Yet Another Anti-Spam Bill In U.S. Senate

ackthpt writes "Another bill has been introduced in the U.S. Senate, according to CNN/Technology, by Sens. Conrad Burns (R-Montana) and Ron Wyden (D-Oregon) Yahoo supports it, but DMA and AOL want to polish it a bit more. Version 0.9 beta would require States Attorney Generals to sue spammers on consumers behalf. (So long as I get some moola from these jerks, I'd be happy with that) My wishes are: craft a strong enough bill to stand 1st Amendment challenges and punish violators in the pocketbook enough and a few prosecutions will bring most of the domestic junk to a screeching halt. I tend to daydream about winning the lottery, too. Contact your Senators and Representative with your wishes, maybe this time something will get a move on."

Comments

sure anti-spam but...

[eenglish_ca]

Sure I am tired of my spam but its not really an inconvenience, a couple clicks and it is gone. Isn't all this legislation going to start infringing on rights in the future if not now?

This is all fine and dandy but...

[cliffy2000]

Well, we (the collective /. crowd, myself included) seem to be in favor of an anti-spam bill. However, we're polarized against the RIAA, another group dedicated to stopping an quasi-illegal act (music theft, if you can call it that). Now, I'm not saying that the RIAA is justified in their methods or anything, but if they are violating first amendment rights, certainly an anti-spam bill would violate said rights. Can someone explain this to me? Because there are certainly moral ambiguities for both issues.

Re:This is all fine and dandy but...

[danoatvulaw]

An anti-spam bill would not necessarially infringe on first amendment rights, provided the government could show enough of a substantial interest in regulating the speech. That I don't think will be much of a problem. Tailoring it sufficiently so as to only encompass spam.. thats another matter. There the goverment might just well run into an overbreadth problem, but if they can show that their way is the only way to accomplish their goal, then it will be upheld. Commercial speech is protected under the First Amendment just like personal speech is, except to a lesser degree.

The RIAA action, at least to me, doesn't implicate first amendment protection in the slightest. The constitution only applies to state actors, and the RIAA isn't one of them. The RIAA is attempting to enforce their rights through the copyright clause, to which the first amendment really isn't going to provide a defense to piracy. Fair use yes, First Amendment No. Trust me, I hate the RIAA just like the rest of us, and I don't think that downloading mp3's is that big a loss to them, but it is violating the law, and is punishable.

danoatvulaw
Villanova Law School class of 04.

Re:This is all fine and dandy but...

[villain170]

Agreed. I don't see a viable way for the government to effectively regulate spam because they are handcuffed by having to use the "least restrictive means." The idea of placing the sender's email and opt-out instructions is not too restrictive; however, it isn't really effective because you are still getting the spam in your inbox. If the government wiped out all spam, they would fail the "least restrictive means" test. Where's the middle ground?

loopholes for politicians/non-profits/surveys

[SuperBanana]

craft a strong enough bill to stand 1st Amendment challenges and punish violators in the pocketbook enough and a few prosecutions will bring most of the domestic junk to a screeching halt. I tend to daydream about winning the lottery, too. Contact your Senators and Representative with your wishes, maybe this time something will get a move on."

While you're at it, make sure they don't sneak in BS exempting various groups.

Like the telemarketing bills, the usual exempted-from-spam-and-telemarketing-legislation parties include:

• Politicians(big surprise. Make it CRYSTAL clear to them that if they exempt themselves, your vote walks)
• Non-profit organizations(uh, if it's not valid for for-profits, why is it valid for non-profits? Spam is spam. Plus, we've seen non-profit org status is easily abused)
• Survey companies. Which part of "unsolicited" do these guys not understand? I'm personally sick and tired of getting survey phone calls- they're almost more plentiful than telemarketing calls...and I suppose it's only a matter of time until they figure out they can use email more cheaply.

Personally, I'd love a ban on election TV advertising; politicians should be required to submit detailed biographies, full position statement(s), and if they're incumbants- their voting and attendance records, as well as campaign contributions. All the information should be distributed by the state(just like tax forms, available in libraries, post offices, town halls, etc). Let voters decide from that and public debates- not 30 second sound bytes.

Re:What is this going to do?

[Anime_Fan]

Well... I for one live in Sweden, and I can tell you this:

Any spam I get is trying to:
1) Give me good banking offers (provided I live in the US)
2) Make me participate in pyramid games/etc. trying to make me believe there is no loser in such a game (and with all the people who're supposed to recieve $xx living in the US)
3) Make me download porn dialers/etc. (and with that, virii I suppose)
3) Send me virii straight out
4) Advertise

Well... Most of the spam that enters my inbox have got american mail headers (except for the ones that clearly come from the US - those uses foreign spammers, read: pyramid games).

I am on the other hand quite lucky, since I don't have to post my own e-mail to the public (and the fact that I have an own ISP handling my mail). It's worse off for my dad, who's receiving 100's of spam mails a day (with an even higher ammount from the US). The really funny part is that we aren't the main target for the spammers as we don't live in the US... We're just victims getting our bandwidth and precious time eaten alive...

The short answer to "How much spam is really sent from within the US of A?" is: A lot...

Don't like it

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't like the idea of my state's AG having to sue on my behalf. I don't like the states with anti-spam laws that say I must have my AG's permission to sue a spammer. That's BS. I'm the victim. I don't need the AG's permission to sue for damages under the law. I don't want to have to rely on a political person like an AG to take action either. I'm the victim and I should be able to seek restitution.

