FTC Defines Spam

Iphtashu Fitz writes "The FTC has just issued its final report on how it will define Spam with regards to the federal CAN-SPAM act. According to the FTC, bulk e-mail is commercial if it includes advertising and promotion or if the subject line or beginning of the message would be reasonably considered to be advertising or promotion. This is very similar to the proposed rules that were announced back in August. The modified rules also deal with the issues of transactional messages (an e-mail regarding an order that also includes advertising) and relationship-based e-mail (messages about product updates, etc)."

Comments

Definition not broad enough?

[KillerDeathRobot]

It seems like the definition could be more inclusive. I get plenty of emails that have totally meaningless text and then sometimes (but not always!) a link at the bottom to something I could buy. I'm guessing that some of these are an attempt to see if there's anyone at my inbox reading mail, but in any case I'd definitely call these spam.

Spam definition?

[Dorsai65]

1) I didn't ask for it.
2) It isn't in my (native) language.
3) I have no pre-existing relationship with the company being mentioned.
4) The subject line must parse as normal language - |\|0 l33t-5p34| 5) May not include any attachments.
6) May not consist of only a graphic or link to a website.

For additional protection, hold the companies being advertised liable for the actions of the company doing the "promotion".

Re:Spam definition?

[winwar]

"It is great in theory...until Company A Joe-Jobs Company B."

Well, a reasonable person would conclude (with supporting information) that Company A in your example is actually doing the promotion.

If you want to be more specific (assuming that the police and courts are not reasonable), hold the company that is PAYING for the promotion to be held liable for the actions of the company doing the promotion (in addition to the promoting company).

Sure, it would cost legitimate companies money. But spam already does. But they might like to know about their unethical competitors-and this would bring it to their attention.

Unfortunate Necessary Evil

[Anonymous Coward]

The kind of folks that read /. want complete freedom on the internet. They also want no more spam.

The sad truth is that you can't have both. You either have an international body that regulates the internet (which personaly I don't want, and I assume most /.ers agree), or you have spam.

Spammers and anoyed people will continue to fight for a long long time.

Re:Advice for how to

[rewt66]

There are two ways that I can see to go about it. The first (and more honorable way) is to calmly inform your boss, and perhaps his/her boss, that you cannot in good conscience work on a project that will have the primary result of irritating, annoying, and enraging innocent people whose only "crime" was having an e-mail address. Tell them that if they persist in this project, you will quit rather than have anything to do with it. And tell them that you will let it be publicly known that their company is working on such a tool, so that the public can express to the company how they feel about said company helping the slimeballs who fill all our inboxes with junk. Note that you would not be exposing any of their trade secrets or techniques; merely letting people know what they are building. That's the honorable (and potentially very expensive) way. The less honorable way is to anonymously inform the press, the FTC, and /. which company it is and what they are working on. But I think these are the only two ways, because nothing but public pressure is going to stop them.

Not just bulk mail!

[Andy_R]

Buried on page 16 of the full PDF text is this little gem....

"The text of the Act has no business-to-business exemption and
[i]does not establish a minimum number of email messages that must be sent before the Act applies.[/i]" (my emphasis added)

There is no requirement for the mail to be bulk, which the article implies there is. This is (imho) a very wise move, just because someone sends 1 spam instead of a million doesn't mean it's legal or morally acceptable!

Re:Definition Leads to Regulation?

[jc42]

There have been some fun reports from people who have replied to spam from Chinese servers by sending back a message thanking them for their support of Falun Gong. It seems that the Chinese government has filters looking for messages that use those two words ...

Of course, this doesn't work for servers in Taiwan, and I've noticed that that's where most of my Chinese spam comes from, for some reason.