Slashdot Mirror
Circumventing CAN-SPAM
Dekortage writes "The iMedia Connection newsletter is running a story on how some politicians are violating CAN-SPAM with impunity. Apparently so-called 'political speech' e-mails do not fit the legal definition of spam, even if they are wholly unsolicited and unwanted. In this particular case, the spammer is the attorney general of Florida, who considers himself an anti-spam crusader."
He'll get the message.
You can sign up your phone number for the nationwide don't-call list and politicians are still allowed to call you. Just the other night some dude from the democratic party disturbed my dinner. Are you surprised that e-mail is not treated any different?
... and the fact that american politicians have created a loophole just for them is almost normal from that sad scene ...
Is it spam or not?
Spam is often referred to as UCE "Unsolicited Commercial Email", which his emails were not. We tend to apply a broad label to spam. Often "Any email I don't want.", which may not be fair in all cases. In any case the law seems fairly clear that he was not technically breaking it.
However, as someone who says they are a proponent of anti-spam, engaging in "spam like" behavior can only undercut their position.
There is no invention in the history of mankind that has allowed him to make more mistakes quicker than the computer.
then any of the other spammers that ignore the can-spam act???? I get more spam now then i ever did!
Programming is simply the application of logic to creativity
Do this outside. Get a pane of fiberglass and belt-fed sanding machine. Turn the fiberglass pane into fiberglass powder. (Carefully) sprinkle the power around the home of [insert enemy's name here], being sure to reach each carpet, set of clothes, and piece of upholstered furniture.
With any luck, he'll have to burn down the house and salt the earth it stood on to get that itching to stop.
So guess what? This guy had hundreds of domains, officially different companies which would act as agents for his clients, so that he (the spammer) could use the same mailing list over and over and over, because it wasn't "him" that was using it; it was his clients.
So basically, CAN-SPAM is really SWISS-CHEESE. There are so many holes in it that any idiot can figure out a way to avoid being penalized.
Unfortunately, there are no holes in the laws protecting these guys from great bodily harm...
The CB App. What's your 20?
Is,
That if you get on the phone and call these idiots often enough to complain they sometimes get the message.
Just tell them that you will call each time you receive that unsolicited email or phone call from them.
Make absolutely certain that you put the poor staffer on the hotseat. Make sure they fully understand that who they represent is invading your privacy and that you will not tolerate it.
If they try to hang up on you then simply tell them that if they don't hear you out that you are a constituent that will be walking through their front door to give them the piece of your mind in person otherwise. That usually really gets their attention.
Being a bit obnoxious can have it's benefits.
Don't accept crap from those boneheads, you bought and paid for them to be there, get your money's worth!
Caution: Contents under pressure
Just like a politician preach that they are anti-spam, via spam.
Check out my site: IM User Directory
Politicians have always done this. There is always a clause in the law that allows them to communicate to the masses. A politician doesn't have to use the DO NOT CALL service to screen their calls, because the specifically put in the law that they are allowed.
By definition then, if political speech emails are not legally spam, then the politicians are not violating the CAN-SPAM law. The summary is contradictory.
Should you* want politicians to conform to an anti-spam law, the solution is to lobby and vote for either the extension of CAN-SPAM to apply to political speech or alternatively for the creation of a new law. But currently, the politicians are not breaking an existing law. This is a hrader task of course, but that's the only way forwards.
Cheers,
Ian
(*by 'you' I mean US voters, I'm in the UK)
CAN-SPAM was never designed to prevent spam. It was designed to codify what could legally happen, provide a way for web-sites to harvest e-mail, and finally, to prevent the states from enacting new laws against these companies. For all purpose, it was a giveaway to BIG money that does spam (and inheritenly, the lobbyists). SO anybody who voted for it, supported spam, but could declare that they were fighting against it i.e. bait via name, but switch via action (think patriot act).
I prefer the "u" in honour as it seems to be missing these days.
One of the basic premises of government is "do as I say, not as I do". After all, government is the organization holding the unique right to employ coercion as a means to an end; anyone else who does so is a criminal. Do as I say, not as I do.
Regulation is not effective on the internet for this type of thing. We're seeing that with pr0n too. I know people under 18 who can easily get it, and no laws can easily change that, not even the one currently in the courts. Unless every porn site does "nofollow" on all their links (to stop image searches), there's nothing they can do on the internet end. And that doesn't stop torrents, etc. The only answer to pr0n is client-side control, and parental monitoring.
Ditto Spam. The only way to block spam is at the ISP or application level. Thunderbird has controls, and most mail providers have basic ones that'll block the crapfloods of non-English emails and stuff.
Both political and charity based mailing are exempt from from the CAN-SPAM law; same as they are exempt from the Do Not Call list. So it is not a case of definition or a loop hole, they are specificly allow to do so.
