Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

FTC Tries to Can Sex Spam

Posted by michael on from the closing-the-barn-door dept.

F_SMASH writes "The United States' Federal Trade Commission (FTC) has charged a group of companies and individuals with failing to include required warnings on 'sex' related spam e-mail."

14 of 168 comments (clear)

  1. it's about time by fienna · · Score: 2, Insightful

    it's about time someone took care of these bastards - i like the occasional titty but getting surprises at work is a bit extreme...

    --
    /not so /obvious
  2. Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Why haven't they gone out all the way and make this spam illegal instead of only capping a small part of it? It'll still end up in my mailbox...

    1. Re:Hmm... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Why haven't they gone out all the way and make this spam illegal instead of only capping a small part of it?

      Because the lawmakers in the US don't care about right and wrong, and they don't care about the general public, they care about the companies that give them lots of money. The DMA wrote the Can-Spam act to ensure that they could continue to spam, and congress passed to to ensure that the DMA members would continue to bribe them.

    2. Re:Hmm... by forgetmenot · · Score: 2, Insightful

      There's some expression about not assuming malice that I think is pertinent here....

      Congress is made up of many individuals, not all of whom are taking bribes from the DMA. To suggest otherwise would involve a conspiracy that is simply too large to be feasible.

      CAN-SPAM is, over all, a decent law. It places restrictions on marketers that allow end-users to filter out what they don't want to see without completely making it illegal and thus denying either some unforseen but legitimate use for unsolicited email, or denying it to end-users who actually do want to see it. And let's face it - some people do want to see this spam because there would be no SPAM if there wasn't a segment of society making it economical.

    3. Re:Hmm... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      there is no inherit right to send bulk unsolicited email that clogs my SMTP servers

      No, but "Your" != "All".

      I am ***NOT*** defending spam, or the activity of spamming. Keep in mind that spam is a moneymaking venture that would cease to make money if it was not welcomed by its target market.

      Willing, albeit stupid, buyers have a right to buy any legal product sold legally. Of course, illegal UCE should be dealt with under fraud or other applicable civil/criminal statutes.

      Also, bear in mind that you accept some risk of undesired traffic entering your network and reaching your connected hosts (including your SMTP/POP3 servers) by purchasing internet service. It's the same type of risk any gunslinger faced in the wild west, but with fewer potential gunshot wounds.

    4. Re:Hmm... by JuggleGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful
      Do you really want the government regulating speech?

      Speech like the illegal junk faxes they already regulate? Speech like that of Telemarketers, who have to respct the DNC list? Speech like yelling "FIRE!" in a theatre?

      The government already regulates speech. If they were to try to stop anyone from talking about X, there are few instances where they can justify it. (The "Fire" example would be one example where they can.) However, saying "You can not force anyone to listen to what you want to say" is perfectly reasonable.

  3. Re:Offshore? by AceCaseOR · · Score: 4, Insightful
    I figure that, as they were spamming US Citizens, the FTC's argument is that they were doing business inside the United States, and thus are bound to follow US laws when doing so.

    I'm seriously hoping the FTC wins this suit.

    --
    Zagreus sits inside your head, Zagreus lives among the dead, Zagreus sees you in your bed and eats you in your sleep.
  4. Sex? by Smallpond · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What is it with this administration and sex? Janet Jackson -- huge fine for small tits. Sex spam -- have to stop that right now.

    Why not go after the 419 spammers who are stealing people's life savings? Or how about the fake pills and illegal drugs? Just business, I guess.

  5. New TLDs, dammit. by Nosf3ratu · · Score: 0, Insightful
    There is no reason for the lack of a .xxx domain.

    None.

    Should more TLDs been available in the early days of the web? Sure. Is it too late? I don't think so.

    A .xxx or .adult TLD would correct a lot of these problems.
    Naturally, the remaining problem is enforcement. Which would require *gasp* job creation. What a sin.

    --
    The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori
  6. Re:Offshore? by AviLazar · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I don't really think "nothing" is very valid. Some countries give the US (and other jurisdiction) - they just have to get permission first (sort of like when police from one state want to go to another state). They do this because it helps improve political relations (Trade relations, treaties, etc). They do this because turn-about is fair play "Yes Mr. President we let you come in and get our spammers, now we want to go in and get that guy who sold our people fake stocks".

    The UK is fairly friendly with the US, so I can't see why the US couldn't go in and get these guys.

    --

    I mod down so you can mod up. Your welcome.
  7. What I want to know is... by confusion · · Score: 2, Insightful

    How are people deciphering what the hell spam is tying to sell these days? What am I supposed to do with an email like this:
    Subject: PharmaBGHZ8
    Message:
    Hurtnig?

    At least with porn spam, you have something to look at.

    Jerry
    http://www.syslog.org/

  8. Re:Offshore? by mhollis · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Um, CBS broadcast Janet's "wardrobe malfunction." Clear Channel decided to quit airing Howard Stern in many areas. And it's not necessarily American parents who are doing the writing, it's right-wing organizations who take credit for most of the organizing.

    Howard is (and I am) still waiting for the FCC to treat Oprah Winfrey the same way his show has been treated by Michael Powell (the chairman of the FCC). I regularly do not tune in Mr. Stern's broadcasts but I know that many do and I believe the increased attempts at "regulation" (read doling out fines) have nothing to do with decency on the airwaves -- something the FCC got out of the business of being concerned with during the Reagan Administration.

    After all, according to Republican rhetoric, the market ought to decide what should be aired. It was the Reagan FCC that decided that market pressures should decide what the vertical and horizontal blanking intervals should be like (if you do not work in television, you probably don't know what these are for -- but you are the market making these decisions).

    I had thought that the FTC ought to regulate spammers.

    --
    Gods don't kill people, people with gods kill people.
  9. Re:Offshore? by LucidBeast · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Unlikely. Despite US citizens being spammed US laws do not apply in UK or other way around. Of course these guys might run into trouble if they enter US, but UK wouldn't extradite them for sending spam. There might be laws in UK to do that though.

  10. Re:Step in the right direction. by HiThere · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Interesting. I'm in favor of this because it's merely enforcing honest labeling. Which I consider a legitimate function of government.

    I don't consider it reasonable for the govt. to decide what minors can and cannot watch. That's their parent's job. But honest labeling makes the parent's job feasible. OTOH, I would be quite opposed to their censoring spam, including sex related spam. But I would be in favor of their regulating the honesty of the sending e-mail address, at least for commercial e-mail, and e-mail requesting any kind of financial transaction. (I'm not clear that they have, or should have, ANY right to regulate non-commercial e-mail. In fact I rather think not.)

    1: Within limits. Excessive labelling requirements can be as bad as excessive taxation. OTOH, the govt. doesn't get as much reward from it so it has less incentive.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.