Oh, please. Defining "unsolicited commercial email" is not rocket science. And it's certainly not even *close* to the hackneyed "I know it when I see it" thang.
Sending unsolicited "postage-due"/"recipient-pays" advertising is theft of time and theft of services.
I repeat: figuring this out is not rocket science.
SMTP was not designed for use in a hostile environment, and the inherently trusted environment for which it was designed no longer exists.
Thanks to the DMA and the congresswhores in their pocket, we'll shortly have no recourse other than to kiss our email goodbye.
In its wake, I expect something like a robust enhanced form of client-to-client RSS to be developed.
Of course, there's always Bayesian analysis waiting in the wings. I'm running K9 and it's *frighteningly* effective. But still, I'm stuck with downloading the spewage anyway, even though K9 does categorize it so that I can filter it into a toiletpatch.
It's just a matter of time before server-side Bayesian filtering becomes commonplace. At that time, spam is dead. But, it'll only be dead until the DMA & gang can round up the usual suspects and get them to make Bayesian filtering illegal.
Think that's far-fetched?
Think again. We've already got Movers & Shakers suggesting that it's a violation of "advertisers' First Amendment rights" for people to skip over commercials on time-shifted teevee programs.
Evil knows no bounds. "Ethics" in the post-clinton era is defined as "whatever you can get away with". And the DMA-enabled regulatory superstructure can get away with pretty much anything.
Cute, except for one thing: they're not coming for the spammers.
If you read the proposed legislation and regulations, and the comments of those promulgating them, you will quickly realize that this is the most DMA-friendly "enforcement" under the sun.
This ain't about stopping spam. It's about *protecting* spam.
Doing the "investigating" in secret is a fantastic way of protecting the Poor Misunderstood MainSleaze Spambags from being stigmatized.
This ain't about the chickenboners. It's about the mainsleaze -- specifically, it's about *protecting* and *legitimizing* their "right" to spam the living snot out of us.
"Why should we let them place wiretaps on spammers, who, mind you, at present commit no crime?"
Theft is a crime.
"Why not just make spam a crime and let them get a warrent like any other enforcement agency?"
Aye, there's the rub.
This form of theft is not explicitly declared a crime (a meaningless distinction, along the lines of, "there's no law that explicitly says you can't steal a ham sandwich from my left pocket, therefore it must be legal"). The disingenuous pro-spam effendi are trying to torture this "logic" into an explicit *permission* to spam.
This whole thing isn't about "stopping spam".
It's about legitimizing spam.
It's about protecting spam.
Of course, since everyone *hates* spam, the word-twisters have to put a publicly plausible spin on it. But make no mistake -- it's not about doing anything to *solve* the problem, it's actually quite to the contrary.
Look up the BS that surrounded the despicable "Murkowsky Bill" a few years ago.
Then look at the BS surrounding *this* travesty. It's SS,DD.
There is a recent rash of radical laws that prohibit an intermediary (i.e., an ISP, a library, etc.) to disclose to a person that said person has had information handed over to the gov't.
So far as I am aware, however, there is no prohibition against informing someone who is not being investigated that he is not being investigated. (To even suggest otherwise would border on the absurd, n'est ce pas?)
I would not mind receiving a periodical notice from my ISP that I am not being investigated. I doubt *anyone* would mind receiving such presumably legal traffic.
If everyone starts doing it, the entire orwellian superstructure (well, at least the part under discussion) would fall of its own weight.
A cynic might conclude that a motive for keeping the investigation secret is not to "violate" any spammer's rights, but to *protect* yonder spambag's "rights".
Do some research into the incestuous relationship between the DMA and the slimy pro-spam legislators and regulators.
Oops, I hit [send] too soon. $&*@# blood pressure...
From that same article:
Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., wondered whether antispam sentiment
was going too far. "Are we doing anything that protects the
legitimate players and lets them operate without being harassed by
the FTC?" Lautenberg asked.
Well isn't *that* special.
Lautenberg, the piece of work who never saw a gun control law he didn't love
-- who pushed through some *radical* anti-Second Amendment legislation -- the same
snake who slithered in at the eleventh hour to salvage NJ for the
democRATS after "The Torch" RF'd his failing campaign due to being
crooked beyond description (yet, managing to avoid prosecution, gee, I'm
shocked)...
Lautenberg now wants to protect LEGITIMATE spammers?
Let me guess -- they're the ones with *working* "remove" opt-out BS?
I wonder how many millions *that* whore is pocketing from the DMA?
"Secret investigation" powers aside, the commisioners quoted don't seem to get it - spammers shouldn't need to be forced to "honour remove requests" - spammers need to be forced to shut down completely.
If I didn't ask to be added, I shouldn't have to ask to be removed.
Oh, they get it alright. They know exactly what they're doing.
The DMA has the best whores money can buy. They're going out of their way to legitimize spam.
Tauzin said many points were akin to those in a House antispam bill that he co-sponsored last month, adding that the earlier proposal "may go even further than the FTC proposal as it allows consumers the opportunity to opt out of all commercial e-mail, not just unsolicited commercial e-mail."
That's like saying that, "My anti-food-adulteration bill is SO good that it not only makes sure that people can avoid getting adulterated food -- it makes sure they won't get *any* food, if they decide to accept the bill's protection."
Don't want spam?
No problem, sucka. You'll get no spam -- and, you'll get no "commercial email", period.
Oh? You say you WANT to get SOME "commercial email"? You want to be able to comm with companies you're dealing with?
No problem. Just shut up, and eat your spam.