What was really funny in the Florida case is that they guy had campaigned on SPAM and had pushed for tough anti-spam laws. Then to top it off they released a message saying "This is not spam. This is truthful, it's straight forward. We're honest. To be spam it has to be, under Florida law, defined as being deceptive." No matter how it goes that is all just funny.
BTW there has been a court case over the exemption for political and nonprofit organization, the FTC argued that they were less likely then for-profits to abuse the practice.
Because after all, spam is now defined to exclude the political mailings this guy uses, so he's not "spamming" at all.
Now that Bill Clinton has opened the door to questionable definitions of existing words, both the Democrats and the Republicans have embraced his ideas firmly and run with them as far and as fast as they can.
If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
Yes, phone robot autodialers are illegal... except of course if they are talking about something political. Spam and do-not-call as well. It's all in there.
Imagine the analog for mugging laws; mugging is illegal unless it is being done to raise campaign funds, in which case it is forgivable. Sounds silly, doesn't it, but I don't see a difference from the way they are writing the laws now.
If a tactic is annoying, intrusive and disliked enough to make it illegal, I have no idea why the politicians involved in this are unable to see that it is not a good idea to be the exception.
Here is california politicians are perticularly fond of auto-dialers; even the local unions use them.
+++ ATH0 +++
But it is important to remember the origin of the term "spam" in this context. It refers to posting/sending the same (or almost the same) thing over and over and over
So, it is possible to "spam" a USENET discussion board with non-commercial postings.
So his emails are "spam"
All UCE is spam
Not all spam is UCE
Maybe it's just a coincidence, but most of the articles I read about spam always mention Florida.
Maybe a big filter between Florida and the rest of the World would work, and while we're at it a 100 ft high wall.
violating CAN-SPAM with impunity. Apparently so-called 'political speech' e-mails do not fit he legal definition of spam, even if they are wholly unsolicited and unwanted
So, uhm, how would they be in violation? Far more than merely "not fitting the legal definition of spam," 'Political speech' emails--particularly from elected officials--IIRC, were explicitly excepted precisely so litigious morons who can't grok that a thing must meet some required legal definition before it can be in violation of a law referencing that defintion don't flood the courts with frivolous lawsuits every time their representatives send out a flyer informing them of how they're doing their damned job.
Truly lame.
"If a tactic is annoying, intrusive and disliked enough to make it illegal, I have no idea why the politicians involved in this are unable to see that it is not a good idea to be the exception."
The problem is that pesky First Amendment. Do you REALLY want the government to have the power to quash or restrict political expression by dubbing it "spam"? As annoying as those autodialer calls are, I'd rather just hang up on a machine every once in a while than lay a precedent that could lead to more serious government suppression of political speech.
I'm seeing a lot of comments here about how "those dirty politicians put a loophole in the law to exempt themselves." I, for one, am glad! This is called freedom of speech. Freedom of speech is extremely annoying...especially to those people who don't want to hear it. Guess what...Its one of the U.S.'s founding principles, so get over it. If there wasn't a loophole in the law for political speech, the ACLU would be up in arms about it, and rightly so!
On a different note, it is stupid that they are trying to redefine the word "Spam". In my mind, Spam isn't limited to email. If you're playing WoW and someone shouts "Lvl 30 Warrior LFG!" 30 times in a row, then they are spamming. "Spam" covers a wide range of annoying actions in the electronic media.
I don't trust politicians to define what "spam" is, and I don't trust them to make laws restricting any kind of online use. They simply don't understand the medium.
I think this is a very insightful post - especially the part about "Don't forget, the rules apply to you, not those in power." It's the truth and its a shame.
Avoid Missing Ball for High Score
CAN-SPAM only regulates 'commercial e-mail' -- which more or less boils down to mail that is trying to sell you something. Political speech is therefore not regulated in the first place under the (You) CAN-SPAM Act, since it is not 'commercial e-mail' under the terms of the definition. (Joke all you want about selling votes, etc etc etc, but you know what I mean...)
(BTW, there's no exemption under CAN-SPAM for 'prior relationship' mails -- That's in the telemarketing act, and I think there's something akin to it in the junk fax act, but I'm not sure offhand. Some state laws might allow for e-mails under 'prior relationship', but CAN-SPAM would probably over-ride those.)
This story is just beautiful, i've just fallen in love with the whole of america, for it being a place where this can happen.
Found this via the spam kings blog, absolutely hilarious:e r_attack_spammer_begs_for_1.html
http://spamkings.oreilly.com/archives/2006/01/und
Honestly, I still believe that vigilante tactics combined with laws such as ours in TN (making spam a civil action) are the only realistic way to go.
Do you have ESP?
