Anti-Spam Legislation Advances Bill Would Override Tougher State Laws

Washington Post ^ | November 22, 2003 | Jonathan Krim

[LowCountryJoe]

...House and Senate negotiators reached agreement yesterday on a bill to curb unsolicited e-mail, CLEARING THE WAY for the first federal law to attack the growing wave of spam that has overwhelmed computer in-boxes and cost businesses billions of dollars a year...

...But the bill hardly would hardly quell the controversy over how best to crack down on spam. Some consumer groups and anti-spam activists argue that such a law would be largely ignored by the worst spammers, many of whom operate overseas. Meanwhile, they say, the bill would codify rules by which legitimate companies can send even more unwanted e-mail...

..."Imagine if you had a do-not-solicit sign on your front door, and what that really meant was, 'please solicit until I tell every one of you to stop,' " said Chris Murray, legislative counsel of Consumers Union...

[LowCountryJoe]

When I posted concerning the Federal Do Not Call Registry I managed to stir the pot. Perhaps I'll be able to recreate all of that hate and discontent directed toward me.

Is regular mail going to be next? After that, billboards? Heck, I want to opt out of some television, newspaper, and website pop-up advertising, when will I be able to do that? Big government, please protect me!

[AntiGuv]

But the bill hardly would hardly quell the controversy over how best to crack down on spam.

Capital punishment..

[discostu]

Go and configure a publicly exposed e-mail server and watch the harddrive get sucked up by spam, watch the processor get pegged trying to process spam, then you'll understand the problem. Spam steals computer resources from every e-mail server in the country. Also it flies around on the internet, the backbone of which was built BY THE GOVERNMENT. Regulation against theft is good, regulation against theft from the government is good. Red herring arguments comparing it to billboards are dumb.

[thoughtomator]

You ever run an email server? If you haven't, I would stop right now before you severely embarass yourself.

[Holly_P]

the backbone of which was built BY THE GOVERNMENT. Regulation against theft is good, regulation against theft from the government is good.

What's the answer to spammers from other countruies who don't give a rats ass about U.S. Laws?

[discostu]

Extradition paperwork. Just because they're in another country doesn't make them immune to our laws, just makes them harder to bust.

[LowCountryJoe]

Nope, I have not. Still, even at the risk of severely embarrassing myself, what's next to legislate? Am I being excessively worried here for no reason at all, hmmm?

[Holly_P]

France does not extradite French born citizens for any reason (Roman Polanski-the rapist)

[fire_eye]

That's the difference between spam and ordinary junk mail - the spammers can eat up resources without having to pay for it.

What's needed is a means by which they can be forced to pay for it. If we pass legislation which enables the restriction of email in general - even as an unintended consequence - we are going to regret it.

Consequently, I'd rather see this handled as a civil matter involving loss of revenue. The Government needs to use its authority to assist ISPs and others in suing spammers to recover lost revenues, etc. - whether they're foreign or domestic. (The U.S. government without question has enough influence with foreign governments to force them to go after spammers outside our borders - if it wants to use it).

But don't expect the rocket scientists in Clowngress to understand any of that (or even care). They'll just seize the opportunity to legislate to expand the power of government to regulate, no matter where, or why - and no matter what the unintended consequences.

[discostu]

Life gets complicated when you're trying to cross borders. But that complication doesn't make the law bad, if it did we should get rid of all our wire-fraud and mail-fraud laws which we ALREADY work to extradite people over. The majority of spammers are domestic (though many use offshore relays to obscure their trail), no law gets rid of 100% of the bad guys, let's not set the bar unreasonably high.

[discostu]

I don't think you can extradite over civil, that to me is the best reason to handle it as theft and make it criminal. Also suits aren't as cool as people think, it can be pretty easy to avoid paying a settlement especially if you've been careful in your incorporation paperwork. Jail's a lot harder to avoid even with spiffy paperwork.

[Nick Danger]

The Spam Protection Act of 2003

That's what they ought to call this bill. Crackdown on spam? It is to laugh. This bill protects spam by explicitly legalizing "unsolicited commercial email" (AKA "spam") provided it follows a few rules that cannot work in the real world. It also makes "opt out" (they can send until you unsubscribe) the Federal standard for mailing lists, as opposed to the more restrictive "opt in" (you have to give permission first) standard that many states were passing.

Oh good, now mass emailers will have to include an "unsubscribe" link that actually unsubscribes you, instead of alerting the spammer to the fact that "this email address is live and somebody reads it." So now you have a spam in your inbox and it has an unsubscribe link. Dare you click it?

HA HA GOTCHA! That email was really from Czechoslovakia, and you just told them that your email address is a live one. They'll be selling your email addy all over the world before the day is out.

This law sucks. It's worse than zero. It's going to give people a false sense of security that they can click those unsubscribe links without getting hosed. After they try it a couple of times and it's suddenly raining mortgage re-fi's and penis enlargements, they'll realize they got tricked.

This was pointy-haired lawyers fixing a technical problem. Makes as much sense as hiring a plumber to work on your car.

[thoughtomator]

Yes I do think you are being excessively anxious about it. Junk fax laws do the exact same thing with a different medium, and no one questions the sensibility, constitutionality, or utility of those laws. If you like the fact that you can hook up a fax machine without all your ink and paper wasted by people faxing you ads (you have recourse if they do), then you should like anti-spam legislation.

Spam is so pervasive that it renders email entirely unusable for a person whose address finds its way to spammers' lists. It's a quantifiable injury, not some imagined grievance.

[DH]

Apparently you don't have the common sense to realize that SPAM in it's general form is just plain FRAUD!  How many fraudulent "junk mails" do you receive in your "snail mail" mailbox each day?  How many fraudulent billboards do you see on the roadside?

Big government you say?  Well, I guess you need to be informed that the government is actually doing something beneficial this time (for a change.)  The government is trying to protect the public from criminals (yes, that's exactly what a person is when they attempt to defraud you) who is in reality, breaking existing criminal laws and deceptive advertising civil statutes.

I have no problem in receiving email advertisements from bonafide businesses that have the following traits:

Companies (not individuals) who have lawful and ligitimate business enterprises.

Clearly identifiable addresses, both physical and cyber.

Posted telephone, email and fax numbers within the content of the matter sent.

The name of the contact to be reached within the company sending the email.

With these factors in mind, 99.999999999% of all SPAM would not qualify.

[steve-b]

But the bill hardly would hardly quell the controversy over how best to crack down on spam

Airdrop spammers into downtown Mecca with the Stars and Stripes tattooed onto one cheek and the Star of David tattooed onto the other.

[Revolting cat!]

As Nick Danger says, this law is worse than nothing! This is a cynical wink-wink-nudge-nudge deal between our corrupt political class in Washington and their money men at the Direct Marketing Association, intended to supercede, nullify, void the tough state legislation. It's exactly the opposite of what it pretends to be! They (the congresscritters) are obviously responding to public pressure, but bribe money talks louder. Who's going to vote for the opposition candidate come November because spam has continued unabated? It's re-election safe posturing once again!