State attorney generals

[OYAHHH]

Basically,

Having SAGs being the only ones who can sue means that nothing will happen. Your elected representatives are crafting a feel good bill.

This bill is a bad idea...

[Dimensio]

...because it wouldn't outlaw spamming, rather it would outlaw one particular tactic used in spamming.
Even though the bill doesn't say that it's perfectly acceptable to send junk e-mail with valid return addresses, spammers will still appeal to the wording as 'proof' that their postage-due garbage is 'free speech' and as such their ISPs shouldn't terminate them.

Spam should be outlawed, period. We don't need laws that define 'legal' spam, all spam should be illegal because all spam is postage-due advertising. Anything else will give spammers something to toss into their e-mails as a 'disclaimer' to 'prove' that their mailings aren't spam (notice many spams that STILL reference a bill that died in committee as though it had been passed into law, not only citing a bill that never made it into law but also completely misstating what the bill would have done).

All spammers are thieves and liars. Don't give them any ammunition.

Re:This bill is a bad idea...

[cpt kangarooski]

Spam _is_ free speech.

As for whether you don't like the fact that it might, and I emphasize might, cost you money, then I suggest that you only allow in emails that you want. After all, you're the idiot that has an email address open to the world, open to strangers. Are you so stupid that you didn't expect that people you didn't know might send you mail?

No, you don't like spammers because of their MESSAGE -- not because it is merely unsolicited. If you only wanted solicited mail, you'd whitelist.

Discrimination based on one's message is just the kind of thing that the 1st A. is intended to combat government regulation of. You can throw out the spam, or refuse to accept it (just as you can refuse to accept postage due mail), but you're too damn lazy to do so.

From the article...

[Dimensio]

Internet portal Yahoo! said it supported the bill, while the DMA and Internet provider America Online said they would work with the Senate to craft an effective bill.

First, the DMA cannot be trusted. They've long supported the 'right' of advertisers to harass and annoy people and to send cost-shifted unsolicited advertising. They should not be allowed to have a say in any anti-spam legislation. Preferrably, they should all be put to death.

Second, Yahoo! is a known spam-friendly place. Anyone at stores.yahoo.com is free to spam out advertisements for their Yahoo! stores and Yahoo! will do nothing. Heck, Yahoo! hosted known criminal Jason Vale for some time even though it's well documented that he sells a lethal poison as a "cancer treatment". Yahoo! is run by criminals and they're openly tolerant of criminal activity on their network. They shouldn't have a say in this either.

Good timing (-1, lame)

[handsomepete]

I just got this little gem in my never-before-given-out-or-listed work email a few minutes ago.

And for the record, it really says <name>, I'm not editing out my name. How can I not be interest in "Internet Business"?

This is a one time mailing about "Internet Business", If you are not interest in Internet Business delete this messege now. If you are interest read on.

Hi <name> check this out before mid-night

Hi <name>

Check this out while its still Free.

It BLEW me away!

Its an amazing document you can get in a few minutes that reveals...

*How To Make $60,000 A Year With Your Computer in only 30 minutes a week with an email list

*How you can make an extra $2880 a month with only 50 people on an email list

*Why you absolutely need an opt-in email list to make money online

*How to create your own 1000 to 3,000 opt-in email list within 48 hours. Plus, do this ONE simple thing and add hundreds of new subscribers to your current list

*How hundreds of people are quietly making over $120,000 a year from an opt-in email list of only 1,000 subscribers. See exactly how they do it!

*How to get High-demand products for free that you can sell to members of your email list. Includes Killer pre-written ads, sales letter and web site... all for free!

*How you can get up to 20% in sales from your opt-in email list even if your prices are three times higher than the competition

etc. etc. etc.

Spam is theft, Senate bill no good

[bratgrrl]

Spam is theft of services; every Internet user subsidizes spammers. We pay for our bandwidth, connectivity, storage, and processing power. Spammers pay minimal fees for sending their crap to millions of unwilling recipients. They do not pay the true cost of distributing their crap, as do senders of paper junk mail.

Spammers do not pay for the millions of dollars spent by ISPs and network admins who have to deal with the floods of spew.

Spam is a denial of service attack; anyone who runs their own mail servers sees relentless probes and re-sends. It's also DOS when you have to wait for a bunch of shit to download before you can get to your legitimate mail.

Spammers are vandals; they ruin every goddam thing they touch.

There are no Constitutional issues here; none of us are required to listen to anyone's speech, none of us are required to fund the distribution of their speech.

This Senate bill is crap, it's no good, it merely serves to legitimize spam. It's not good enough to be able to filter it more easily, it must be stopped at the source. Bigger and better spam filters is like bigger and better water filters; wouldn't it be better to get clean water from the source?

Please read this excellent essay, "Thank The Spammers" http://www.spamreaper.com/thankspammers.html

Not at All

[Jameth]

I don't want Honest Headers. I never want to be required to tell the world that I sent something. Furthermore, I want to be able to send something without a return address. Similarly, I can send a snail-mail message without any notice of where it originated from (well, I suppose they know the original postal-district, but that's all).

Why?

Because I think I have a right to speak anonymously. I don't like spammers, but I'd rather keep the right to speak anonymously.

What's really scary about this is

[gmby]

When someone uses your network to spam and the lazy cops/fbi/whomever don't want to trace it any further; or can't because you don't have logs. Guess who has to prove innocence. You go by-by for someones spam; or broke paying the fines.

Guilty until you've proven innocence. Ask any ex-con. If your innocent then why would anyone need an "Alibi".

Oh well; just another thing to get thrown in jail over.