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.

Comments

Odd?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

No, it's not. Laws that apply to everyone but you are very handy.

Re:Odd?

[WindBourne]

In fact, MS is one of the bigger sellers of your address. And many of them are not just on their sites. They want to look like the good guys by appearing to crack down, but at the same time, they need to make a buck.
Oh, BTW, MS is not the only one. Yahoo is another huge seller of addresses. In fact, they may be bigger, but I am not sure. I wish congress would have done more to address the texas-style accounting and had all corps show more of where their income comes from.

Re:Odd?

[Black Copter Control]

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.

I had to deal with a company that gave up trying to block spammers from hacking into their (windows) servers for spam-routers. All I could do was watch as, over a period of months, just about everybody seemed to block emails from their IP address. Hotmail was one of the few exceptions -- certainly it was the only name I recognized.

I never could figure out why HotMail never banned them.

Re:odd?

[prizog]

It's true. Mailing lists don't exist. Nobody signs up for the Everything2 Daily News. And E-Savers are a myth.

I am not supporting spam -- as a mailing list administrator, and recipient of mail for a well-known address, I hate spam. But I do not like to hear any proposals which assume that only bad people send lots of mail. It simply isn't true.

odd?

[Cyberllama]

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.

That's not odd at all. That's just how microsoft works. They want to protect their monopoly, and perhaps extend it to new products (Microsoft Brand Penis enlargers anyone?).

Microsoft has never played by the rules before, I don't know why anyone would think they'd start doing it now. . .

Where is the logic?

[MBCook]

Can someone explain the logic in allowing spam? Spammers cost MS money, so why would they want them? Spammers:

• Use up hotmails/MSNs bandwidth and CPU power
• Sign up for accounts and don't ever look at the ads (because it's done by scripts, I'd assume)
• Annoy the hell out of everyone signed up for MSN and any other service

Does MS activly court spammers? Does MS actually SELL it's OWN SUBSCRIBER LISTS to spammers? This doesn't make any sense to me, unless MS will soon start spamming everyone on the planet to buy XP, Office 2k3, and all 12 million unsold copies of MS Bob. On the plus side, that would make MS more hated by the general public ;)

Odd? Ha!

[grub]

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.

Odd? Hardly. Microsoft feels it is above the standard of most Good Corporate Citizens because they have a monopoly. Remember when MS' updater said no info would be sent back to MS? Well just have a look at what XP is sending back to MS for an example of their power-crazed mindset.

Spam is ineffective.

[gpinzone]

Why the heck are so many groups trying so hard to preserve a form of advertising that no one pays attention to?

I swear, if the Internet didn't boom so quickly, banner ads might still have been looked upon as a viable outlet for advertising. I mean really, what makes banner ads so much worse than radio ads? I ignore radio and TV ads just as easily by changing the channel. The only advertising worth a damn was the small posters on the railroad. I'll be damnned if each and every one of those ads weren't burned into my memory from staring at them during my hour commute each way, 5 days a week.

Re:Why?

[Quasar1999]

Hey, MS does send out a lot of DirectX crap to beta testers, past and present... so Although I tested DirectX 7, that doesn't mean I care about DirectX 9...

Even though technically, I did sign up on their list way back when, this might end up being catagorized as SPAM, and as such, Microsoft may end up with one hell of a penalty... I'm of the opinion, that they are simply trying to cover their asses, since it's rather easy to claim what they sent is spam from one of the "I hate Microsoft" zealots, and real difficult for Microsoft to provide hard evidence that says, "Here, you opted in to be on your mailing list back in 1998"... See the potential problem to be screwed over by ANTI-MICROSOFT activists? It's not a plot to give Microsoft control over bulk unsolicited email distribution, it's just some lawyers and accountants going... HOLY CRAP! We need damage control, and we need it NOW! :P

Of course, that's just my opinion, and I've been wrong before... ;)

The sponsor of this bill deserves the same treatme

[Anonymous Coward]

The sponsor of this bill deserves the same treatment unleashed on the spammer who is receiving his own snail mail spam because slashdot readers did what was necessary to send a message. Just my opinion of course.

So, what was it again? Posting of the spammer's home address, telephone number and other info so the bots pick it up? In my opinion, I think it should have been taken farther. Add the office assistants. Add the other family members. They need to receive all the junk as well. Then maybe they won't prostitute themselves to the 900 lb gorilla.

This shouldn't be a one time thing. Other sponsors and votes will be needed to pass this bill. Whatever bill it is, it won't be the same as what was proposed. They will "make changes" to make it "acceptable". But anyone supporting or voting for this bill deserves being identified by the spambots. Slashdot readers need to have long memories on this particular bill. It needs to be demonstrated to any future legislator who is thinking of prostituting themselves to the spammers or to the Direct Marketing Association on the Do Not Call FCC federal list that they will get all the junk if they force us to get all the junk.

Any country who harbors terrorists is a terrorist. Wasn't that the saying?

Again, of course, just an opinion. We are still allowed to have opinions, aren't we?

Re:I'd rather have

[packeteer]

The problem for MS is that they are more than "pesky". On the one hand they waste huge amounts of bandwidth on spam with hotmail. They recieve a huge number of spam becuase of their huge number of users. On the other hand they make money selling addresses and spamming on their own.

To them it's very simple. If they get their way they can make more money while cutting costs. Its what any business should do in America right? Personally i take this as evidence that our system is flawed. I am not going to bitch and complain about our system and exploitation but i do believe we should fight companies that try this, keep them in check.

Not the first, but far worse...

[Storm]

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.

I've encountered the same situation with Earthlink. Because I use a DDNS service (whyi.org), because they cannot do a reverse lookup (the reverse zone belongs to my ISP), they bounce my messages as spam. At the same time, I was getting voluminous amounts of spam from their users.

However, trying to steer the lawmaking apparatus, no doubt with bribe^H^H^H^H charitable donations to our elected officials is very very low...

Nothing odd at all...

[TygerFish]

Looked at one way, Microsoft is only trying to limit their legal liability for something that they are too lazy, too uninterested, or too incompetent to stop on their own.

It's a matter of control without responsibility. The measures that the article mentions are as draconian as spam is loathsome. The measure provides a penalty of a thousand dollars per message sent and it is bound to bankrupt anyone caught doing it; essentially providing the equivalent of a class-suit in a can.

This is a very effective measure against spam as written, but even a penalty as severe as the one mentioned would be only an inconvenience to Microsoft which would be made to pay for their taste for expansion with real risks under a law that provided effective penalties against spam.

Once more, the topic is control without responsibility and there is nothing surprising about Microsoft, a company that writes Petri dishes into its software and doesn't take them out after years of exploits, wanting special exemptions for the next time they are fooled, hacked, or get a wild-hair that makes them do what back-alley creeps resort to.

competetion

[Cheeze]

sounds like microsoft is forseeing a large market in selling advertising to their customers.

here's the senario:

spammer wants to send mail to all hotmail or msn (or both) users. spammer gives microsoft money, and then is able to send them "legal" spam. the spam doesn't stop, microsoft just gets richer in the process, and probably pays off a few politicians.

vote the bastards out.

Re:Time to change the icon

[jellyware]

M$ employees rank their managerial distance from BillG in Borg terms, e.g., "I'm 6ofBill."

hmm hotmail spam...

[mAineAc]

When I had a hotmail account, yes I was young and foolish, 90% of the spam originated from msn, microsoft and hotmail. It would seem to me if they stopped spamming everyone that would take care of their spamming problem on the hotmail servers.