Because they are doing the lawyer thing, technically it is legally not spam, but in public perception of things, IT IS SPAM. and that is all that matters.
Just like how clinton technically did not lie when he said he didnt have sexual relations (he was beign a lawyer and by law it was all kosher) in reality, he lied to the public. Because the law and public perception of things are two different realities.
Basically, the AG is a spammer and a liar, and that is how the public sees it.
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
Defining spam is tricky business - mostly because none of us can agree. I have friends that are militant about it and will only accept email from whitelists. I also have friends that will forward me every hoax, virus warning, coupon or anything else that comes down the line.
For me it comes down to two major things. The first is unique content. As you pointed out in your post, anyone that sends you ANYTHING 30 times in a row, in any medium, is spamming. I don't need more than one email with identical content, or selling an identical product, ever. As an example, I setup an account on perfectmatch.com a while back. I have deleted the account and emailed their customer support to get me off the mailing list, but still, about once a week I get an email with the same stupid promo offer. The second is content. I don't want questionable content in a generic email (if it's personal, that's a different story). If you wouldn't want your kids to see/read it, don't send it. I think most of us can agree on what's offensive.
If the politician in this article, or any politician for that matter, sends out an email once in a while with some unique content what does it hurt? Email is easy to delete, and I would rather delete something I don't want than miss something I do want. I think spam is the number one most overrated issue of our time. Most of us spend 10 minutes a week dealing with spam. It doesn't hurt anything, doesn't cost much besides our time. We probably spend more money and time filtering it than we would if everyone just deleted it.
Find coupons in Greeley
EVERY incumbent should be thrown out of office. This is the ONLY way to get anything useful, meaningful, honest or good accomplished: all of the elected congresscritters know that no matter what they do they'll be back in office. Three cycles of single term US Reps will solve the problem nicely and convince them that they had better start staying the course or they won't get those annual raises-that-aren't-raises.
This sounds good, and it seems like a hopeful sign that general approval ratings of congress are at 30% (plus-or-minus), and as a result one might be willing to believe that a "throw-the-bums-out" movement is building.
Unfortunately, it won't happen. As Tip O'Neil pointed out, "all politics are local." Unless a particular congresscritter has gotten up the nose of his or her constituents, it will be pointed out that "why, yes, all of those other no-good, lying, cheating, votes-for-sale politicians should be thrown out! But you need ME to keep the pork-barrel projects coming into our district!" Much as we might like to, we can't vote against Tom DeLay unless we're in his district.
Which isn't to say "don't bother," but rather to say, "don't expect a totally-wiped-out Congress in one election."
Strike while the irony is hot! -- The Freethinker
IANAL. Political Speech is held in a different light than other kinds of mass-audience speech (like advertising soap for instance). This is a good thing and this speech should continue to be protected, shielded from laws that may in some way restrict it. Even when the speech or method of speech may seem downright stupid and ill-advised. Why? Because the freedom of this kind of speech is what the United States of America is all about. This is the kind of speech our founding fathers were considering when they created the Bill of Rights! If someone is prohibited by law from stating, publishing, or distributing their political beliefs we have started down the slippery slope to an oppressing society.
I don't believe in segregation, yet if some ignorant red-neck wanted to run for office and ran on that platform, I would defend his right to publish that position. I'd actually encourage him. Why? Because it would show people who and what he really is.
I get somewhat offended when churches urge political activism among their members because I believe that the separation of church and state should go both ways. Still, these church leaders have a right to spout their opinion from the pulpit and I'd never raise a finger to stop them because the freedom of political speech is that important (and I can exercise my right to go to another church just as easily). I hope those same leaders will let me express my opinion that their flock should not need that kind of shepherding though, since they are thinking, reasoning people and not sheep that need to be told what to think and do. It does sometimes appear that they have a harder time yielding to my rights than I do to theirs though...
Shocked I say! To think politicians believe they're above the laws they write! Next thing you'll be telling me is that they rearrange voting districts to prevent them from losing elections...
By the taping of my glasses, something geeky this way passes
Like it or not, US law (as interpreted by the courts) places a higher value on political speech than commercial speech. As a result, the restrictions that can be placed on political speech are less strict than those that can be placed on commercial speech.
Just wait until stuff written like this starts flooding people's mailboxes:
Vote for Hot Hot Cocks
Write-in a vote for Ron Jeremy this November! http://videos.hothotcocks.com/
Join other supporters of hot hot cocks on our campaign website at http://singles.hothotcocks.com/
Our political platform is the right to huge erections and unlimited C1ALIS for all citizens. http://canadianpharmacy.hothotcocks.com/
Yes indeed, we CAN spam! God Bless America!
