Slashdot Mirror
Cornucopia Of Spam Bills
frankie writes "Anti-spam legislation is getting serious attention from the U.S. Congress and the media. Several bills are on the front burner, including REDUCE, CAN SPAM, and a RICO amendment. However, the strongest contender is a new bill sponsored by Billy Tauzin (R-La.). It would allow spam from any company you've done business with in the past 3 years, override stronger state laws, and block private lawsuits. You can complain now or complain more later."
Any company I've done business with in the past three years? Does that mean that old gas station I stopped at in the middle of Kansas once is going to send me e-flyers? What is the world coming to?
When you don't have a leg to stand on, don't even get up.
Tje issue of spam is a classic interstate commerce issue that needs to be addressed within one unified framework. Jeffersonian experimentation, while indicative of broad frustration with spam, is unlikely to do anything to allow email to be used reasonably (ducking) as a marketing tool. A patchwork response to this is just going to be unworkable.
The problem with federalization is that it is federalization, and the solution must be a very good one. Unfortunately, spam isn't something like, say, drug dealing or murder for hire. It hasn't been around for a long time (relatively speaking) and the best ways to deal with it are not entirely clear. In addition, commercial interests will bear heavily on legislation.
In a nutshell, I fear that the end result is that a first attempt at a federal solution will get it wrong. There is only one way to try to prevent this. Get involved now.
This is one issue that dramatically affects our networks and working lives. If there was ever a time to call your local congressthing and offer your expert advice (with a C.V. perhaps), it is be now.
GF.
Lots of petrified grits
Actually I'm not sure this is such a completely bad thing. Junk mail from legitimate companies that I have given my e-mail address to voluntarily is such a small problem - compared to the other crap flooding my mailbox - that I usually don't even count it as spam, even if it is unsolicited.
I know, some people think anything they don't want is spam and will report it as such via SpamCop or other tools. That's dumb. If it's stupid chain letters from your uncle, it's not spam. If it comes from a legitimate company, they'll offer an opt-out link that will actually works, because they don't want to piss off potential customers and they know how much people hate spam.
With that in mind, what are the other serious problems with this bill?
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
As for the "prior relationship" exception, presumably legitimate marketers, like e-tailers mailing their customers, could simply have a click-through agreement making the spam solicited.
Spammers will still get added to black lists, they'll still threaten to sue those who use black lists, and they'll still lose. Life will go on.
Spam has to be solved by technology.
EULAs. they are both very difficult to enforce/fight, yet they exist nevertheless. in both cases they exist simply because of monetary benefit. companies requiring signing an EULA wants to protect its product, while spammers live on 1 out of a million idiots who actually BUY their stuff! even if a bill is passed, i honestly don't think that will stop many spammers, if any, unless there is a mass effort to dismantle them one by one.
BSD is for people who love UNIX. Linux is for those who hate Microsoft.
Where do I complain more? The link is missing ;^)
"It would allow spam from any company you've done business with in the past 3 years" Who the hell would do business with "generic viagra" dealers anyway. Even if someone was stupid enough to follow this path, such a low-life "company" would not have a life span of three years.
I tend to agree. Most 'legit' companies are quite good about e-mail. If they're not, they build up a lot of bad will. It's the public image moreso than laws that stop them spamming. (And I recently watched a show where they tested the theory by creating a number of e-mail addresses and disseminating the e-mail addresses in a variety of ways. Those that only gave their addresses to companies had far, far less spam than those who simply had their e-mail address viewable on the web by way of it being on a website or through use of Usenet)
These laws aren't really going to stop the current barrage of e-mail spam, as those doing the majority of it already are breaking the law. What it will do is give more room for companies to engage in 'spam' in a legal way... and this can only be bad.
Instead, the draft would require commercial e-mail to allow users to "opt out" of future mailings and to provide accurate electronic and physical addresses of the senders. It also would prohibit the "harvesting" of e-mail addresses that spammers using special software obtain from Web pages.
Something that I would like to know is how exactly a law that prohibits use of software that harvests e-mail addresses from web pages can be enforced. What would happen? My understanding is that HTTP log files can be checked to determine if "bots" have collected information on the web page. But how can they tell what those bots did? This is my understanding, I could be wrong, and correct me if I am. And even if they can, then spammers will just look for other ways of getting e-mail addresses. This actually could set the wrong kind of precedent. As they say at the EFF, "coding is not a crime." And is such a law even necessary? According to an article I read a while ago on the CBC web site, obscuring one's e-mail address so that it does not seem to have to format of an e-mail address works quite well. And if you want to annoy spammers, I've seen CGI scripts that generate several fake e-mail addresses. You can implement one of those on your web site if you would like to annoy spammers right back.
Also from the article:
State attorneys general think the proposed bill is riddled with loopholes, in addition to preventing states from enacting and enforcing tougher laws.
Loopholes. Great. And I wonder if any of the legitimate businesses that you do business with (within three years, and why three?) would be able to do what they want with your e-mail address once they have it. Such as selling them to spammers. So in a nutshell, I'd have to say that I still have yet to see any anti-spam legislation that I like
Say that you bought a $15,000 Canon ImageRunner copier/printer/fax/network (auto email and faxing from the desktop/panel) machine next month. During a troubleshooting call, your email address is recorded. A year from now, an update on firmware is available which fixes a severe security flaw in the version of Apache it runs for remote management through a web browser, or perhaps even the mail server it uses for automatic emailing of copied documents. Recently introduced bills would usually block a mass email from Canon alerting it's customers, because the email "appears" to be SPAM. But, since the bill in question was passed, Canon can get this important update to you.
Such a scenario could also apply to software. This is the only good thing that I see could ever come from this.
Of course, this bill would also allow Canon to SPAM you with unrelated marketing material concerning their newest ImageRunner. All in all, I don't like this proposed bill.
I've heard this mentioned once or twice, but haven't heard of any real law about it. How about just holding the beneficiaries of the spam accountable? That is, someone somewhere wants your money for some reason. If you can't identify who is sending the spam, etc., you sure as heck can identify who's collecting the money. If you were able to fine those that hire the spammers, then demand for generating spam would dry up right quick. Am I missing something?
"Stop whining!" - Arnold, as Mr. Kimble
I really don't agree with this. People shouldn't be allowed to spam me with unsolicited advertising for their church or political party any more than for a new penis enlarger. It may not be "Unsolicited Commercial E-mail," but it's certainly spam.
I know it's a property rights issue, and that political and religious spam is just as bad as commercial spam. But as a practical matter, it may not be wise to mess with political and religious spam because there's no telling how the courts might see it. Commercial speech is not protected under the First Amendment, and Congress is explicitly allowed to regulate "interstate commerce," so if a spam bill is limited only to commercial spam, it would most likely be safe from a Constitutional challenge.
Steve
What kind of a world do we live in when the top priority is stopping spam from hitting our inboxes? What about social issues facing us every day? Cleaner air, water, nutritious food, mental health, affordable living, I could go on and on.
Where are these issues in our government's agenda? Spam will go away on its own - we have the tools to fight it, so legislation is not needed. Laws should not be a first resort.
I disagree. A content-neutral "time, place or manner" restriction would be more consistent with the spirit of the First Amendment, and with existing case law, than a content-based restriction.
Spamming, in terms of its public nuisance value, is somewhat like blaring your message with multikilowatt speakers in a residential neighborhood at 3:00 A.M. It doesn't matter whether those speakers are playing a commercial advertisement, a political message, a religious message, music, gibberish, or anything else. The annoyment of the residents has nothing to do with the content of the message, and the behavior is illegal regardless of the content of the message. Spam should be treated the same way.