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."
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?
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.
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 +++
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.
If you voted for an incumbent in the last election then I blame you. Either vote the current reps out of office or sit down, shut up and deal with it. I suggest a combination of SpamAssassin and blacklisting every source with an IP within RIPE or APNIC and every email that contains a URL that points to geocities (I don't want a rolex clone)
If the g'vt kept the data on you that google does you'd better believe you'd be calling it "doing evil"
The CanSpam law was already on somewhat shakey legal ground. In the US we have the 1st ammendment, you know, the one about free speech. Regardless of how much you might dislike it, spam is a form of speech. Usually, it is a form of commercial speech.
The interpretation of the constitution deals with speech issues differently depending on the type of speech involved. There is very little protection for fraudulent speech, so this can be made a crime and you can be put into jail. The same goes for yelling fire in a theater.
Commercial speech is somewhere in the middle and the government can regulate it, but only at the edges. In general, current constitutional interpretations allow for almost all commercial speech.
Political speech is at the other extreme. Whereas fraudulent speech can be outlawed and commercial speech can be limited, political speech is "the most protected" type of speech. Political speech might be annoying, might make you angry, and might even be racist or offend you. Regardless, if it is political speech, then it is allowed, pretty much without restriction. The constitution guarantees you the right to free speech. It does not guarantee you any right to not be offended or annoyed.
Political speech is also not limited to a candidate running for office. Groups often make unsolicited calls, ignoring the do-not-call lists, on behalf of an issue or cause.
Before you complain about this and suggest that "there needs to be a law", think very carefully. First, I doubt that a law would do it. The free speech protection is in the constitution so a law might not be valid anyway. Regardless, is your comfort at the dinner table or at your PC more important than the constitution. You always have the right to not answer the phone, email back to jerks that pollute your inbox, call them to complain, waste their time (while being careful to only express your opinion and not harrass). It would be a very bad idea to want the government to "pass a law" allowing the government to "thru the use of force" put someone in jail because of what they say, especially when the topic of the speech is political.
The bottom line here is that there are other ways to achieve balance. If a campaign uses email and does not manage their lists and remove requests well, don't vote for them. This is not a no vote because of disagreement with the candidates positions, it is a no vote because of a candidates lack of organization and poor adminstration of their data. If a candidate cannot properly handle an email list, do you realy expect them to be able to run a government office.
The other point here is that not voting for a candidate just because they sent you an email or called you with an automated message might be really stupid on your part. If you are too lazy (as many US voters are) to vote anyway (let along actually check out issues and learn about your local candidates), then perhaps you deserve to be interrupted at dinner. I find that the best way to turn a candidates machine off is to say "I have already voted by mail". Gets them every time.