a narrator for bad mimes. (wright)
Actually a Microsoft monopoly on spam would not be a bad thing. For starters there's something to be said for keeping the number (if not the size) of your enemies limited. Let Microsoft have their loopholes and let them go after the spam market with the intensity they've handled other "competitors" in previous areas.
If you were a spammer and you knew you were going to be in the proverbial sights of either the government or Microsoft which one do you think you would stand a better chance with? Microsoft would eat you alive and could do so in ways the government couldn't even approach (though it apparently isn't above looking the other way when they do it)
If they controlled as high a percentage of spam market as they do PC operating systems then it would be simple enough once they got their monopoly in place to crush 90+% of the spam by taking out one player. Actually getting them once they have it would be tough I admit but at least you would know exactly where to look.
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
Laws are written by industry groups as often as not, then they pay a congressman to introduce it. Bill from techfocus.org explained it all to me a while ago (I'm Canadian... not too much knowledge of US politics). The whole thing made me kind of sick. So much for "For the people, by the people." More like "For the corporation, by the corporation."
The global economy is a great thing until you feel it locally.
At least they aren't sending out subscription CD's (a la AOL) by the millions.
If you figure the average response to a bulk mailing is less than one percent, that's a whole lot of CD's that AOL is filling our landfills with.
I think there should be a law about the type of junk mail (physical) that can be sent. I 'spose I could just write "return to sender" on it and drop it in a mailbox.
I'd rather be a conservative nutjob than a liberal with no nuts and no job.
THIS IS A ONE-TIME MAILING. YOU DO NOT NEED TO DO ANYTHING TO BE REMOVED FROM THE LIST AS YOU WILL NOT RECEIVE ANY FUTURE MAILINGS
This e-mail is sent in strict compliance with anti-abuse regulations.
You are receiving this message for one of the following reasons:
1) we are on the same opt-in list
2) you have responded to one of my ads
3) you have sent an e-mail to one of my addresses
4) I have read your classified ad.
5) I purchased a list of email addresses that had your address in it
Thus you have agreed to receive this message. Under Bill 1618, TITLE III, passed by the 105th US Congress, this letter cannot be considered SPAM as long as the sender includes contact information and a method of removal. To be removed from future mailings just reply with REMOVE in the subject line.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Who modded this interesting? This is a shill to sell the information that is so tantalizingly described in the first three pages of the linked website. Then they tell you you've got to pay (and the pay page is in German!). Other than that, there's no content besides that satisfying MS dyspepsia that is so well received here. Go ahead and read the parent post again. See? Nothing there!
This (parent) post is SPAM and nothing more! I hope I get to meta-mod this! Moderators... please read the articles, read the posts, and READ THE LINKS! (well, unless the link is to that horrid goatsx site!)
Everything I've ever learned the hard way was based on a statistically invalid sample.
I wonder how their ISP exemption is worded. If I, as Joe Spammer, buy at T1 from a provider (say UUNet), and spam off it 24/7, but I also have one hosting customer on the line, then I am an ISP. Am I at this point exempt by their law?
Little mis-wordings leave big loopholes. Most of the spammers that I've talked to buy fairly big lines (T3's, 100Mb/s dedicated, etc, etc), and usually have at least one box hosted with them for whatever reason. Not by design, usually as favors to friends, but they're still providing an Internet Service (ISP = Internet Service Provider).
The company I work for, we buy huge amounts of bandwidth, and for the most part host ourselves.. Does that qualify us to send spam? We don't, and know our customers don't like it, and our provider wouldn't allow it (I've talked to our providers abuse guy several times on other issues, but I already know he's hard against), so we never will, but by that new law we should use our new-found ability.
I wonder if the market for toner cartridges and hair growth formula are really that good.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Okay...Microsoft does a lot of business with a lot of people in a lot of ways and it would be very easy for them to get sued over something they may have accidentally signed up for, etc...
:)
For this I could see the "prior relationship" reasoning - much like the current telemarketting stuff.
However, the ISP part doesn't make much sense, unless they wanna be able to send tons of junk mail to their MSN subscribers about other MS junk.
