FTC seeks powers to smash spam 4

[BJCooperIT]

Spam Cops?

http://msn.com.com/2100-1105_2-1015517.html?subj=ns&part=msn&tag=fdnewsfeed

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000
^{When posting code, please use TGML to help readability. Thanks!}

 

[SPYDERIX]

Sounds to me like our "so called privacy" will be less private if this goes through.

I don't like spam, but they better make sure they do this accurately and guarantee they get the right person and not start falsely accusing people.

General Exception Error:

"Unknown has caused an unknown error in unknown, unknown will now unknown."

 

[CajunCenturion]

What an interesting trade-off

Free from spam vs Free from Privacy?

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[SPYDERIX]

[LOL]

General Exception Error:

"Unknown has caused an unknown error in unknown, unknown will now unknown."

 

[BJCooperIT]

CNET's more detailed article:

http://news.com.com/2100-1028-1015517.html

^{Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance. ~George Bernard Shaw}
Consultant/Custom Forms & PL/SQL - Oracle 8.1.7 - Windows 2000
^{When posting code, please use TGML to help readability. Thanks!}

 

[xutopia]

What is wrong with simply making spam illegal?

Why do they absolutely need to act like big brother in order to stop spam?

Why is it that every problem in the US is fixed by removing the rights to privacy?

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[CajunCenturion]

xutopia - Sure, they can simply make it illegal, but then copyright violations are already illegal, and we have seen how much respect people have the law. Especially when they can hide behind the right to privacy.

Good Luck
--------------
As a circle of light increases so does the circumference of darkness around it. - Albert Einstein

 

[xutopia]

Cajun,

You seem to forget that people are pirating things that have been price fixed.

Spammers have no reason to send blindly to millions of computer generated email addresses messages explaining their member's size is inadequate or that they should download a program to fix their computer before someone hacks it.

Spam should be made illegal and then we can talk about using NSA tactics to remove the spamming entities out of existence.

Once again my predicate is that we should not rule out all alternatives until they are all proven to be ineffective. Removing people's right to privacy should be last on the list.

The goverment's voyeurism fixation is clearly disturbing like a well known orwellian novel. Why is the solution to every problem only fixable by breathing down our necks?

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[guestgulkan]

Mmmn the land of the not quite so free.
Thank goodness I live in the EU - Thankfully free from such paranoia and draconian big brother thinking.

But seriously - my personal opinion is that spam is nothing more than an annoyance.
To quote Xutopia Spammers have no reason to send blindly to millions of computer generated email addresses messages...
TRUE - But then why is it legal for millions of people to own projectile weapons capable of firing 'x' hundred rounds a minute??

 

[SPYDERIX]

I personally don't see how anyone could govern this. What is the government or any organization going to do: watch and read everything we type and everything that is transfered. Where would the privacy be. When thinking about this, 2 movies come into mind: Antitrust (Racheal Leight Cook) where the software company watches what you type and George Orwell's 1984.

I would rather have spam than lose all privacy all together. I think the only way to combat this is to block mail and setup filters (like hotmail's exclusive setting) and then delete the junk. Then it will be the job of every person to make a list or submit a list of all the junk they are receiving and have it processed somehow to find out where it's coming from and then get the ISP's to go after them.

General Exception Error:

"Unknown has caused an unknown error in unknown, unknown will now unknown."

 

[dkediger]

A big part of the enforcement problem if you simply make it illegal is international borders. There would simply be no straightforward way to prosecute against an entity in another country.

I think email will need to evolve into an authenticated system rather than the protocol in use now. This already happens to some extent with filtering systems capable of reverse lookups, but the base email RFC really needs to be changed to support source/destination authentication, along with building that support into all the mail systems out there.

 

[xutopia]

dkediger,

Authentification can already be done with PGP and other encryption methods. Also you may want to know that most spam originates from the US and aimed at US/Canada.

Europe doesn't have a spam problem because spam has now been illegal in France since July 2002 and other countries soon followed. The European Union worked together to eradicate their problems and a global European law stopped spam from becomming the problem it is in the US. The result is amazing. I have a French email address and I never receive any spam on it. I cannot say the same from my north american counterparts.

Why can't the US and Canada work something out with a law to make spam illegal around the globe. It's a proven benefit to make it illegal. Why are they not making it so?

Are we seeing only laws that benefit businesses rather than laws that benefit the people in North America?

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[PCLine]

xutopia,

Europe doesn't have a spam problem... You really must refrain from using those sweeping statements :-D

I thought the European Union was supposed to make europe a "family" of nations. And when someone in your family has a problem you all have a problem. Ergo Europe does have a spam problem

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2978980.stm

Unless you have booted the UK out of the "family", rofl.

All the best.

 

[EricDraven]

The only effective way to stop people from spamming is to setup a charge for emailing similar to paying for regular snail mail. Something like a penny an email is a pittance to you and me (especially since if it was introduced everyone would start emailing from work) but to a spammer randomly sending in excess of a million emails, the costs will soon outweigh the benefits!

