Congress OKs National Anti-Spam Bill

[leroydb 0]

Quote

"I would like to see spammers publically flogged prior to being suspended by the genitalia, as a warning to others."

what if it was a female? would you hang by the boobies or "the man in the boat?"

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[rehmwa 2]

Females have genitalia but they're different than ours . Try and get out more or ask your parents about it.

Seriously, the do not call thing was a good idea and got trashed. But the congress excepting charitable orgs was a pile of poo. If I don't want solicitation, then I don't. that's simple. They could have made it a categorical type of system where the consumer chooses what types of calls to block.

Let's see how they wobble on this related issue.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[leroydb 0]

The question was, "what do we hang the women by?"

THe boobies? or "the man in the boat?"

now if you dont know what that is, get a GF and go down on her and investgate

Leroy


..I knew I was an unwanted baby when I saw my bath toys were a toaster and a radio...

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

So John,

You are willing to give up someone's right to free speech because they are trying to make a profit from it? Commercial Free Speech is still a constitutional right. I agree a certain amount of responsiblity is required, therefore the law should specifically focus on some of the points in the bill:

-A subject line that is true, makes sense and related to the body of the message.
-A true email address to respond to.
-True Opt-Out options that do not resell your email.

They should also include something about spyware or other destructive, invasive attachements.

A Do Not Spam list is the best option, much like the DNC list. Or a required word in the subject line that helps with filtering (such as ADV).

I do not work for a company that does telemarketing, but I do make admission calls to people that have DIRECTLY asked for us to contact them. However, our company doesn't want to get hit with any fines as people find ways to make money off this new law. Therefore, any number that comes in that matches something on the DNC list is scrubbed from our database. This would include someone that I have been talking to for months, trying to help them out with their education and future plans....I am no longer allowed to call them. We have been told that if a DNC violation is logged against you, you will instantly lose your job.

I can see this anti-spam bill directly interfering with my company and our business, and we are not one of the companies this bill is trying to crush.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Congress OKs National Anti-Spam Bill

YIPPEEEEEEE!!!!!
WAHOOOOO!!!!!

I hear you!

Now, IMHO, I don't see how this is going to work though. The law applies to US companies on US soil only (I think) - internet does not work that way...

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

If congress can pass a bill limiting the advertising, what are they going to try to limit next?

This is the first step in the wrong direction

Quote

It's the same thing as a do not call list. They're not lmiting advertising. They're limiting what you can transmit to my private email account that I pay for and own, and should have control over.

Email costs money. How would you like to get unsolicited phone calls on your cell phone?

Yeah, what he said.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Now, IMHO, I don't see how this is going to work though. The law applies to US companies on US soil only (I think) - internet does not work that way...

Well you just let me know when you want the US to start making laws for your country. I don't expect to hear from you soon.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[turtlespeed 226]

That's my point. Saudi Arabia, among others, wants the internet "monitored" and controlled. It's blatantly obvious that this is the first step.

They are going to need commitees and cabinets, and resorces to fund these in order to enforce this action. What is going to pay for those?

Next question. How many of you Feruners out there are ready to have the US tell you what you can and cannot put on the internet?

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[jaaska 0]

Quote

Quote

Now, IMHO, I don't see how this is going to work though. The law applies to US companies on US soil only (I think) - internet does not work that way...

Well you just let me know when you want the US to start making laws for your country. I don't expect to hear from you soon.

Just my point - there are almost 200 independent countries. Even though most of them would agree on this, there would still be haves for spammers to keep on doing their nasty "little" "work".

[billvon 3,078]

I think this entire issue is being approached the wrong way.

In the "olden days" direct speech was the primary means of communication; that and mail were the two official means of communication. You could show up or write a letter. As the official means of communication, you could say or write whatever you wanted, and your right to do so was protected under the constitution. That continues until today, despite people who are pissed off at anti-war protesters and junk mail, with the only real restrictions I can think of related to obscenity - and those are rarely enforced.

After the constitution was drafted, telegraphs and telephones added their possibilities for communication, followed by broadcast media. Then came email and the net. As time goes on they will begin to dominate where paper mail once ruled. Already most of my bills come electronically, and most of the ads I see are ones I choose to see. I do my taxes on line, and soon it looks like I'll be voting on line. In time it will become the dominant means of nonverbal communication, much as mail used to be. As the dominant means of communications, it is critical that the government not exert undue control over it.

At the very most, I could see a government requirement that bulk mailings (say, over 1000 recipients) be electronically marked as such. Beyond that - I would rather have my computer, and my service provider, decide what mail does or doesn't reach me. People (and software companies, and service providers) will do a far better job of deciding what's OK to send to a given recipient than the government will.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

That's my point. Saudi Arabia, among others, wants the internet "monitored" and controlled. It's blatantly obvious that this is the first step.

They are going to need commitees and cabinets, and resorces to fund these in order to enforce this action. What is going to pay for those?

