Well now that the CAN SPAM act has been effect for a full seven months my inbox seems to be full of more garbage than ever before. I think it is an appropriate time to thrust a blunt, rusty infection laced spear into the soft belly of legitimate HTML publishers everywhere for SPAMERS now have legal rights. In an effort to combat SPAM, the US Government has, in fact, legalized it. This really is wrong and really bugs me. The few who don't give others any respect what they put in our in boxes are ruining it for those who actually put what we want into it and the government gave them "legal" grounds to do it.
This is why I switched over to RSS. (You can read up a bit on that here .) It seems that this is the way those of us who desire content and not trash are going to have to do. I am simply tired of my inbox being full of garbage. I also use spam assassin and some really heavy filtering.
It seems like the volumes of SPAM in my inbox have actually gotten worse this year. I think we can thank CAN SPAM for that. The act actually stands for "Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing". This is a classic example of our elected representatives pretend to do good and, in fact, offer, a weak solution intended to appease the masses on a political issue while at the same time appeasing the industries which lobby best. The reality is they only made things worse. The acronym %quot;CAN" SPAM is a better name that what the initials stand for.
With the new law went into effect the first of the year 2004, seven full months of my opening my inbox have convinced me that the law has made matters worse. My inboxes, at least those that I left "unprotected", are flooded. Worse yet, it seems like the more often I opt out of one spam service the more new spam services hit me.
I pretty much saw this one coming before it even got here. It was always a subject of debate. "Opt-in" or "Opt-out". But relax all you SPAM-Receivers for the wise sages of Wastington DC have decided. Now if you wish you can contact your Senator or Congressman via form mail. Yeah that is right the US Government went to form mail only. The reason is likely due to too much SPAM.
Meanwhile they modify the law so that not only do SPAMMERS get the upper edge but also they pass a law, which supersedes any of the states having any control over future matters. It actually negates any previous laws at the state level regarding SPAM.
Allow me to digress for a moment and explain exactly what "op-in" and "opt-out" mean and who prefers which to be the standard. Opt-in means don't send me anything I didn't ask for first and if you do make sure I tell you that I wish to continue receiving it before you send me any more. This method seems to protect the rights of the individuals and privacy. This is the method most legitimate e-mail publishers such as lockergnome and LangraList would use. The way it works is I, willing, knowing and without being tricked in any manner sign up to receive some type of e-mail. The publisher then sends me a confirmation e-mail, which requires my response. (This is sometimes called double opt-in.) Unless I reply to the confirmation e-mail, I will receive nothing more. This process is making certain that the recipient actually wants the requested material.
Opt out means that some junk shows up in my in box and I have to do what ever it is the sender demands in order to have it stop. I did not even have to request it in the first place. In other words, it is going to keep coming until I say stop, you can send it to me until I tell you to stop which, obviously, good for the SPAM industry.
With the new law in effect, the email recipient must opt-out in the manner specified by the spammer. In other words. the victim must tell the SPAMER to stop exactly how the SPAMER wishes to be told... I know they are going to make it really easy for me to do so... Like type the URL by hand, list all 12 tribes of Israel, all the descendants of the Levite line, and the maiden name of the senders mother. I sure they will make it that simple. I am even more certain that the e-mail address to unsubscribe will be legit and they would never sell their unsubscribe list off to another company.
In other words, they got at least the name right, at the very least, for on "can" now, in fact, SPAM. It is now, literally legal. In the context of this law, the US Government has, in fact, allowed a legal means for unsolicited, unrequested, undesirable email to fall into our inboxes. Acting under the guise of helping us, the US Legislators have, in fact, put the burden of dealing with spam on the recipient? (Maybe that is why I don't get politics... that just seems to lack logic... forget logic even... it lacks even a microscopic shred of common sense.)
According the FTCs Info this is what the law does for us. (All of the indented text below is right from the previous link. All the author did is reformat the layout.)
