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

wise man once say,

[JeffSh]

Do as I say, not as I do.

Odd?

[Quasar1999]

I don't think it's odd that microsoft is fighting spam, and at the same time sending it... come on... think about it...

1. We advertise MSN/Hotmail as anti-spam...
2. We spam the living snot out of every other ISP on the planet
3. We put neat little check boxes on our web based email pages that say "ULTIMATE ANTI_SPAM FILTER" and the like
4. Everyone switches to MSN/Hotmail
5. Profit.

So you see Microsoft has it all planned out...

QED... :P

Re:odd?

[handsomepete]

"Microsoft Brand Penis enlargers anyone?"

Ah, this time the bloat would be a good thing.

Re:odd?

[Anonymous Coward]

Microsoft Brand Penis enlargers

Perhaps not the best brand name for that type of product.

Re:Why? (EXAMPLE!)

[$$$$$exyGal]

Taken from snopes.com ;-):

Hello everybody, My name is Bill Gates. I have just written up an e-mail tracing program that traces everyone to whom this message is forwarded to. I am experimenting with this and I need your help. Forward this to everyone you know and if it reaches 1000 people everyone on the list will receive $1000 at my expense. Enjoy.

Your friend,
Bill Gates

sex

Re:Why?

[Anonvmous Coward]

"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.

I bet they don't even know...

[TedTschopp]

My guess is that they don't even know that they are fighting aginst themselves. That would be typicial of a large organization.

Ted

The biggest problem...

[autopr0n]

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.

Reasonable

[bluelan]

The original wording of the bill required all companies to put a ADV: tag on unsolicited e-mail. Microsoft is lobbying to exempt ISPs and companies with which the person has done business. It'd be pretty cool to discuss the reasonableness of the changes, instead of jumping up and down going "ook, Microsoft sucks".

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.

Re:How dare they!

[digidave]

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."

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.

I can see some of the reasoning, but a bad idea

[Sabalon]

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 :)

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: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.