Some slimy vermin toss out the baby with the bathwater. THESE slimy vermin are gonna make you take the sewage with the steak. No sewage, no steak. Want steak? Then eat your sewage.
They'll be joined at the hip.
What vile, despicable, absolutely disgusting pieces of feces roam the hallowed halls...
Slashdot Mirror
Oh, please. Defining "unsolicited commercial email" is not rocket science. And it's certainly not even *close* to the hackneyed "I know it when I see it" thang.
Sending unsolicited "postage-due"/"recipient-pays" advertising is theft of time and theft of services.
I repeat: figuring this out is not rocket science.
SMTP was not designed for use in a hostile environment, and the inherently trusted environment for which it was designed no longer exists.
Thanks to the DMA and the congresswhores in their pocket, we'll shortly have no recourse other than to kiss our email goodbye.
In its wake, I expect something like a robust enhanced form of client-to-client RSS to be developed.
Of course, there's always Bayesian analysis waiting in the wings. I'm running K9 and it's *frighteningly* effective. But still, I'm stuck with downloading the spewage anyway, even though K9 does categorize it so that I can filter it into a toiletpatch.
It's just a matter of time before server-side Bayesian filtering becomes commonplace. At that time, spam is dead. But, it'll only be dead until the DMA & gang can round up the usual suspects and get them to make Bayesian filtering illegal.
Think that's far-fetched?
Think again. We've already got Movers & Shakers suggesting that it's a violation of "advertisers' First Amendment rights" for people to skip over commercials on time-shifted teevee programs.
Evil knows no bounds. "Ethics" in the post-clinton era is defined as "whatever you can get away with". And the DMA-enabled regulatory superstructure can get away with pretty much anything.
Cute, except for one thing: they're not coming for the spammers.
If you read the proposed legislation and regulations, and the comments of those promulgating them, you will quickly realize that this is the most DMA-friendly "enforcement" under the sun.
This ain't about stopping spam. It's about *protecting* spam.
Doing the "investigating" in secret is a fantastic way of protecting the Poor Misunderstood MainSleaze Spambags from being stigmatized.
This ain't about the chickenboners. It's about the mainsleaze -- specifically, it's about *protecting* and *legitimizing* their "right" to spam the living snot out of us.
"what is secretly investigating spammers going to achieve[?]"
It's going to achieve something.
It's going to protect the spammers from being publicly stigmatized.
Face it -- the DMA owns this fight.
Theft is a crime.
"Why not just make spam a crime and let them get a warrent like any other enforcement agency?"
Aye, there's the rub.
This form of theft is not explicitly declared a crime (a meaningless distinction, along the lines of, "there's no law that explicitly says you can't steal a ham sandwich from my left pocket, therefore it must be legal"). The disingenuous pro-spam effendi are trying to torture this "logic" into an explicit *permission* to spam.
This whole thing isn't about "stopping spam".
It's about legitimizing spam.
It's about protecting spam.
Of course, since everyone *hates* spam, the word-twisters have to put a publicly plausible spin on it. But make no mistake -- it's not about doing anything to *solve* the problem, it's actually quite to the contrary.
Look up the BS that surrounded the despicable "Murkowsky Bill" a few years ago.
Then look at the BS surrounding *this* travesty. It's SS,DD.
There is a recent rash of radical laws that prohibit an intermediary (i.e., an ISP, a library, etc.) to disclose to a person that said person has had information handed over to the gov't.
So far as I am aware, however, there is no prohibition against informing someone who is not being investigated that he is not being investigated. (To even suggest otherwise would border on the absurd, n'est ce pas?)
I would not mind receiving a periodical notice from my ISP that I am not being investigated. I doubt *anyone* would mind receiving such presumably legal traffic.
If everyone starts doing it, the entire orwellian superstructure (well, at least the part under discussion) would fall of its own weight.
A cynic might conclude that a motive for keeping the investigation secret is not to "violate" any spammer's rights, but to *protect* yonder spambag's "rights".
Do some research into the incestuous relationship between the DMA and the slimy pro-spam legislators and regulators.
Hint: keep a barf bag handy.
From that same article:
Well isn't *that* special.Lautenberg, the piece of work who never saw a gun control law he didn't love -- who pushed through some *radical* anti-Second Amendment legislation -- the same snake who slithered in at the eleventh hour to salvage NJ for the democRATS after "The Torch" RF'd his failing campaign due to being crooked beyond description (yet, managing to avoid prosecution, gee, I'm shocked)...
Lautenberg now wants to protect LEGITIMATE spammers?
Let me guess -- they're the ones with *working* "remove" opt-out BS?
I wonder how many millions *that* whore is pocketing from the DMA?
Color me cynical.
Oh, they get it alright. They know exactly what they're doing.
The DMA has the best whores money can buy. They're going out of their way to legitimize spam.
Take a look at this, for example.
Short excerpt:
That's like saying that, "My anti-food-adulteration bill is SO good that it not only makes sure that people can avoid getting adulterated food -- it makes sure they won't get *any* food, if they decide to accept the bill's protection."Don't want spam?
No problem, sucka. You'll get no spam -- and, you'll get no "commercial email", period.
Oh? You say you WANT to get SOME "commercial email"? You want to be able to comm with companies you're dealing with?
No problem. Just shut up, and eat your spam.
Some slimy vermin toss out the baby with the bathwater. THESE slimy vermin are gonna make you take the sewage with the steak. No sewage, no steak. Want steak? Then eat your sewage.
They'll be joined at the hip.
What vile, despicable, absolutely disgusting pieces of feces roam the hallowed halls...
Kiss your email goodbye.