This is not monitoring in any sense. This is protecting citizens, so I am for it. As to who would do the leg work, I imagine they might have some idea how to do it. No one is seeking to control websites [grassroots level] because it's like tv: you can just change the channel. E-mail is different because right now you can't make spam go away. I don't pay for sites, so I don't expect control there. By the way, trying to regulate internet use here in the US would be slapped with so many lawsuits it would make the government's collective head spin.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

The question was, "what do we hang the women by?"

The boobies? or "the man in the boat?"

now if you dont know what that is, get a GF and go down on her and investgate

Don't mind if I do. Thanks.
Still don't consider boobies to be genitals, but good for you if you want to (actually, appreciate even putting the word in to make Ivan happy). "The man in the boat" - ah, the visual is clearing up. That's a new one.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,078]

>No one is seeking to control websites [grassroots level] because it's like tv .. .

From GigaLaw:

On July 16, a federal district court judge in Virginia sided with the publishers when he granted their request for a preliminary injunction. His order prohibits Gator from "[c]ausing its pop-up advertisements to be displayed on any website owned by or affiliated with the Plaintiffs without the express consent of the Plaintiffs."

> E-mail is different because right now you can't make spam go away.

??? I can. It isn't hard. Between my ISP's anti-spam SW and my computer's filters I get maybe 5 spams a day. I could get rid of them as well but deleting 5 emails a day is easier.

>I don't pay for sites, so I don't expect control there.

At most ISP's you pay as much for sites as for email.

> By the way, trying to regulate internet use here in the US would be
> slapped with so many lawsuits it would make the government's
> collective head spin.

This is a bill to regulate internet usage; such bills are a step in the wrong direction (I think.)

[Kennedy 0]

I agree, but I see more implementation problems with your plan than with the bill.

Is your junk mail clearly marked as such in some government required way? It's easier to require a do no send list than to regulate every piece of mail. It's worse with e-mail because one piece can hit thousands of people instead of requiring a new message for each recipient.

http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html

Every communication including face to face speech is subject to government intrusion. There are rules for the mail, rules for radio, rules for television, rules for satellite usage, et cetera.

You are promoting some form of government control of e-mail. This is just an easier one to implement. Not better, but it will get done.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[billvon 3,078]

>Is your junk mail clearly marked as such in some government required way?

You mean my paper junk mail? Yes. It has a "bulk mailing" postal notice.

>Every communication including face to face speech is subject to government intrusion.

To some degree, yes. The less the better.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

So John,

You are willing to give up someone's right to free speech because they are trying to make a profit from it? Commercial Free Speech is still a constitutional right. .

They can shout from the rooftops as far as I'm concerned. Just keep from filling the mailbox that I pay for and keep from wasting my time applying filters and deleting the junk. It's not "free" if I have to pay for it with my time and money.

OPEN MESSAGE TO ALL SPAMMERS: I WILL NEVER READ ANY OF YOUR MESSAGES SO F**K OFF OUT OF MY LIFE.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

>No one is seeking to control websites [grassroots level] because it's like tv .. .

From GigaLaw:

On July 16, a federal district court judge in Virginia sided with the publishers when he granted their request for a preliminary injunction. His order prohibits Gator from "[c]ausing its pop-up advertisements to be displayed on any website owned by or affiliated with the Plaintiffs without the express consent of the Plaintiffs."

I said grassroots level. Government is always trying to increase its power. And that is another case of advertisements costing someone money, in that case the site owners. In my example it's e-mail endusers.

Quote

> E-mail is different because right now you can't make spam go away.

??? I can. It isn't hard. Between my ISP's anti-spam SW and my computer's filters I get maybe 5 spams a day. I could get rid of them as well but deleting 5 emails a day is easier.

I don't trust the bulk folder settings. I have lost too many e-mails to spam blocking. My own resume was blocked because it contained the phrase "live cctv." I only get about ten spams a day in my inbox, but I have to scan the hundreds of spams that have been automatically edited out into my bulk folder. Today one of the e-mails from my skydiving listserve was marked as spam and I had to pull it out.

Quote

>I don't pay for sites, so I don't expect control there.

At most ISP's you pay as much for sites as for email.

You know what I meant. I pay for access, not the sites. If I don't like a site I can just leave.

Quote

> By the way, trying to regulate internet use here in the US would be
> slapped with so many lawsuits it would make the government's
> collective head spin.

This is a bill to regulate internet usage; such bills are a step in the wrong direction (I think.)

Your idea regulates internet usage as well, just in a different way. The bill works backwards from endusers while your idea works by controlling how spam is sent.

I wish we didn't need this legislation, but spam is more than half of all internet traffic. We all know how much time and money is spent dealing with it.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

> E-mail is different because right now you can't make spam go away.

??? I can. It isn't hard. Between my ISP's anti-spam SW and my computer's filters I get maybe 5 spams a day. I could get rid of them as well but deleting 5 emails a day is easier.

