Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Cornucopia Of Spam Bills

Posted by timothy on from the yes-my-lord dept.

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."

5 of 186 comments (clear)

  1. Re:In case the 1st link was /.-ed... by aardvarkjoe · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The definition of a solicitation should be carefully limited to avoid any impact on non-commercial speech, such as speech about religion or politics.

    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.

    This is a property rights issue, not a free speech issue; people need to stop treating it as if it was the latter.

    --

    How can we continue to believe in a just universe and freedom to eat crackers if we have no ale?
  2. In Australia... by the-build-chicken · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The only people that _can't_ spam you are people you've done business with. The privacy laws dictate that, unless you have to keep records for legal reasons, or your _primary_ purpose for the records is marketting, then you have to remove them upon request. Which I found really weird. I don't mind if my bank/mechanic/energy company have my details, I _do_ mind that some impossible to track down marketting company called Sydney Promotions Pty Ltd sends me email from pgraysepw@yahoo.com (very professional guys) can get my records from who knows where, keep them for as long as I want, and there's not a damn thing I can do about it :(

  3. Did they learn something from the junk fax law? by pphrdza · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Two participants said the bill initially was to have been modeled after the federal "junk fax" law that bans all unsolicited fax marketing.

    Prior to that law I was getting zero junk faxes, and now I'm getting an average of 5 a week.

  4. Define "ISP" by krray · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I now have multi-homed bandwidth. Dialup users. Network users from various locations. Inter-connections betwee the offices. Handle all my own forward and reverse (classless) DNS, web, and email traffic. UPS' to generators ranging from T1's to 10Mbit uplink wireless.

    I have more users than some ISP's I know. I just happen to also EMPLOY them and they use computers supplied by me getting data from servers I own.

    I can't sue? PUHLEEZ...

    Which "ISP" should I call for my spam then to sue on my behalf? Apple? Earthlink? MCI? and a couple of dozen multi-homed "ISP"'s feeding me. Heck, I even back feed many a employee @ home through some wireless connections on a tower erected on one of the properties.

    Can I sue yet? Oh -- I need to call SBC or Verizon I guess.

    Isn't public networking fun. Fuck 'em, my rules just changed too. Spam me once and that /24 subnet is gone. Even have some /8 blocked (210. 211. ring a bell?). MY time frame? _Forever_. I unblock (whitelist) IP's upon a PHONE CALL ... and trust me -- the callers get a copy of the SPAM to pass along to their ISP.

    +11,000 subnets blocked. ~150 new daily recently. THOUSANDS just blocked. Three phone calls in YEARS so far. Problem ISP's will just go away as their "good" users will leave if they don't clean up their act.

  5. Seems to me like the DMA is behind this... by WCMI92 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    While I want to see the likes of Ralsky wiped from the face of the Earth for their crimes against Humanity, I DON'T want to see them replaced with today's telespammer types.

    Which is what the Tauzin bill would create.

    As much as we hate spammers, the DMA hates them worse... Why? They are competition. They want to drive them away so they can take their place.

    I pay for my bandwidth. "Marketers" should have to PAY ME for what they use of mine if they want to reach me with their copy. If they want to provide free bandwidth in exchange for receiving their crap, fine. Until they start SUBSIDIZING my internet bill (which is considerable, considering I'm running dual-dialups, because I can't yet get DSL or cable out here in the sticks), they have no RIGHT to intrude.

    Unlike TV, which throws ads at me in exchange for "free" programming, or even websites that throw banners and even pop-ups at me in exchange for "free" content, a spammer gives NOTHING AT ALL to me in exchange for their intrusion.

    I don't think even "prior business relations" should be an exception, unless there is an EXPLICIT OPT IN. But even then someone should be able to OPT OUT at any time they choose, and the spammer be obligated to stop.

    Just like legit mailing lists. I opt in. When I want out, I opt out. Mail stops coming from the list.

    Honestly, spam has such a HORRID reputation, does the DMA think they will EVER get it accepted?

    --
    Corporatism != Free Market