MS Speaks Out Against New Zealand's Anti Spam Bill

out_sp0k1n writes "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'. He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers. From The Article: 'Though often criticized as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers.' Anyone else think that one message doesn't count as spam?"

Comments

FUCK YOU MICRO$OFT!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm tired of your corporate bullshit!

That's the idea.

[hungrygrue]

warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.

So their warning is basically that it might work?

Microsoft follows the money?

[Anonymous Coward]

I never get how anyone can ever use the argument that some people might "want" spam. If you want to buy something, you can find it on the net. I NEVER want to be inundated with junk adverts.

Mailinator lets me avoid getting spam in the first place. Good luck microsoft.

Re:Microsoft follows the money?

[Pig Hogger]

I never get how anyone can ever use the argument that some people might "want" spam. If you want to buy something, you can find it on the net. I NEVER want to be inundated with junk adverts.

Marketer brains are totally out of whack with reality. They operate not only in a different universe, but in a totally orthogonal plane of reality. It is therefore not surprising that they cannot understand nor fathom the motivations of normal people who are sick and tired of advertising being plastered all over the available meatspace.

Re:Microsoft follows the money?

[Nasarius]

It is therefore not surprising that they cannot understand nor fathom the motivations of normal people who are sick and tired of advertising being plastered all over the available meatspace.

The cleverer ones do understand this, which is why they're trying to poison word-of-mouth recommendations as well (see: astroturfing).

Spam is spam

[JesseL]

If it's unsolicited then it's spam. If you give spammers one freebie then they'll just form a new corporation every time they want to send a new batch of crap.

I don't care if they send me 'just one' or a million, either way it is infintley more than I want.

Re:Spam is spam

[TheOtherAgentM]

I see a problem with this thinking, not for most Slashdotters, but the average user doesn't even know what he subscribes to as far as mailing lists go. When I get email I think about where I have bought stuff from recently, to make sure I didn't forget to opt out of something. I give that vendor the benefit of the doubt. Most users out there won't think twice and legitimate operations are going to come under fire. While they may not shut down, the costs to prove they are in the right is a waste of their time. This may effectively raise operating costs of any operation that relies on email to do its marketing.

Re:Spam is spam

[JesseL]

Companies that don't want that hassle can make it very explicit when you sign up for their mailing list. They should make sure that the default option on their web forms is not to subscribe, and their email should be explicit about how you got opted in.

Here's a big clue, IF YOU DON'T MAKE SPAMMING DIFFICULT IT WON'T STOP.

Re:Spam is spam

[zippthorne]

I usually just reply to friends and family with the snopes link to whatever "virus warning" or "bill gates gives $1000 per forward" they send me. Then I chew them out for not removing the two hundred headers and the ten levels of 'forwarding' markers. I actually don't care if a relative wants to forward me the latest joke or what have you as long as they take the time to fix up the formatting a bit so I can read it without getting a headache.

Re:Spam is spam

[UnrepentantHarlequin]

Some numbers to scare yourself to sleep with:

There are roughly 25 million businesses in the US alone. Let's say each of them sent just one spam per year. Let's also assume that your software automatically junks any further mail from someone who has spammed you already. That would be 68,493 emails hitting you per day.

Let's say you could opt out at the rate of one every 5 seconds. That would be 12 per minute, 720 per hour, or 28,800 per 40-hour work week.

Assuming you take a couple of weeks vacation a year, in 50 weeks you can deal with 1,440,000 out of the 25,000,000 spam emails you got this year.

At that rate, it will take you 17.36 years to opt out of just the first year's spam.

But wait! There's more! New businesses open up every year. Just pulling a number out of the air here, let's say that they are established (and send out their annual spam) at a rate of 1 million per year. So by the time you've cleaned out your first year's spam, you have 17,360,000 more to go.

That's another 12 years of opting out ... at the end of which you have 12,055,555 more ... 8.37 more years ... another 5.8 years ... another 4 years ... another 2.8 years ... another 1.9 years ... another 1.35 years ... at the end of which, you're actually caught up.

So, 53 years from the date every business in the USA sent you one single spam, you've finally opted out of all of their lists.

You're still getting new ones, of course, at a rate of 2,740 per day, or 4,000 per working day. The first five and a half hours of every working day -- 70% of your workday -- you spend cleaning that day's spam out of your work email account. When you get home, you spend another 3.8 hours cleaning your home account.

And that's assuming ONLY spam from US-based spammers, and ONLY one from each, and ALL of them honor opt-out instructions (which are, of course, usually just verification of a live address)

53 years to opt out of all of it.

If you start work at age 18, you'll be 71 ... past when most people retire ... by the time you're breaking even on the spam. (and still, remember, opting out for 5.5 hours a day, and 3.8 more at home)

The Yes-You-Can-Spam act was a Bad Thing.