Good for you. But you're not managing a corporate email server where the average user gets 300+ spam emails a day, where users are constantly complaining about spam and lost productivity because of it, and at the same time, any non-spam that is filtered by accident could cost millions of dollars.

[billvon 3,078]

>Good for you. But you're not managing a corporate email server
> where the average user gets 300+ spam emails a day . . .

My ISP that blocks my email IS a corporate email server. We just have good IT people.

>any non-spam that is filtered by accident could cost millions of dollars.

We have a system here that pretty much guarantees any legitimate email gets through (due to the nature of valid SMTP servers.) The spam that slips through is caught by my email program and put in a spam folder; I scan it and dump it about once a week.

[kallend 2,108]

Quote

>Good for you. But you're not managing a corporate email server
> where the average user gets 300+ spam emails a day . . .

My ISP that blocks my email IS a corporate email server. We just have good IT people.

>any non-spam that is filtered by accident could cost millions of dollars.

We have a system here that pretty much guarantees any legitimate email gets through (due to the nature of valid SMTP servers.) The spam that slips through is caught by my email program and put in a spam folder; I scan it and dump it about once a week.

Those good filters had to be programmed by someone that could have been more productively doing something else. Those programmers had to be paid, and that money had to come from somewhere. The wasted bandwidth required capital investment that has to be paid for by consumers one way or another.

Even if you have eliminated the problem from your own life, spam still costs us all money and time.

Spammers are parasites in the true sense of the word.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

My ISP that blocks my email IS a corporate email server. We just have good IT people.

And so do we. I'm one of them, and the other guy, who actually handles the spam, is the other. Why don't you ask your IT people how much time they spend each day tweaking that system. We dedicate a couple man hours each day to spam.

Quote

We have a system here that pretty much guarantees any legitimate email gets through (due to the nature of valid SMTP servers.)

Yeah, you're talking about checking IP header sources and making sure you can do a reverse dns lookup on the originating server. Unfortunately, we've blocked some legitimate email from companies whose IT people weren't so good and didn't register the PTR records for their email servers. Same can be said for just blindly blocking anything that's been relayed. Many large corporations relay their mail through a central outgoing server.

Quote

The spam that slips through is caught by my email program and put in a spam folder; I scan it and dump it about once a week.

That's unacceptable for my boss. He wants his email, all his email, in his inbox with the minimum amount of spam. He's not going to check other folders and filter through it. Assuming a 60 hour work week for him, his time is worth about $1,600 an hour.

[goose491 0]

Quote

Quote

Congress declaring that spammers must respect opt-out notices will have the same effect on your spam as 535 congressmen farting in unison would have on a hurricane.

You know, I stopped using the opt out long ago because I figured it was increasing my spam rate. I think they take you off, but then they can sell you for more because they know you're a real account.

That's the impression I got. A computer savy friend of mine told me never to click the "click here to be removed" or the "This is spam" clickies if they form part of the message itself (Your email may have a "This is spam" clicky... which is fine and dandy) "That's how they figure out you're a real person." was his rationalisation.

Damned if you do... damned if you don't.

I'm all for freedom of speech... but since when does that give the speaker the right to force me to listen?

My Karma ran over my Dogma!!!

[jsaxton 0]

Oh shit, and I'm interviewing with anti-spam companies

[WFFC 1]

Quote

At the very most, I could see a government requirement that bulk mailings (say, over 1000 recipients) be electronically marked as such.

Only issue, spammers will come up with the ability to send out 999 bulk items at a time bypassing this rule. Just let me know who I need to bill for the 90+ minutes per day that I spend deleting all the SPAM I get.

[lawrocket 3]

Not all "free speech" is "free speech." And no freedom of speech is absolute. Government regulations are routinely upheld.

Bringing up matters such as FCC regulations and such typically are "content neutral." For example, an ordinance on the decibel level of sound is a "content neutral" restriction. Sure, it limits certain punk-assess from pumping basslines at 130 decibels from their lowered Chevy's with killer rims. And while their expressions of free speech through such musical sophistry and the lyrical manifesto of "Kill Dem Skanky Ass Ho Bitches" are arguably genuine reflections of their societal and cultural hopes, the government has the authority to pass regulations on the noise levels. WHy? Because it doesn't matter what is said, keep it low.

Had the regulation been against broadcast or publication of "Skanky Ass Ho Bitches" then the regulation would be content based, and therefore not allowable. (Note: I don't think there has ever been a speech-based obscenity law that has ever been upheld).

FCC can regulate content, too. But, these regulations are often done in a limited way. That's why you see stuff on at midnight that doesn't show up at 7:30. Most of FCC's regulations, and those of the other entitities, seek to regulate the use of finite resources. It prevents jerks like me from mounting a 50k watt transmitter to drown out your measly 1500 watt directional transmitter because I don't like what you say.

I'll agree with bill. I don't like the thought that we have a government stating that this commercial speech to be controlled. I don't like spam, but we have to keep separate the ideas of personal speech and commercial speech, as well as content neutral versus content based regulations.

My wife is hotter than your wife.