Anti-SPAM Laws

[BigKahuna]

Finally!!!

Since the industry has been unable to police itself when it comes to spam - I think this is a good thing...

http://yro.slashdot.org/yro/03/09/23/2035204.shtml?tid=103&tid=111&tid=126&tid=99

Schlemphfer writes "Spammers have likely received their biggest setback yet, when California governor Gray Davis today signed a bill outlawing all unsolicited email sent to and from the state. Two things about this new law stand out: first, it puts the burden on senders to prove that they are sending solicited email. Second, it bans the entire practice of spamming, with no loopholes at all like allowing messages with ADV: in the subject. Keep in mind California has the world's fifth largest economy, and they are planning to enforce the law with fines amounting to $1000 per each piece of spam. This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st."

[JohnScott]

Awesome law. Now I can stop sending mail bombs to the owners of spamming websites.

[knightfoo]

Hrm .. who determines what is spam and what is not? People forget they sign up for newletters or they don't feel like unsubscribing themselves so they start reporting it as spam. The spammers will be fighting tooth-and-nail to prove that the recipients really opted-in .. possibly even forging verification information to make it look legitimate. Are they guilty of spamming if the spam originates from from outside the state? What if a competitor gets annoyed and starts spamming for a company, getting them in hot water?

This is starting to look like the war on drugs. As long as there is someone dumb enough to shoot up, someone will be there to provide them the means to do so. You can throw a drug dealer in jail for 10 years and fine them thousands of dollars, but there will be someone right behind them to take their place because of the money. Likewise, as long as people continue to click on links in stupid spamvertisements there will someone out there sending spam because it is still worthwhile for the spammers. Right now they get something like a 0.01% click-through rate, but that seems to be enough to keep them in business. The ultimate answer would be to eliminate the demand for spam .. if no one clicked, no spammer could stay in business long enough to annoy people.

Now back to reality .. maybe if we start tarring and feathering convicted spammers in public, someone might get a clue. :)

-knightfoo

[Shade]

Originally posted by knightfoo
Now back to reality .. maybe if we start tarring and feathering convicted spammers in public, someone might get a clue. :)

Sounds like a plan to me!

-Shade

[JohnScott]

I get over 1,000 spam messages in just one of my accounts every day. It's quite obviously spam. Commercial advertisements are spam. Email should be, like sex, consensual.

[BigKahuna]

Originally posted by knightfoo
Hrm .. who determines what is spam and what is not? People forget they sign up for newletters or they don't feel like unsubscribing themselves so they start reporting it as spam. The spammers will be fighting tooth-and-nail to prove that the recipients really opted-in .. possibly even forging verification information to make it look legitimate. Are they guilty of spamming if the spam originates from from outside the state? What if a competitor gets annoyed and starts spamming for a company, getting them in hot water?

This is starting to look like the war on drugs. As long as there is someone dumb enough to shoot up, someone will be there to provide them the means to do so. You can throw a drug dealer in jail for 10 years and fine them thousands of dollars, but there will be someone right behind them to take their place because of the money. Likewise, as long as people continue to click on links in stupid spamvertisements there will someone out there sending spam because it is still worthwhile for the spammers. Right now they get something like a 0.01% click-through rate, but that seems to be enough to keep them in business. The ultimate answer would be to eliminate the demand for spam .. if no one clicked, no spammer could stay in business long enough to annoy people.

Now back to reality .. maybe if we start tarring and feathering convicted spammers in public, someone might get a clue. :)

-knightfoo

I don't think it matters... first you need to set polciy - then you worry about policing... the problem right now is that there are no rules... its a free for all.

And as far as setting the right policy - that requires trial and error. But its clear that doing nothing isn't going to make things better.

[QT]

Quite an old thread...but I figured this may fit here:

http://dc.internet.com/news/article.php/3289551

This should be interesting...:rolleyes:

[Einewton]

Wow, I know a Spammer, He's gonna hate this, lol. :flush: Thoes spammers!

[Ron]

Perhaps, just out of curiosity, we should hold a poll to find out what
everyones definition of spam is...

[brent]

Right idea, wrong conclusion. The bill also makes spam legal provided there are no deceptive techniques used to deliver the email. This would force ISPs like serverbeach to relax their "no spam" rules. Things will get worse. The real problem is the fact that the majority of the big spammers aren't in the USA anyways. Throwing darts at a freight train it is. Considering who signed the bill, the outcome should not be so suprising. :)

[Ron]

To work a little off of what Brent said...Perhaps the bill isn't the
dead-on answer to spam, but it is a first step. Now that actions
are perhaps being taken, we can learn from this and use it next.

I personally believe that if they pursued the companies that are being
advertised, then it may slow down a great deal. Instead of trying
to track down a 65 year old retiree who is trying to live his means
outside of his social security check so he opens up his cable connection
as a mail server and lets anysexdomain.com send porno clips, get
anysexdomain.com in court and make them pay. Soon enough I don't
see many companies wanting to automatically go to court if they advert
that way.

</rant>

[knightfoo]

Originally posted by brent
Right idea, wrong conclusion. The bill also makes spam legal provided there are no deceptive techniques used to deliver the email. This would force ISPs like serverbeach to relax their "no spam" rules. Things will get worse. The real problem is the fact that the majority of the big spammers aren't in the USA anyways. Throwing darts at a freight train it is. Considering who signed the bill, the outcome should not be so suprising. :)

Just because some spam is legal doesn't mean that we have to allow it on our ToS/AUP. Port scanning isn't illegal, but if we catch you then we will suspend your account. I doubt any ISP will change their ToS/AUP because of spam laws .. it simply allows them to swing a bigger hammer when it comes to enforcing their ToS/AUP. Not only can they suspend your account, they can report you to the authorities who will smack you with a hefty fine.

Laws like this create a dilemma for spammers. If the spammer doesn't hide their identity then they are safe from the law, but it makes it easier for ISPs to shut them down and for Internet users to block them. They would no longer be a moving target and this would be enough to kill their business. If the spammer does choose to hide their identity to evade blacklists and increase their click-through rate, they open themselves up to the possibility of huge monetary losses. Even if they spam from outside of the country there is always going to be a trail back to them. They would have to move their entire operation outside of the jurisdiction of the United States government to avoid the penalties of spamming. Unless of course they are making so much money from spamming that the fines won't mean anything to them.

The biggest problem would be spamming by proxy to eliminate competition. If someone had a vendetta against a company or individual, they can start spamming for them and get them in a lot of trouble. It is much easier to prove that someone is spamming than it is to prove that someone is not spamming. Yes, I know, "innocent until proven guilty" .. but when an ISP is faced with hundreds of spam complaints and the choice is loose one customer or loose 300 customers, which do you think they will choose?

-knightfoo