Unfortunately this will put many people off the idea of using email (having already paid for you internet connection in the first place) but if we want a spam free world, we are going to have to pay for it one way or another!

Arte Et Labore

 

[dkediger]

I don't think authentication within the message really addresses the problem...it only creates a whitelist system for filters with potential "first time" messages getting flagged.

One of the issues with SPAM, and enforcement of any Anti-SPAM law is locating the source. With the current RFCs, any source address, legit or not, can be used in the header as it is not required to be verified by the receiving, or for that matter, sending system.

Legal methods of containing SPAM are ultimately useless unless the sending system/message originator can be verified.

 

[xutopia]

PCLine,

Actually I didn't express myself correctly. The EU works together on many aspects. For example smocking pot is illegal in France and many other EU countries but in the Netherlands as my hazy trip to Amsterdam reminds me you can buy large quantities of pot and smoke it at home and in designated areas (coffeeshops).

If I'd buy 3 kilograms of pot on Damrak street and bring it on the Champs-Elysee I'd be in trouble. France where drugs are illegal works with the Netherlands so that smuggling doesn't happen (too much)!

The EU guidelines for Spam (principles are the same for any other laws) are that any country in the EU should not send spam to a country where it is illegal. In the UK it isn't illegal to send spam because of the laws based off the Italian Cappato laws (some of the stupidest laws I've ever seen).

Therefore it wouldn't be illegal for someone in London to spam everyone in the UK and other EU countries where spam isn't illegal. It would be illegal with current laws in France for someone in Paris to send spam anywhere, even in those countries where spam isn't illegal. It would also be illegal, and the UK and France work together on this for someone in London to send spam to people on the club-internet.fr domain or any other French ISP.

All that might seem complicated but it works out well. France doesn't have a problem with spam at all (I mean 0 spam at my French email address in the last year). Ocassionally you will see some morons from another EU country spam some French ISP and it isn't long before they are out of business. It's the way it should be done in US and Canada. Combining our efforts to eradicate a common plague is to me the smartest way to do things.

Gary

http://www.xutopia.com

Haran
********************************

 

[dkediger]

xutopia -

I think the question in your EU examples are how are the offenders identified, and under what legal criteria are they prosecuted.

Here in the states, the prosecution problems is twofold - the identification factor as I've stated, but also that little 'ol First Amendment thingy. The general consensus among legal bodies here seems to be that prosecution for the act of sending a message is somewhat untouchable.

 

[sleipnir214]

xutopia:
The spammers do have a reason to send out millions of messages -- if I send 1,000,000 emails out, and get a 1/100th of 1% rate of purchasers of my product, that's 100 sales. For the cost of a $20.00US CD list of email addresses.

The reason spam continues is that nitwits Eloi out there on the internet keep encouraging the behavior of the spammers by actually responding favorably.


Allp:
In the EU, it is possible to ban spam -- some legal systems there allow limits to free speech. In the U.S., the Constitution prevents the government from passing laws that limit free speech -- and advertising has been found more and more of late to be "protected commercial speech" under the Constitution.

Charging for every email sent is interesting, except there's no way to enforce it. Other than implementing some system whereby a sender buys from a government agency somewhere a unique token to be included in the headers the sender's email. Also, every SMTP server in the world would have to be modified to enforce the presence of and verify the validity of the unique token on every email. Otherwise, we're back to square one.

Want the best answers? Ask the best questions:

http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html

TANSTAAFL!

 

[EricDraven]

sleipnir214 You are of course correct, I dont know how paying for emails could be easily implemented now that so many millions of people are regularly using email as their primary form of correspondence. Then of course you would have the problem of spammers trying to send millions of emails for free. In that case though, they would be breaking the law and finally there would be something the authorities could do in countries like the UK and the US!

Arte Et Labore

 

[PCLine]

Warning...you are entering a political topic...end of warning.


guestgulkan
But seriously - my personal opinion is that spam is nothing more than an annoyance.

I totally agree. I use a free product from the net to filter those e-mails. I click and they are gone.

I receive upwards of a 100 spam mails each day ~ though I do notice that number drops considerably on american holidays

Personally, I find there are other far more serious problems to get me tense ~ for example, sharing the roads with a bunch of "other" people who can't drive properly...

I would say that it is certainly unethical to utilise technology to facilitate an "unregulated" and "irresponsible" advertising campaign. The spammers have no way of knowing who is receiving their mailings.

So this first amendment thingy that the Americans have...does it allow pornography to be advertised to minors? Does it absolve such people from the legal/moral/ethical responsibility of the "consequences" of their actions?

I just wonder, because it just doesn't seem ethical to me. And I can't believe the legislators who drew up the constitution and the amendments would be proud of the way in which the ethic of their work is being "manipulated".

If my opinion is way off base, please let me know.

All the best.