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."
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;
That is not the main wrecking clause. The wrecking clause is the requirement for individual opt-out from every mailing list. So the spam sender can create a new 'division' once a day and send you new spam no matter how often you opt out.
A global opt-out list is not such a problem, provided it is one-way encrypted (an old MIT suggestion) so the opt-out list can be used to see if a particular email is opted out but not as a source of addresses to spam. Yes we know the spam senders will ignore it, however making people sign up to get a right to sue a spam sender is not a major obstacle.
The real problem is the Republican's attempt to take out the private right of action. AOL and Earthlink have been very effective in suing the spammy bastards into the ground. They have judgements for millions against a lot of spammers. OK they will not collect it all but they will make the spam senders miserable.
In one case they got the spammer's lawyer who set up fake companies for him - now liable jointly and severally for a $6.9 million contempt judgment
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
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
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.