I want to be able to use my emailbox for EMAIL. Not to provide free advertising services for companies I want nothing whatsoever to do with.

Do Not Call List

[Bullfish]

Gee, the proposed law seems to me to work very much like the do not call list of telemarketing. I.E. Do not call unless you've been asked. That works better than voluntary do not spam lists don't you think?

Re:Do Not Call List

[TheOtherAgentM]

The problem is that much of the spam out there is sent illegally. There is no care for who wants in or not with these guys. Sending from a remote, infected machine takes care of sending from your own server and being identified. So, we don't get mail from mailserver.com, but we get mail from every infected computer on XO's broadband and other ISPs that don't seem to care about the spam out there.

That's how I read it.

[Swamii]

Ryan Longfellow, head of Bigandlong's Technology Care and Safety Survey spoke out against New Rolex's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could imflate on 'the amazing effects of Viagra'.

He also suggests that his product has been effective in enlarging members from 100% to 200%.

From The Article: 'Though often criticized as too meek, click here for a free IPod - which relies on people starting their own home business - has proved effective in supporting the former great king of Nimbabwatsu' through verification of you PayPal account.

Translation: If MSFT doesn't make money on it

[WillAffleckUW]

We won't support it.

The "support" services sector to "stop spam" is very lucrative, just as the "anti-piracy" services sector to "stop virii and worms" is very lucrative.

If someone did something about spam, people might not buy the planned Microsoft Anti-Spyware product that's in beta now, when they'll be made to pay for it on release.

And thus, MSFT can't support a bill that might harm their market share.

Sigh.

Re:Translation: If MSFT doesn't make money on it

[slavemowgli]

When you think about it, this story, and the fact that it is considered news, is actually rather funny - or disturbing, depending on how you look at it.

Why does it matter what M$ thinks about a proposed new anti-spam bill - or any bill, for that matter? Shouldn't the only thing that matters be what the *people* of New Zealand think?

As a kiwi

[simonharvey]

As a New Zealander I am surprised that the government is showing this much common sense:

"Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak and has been rejected.
"We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you have to opt out of spam?"

And that common sense is prevailing over US law.
*duck*

Simon

Re:CAN-SPAM effective?

[javaxman]

So far, it sounds like CAN-SPAM has bene "toothless", made "zero impact", etc.

Are you sure it hasn't actually "made the problem worse" by giving spam an air of legitimacy?

Re:What's up with his title?

[Maax]

The Departments of Truth, Peace and Love would have been just too much of a give away.

Re:In other news, Microsoft sues 235 spammers

[FragHARD]

Well it's pretty obvious what m$ wants... they see all that lovely money going into the hands of someone other than themselves namely the spammers. Why else wouldn't they want to get rid of spam? because if they eliminate spam then they cannot profit from it!

Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't allow anything outside the "this is an e-mail verifying that you agreed to sign up to receive emails from ". if there is other content in there, e.g. saying

"We are checking that you want to receive e-mail from , about their super product . For more info on , click here"

would be spam.

Re:How would you handle this under anti-spam?

[JanneM]

If so, what should ACME do to verify you are you instead?

I rather believe that is ACME's problem if their opt-in method doesn't in fact work. "I couldn't figure out a way to do what I wanted legally" is generally not seen as an excellent defense.

How about ACME do not send promotional email until they have solved this?

Duh!

[Locke2005]

Microsoft makes money by providing Spam filtering and by suing spammers under CAN-SPAM. Anybody that expects Microsoft to be in favor of anything that reduces one or more of their revenue streams is obviously delusional.

Re:CAN-SPAM effective?

[oliverthered]

giving spam an air of legitimacy
And TV, Billboard, Radio , Film and Hommy Tilfiger Logos on cloths don't have exactly the same effect?

I'm not saying I support spam, just that spam is another form of advertising. If other forms of advertising come unsolicited from companies.
Why is spam any worse than someone wearing a krappa t-shirt, drinking a can of Koke and eating a MukDonalds, why is spam any worse than traditional junk mail?

Re:oh, so that's why

[Anonymous Coward]

Until we begin executing spammers on prime time TV, this crap will continue.

Re:It's not Law Yet, But M$ Lost

[KiltedKnight]

So then when you purchase something, you'd have to "opt in" to a mailing list... meaning, if you check the box, fill in an e-mail address on a registration card for something other than warranty purposes, they can send you anything they like.

Sale of their list(s) to other companies would be illegal unless you "opt in."

"Unsolicited" e-mails about your product and possible defects do not count, as you expect the company to notify you of recalls, usability issues, etc.

I, like an earlier poster, can't imagine anyone wanting to opt in. That's probably why a lot of the stuff coming out of US-based companies tell you to "uncheck here if you do not wish to receive...." It's how they capture those who don't pay attention.

Microsoft serious about squashing SPAM?

