Can Spam Act ReadyJust awaiting Presidential signature ( old news - 11:07AM Wednesday Dec 10 2003) tags: Op/Ed · legislation · spamTipped by Karl Bode  Congress this week finalized the Can Spam Act of 2003, which now simply requires President Bush's signature. While Congress and big business are busy back-patting, the majority of anti-spam experts continue to claim the solution makes things worse; not better. The newswires are filled with an endless sea of banal reports (this Reuters story being one example) that paint the Act and its associated 'Do Not Spam' Registry idea as effective solutions. While mainstream media tries their hardest to remain impartial (and non-critical to a fault), some outlets like the Detroit Free Press and others are slamming the legislation as totally useless (and like we did when the act first emerged). The Direct Marketing Association worked closely with Congress for four years to draft the legislation, and it shows. While Congress and the marketers they love are busy popping the champagne corks, anti-spammers like Spamhaus's Steve Linford are busying throwing their hands up in disgust. Linford argues that 'legit' spammers like Alan Ralsky will now only grow bigger, and stronger. "So are the 200 or so other big spammers who account for 90 percent of the spam the world gets. And this very bad law your Congress passed is going to make many more spammers join them because instead of prohibiting spam, it legalizes it," Linford says to the Detroit Free Press. And just think, you'll have the honor of trying to opt-out from every single one of them. Once Congress realizes they've only made the problem worse be unleashing a swarm of new "legit" marketers, they'll push harder for a "Do Not Spam" registry. Once that list of verified e-mail addresses is circulated to "legit" spammers (so they know who not to spam), it's not long before it lands in the laps of off-shore spammers who laugh at U.S. laws. The result? More spam. Consumers trying in vain to opt-out from hundreds of legit marketers, with state laws that would have helped now impotent.
Related:- Paranoia On The Web
- Shockingly, Infrastructure Investment Is Booming
- The Truth Behind The Baby Bells & 'Franchise Reform'
- New Bill: Broadband Is 2Mbps
- Congress Realizes Broadband Data Sucks
- FTC Takes Away Porn Pop-Ups
- Embarq: Selling User Browsing Data 'Empowers' Users
- Thursday Evening Links
|
 
Supafly
Premium
join:2000-07-15
Lancaster, CA
edit:
December 10th, @11:12AM
| Do-not-spam lists is only another tool... to get our email addresses....
So if I don't want to be spammed, I sign up for this do-not-spam list, which in turn is handed over to the spammers themselves so they don't spam me. What the hell makes congress think that these spammers won't copy the list overseas or to one of their shell companies that cannot be traced back to them? | |
|  | MrBentor
join:2003-02-18
Seattle, WA
| Re: Do-not-spam lists is only another tool... It was said that the Do-Not-Spam list would just give spammers address and allow them to send spam form foreign sources. While this may be the case for some of the spam; here is one reason why this would still limit a percentage of the spam sent from “overseas…”
Many of the persons[1] who send spam are actually physically based in the several States; but are just using foreign services to spam from. They still would be on the hook. You simply look to where the “product” was sent from, or where the money was sent to. Just using or hiring a foreign service won’t offer protection. The person who hired the spamming service still could be held liable. The apparent origin or true origin may different or not be obvious. If Joe Spamboy is selling drugs out of Florida but sends the spam out of (through) China, Joe Spamboy in Florida is still busted.
[1] Definition of “Person” includes: a natural person, company, corporation, partnership, trust, or artificial entity. | |
| | | 
matt380
Dangit, Bobby.
Premium
join:2002-06-12
Kennesaw, GA
clubs: | who's legit? I just wonder though, how many of the 20+ spam emails i receive each day are from the 'legit' spammers and how many are from 'backdoor' spammers. i guess we'll see soon enough, no? | |
| | tdkyo
join:2002-12-07
Rochester, NY | Re: who's legit? Spammers from China and from other countries obey this law in the US? Give me a break! | |
| bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
 ·Packet8
 ·Cox HSI
edit:
December 10th, @11:21AM
| Just one example.... It just goes to show you that sometimes a government solution is worse than others. If it gets signed into law as it is, I certainly won't be expecting an reduction in "Thompson Cigar" ads and crap like that. Of course its better than asking the industry to regulate it setlf, something that rarely, if ever, works (think cable).
