Can Spam ActComes to life this week ( old news - 09:54AM Wednesday Dec 31 2003) tags: legislation · spamAccording to bill co-sponsor Billy Tauzin, the Can Spam Act of 2003 will "bring peace of mind back to everyone who sends and receives e-mail". According to Detroit Free Press columnist Mike Wendland, when the law goes into effect tomorrow, you probably won't notice the slightest difference. Wendland effectively mirrors our own thoughts on the legislation, in that it simply acts as a form of legalization for "legit" marketers, requiring each consumer to opt-out of a new flood of e-mail sales pitches. Wendland isn't alone in his skepticism. "It authorizes every offshore casino, every Viagra peddler, every pornographer, to send you as many messages as they want unless and until you tell them, one-by-one, to stop," says Silicon Valley IP lawyer David Kramer to TechTV. Even "Spam King" Alan Ralsky claims the act is "a plot by the big companies that connect homes and businesses to the Internet to keep all the profits from online marketing for themselves," and that he'll be only briefly slowed by the law.
Related:- No Constitutional Right to Spam
- FTC Takes Away Porn Pop-Ups
- Thursday Evening Links
- Washington Post Kills Major Spam, Child Porn Pit
- As Expected, Huge Spam Reduction To Be Short Lived
- Spam Success: A 1 In 12.5 Million Shot
- Scammers Try To Salvage McColo Data
- McColo Closure Forces BotNet Shift
|
 snkeyes3
join:2003-09-23
| Put on your raincoats Its gonna be raining SPAM. After all the legit opt-outs are processed, the "less than legit spammers" (take that with a grain of salt) will just use the opt-out requirement to sign you up for more spam...as we ALL know WILL happen.
The flood is coming. Where are my waders? | |
|  | 
Wills
join:2001-01-03
Port Charlotte, FL | Re: Put on your raincoats We have just doubled internet spam traffic.
First the spam, now everyone clicking the "Opt-out" link to get rid of it.
--
Abit VP-6 twin 800EB's @ 1002 Mhz.Proud member of the XDC. | |
| | | | | | 
dvd536
as Mr. Pink as they come
Premium
join:2001-04-27
Phoenix, AZ
| said by Wills  :
We have just doubled internet spam traffic.
First the spam, now everyone clicking the "Opt-out" link to get rid of it.
And opting out just verifies your email as valid which can be sold to list brokers or other spammers
--
You can never be too rich, too thin or have too much Bandwidth | |
| | 
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| And how will you tell those legit opt-out links from the less-than-legit ones? Answer: You won't and it will still be easier to just delete (or filter) the spam. Of course, now spammers might claim that their messages are legal and try to use the legal system to force the ISPs to let their spam through. (Not that they'd win. I think the CAN SPAM act specifically allows ISPs to filter e-mails, but how many ISPs would cave at the mere threat of a lawsuit?)
--
-Jason Levine
http://www.jasons-toolbox.com/
http://www.PCQandA.com/
http://www.urateit.com/ | |
| | mglunt
join:2001-09-10
Fredericksburg, VA
 ·Verizon FIOS
 ·VoicePulse
|
The Bill outlaws getting your email address from the variety of ways that the vast majority of them did... from email lists, probing websites, using jsmith1, jsmith2, etc... You will also see a do not spam list soon.
So, unless you give them your email, they won't have it. Some of you really, REALLY, need to read the law before commenting on it. | |
| 
jmn1207
Premium
join:2000-07-19
Reston, VA | Which Definition of the Word "Can" are We Using? Can Spam Act? Yes indeed it can, now more than ever. | |
| |
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY | Re: Which Definition of the Word "Can" are We Using? There's a silent U in front of it. As in "You Can Spam." | |
| 
garagerock
Premium
join:2002-06-14
Louisville, KY | Blatant Promotion.... www.ipop.com | |
| 
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
edit:
December 31st, @11:01AM
| If you don't have a clue pass a new law This whole situation makes me think of Bennie Hill and the segments where he is being chased buy a herd of largely naked women. Bennie Hill is the poor soul try to use E-mail
and the herd of sweeties chasing is the spam. I am not going to op out of anything I'll continue to use My filter and setup the message rules. Oh but I do have an important
message I have been asked to forward here......
Hello good sir
My name is Okwui Crookuloo my father was the minister of graft and corruption in Nigeria. I have a trunk with 34 million in US dollars I need to get out of the country................
--
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. | |
| 
viperpa33s
Why Me?
Premium
join:2002-12-20
Bradenton, FL
 ·Bright House
| Government in action said by Jason Levine:
And how will you tell those legit opt-out links from the less-than-legit ones? Answer: You won't and it will still be easier to just delete (or filter) the spam. Of course, now spammers might claim that their messages are legal and try to use the legal system to force the ISPs to let their spam through. (Not that they'd win. I think the CAN SPAM act specifically allows ISPs to filter e-mails, but how many ISPs would cave at the mere threat of a lawsuit?)
I have asked this same question before and your absolutely right. First the money sucking lawyer is going to have a field day taking ISP's to court for blocking emails cause this Act says all emails are legitimate. Then the money sucking lawyer will start going after the companies and programmers that create programs to block emails. I mean let's be real, you can't block a email before stating you didn't want it in the first place.