[Eric Damron]

"Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases that they had already compiled to send out e-mail."
i.e. So that businesses could continue to SPAM.
"He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies would be able to e-mail information about new products and services to customers, even if they had opted out of receiving e-mail about other services they had bought from the company in the past."
So if I tell a company that I don't want their penis enlargement ads they can SPAM me with an ad for their latest p0rn and so on and so on and. . ."
"Though often criticised as too meek, US anti-spam legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers, he says."
Right, that's why my filters catch move SPAM every month than the previous. It's only the filtering technology that keeps email usable.

Is Microsoft really serious about squashing SPAM or just in finding another cow to milk? What was this I heard about Microsoft wanting to buy the company that use to be called Gator? Seems to me that SPAM and AD ware go hand in hand.

Yeah? Well as an American

[Belial6]

As an America, I'd love to see this bill come into effect too. The fewer havens for spammers the better.

Re:CAN-SPAM effective?

[oliverthered]

I pay advertising costs whenever I buy a product, and the use of Krapple Mac's and other obvious product placements often spoils the whole file for which I've payed a good £6 ($8.5) to see. Flashing and changing bill boards also waste my time, and time is money, so really there's little cost difference between spam and other ads.

One message isn't spam, but...

[argent]

One message isn't spam. Microsoft is welcome to send one message to me. At least if that's all they do... send one message. To me.

If they send one message to 100,000 people, that's not one message any more. That's 100,000 messages.

If 100,000 people send one message back to Microsoft saying "take me off your list" that's still not one message, that's 100,000 messages.

No, one message isn't spam. But I don't think that they really mean "one message". Do you?

Re:There's a better idea...

[mre5565]

But if people started getting tons of solicited emails from different companies that all came from signing up at another site, that other site would have a strong disincentive to not give out users emails.

What prevents the person sending spam from lying about where the spammer got the email address from?

The problem I see is enforcement.

A variation on a theme is to use disposable email addresses

Re:I don't get it.

[Daniel Phillips]

when an otherwise publicity-savvy company steps forward to fight for something which is not only stupid but also wildly unpopular, there's got to be some explanation

How about: Microsoft has plans to sell an anti-spam serivce.

Re:There's a better idea...

[cduffy]

Send spam in a competitors' name without the legally required trailer. Watch said competitor get hit with lawsuits.

Send spam in your own name. Blatently lie about where you got the addresses. Someone objects? Their word against yours.

Send spam from offshore. Don't bother with the legally required trailer. How's it going to get enforced?

Conspiracy

[Comatose51]

Recently MS acquire Frontbridge a spam filtering company that was highly effective in its job of stopping virus and spams. You pay a monthly fee and all your mail goes through them before reaching your mail servers. I guess M$ see spam fighting as the next source of revenue for the company. With spam costing people billions of dollars in lost productivity, who wouldn't pay a few hundred millions to get rid of it. Of course, if the government stepped in and put a dent in the problem, that's just that much more lost revenue for M$'s new acquisitions. That would be communist/terrorists. We should leave all the problem solving to corporations... Right.

How absolutely insidious

[Gorbag]

M$, having a preexisting business relationship with practically anyone with a computer (you have windows? Office? Exploder? etc.) can freely spam away under CAN-SPAM. No wonder they love it so much, and want to preserve its provisions everywhere. Why spam yourself and get into trouble, when for a few pennies more you can hire M$ to do the spamming for you - presto - no liability for anyone! I think it's time to can CAN-SPAM and get something that really covers the intent of the public.

First you slice them, then you dice them

[shanen]

That's the law I want for the spammers.

Anyway, as I've said eleventeen times, spam is an economic problem and non-economic solutions are not going to fix it. The fundamental assumption of SMTP is that email is free as in beer, and there is no such thing. Even the free beer was paid for by some method.

Actually, I think there should be two economic models incorporated into an opt-in improvement. (And it can be done while maintaining good compatibility with SMTP, too.) The first model should apply to normal correspondence on basically a mutual exchange basis. As long as you receive roughly the same amount of email as you are sending, then the accounting is just to make sure that things stay roughly in balance.

For advertising email, we need a separate economic model. My own goal for that model would be to soak the advertisers, but if they're legitimate businesses, then they can pay for it. Specifically, I want to specify how much advitising I'm willing to receive, say 15 minutes per day, and then the advertisers would bid for my time. Highest bidders would be allowed to deliver their email. The bidding should reflect such factors as what kinds of things I want to buy, my own economic situation, and past dealings with that company (good or bad).

Re:Once I signed up for Hot Mail... got spam inste

[drsmithy]

Within days my inbox was loaded full of Porn and other spam... my guess is that Microsoft fed them my email address and got paid for it.

I've had that happen with email accounts on private mailservers. It's from spammers sending to a@hotmail.com, b@hotmail.com, c@hotmail.com, etc, etc.