Hell, I'm even tempted to fire an email to "Shrub," but with all the penis enlargement and pep pills ads filling the president's email box and the fact that he gets millions of legit messages a month, I doubt it would do any good.
I guess in the end it goes to show that nothing beats protections like Spamassassin or Mailwasher.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice. --
Peace through superior firepower is not peace, but state terrorism. | |
| 
newview
Ex .. Ex .. Exactly
Premium
join:2001-10-01
Parsonsburg, MD
·Vonage
| Forbes: Congress Makes No Progress On Spam quote:
"There's an old argument from those who oppose gun control that if you make guns illegal, only criminals will have guns. Something similar applies here. If you ban forged e-mail addresses, only criminals will forge their e-mail addresses."
"The bill also bans hijacking someone else's computer for the purpose of sending spam, but computer intrusion for any reason is generally illegal, so don't expect that provision to make much of a difference."
"Another ridiculous inclusion is a requirement that spam e-mails contain the sender's postal mail address. Spammers are not going to tell you the location of their homes or offices for fear that some unhappy recipient may pay them an unpleasant visit."
"Finally, the last insultingly bad provision on which Congress has wasted its time--and ours--with this bill, and in fact the entire effort, is the requirement that senders give receivers a means to "opt out" of their lists--that is, tell them you don't want to hear from them ever again. Remember now that this law applies only to senders who are based in the U.S., and that telling the difference between spammers foreign and domestic is no easy task."
"Bush would do e-mail users everywhere a big favor by vetoing this so-called "anti-spam" bill when it reaches his desk. Veto it, and send it back with a handwritten note saying, "Legislating badly is worse than not legislating at all." "
»www.forbes.com/home_asia/2003/11···ech.html
--
The Rules of Spam | Maryland's New Anti-Spam Law
Where are we going? And what's with the hand basket? | |
| 
Mellow
Premium
join:2001-11-16
Salisbury, MD
 ·HostGator
 ·Cavalier Telephone
| mail Almost makes you want to ditch email and just print out your letters and stick a stamp on them. *Almost*. Only way I see this getting better is if they combine the gun law with the spam law - We can legaly shoot spammers onsite with fully automatic weapons. | |
| 
Viggen93
Premium,VIP
join:2002-04-16
Hamilton, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| Share the wealth..... (and the spam) What is so hard to figure out? I didn't ask for it, so don't send it to me, instead the DMA goes to congress all "bleeding heart" about millions of Americans out of work if spamming becomes illegal, they won't be out of work, they have new full-time jobs looking for meaningful employment. Can't those friggin idiots figure out that spammers have no regard for law, no regard for privacy and certainly no ethics, nothing short of stiff penalties including jail time and large fines will stop these yahoos. Send the message that if you initiate spam from US Soil, you can go to jail.
I'm really glad that I saved my spam, come January 1st, should he sign this bill into law, my spam is shared with President George W. Bush.
--
If this aircraft was alive she'd be crying supersonic tears now. | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
edit:
December 10th, @12:20PM
| Attack of the Spam PRESS RELEASE: Society Polluting All Mail
Subject: Can Spam law
to: All Members
Launch your long boats sail to the States we can now fill the horizon with our Viking invaders singing;
Spam Spam, Spam, Spam
Beautiful Spam
Wonderful Spam...
The American Government is even supplying us with a list
we don't have to pay for. The United States is such a wonderful country, stupid, but wonderful.
--
I love Irish Terriers, Low Brass, and the sound of a 1950 Johnson Viking 1 tranmitter on the air for the first time in 30 years. | |
| 
bokamba
Chengdu Rocks
Premium
join:2002-04-05
Falls Church, VA | If it get signed, let's test it I've got a spare throwaway email address that gets no mail. If this gets signed into law, I'll add it to the do-not-spam list and see what happens. | |
| 
Zertoss
Just Say No To Caps Lock
join:2001-08-01
Clute, TX | I wonder... Should President Bush veto this, would his popularity suddenly soar? 
--
This lead apron will protect me from the gravity. | |
| | | | | | | 
Flagger
Premium
join:2001-08-10
Weimville | I hope he vetoes this... I am so against this it is not funny. I want less government involvement in my life not more. For the record, I was against the no call list as well. | |
| | bmn
? ? ?
Premium,ExMod 2003-06
join:2001-03-15
hiatus
·Packet8
·Cox HSI
| Re: I hope he vetoes this... said by Flagger :
I want less government involvement in my life not more. For the record, I was against the no call list as well.