Either way - a) how hard would it be for a spammer to forge a database showing how recipient a had clicked on a web site and signed up b) act as an ISP (yeah...we have 2 subscribers, but we're an ISP) and spam away.
Then again, I'm one of those old folk who remember the Internet before business took hold
There is no such thing. It's that simple.
You bring up the very good point that our system is flawed in that businesses, rather than people control the government.
It is also important to remember that the opposite extremes (socialism and communism) suck in that the community exploits the individual. Corporations, despite their wanton disregard for human rights are still bound by the laws of profit. We need to start taking advantage of this.
For example, start a petition for network admins that would allow Office attachements if, and only if, the spec was publicly released. If enough of us, the ones that control mail servers, do this it could force M$ into releasing the spec to save Office's viability.
Winshit boycotts would not work. We are not the sort of people who buy winshit, we are either boycotting it for ethical reasons of using a warez copy.
The Warez industry has been decimated by the OSS movement. Who would want to hurt a good ol' honest business like that!?
You can't judge a book by the way it wears its hair.
OK what do you call CNET, it is one of the largest bulk senders, all its newsletters are 100% opt in
What do you call Code Amber which distributes Amber alert warnings to opted in subscribers?
What do you call Amex, Ebay, and the hundreds of companies that use the web to do legitimate business with their customers?
I want my bills sent by email rather than snail mail. I want to be able to send and receive richly formatted HTML emails rather than teletype pieces of crud in monospace fonts.
I think that the blanket statements such as 'no bulk senders are legitimate' illustrate the real problem here, too many people have simplistic solutions that will eliminate spam for their proposers and people just like them but require everyone to adopt their limited uses
I think that type of attitude is giving in to the scum who send the spam.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
It seems to be a common belief that it is okay to send anything you want to anyone you have a prior business relationship with. Fuck that. If I buy stuff off someone, it does not mean that I want them to pester the hell out of me so I can buy more stuff.
You apparently cannot read, I said that there were legitimate classes of bulk email sender. I did not say there were legitimate classes of bulk unsolicited email senders.
The term bulk email sender is a term of art in the world of anti-spam measures. It is used by Microsoft, AOL, CNET and others to refer to themselves.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
Well, this one's simple.
1. My current telephone provider calls me, trying to sell something.
2. I tell them that if they ever call me again without a GOOD reason, I switch to a DIFFERENT phone provider.
3. They haven't called me since.
-Amalcon
If the only spam on the internet came from a Microsoft IP address, it would make a spam block list really easy to maintain. The DMA, MS, or any other corp. can push all the spam legislation they want, but it will not change the fact that people hate spam.
You're absolutely right about them trying to push laws with exceptions just for them. My theory is that they think if they can get rid of all the pr0n, herbal v1a6ra, pen1s enlarger, mortgage spam, it will give them enough control to try and legitimize email marketing. I'm not so optimistic. There would have to be a lengthy moratorium on all email marketing before it could ever be considered socially acceptable. Even then, many would still hate it, myself included.
And if that spam legislation includes anything forbidding spam block lists or filters, that's the day I stop using email.
Beer wants to be free
Dunno where this quote came from, but whoever made it is a bit out of touch. The "warez industry" is flourishing - it's never been easier to acquire pirated software.
Please forgive my ignorance if I am so.
/.), but wouldn't that be the best way to solve this problem without getting government involved.
But I believe the answer to fighting spam is in petitioning ISPs, mail server developers, standards organizations, network admins, etc. to come up with and implement identity verification and forged mail header detection into their products so that spammers cannot hide behind fake information.
It appauls me that I can so easily fake information in mail headers that SHOULD NOT be fakeable.
Yes it would suck and be a pain in the ass to transition (as many have mentioned here on
What do we need to do to get this started, and if it already is, where can I go to sign up?
One of MSN 8's chief selling points is precisely the fact that it blocks SPAM (or allows the user to "beef-up" their junkmail blocking profile). Take away the SPAM, and you take away the selling point. People might as well go for AOL...
I am alone, yet I also surf the universal backwash of undifferentiated Being, which is LOVE.