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."

Comments

CAN-WHAT?

[bennomatic]

I met someone not too long ago who ran a SPAM outfit, and he boasted that he was 100% CAN-SPAM compliant, because he always gave his recipients an option to be exempted from future SPAMs. Apparently, the first contact can't be considered a SPAM, according to the law.

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...

Re:CAN-WHAT?

[jfengel]

Unfortunately, there are no holes in the laws protecting these guys from great bodily harm...

No, but I believe that the CAN-SPAM law does require a valid physical postal address. It would be really, really illegal if somebody were to use that information to beat the sh*t out of him.

If he's not including that valid postal address, then he should be arrested under the law. My concern with CAN-SPAM isn't the loopholes as much as that they don't seem to be enforcing the rules. No law does any good if it isn't enforced.

I'd really like to see him try the "But it wasn't really me, it was my multiple domain names" excuse in front of a judge.

Legal reform

[mccalli]

From the summary: "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.".

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)

Re:Faux-Spam

[TheRaven64]

Spam is also often called UBE (unsolicited bulk email). If it's part of a mass-mailing, and you didn't opt-in, then it's spam. If someone sends you an email that you didn't want, then it's an irritation, but it's not spam. If they send that same email to a load of other people, then it is.

Re:Faux-Spam

[Vellmont]

Spam is often referred to as UCE "Unsolicited Commercial Email", which his emails were not.


Well, from what the people interviewed say it certainly sounds like the emails were unsolicited. I guess they weren't "commercial" though. (Actually I'm pretty sure most people use the term "Unsolicited bulk email). This stuff easily fits that definition, so I think by most peoples definition, this is spam. It may be all nice and legal, but that doesn't excuse this guy from being an asshole.

No, the proper definition is:

[Anonymous Coward]

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.