New Opt-Out Clause Makes CAN-SPAM Worse

snydeq writes "Three years of mulling, and the FTC has made the CAN-SPAM Act worse, writes Gripe Line's Ed Foster. Chief among the offenses in the FTC's updated rules is an even worse approach to opt-out procedures. In the future, in scenarios where multiple marketers use a single email message to spam you, 'only one of the senders — the one in the From: field — need be designated the official sender who is responsible for honoring opt-outs,' Foster writes. Translation? 'Other "marketers" who used that spam message, not to mention the spamming service that actually provided the email address list, don't need to honor opt-outs. So try as you might to get yourself off a list, the real spammer can just keep changing the designated sender in the From: field and legally keep on spamming you.' The irony of the CAN-SPAM moniker gets thicker."

Comments

Re:Genius

[mabhatter654]

This is why established industries LOVE regulations! Once you have procedures in place to "follow" the regulation. Then the regulation becomes barrier to entry, or even a legal minefield, to those coming after.
In this case unsolicited bulk email would be illegal if you didn't follow all these rules up front. But for the guys that already got the grace period to follow the law it's been twisted just enough to be meaningless!!!

Power, telco, FCC, FAA, FDA, etc all those rule making agencies are run like this. It's just funny to see something so simple twisted so quickly. This is the same reason nobody wants internet neutrality put into law. Then any exceptions to blocking become "rules" that they "have" to block other content/providers... The telcos are already writing the rules the way they want with lots of backwards worded loopholes.

Can't render it any more impotent

[pla]

Other "marketers" who used that spam message, not to mention the spamming service that actually provided the email address list, don't need to honor opt-outs

Damn! I guess this means an end to the three wonderful years of relief we've all enjoyed from spam thanks to the oh-so-effective initial rules.


Seriously, this change really doesn't matter, except it will let the FTC claim success due to a massive drop in the number of "valid" complaints against spammers. Whining that it weakens the existing law strikes me as similar to complaining that a serial killer violated a restraining order.

I'm impressed, in a way

[damn_registrars]

It seems that they managed to take a completely toothless act, and make it even less helpful.

I guess it is no wonder that congress has managed to somehow attain an even lower approval rating than our current commander-in-chief, seeing as they managed to squirt out something like this instead of dealing with important national issues.

Re:More Proof That Lawmakers Don't Understand Tech

[kat_skan]

Who do these lawmakers use as expert advisors on technical issues?

Anybody who makes a sufficiently large contribution to their campaign, apparently.

Re:You Have this Completely Wrong

[joocemann]

Cool, then can you please make it so spam is an OPT-IN thing instead of OPT-OUT?

As it stands, the majority of people who receive the 'opt-out' spam DO NOT WANT IT, which makes the solution obvious: Change the system to Opt-In. That way, those of us who want something from someone, get it, and those whose spam is unsolicited can be prosecuted.

It is ridiculous that something so problematic to day-to-day functions is treated as OPT-OUT. If you're a policy maker, how do you justify that aspect of the policy?

Re:whitelist

[vbraga]

(Can we please drop SMTP already? Just looking at my inbox is vomit-inducing.) Pardon me for my ignorance, but what are the viable alternatives for SMTP?

Definition.

[SanityInAnarchy]

Spam lacks sufficient definition. While there are certain things that most of us can agree are spam, there is a sufficiently large gray area that it's not really possible to define clearly as law.

However, some things are absurdly easy to define -- take freedom of speech. You are allowed to say pretty much what you want, where you want, short of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. No one has yet found a way to twist the First Amendment into meaning something it doesn't -- into somehow meaning, for example, that all speech except blasphemy is protected.

Murder is another one. Killing someone on purpose is murder, short of self-defense or actual war.

I think net neutrality is sufficiently easy to define that if we can get any law right, it should be this one. ISPs should transfer all packets to where they are addressed, with no preference given to one packet over another -- except for a specific customer, at their explicit request (if I ask for a spamfilter, they may intercept port 25.)

Granted, telcos may subvert the process, but I'd rather at least try than have no legislation at all.

Re:Definition.

[thePowerOfGrayskull]

However, some things are absurdly easy to define -- take freedom of speech. You are allowed to say pretty much what you want, where you want, short of "Fire!" in a crowded theater. No one has yet found a way to twist the First Amendment into meaning something it doesn't -- into somehow meaning, for example, that all speech except blasphemy is protected. That's debatable; let's look at the text:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Maybe I'm just too naive, but it seems to me that it's established such that: a) there would not be a new Church of England taking power in the US and that people can choose whatever religion they want b) people could criticize the goverment. c) people can protest when the government is being stupid. d) the press should be able to report on activities of the government without limitations.

Yet somehow in the last couple hundred years, this has evolved to mean that anything anyone wants to say is fine. That freedom of the press means the press can invade peoples lives without permission or consequence. That people can smear shit on a painting, call it art, and have that considered "protected".

Are you so sure that it hasn't been twisted? Because it's used now to protect a /lot/ more than it says it protects.

Re:Definition.

[Rary]

How do you translate "or abridging the freedom of speech" into "people could criticize the government"? It makes no mention of the government, except in the final point, "to petition the Government for a redress of grievances", which is a separate bullet point.

In other words, the entirety of the Amendment, as it pertains to freedom of speech, is "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech". That's a pretty clear way of saying "the Government can't legally prevent you from saying anything -- period".

Standard disclaimer applies: IANAANHIRTCIIEIJIIDYP (I Am Not An American, Nor Have I Read The Constitution In Its Entirety, I'm Just Interested In Discussing Your Point).

Re:Wrong Name for the Act.

[archont]

No, it's named properly. CAN-SPAM. As in CAN-THEREFORE-I-WILL. SPAM.