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).

4 of 573 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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?!"
  3. 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!

  4. 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.