Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

U.S. Spam Law to Take Effect Jan. 1

Posted by michael on from the 2004-becomes-year-of-the-spam dept.

We lead with news that the U.S. 'anti'-spam law, written largely by the Direct Marketing Association, will enter into effect on January 1. The bill preempts existing state laws which are tougher (states' rights anyone?), so for many citizens, this is purely a pro-spam law. The FTC is thinking about bounty hunters to enforce the new law (which you can and probably should read for yourself).

11 of 573 comments (clear)

  1. Please opt-out - 10,000 times by loggia · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Yes, this is a great law. Even if spammers follow the law, you'd have to opt-out for every
    "company" spams you.

    That is going to work great. Put this one right up there with the Medicare Bill on the list of "2003 Who Cares If It Doesn't Work, We Passed It" legislation.

  2. "anti-spam law" by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Insightful
    Clear Skies
    No Child Left Behind
    Healthy Forests
    Patriot Act

    Doublethink doubleplusgood!

  3. not that bad. by Lumpy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    (2) uses a protected computer to relay or retransmit multiple commercial electronic mail messages, with the intent to deceive or mislead recipients, or any Internet access service, as to the origin of such messages,

    (3) materially falsifies header information in multiple commercial electronic mail messages and intentionally initiates the transmission of such messages,

    It prohibits Fake headers and abusing relays and proxies. Granted, this will only start the use of throw away email addresses that are used once for sending the 20 billion pieces of spam.

    People are complaining that it's pro-spam... I see that it is a start in the right direction. 99% of the spam I get is from outside the US anyways so I expect that it will not do much to change the amount of spam out there and in that note, if mister spammer moves his spamming operation outside the country then this law has no teeth.

    --
    Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
  4. Re:Opt-in for all email... by Shimmer · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Opt-in is a lousy idea. Don't you want to be able to receive legitimate e-mail from people you haven't met yet?

    Perhaps someone wants to write you a note about your web site. Or maybe someone read an article that you wrote and would like to discuss it. Or maybe an old friend from high school wants to send you an e-mail out of the blue.

    If we shut off the possibility of such introductions, the Internet will become an even drier place than it is now.

    --
    The most rabid believers in American Exceptionalism are the exact same people whose policies are destroying it.
  5. Opt out? by RT+Alec · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The problem with "opt-out" is two-fold:

    • First, we have all been trained (correctly) to NEVER opt-out, since it confirms our e-mail address is valid. How do we know if a particular spam is from someone who will obey the law?
    • Second, it can often be difficult to opt-out anyway, purely from a technical standpoint. I receive e-mail addressed "To:" several addresses, including "info@", "webmaster@", etc. While I am savvy enough to reconfigure my e-mail client to send an e-mail that appears to be "From:" any of my addresses, it is a pain. Most people will not know how to do this, and many people (AOL, etc.) do not use an e-mail client that is capable of altering the sending address.

    If the law mandated that opt-out must be implemented by use of a web link (e.g. "This message was addressed to john.doe@mail.us, click the link below and you will be removed immediately"), that would be a little better. None of this detracts from the overriding issue, and that is by requiring opt-out instead of opt-in (either double opt-in or a verification link) this law essentialy legalizes, indeed encourages, spam.

  6. Re:compression by gantos · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here's my version: The Direct Marketing Association drafted an anti-spam law to protect US from THEM.

    We're screwed.

    --

    "How do you expect me to see the forest with all these damn trees in the way?!"
  7. Offshoring the Spam by handy_vandal · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Are there enough spammers in the United States to make it worth the bounty?

    Not for long -- anti-spam bounties will drive the remaining US spammers offshore.

    Maybe we should just keep the vile stuff here at home. I think Lyndon Baines Johnson put it well when he said "Better to have the skunk inside the tent pissing out, than outside pissing in." :)

    But seriously -- no US bounty is going to affect non-US spammers. And if the bounty does actually hit US spammers where they live, expect international spammers to pick up the slack.

    "Abandon hope, all ye who enter here."

    -kgj

    --
    -kgj
  8. No, it isn't by burgburgburg · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The weak Federal law was specifically advanced/signed to supercede and eliminate the tough state laws. The spam industry (and those who benefit from them) feared aggresive state level prosecutions (think what Eliot Spitzer could do to them). They got a "law" that says it is doing something, doesn't actually stop anything, and protects them from everyone who might try to stop them legally.

    1. Re:No, it isn't by schon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      assuming that the law did work, who's to say that spammers can't skip the US

      Nobody's saying they can't - people are saying they won't

      Spammers are sociopaths, like any other sociopath, they do what they do because it's the path of least resistance. They are not spamming because they believe in their rights, they are spamming because they want money, and this is the easiest way to get it.

      It's like saying, when the War On Drugs(tm) started, "what's to stop all the pot dealers from moving to Amsterdam"?

      Unlike pot dealers, spammers (by definition) can't conceal their identities/location (they have to broadcast some way to contact them, otherwise they have no way to get your money.)
      If spam truly became illegal, I think spammers would move to other, less publically visible ways to steal.

  9. Re:Opt-in for all email... by shakamojo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "To just change the email system around isn't feasable."

    If this were true than everyone would still be using CTSS Mail circa 1965. I'm not saying that we take on the "preposterous" job of implementing a worldwide change overnight, I'm merely suggesting that some thought be put into how we move forward.

    If you think that SMTP will still be "de rigour" thirty years from now, you're in for a surprise, by then it will have gone the way of CTSS Mail, Autodin, Multics, the ARPANET, etc... things change!

  10. zerg by Lord+Omlette · · Score: 4, Insightful

    No no no! You're only supposed to talk about states' rights when a Democrat is in office! Only traitors and terrorist-sympathizers would disagree.

    --
    [o]_O