Interesting, but doesn't the do-not-call list put more government in the life of telespammers and not yours?
I agree that we need less government in our personal lives, but business occasionally needs to be reigned in so they aren't interfering with our lives.
--
Male by birth... Geek by choice. --
Peace through superior firepower is not peace, but state terrorism. | |
| | 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
·Bright House
| Can The Computer User quote:
The Direct Marketing Association worked closely with Congress for four years to draft the legislation, and it shows.
This is same organization who fought so hard to get the Do Not Call List from being implemented. There reason was that it violated business free speech, a term they made up and try to justify as being legitimate.
This should not be called Can The Spam, it should be called Can The Computer User. We will not receive less spam but be bombarded with endless amounts of spam by users or companies who will say that it is legitimate emails. We will have no way of stopping it since the government has given the spammers a green light to do whatever they want. If we complain we will have to go through endless amounts of red tape and by that time the spammer would have moved on to something better.
The DMA has us thinking different, that they are the good guys. That we shouldn't fear them but embrace them. Taking our interests at heart is there main goal, bologna I say to all of it. The spammers that they represent do nothing but clog my email box and invade my privacy. It's not only the DMA but other spammers and companies as well.
It's great how the politicians are keeping the people's interest at heart. We elect them to protect our interests and all they do is line there pockets. I am surprised they didn't say we couldn't use spam blockers but I am sure that is next. I also wonder how the ISP's factor in all this. Will the ISP's have to change there tactics on blocking spam since now most spam will classified as legitimate? Will be waiting for the lawsuits to start flying. | |
| | 
hbreg
Premium
join:2000-11-09
Feasterville Trevose, PA
| Re: Can The Computer User said by viperpa33s :
I also wonder how the ISP's factor in all this. Will the ISP's have to change there tactics on blocking spam since now most spam will classified as legitimate? Will be waiting for the lawsuits to start flying.
According to said by spanhaus.org:
Some spammers are claiming that CAN-SPAM not only allows them to spam legally but that it protects them further by also making it illegal for anti-spam systems to block their spam. In fact, while CAN-SPAM is an abysmally poor law, at least it does have some parts which attempt to address the issue of blocking spam, specifically it states that the law does not impact an ISP's ability to determine and enforce its own policies for transmission of email (i.e: through the use of blocklists or whatever means the ISP likes). This means that spammers cannot sue ISPs for blocking the mail they send claiming that the ISP must accept and deliver it based on the Federal law.
Looks like ISP's are safe for now.
the full article from spamhaus is linked in the story above.
Why is it though that we (as in most Americans with email addresses) get that this law stinks to the high heavens but the people who wrote it and enacted it don't have a clue.
--
I try to keep an open mind, but not so open that my brains fall out. -- Judge Harold T. Stone | |
| | | 
woody7
Premium
join:2000-10-13
Torrance, CA | Re: Can The Computer User They probably don't use e-mail or have their email read for them..................
--
Bloome | |
| | | | 
phxmark
What Country Are We Living In?
join:2000-12-27
Glendale, AZ
| Re: Can The Computer User said by woody7 :
They probably don't use e-mail or have their email read for them..................
Find these politicians personal e-mail addresses, I.E., the ones their children, wives and mistresses use and sign them up for whatever e-mail lists you can find.
Don't bother signing their us.gov address up, but their aol, earthlink, msn, etc. addresses.
--
Still living on Dial-Up. | |
| 
Glenn
I'D Rather Be Skiing
Premium
join:2000-10-05
Wallingford, CT | Maybe they should have named this.... ddd No more spam bill! ttjjjuuuuu
ddd lkj uwtqnskd
#####Paris Hilton((((((
ssss sss ssssjjjkkkkk | |
| | | JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
|  Why not?
My take is that people will expect spam to be reduced, and it's a subject that a lot of people are passionate about. If the law is flawed and there isn't the expected reduction, then there will just be that much more pressure to pass new legislation that is properly crafted to produce the promised results, and that much less wiggle room for the advertisers to argue for weak laws.
Anyone remember when junk faxes were way out of control? The law passed for that helped a lot. Obviously, e-mail spam is more complex, but it's a past case that indicates that legislation might in fact effect some good. | |
| | | |
|
|