Of course the computer user has no real recourse if the computer wants to put a stop to the unwanted spam. Who do we go to if we keep getting bombarded with emails? We can't go to a lawyer to put stop to it cause the DMA made sure we can't do that. Once again the people, the computer user, the people that the politicians suppose to represent, gets the shaft. | |
| 
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | I don't care about it because I use a spam filter. Instead of wining about the latest bill not doing anything about spam, why not use a spam filter. Thunderbird gets rid of most of my spam. | |
| | JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| Re: I don't care about it because I use a spam filter. said by reub2000 :
Instead of wining about the latest bill not doing anything about spam, why not use a spam filter. Thunderbird gets rid of most of my spam.
You're assuming everyone is an individual user with the knowledge, time and money to invest. That doesn't cover a lot of users, like my kids and my parents, nor does it cover personal and business domains that get slammed with "dictionary" spam sent to many addresses. Spam imposes huge costs of time and money on individuals and businesses - estimated recently at $20 billion - which is only going to grow unless some sort of correction is put into the system. | |
| |
reub2000
Premium
join:2001-12-28
Evanston, IL | Re: I don't care about it because I use a spam fil Yeah, it unfair that anyone running a mail server has to pay for bandwidth and cpu time of receiving and filtering spam, but there is no solution. It's the price we pay for a free and open method of communication. | |
|
Transmaster
Don't Blame Me I Voted For Bill and Opus
join:2001-06-20
Cheyenne, WY
| Check this out Do you want scream go here. I hope this long link works:(
»www.nytimes.com/2003/12/31/busin···osition=
--
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. | |
| | 
kenspi
join:2000-08-28
Burbank, CA
| Whooptee doo. Eh, big deal. Commercials via RDS is hardly similar to spam via e-mail. No. 1, I don't pay for RDS service, as I do for e-mail (via ISP costs). No. 2, I'm not required to look at my radio display to hear what its saying, as I do with e-mail to delete it. RDS is a glitzy add-on to existing radio service. E-mail is a necessity for most that use it. Ads via RDS is kind of like product placement on TV (like the AT&T logo on a cordless phone used in a TV show). You'll barely notice it unless you look for it.
The concept of selling promos via RDS is quite old. I remember when RDS was first released, they had mentioned it being a potential source of additional revenue. It just didn't make sense here, since there were very few receivers capable of receiving the service. Without the receivers, broadcasters didn't have the audience. Without the audience, they could hardly get advertisers.
Its too bad California's new anti-spam law won't go into effect tomorrow. Apparently our congressmen just love $pam and don't want states to have the power to regulate it. | |
| medfly
join:2003-05-15
Windsor, CO
| thank god i run my own mail server I've resorted to heavily firewalling off the spammmers. That has reduced my spam problem to nil. They can try to opt out of the firewall all they want  (for the curious, i currently have about 2000 firewall entries regarding spammers, most of the blocks are for dynamic ip users (aka dialup, cable, dsl) and for spam hosters like uunet, ev1, cybercon, etc). | |
| | 
Kylemaul
Lovin' My Firefox 1.5.x
Premium
join:2001-03-30
North Port, FL
clubs: | Re: thank god i run my own mail server Curious, do you have a program that automates blocking the offensive domains, or is it a manual deal for you?
--
'The tighter the RIAA squeezes their grip, the more stars and systems will slip through their fingers.' | |
| JPCass
join:2001-01-23
Denver, CO
| Wait, watch - and plan At least the theoretical discussions will end for a while, and we can observe what effects the new legislation has on spam.
I think that the important point is, we can see what actually works - and doesn't - about this law, and then use that as ammunition to push for legislation that will be more effective. People - and businesses - are expecting spam to lessen, and if it doesn't happen, there will be lots of pressure on legislators to come up with something more effective, and less room for the DMA and "legitimate" marketers to make excuses about penalties and restrictions. And, there will likely be more urgency to discussions about technical solutions, such as various e-mail authentication schemes.
I find it hard to imagine that we "won't notice the slightest difference". Ralsky has already apparently stopped, pending changes to his practices to try to keep him out of trouble with the law. Other spammers with something to lose, and advertisers with concerns about their image and liabilities, are likely to change their practices. Just what the net effect will be is hard to say - but we'll get to see soon. | |
| | waedens
join:2002-01-29
Ada, OK
| Re: Wait, watch - and plan said by JPCass :
...and we can observe what effects the new legislation has on spam.
Doesn't appear to be much of an effect at all. For 3 months I've been doing a little spam project, during that three months I averaged 81 spams per day. I reset it and started over Jan 1 and after 5 days I'm averaging 79.2.
Here is the stats after Jan 1:
»www.intruder1500.com/spammed/ | |
| | | 
Morac
join:2001-08-30
Riverside, NJ | Re: Traditional Widsom Still Applies.... I wouldn't change your stance on #2 even if the bill is effective, because the bill only applies to spam sent from the US. While most of the spam comes from the US a large number does come from overseas. This bill does nothing for that spam. | |
| | | |
|
|
·