Senate bill on spam
-=kgr(at)rmi(dot)net=-
On Sat, 23 May 1998 02:52:30 -0700, Harry <black...@net.net> wrote:
>What do people think of the bill that passed the U.S. Senate May 12 that
>requires unsolicited email advertising to include correct name, address,
>and telephone number of both the sender and the person preparing the
>content? The bill also requires complete authenticity in routing info.
I think the original bill for anti-slamming s.1618 was great until
S.771 was attached as a rider. Although the rider outlaws header
forgery, requires a valid return address, requires the spammer to have
a remove mechanism and gives the FTC much more authority over e-mail,
this bill has some inherent flaws in it.
First of all, I think it legitimizes Unsolicited Bulk E-mail or SPAM.
I think while some of the information contained in the UBE may be
correct at the time that the e-mail was sent, it does not mean that
these fly-by-night outfits sending pyramid schemes will be there
tomorrow. If the information in the e-mail is forged, how in the
world does anyone think that they will easily find the spammer and
have him prosecuted?
I also believe it violates my right not to have to hear someone at my
expense. For example, I have a PCS phone which has an e-mail address.
I get billed for messages that I receive on it by way of e-mail. This
means that I pay to receive SPAM. With the post office, faxes or even
someone walking into my house, I have the right to tell them I don't
want to hear it. Their freedom of speech ends at my front door. With
this bill, this right which has been upheld by the Supreme Court on
many occasions would be removed for e-mail.
I think the bill gives will literally open up spamming. Each spammer
at least one chance to spam everyone, if not more. By the time the
spammer receives and acknowledges my remove reply, he can send several
hundred e-mails into my e-mailbox. I don't have the time to look
through all of the spam I get for the proper way to get off of the
mailing list, much less the much larger volume I anticipate in getting
once SPAM is legitimized.
Furthermore, nothing in the bill prevents the spammer from selling his
list of confirmed e-mail addresses to another spammer. If this were
made illegal, it's still impossible to track where a certain e-mail
list came from. Once a spammer is finished with one list, he simply
changes his business name and does it again. Under this law, it would
be your responsibility in tracking all of the spam you got so that you
could report the second incident of the same e-mail.
The FTC would literally be flooded with requests to do something about
SPAM incidents just as the FCC is flooded with requests to do
something about unsolicited telemarketing. They would only pay
attention to blatent scams, forgeries, child pornography, illegal
gambling etc. They would not have any time for small-time spammers.
I would prefer a solution which worked for the Unsolicited Fax
problem. HR.1748 would be a much better alternative in that it amends
the junk fax law to include junk e-mails. It's basically an opt-in
law rather than and opt-out law. This means you can get SPAM if you
ask for it rather than having to ask to get off of the list
constantly.
There is a good review of the Torricelli-Mukowski rider to S.1618 at
http://www.cauce.org/newbillanalysis.html .
I have written my Congressman Joel Hefley, District 5 to encourage him
to offer HR.1748 as an alternative to the S.771 rider. I would hope
that you do the same.
Konrad Roeder
To e-mail me, use this address: kgr<at>rmi<dot>net
and don't hit reply .. It will just bounce on you.
Support the Netizens Protection Act of 1997,
HR1748 introduced by Christopher Smith of NJ.
It amends 47 USC 227 (the junk fax law) to
include unsolicited advertisements to e-mail
addresses. This bill is being backed by CAUCE.
http://www.cauce.org/
Member of the Blue List of Internet Weenbags;
Member of Cauce #12872; Member of the Lumber
Cartel #1406 (TINLC); and Very Proud member of
FrankNCindy's "NetJerks" and "Net Losers" list.
vomit
I have copied your post and will rework it to my representative. The spammers
are abusers.
-=kgr(at)rmi(dot)net=- wrote:
--
By US Code Title 47, Sec.227(a)(2)(B), a computer/modem/printer
meets the definition of a telephone fax machine. By Sec.227(b)(1)(C), it
is unlawful to send any unsolicited advertisement to such equipment. By
Sec.227(b)(3)(C), a violation of the aforementioned Section is punishable
by action to recover actual monetary loss, or $500, whichever is greater,
for each violation."
Please understand that I WILL EXACT MY PAYMENT, IN CASH OR OTHERWISE.
A copy can be found at: <A
HREF="http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html">http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/47/227.html</A>
-=kgr(at)rmi(dot)net=-
On Sat, 30 May 1998 17:12:29 -0400, vomit <vo...@puke.com> wrote:
>I have copied your post and will rework it to my representative. The spammers
>are abusers.
I feel flattered. Thanks. Please feel free to write your
representatives and use my posting as a basis for your letter.
Konrad