Here's a rundown of the law's main provisions:
- It bans false or misleading header information. Your email's "From," "To," and routing information – including the originating domain name and email address – must be accurate and identify the person who initiated the email.
- It prohibits deceptive subject lines. The subject line cannot mislead the recipient about the contents or subject matter of the message.
It requires that your email give recipients an opt-out method. You must provide a return email address or another Internet-based response mechanism that allows a recipient to ask you not to send future email messages to that email address, and you must honor the requests. You may create a "menu" of choices to allow a recipient to opt out of certain types of messages, but you must include the option to end any commercial messages from the sender.
Any opt-out mechanism you offer must be able to process opt-out requests for at least 30 days after you send your commercial email. When you receive an opt-out request, the law gives you 10 business days to stop sending email to the requestor's email address. You cannot help another entity send email to that address, or have another entity send email on your behalf to that address. Finally, it's illegal for you to sell or transfer the email addresses of people who choose not to receive your mail, even in the form of a mailing list, unless you transfer the addresses so another entity can comply with the law.
- It requires that commercial email be identified as an advertisement and include the sender's valid physical postal address. Your message must contain clear and conspicuous notice that the message is an advertisement or solicitation and that the recipient can opt out of receiving more commercial email from you. It also must include your valid physical postal address.
Some other things the new law does are;
-
The FTC is authorized but not required to establish a "do-not-email" registry. Now I see this happening... Our Public (non-)working Officials Stepping up the pace and volunteering for more work. The FTC has already been on record stating it is not adequately staffed to deal with all of it. The new law, however, limits enforcement of it almost entirely to the FTC.
This scares me. The Legislative Branch of the United States Government just gave enforcement of the law to an agency department of itself which admits it can't do it. Now if I am a SPAMMER, I am shaking in my boots, very, very nervously trying to stop myself from filling them with a certain yellow liquid due to overindulgence in the mode of laughter.
-
It makes it illegal to sell "harvested lists" provided a notice was posted on the site stating such. In other words if whomever you gave your e-mail address to promised not to sell it or give it out you are covered here. Now why do we need a law for that I thought we already had a law for fraud and breech of contract? I guess if it is electronic it is only legally binding for the IRS.
- It preempts any and all state laws. In other words, we are now all at the mercy of this toothless law. In some states, spam recipients actually had the right to sue spammers... now none of us do. WTG Wastingtons DC.
Some of the things I do not see the law doing;
And yes, I read the whole boring thing which, after doing so, I conclude our Senators and Congressmen didn't.
- Does nothing about "bots" crawling the web and collecting e-mails addresses. I don't seem to get much spam from the three e-mail addresses that I do not list on the web. Odd thing isn't it?
- If the list is legally created... Spammers can still sell it.
Basically, from what I see, is the Can spam law succeeded in two things only. First it created a legal definition of spam and, in fact, legalized the right for us to be sent unsolicited bulk e-mail. Secondly, made it illegal to commit fraud via e-mail. (Like we needed a separate set of laws for that.)
The first case brought up using this law is a stellar example of us not needing more laws regarding fraud and mail. The offenders may get up to 20 years for mail fraud and only 5 for spam offenses.
Our government would do better if they just turned the whole darn thing over to the post office, let the ISP's pay the post office some type of license fee and let all the mail fraud laws apply.
This is not to say he the USP is a model of efficiency but they are one of the oldest branches of the Federal offices of inefficiency and they still are self-funded. (Yeah, postage rates still pay all of the postal bills and, historical fact, a US Postage Stamp is still cheaper than your average newspaper.) They have years of experience in dealing with mail fraud. SPAM is no different except it is sent via wire and not a transportation system. This might not do too much to kill spam but at least a spammer would be behind bars for 20 instead of 5 and I did not attempt to present the "e;best" plan here. I just presented one that makes a little more sense than the one 7 months old from Wastingtons DC. If one evaluates it on sentencin, it seems like the mail fraud bills are 4X potentially better than the new best effort at SPAM.
