Slashdot Mirror
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?"
He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers.
Oh, so that's why I don't get any spam any more...
Well, off to clean my Inbox of spam.
Tom
ZuluPad, the wiki notepad on crack
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
Well the first draft, which involved a carving knife and a band-aid, would have been more effective.
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.
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.
"Prefiero morir de pie que vivir siempre arrodillado!"
Yeah, right. And there's this swamp land you might want to buy.
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?
The proposed law draft, as it goes forward for consideration, does not reflect Microsoft's requirements. A single unsolicited email from an organisation touting their products will be considered SPAM.
Can anybody point to any research (or, frankly pundit or blogger) that has concluded that CAN-SPAM has had any effect at all? So far, it sounds like CAN-SPAM has bene "toothless", made "zero impact", etc.
Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
Is it just me or does his title sound like the Microsoft equivalent of an airline stewardess? And how come everyone we hear from Microsoft is the head of something? Were they all promised head to come work at Microsoft?
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.
Tech, life, family, faith: Give me a visit
Opt-in or out are crap anyway, but opt-in doesn't have the catch of unsubscribing.
I see 57005 people
When Microsoft gets CAN-SPAM, instead of the people of a country getting real spam protection, Microsoft gets to sue spammers on behalf of their customers for damages. Even after getting revenue from spammers, and selling antispamware that doesn't work so good. And buying Gator, the infamous spammer. Microsoft doesn't want the government protecting you or your privacy from spammers. Because Microsoft takes on the job, privatizing privacy, they get paid every which way. And we get spam out our pieholes.
--
make install -not war
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.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
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
Here's one very basic, very common problem anti-spam legislation doesn't solve.
1) Someone registers your email at ACME's web site.
2) ACME wants to know if you are legit or not, so they send you a "please click on this link if you really requested this" email.
3) You didn't request email from ACME, but now you have an "are you you?" email from ACME.
Is the "please click on this link" email spam?
If so, what should ACME do to verify you are you instead?
If not, what's to stop a spammer from sending their advert along with the "click to confirm" email? (I know, they already do.)
There is a better idea, and here it is.
Why not create legislation requiring all commercial e-mail to have HOW they got your e-mail address in the first place, under penalty of a huge fine. This would be in addition to any other laws in place. So if someone doesn't say, at the bottom of the e-mail, how or where your e-mail address was obtained, it would be illegal. Also, lying about where they got it would be illegal too.
Or is this just a stupid idea?
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!
FragHARD or don't frag at all
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.
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
"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.
The race isn't always to the swift... but that's the way to bet!
As an America, I'd love to see this bill come into effect too. The fewer havens for spammers the better.
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?
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.
Have you got your LWN subscription yet?
I'm in favor of the Russian anti-Spam method for dealing with spammers. http://www.scmagazine.com/news/index.cfm?fuseactio n=newsDetails&newsUID=5eead5c2-50ca-40e5-9c59-a8da 453de038&newsType=Latest+News
I could even envision a new arcade smash hit: "Whack-a-Spammer"
Sorry, I work for an ISP, and get to deal with the annoying results of these idiot spammers' actions. I couldn't resist
I'm a happy pessimist. I expect and prepare for the worst, when it doesn't happen I am pleasantly surprised.
I have NOT seen any decrease in spam since it was enacted.
It has steadily increased, as it has been doing for years.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Microsoft, ya gotta wonder?
I once signed up for a Hot Mail Account, years ago and never used it, never told a sole about it, never shared the email address with anyone, not one person or other... guess what? 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.
You can never trust Microsoft. Too greedy. Computers users to them are just cash machines and not private citizens.
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$'s new acquisitions. That would be communist/terrorists. We should leave all the problem solving to corporations... Right.
EvilCON - Made Famous by
What strikes me is how M$ can see fit to even comment on the laws of a foreign country. What are they headed by some section of the Bush administration?
Mongrel News all the news that fits and froths
I think Ryan Hamlin needs a lesson in the limitations of opt-out systems. To teach him this lesson, all /. readers who happen to meet Mr. Hamlin should kick him in the nuts. Keep kicking him until he asks you to stop (e.g. opts out). There is often a delay in processing opt out requests, so it's OK to kick him a few times even after he opts out. After you've accepted and processed Mr. Hamlin opt out requst and have stopped kicking him in the nuts, feel free to begin kicking him in the ass. After all, just because he opted out of being kicked in the nuts, doesn't mean he also opted out of being kicked somewhere else.
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.
-- I speak only for myself
"I once signed up for a Hot Mail Account"..."Within days my inbox was loaded full of Porn". From the sound of things, you should have been expecting it (or maybe you'd have preferred a 'Hot Male' account?)
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).
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
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.
I think one of the problems with this method at the moment is that most organisations don't provide clear information about exactly what someone can expect by checking the box. Often it's buried somewhere deep within the privacy policy, but it's not exactly obvious.
Before I check such a box, I like to be confident that I understand basic things like:
Most boxes don't actually do this. They just say inane things like "Click here to receive great deals from us and our partners in your email." I'd rather they said something like:
I guess it's a bit more verbose, but to me it's a hell of a lot clearer and more trustworthy. Then again, I realise that most people don't seem to think/care about this type of thing as much as I do. I'm sure I'm not the main target of many marketing people... I just get annoyed as collateral damage.
I have hit upon a decent method for not having to wade through a ton of spam in my inbox.
Tools Required:
1. A domain that you administer mail accounts for
2. The ability to define a catch-all account for mail
The method:
I have defined my "regular" email address as the catch-all. Whenever a website requests an email address, I use something unique to that site. The account does not exist, but mail from them will still get delivered to me via the catch-all account.
Example:
I sign up for email for my Hilton account with hilton@mydomain.com. The account is not defined but the catch-all will deliver the mail to me nonetheless.
The benefit:
If I start getting spam to that email address, I now have several options. First, I know who sold or gave out my address so I can hammer them if I choose. Second, I can simply begin filtering everything from that address into a "known spam folder" and never have to deal with it other than to delete the contents of that folder. Third, I can setup nasty autoresponders that mimic bounce messages or something on that account if I wish (I know, this may not be doing much good but it's fun).
By doing this I keep the spam in my inbox down to 2 or 3 messages a day.
Denny
Erecting the wall of separation between church and state is absolutely essential in a free society. - Thomas Jefferson
Try Mailinator. It's perfect for those disposable email addresses. There is no link to you other than an IP in an apache log file. (Most disposable email address providers require an email address to forward your mail to.)