This is so ridiculously not news. All such legislation has loopholes that protects politicans and their lobbying interests. For example, it's not illegal for AARP to ignore the "do not call list," and as such, the only annoying telemarketing I get is from sham "clothing donation" groups (where the telemarketing firms take 50% or so of the "donation"). Anybody bitching or even insinuating that politicians are somehow "circumventing" CAN-SPAM is an idiot. Such use was pre-ordained in the legislation.
There exists no way of exchanging information without making judgments. --Bene Gesserit Axiom
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/a
thank fvcking god for that.
+++ ATH0 +++
"Nationwide Dialup, $7.77/mo, no BS IlliniWeb [illiniweb.com]"
I had a certain senator who got my e-mail address from somewhere (no idea where) and started spamming me on almost a daily basis.
What worked for me was to first e-mail them with a polite request to be removed from their lists. When that request was ignored I then followed with a handful of warnings that I would begin reporting them to various anti-SPAM groups and blocklists if they continued to send me spam.
They stopped shortly after.
Attorney General Fox (R-Henhouse)
--
make install -not war
...wait...were his lips moving?
This law is totally useless. I get all these spam messsages claiming to be can-spam compliant and if I were to respond to get myself taken off, it is of no avail.
Unsolicited Bulk Email.
It doesn't matter if it is commercial. It doesn't matter if you don't know the person. What is key are that you didn't ask for it AND they are mailing tons of people, including you.
I can (just barely) imagine emails from an all grass roots, all volunteer, all living-in-their-own-homes campaign who are trying to elect someone for the purpose of raising taxes to feed the homeless to be able to emit non-commercial email, but that's about the end of it.
Otherwise, if you didn't ask for it, it's spam. One time or a thousand times, doesn't matter — it's 100% spam all the way.
In most states you can't do anything about it, because citizens are not involved with the process of making and/or approving legislation except in a few isolated states (California is one, I think.)
There's a very important thing to remember here: Politicians didn't define the Internet, how it works, or the social rules that pervade this "space", as it were. The denzens of the net did that. Now we have politicians trying to formalize our space in such a manner as to allow themselves to magically opt out of the gutter-level definition that spamming has always resided in. They can only do this if we let them. Personally, I'm not going to ever agree that they have any implicit right to do so, legislation otherwise notwithstanding. To me, this assumed "freedom to spam" is one more concrete way that politicians have demonstrated that they have no comprehension of the society they purport to represent. They don't represent me, and they have not for many years now.
The ballot box is useless, and has been for years. Now remaining: Soap box, Ammo box.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
I've tracked down one spammer's WHOIS registrations and got the address of The Company Corporation in Delaware, which is the canonical place to spend $100 to register a Delaware corporation - so there's a file folder in a desk drawer there that has the registration information for Annoying Spammer Inc, and that's where the bill for annoying-spammer-example.com has their domain registration. And if the US Department of Justice were serious about prosecuting spammers, this corporation might find their corporate charter papers shipped down to Guantanemo Bay and waterboarded, but nothing would happen to the stockholders except they'd lose the trivial value of their stock and half a month's lease on a PC in colo space somewhere - and they'd probably spend another $100 to go start a new company, Another Annoying Spammer Inc., lease another PC in another colo space, and get back to work.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Of course, you can't do that in a really cheap easy way like sending all his constituents unsolicited email telling them that he's a spammer (or at least, not without diluting your message a lot...) - but it's certainly worth embarassing him in public. He can't see the difference between political spamming and commercial spamming - but he calls himself a "Jeb Bush Republican", so counting is probably not one of his strong points either.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
So if I create a political party, then emails sent which are do to with my party and its policies are outside the jurisdiction of the CAN-SPAM act?
.. will someone please tell me this isn't a glaring loophole?
So my party which is the party-people-party party, supporting the internet sale of erotical and chemicals could be considered to be exempt from CAN-SPAM in its mailshots (which just happen to mention our method of obtaining party funds by "campaign contributions" in exchange for which you may receive some of the products we support).
Now
(TM & (C) 2006)
--- This meme is memory intensive
Attorney General name is a great guy, worthy of being re-elected.
Now go out and buy some product and support him.
Fact is, just obeying the law won't keep a sender out of trouble. For example, a sender has up to ten days to remove someone from their list, which may as well be ten years in Internet time.
The free speech argument only gets you so far. Sure, political speech should be protected, but that doesn't give a politician the right to barge into my living room and start giving a speech. People consider their email inboxes to be like their living rooms--you may be welcome, but you need to be invited first.
Ultimately, no law or anti-spam program will be able to determine what's spam with 100% accuracy. I would be happy if the law could help prosecute those who are perpetuating obvious fraud.
I thought all the anti-spam, telephone do nto call lists, junk fax laws, etc. exempted political communications and stuff from non-profit organizations...