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 think it has more do with MS wanting to send e-mails to Windows users about security updates, without people finding creative ways of suing them over it.
I doubt that my suggestion will go very far here because everybody knows MS's real intent is to be the primary service provider to people who want to work from home or desire longer penises.
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.
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)
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.
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