Why I'm not libertarian

[Narbus]

If I were, this wouldn't be able to be law.

The U.S. Senate voted Wednesday to outlaw deceptive spam and to set up a "do not spam" registry for those who do not want to receive unsolicited commercial e-mail.

Internet spammers who flood e-mail inboxes with pornography and get-rich-quick schemes could face jail time and million-dollar fines under the bill, which passed by a vote of 97 to 0.

The vote marks the first time the Senate has taken action against an online scourge that now accounts for 50 percent of all e-mail traffic, frustrating consumers and costing businesses billions of dollars in wasted bandwidth and lost productivity.

Similar legislation in the House of Representatives has stalled as lawmakers have tried hammering out differences between two competing bills. The Bush administration said it supported the bill.

Senators noted that spam has become a top constituent concern and could overwhelm the Internet if left unchecked.

"Every day the Senate delays, big-time spammers (get) another opportunity to crank up their operations to even more dizzying levels of volume," said Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., a sponsor of the bill.

"I don't go to a town hall meeting, I don't meet a friend who doesn't say, 'Take care of that spam,'" said Sen. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., another bill sponsor.

The bill would not outlaw all unsolicited commercial e-mail, focusing instead on the fraudulent or deceptive messages estimated to make up two-thirds of all unsolicited commercial e-mail.

Marketers who falsify return addresses or routing information, hide their pitches behind misleading subject lines such as "Re: your request," or promote body-enhancement pills or other fraudulent products would face jail sentences of up to a year and fines of up to $1 million. Repeat offenders could face jail terms of up to five years.

Marketers would have to label sexually explicit messages to allow users to filter them out.

The bill would also prohibit marketers from sending unsolicited messages to consumers who place their e-mail addresses on a "do not spam" registry, similar to the popular "do not call" antitelemarketing measure launched earlier this month by the Federal Trade Commission.

Marketers could e-mail addresses not on the list until asked to stop.

Other common spammer tactics, such as hijacking users' identities, using multiple accounts to evade filters, and sending messages to millions of randomly generated e-mail addresses, would be outlawed as well.

State and federal law enforcers and Internet service providers such as EarthLink would be allowed to pursue spammers, but individual users could not sue directly.

More than half of U.S. states have passed antispam bills of their own, many of which set tougher regulations for marketers. The bill would pre-empt most state laws, but would allow states to set higher penalties for deceptive or fraudulent activity if they wished.

[doug]

million dollar fines?

for spam?

[Narbus]

oh hell yes.

[Random Name]

huh.

I am not sure what I think about this. It seems so cheesy...

[starvingeyes]

why i am libertarian/anarchist:

the following entrepeneurs will now be going out of business:

spam assasin
lyris mailshield
spam buster
InBox Protector
MIMEsweeper
Mailwasher
Cameo
MailSite
SpamButcher

etc., etc., etc.

there are better ways to defeat spam then politics. i suspect it will not be long until this law is used in some way other then intended. laws always are.

[faninor]

I'm sorry, but if there's a better way to defeat spam than politics, I'm sure it would have been done long ago. So if I don't want spam I have to buy one of those programs... that's as annoying as spam is in the first place.

And it's not like programmers can only write one program.

[Corey]

why i am libertarian/anarchist:

the following entrepeneurs will now be going out of business:

spam assasin
lyris mailshield
spam buster
InBox Protector
MIMEsweeper
Mailwasher
Cameo
MailSite
SpamButcher

etc., etc., etc.

there are better ways to defeat spam then politics. i suspect it will not be long until this law is used in some way other then intended. laws always are.

Doug & Chris,

You guys work for an insurance broker, correct? Now, considering safeguards like your company exist, does that mean that crimes like theft should go unpunished?

[starvingeyes]

no, but spam isn't theft. it's advertising. spam isn't hurting anyone/violating their rights.

[Axtech]

Spam is just an inconvenience. It's not (well, shouldn't be) breaking a law.

That's like charging someone a million dollars for putting an advertisement in your mailbox. Except, of course, that it's easier to delete spam e-mails than throw out real mail (which is, itself, ridiculously easy).

[Corey]

The vote marks the first time the Senate has taken action against an online scourge that now accounts for 50 percent of all e-mail traffic, frustrating consumers and costing businesses billions of dollars in wasted bandwidth and lost productivity.

It does cost businesses a ton of money.

At my company we have a guy that has been spending hours and hours on researching spam filters and manually going through hundreds of e-mails a DAY and deleting the spam. Hundreds of dollars a week are being wasted on this crap instead of spending the money on work that is supposed to be getting done. Yes, this is a violation and IS a crime. It would be like me going to your job and blowing an airhorn 2 hours a day. Would you put up with that or do something about it?

It's an inconvenience to general users like yourself. It is very costly for busniesses.

[doug]

the market could solve this problem.

the government is forming a "do not spam" registry. they have passed a law, and held hearings and readings of a bill.

all of this has cost you money. tax money. i work in a small business that is expanding. we all use computers and we have an email network. spam is not a problem here. although i have no study to support my theory, i would imagine that in similar small businesses across america, spam is not a problem there either.

i am certain that an entrepneurial group could create an equally effective "do not spam" registry/control that would block unsolicited email. after all, if the government can do it, so could a private individual.

this registry would be funded by private businesses who need it's services. the majority of individuals who are not bothered by spam would not need it, and therefore not pay for it.

government = useless.

[Narbus]

the market could solve this problem.

the government is forming a "do not spam" registry. they have passed a law, and held hearings and readings of a bill.

all of this has cost you money. tax money. i work in a small business that is expanding. we all use computers and we have an email network. spam is not a problem here. although i have no study to support my theory, i would imagine that in similar small businesses across america, spam is not a problem there either.

i am certain that an entrepneurial group could create an equally effective "do not spam" registry/control that would block unsolicited email. after all, if the government can do it, so could a private individual.

this registry would be funded by private businesses who need it's services. the majority of individuals who are not bothered by spam would not need it, and therefore not pay for it.

government = useless.

If such a private registry could be so easily formed/enforced, then why hasn't it been done? Maybe because they type of person to flood random inboxes with subject lines like "SHE SUCKS OFF A HORSE" aren't terribly rational, and therefore probably won't listen to a bunch of people saying "hey, please knock it off?"

ps: To Chris: if those companies were so great, then why's this law even up for discussion?

[starvingeyes]

narbus - i dunno, politicians wanted a piece of the action? not enough people bought the product. whatever the reason may be, I stand by my belief that there is nothing, short of maybe killing people, the government can do that private enterprise cannot do better.

[Corey]

Spam is just an inconvenience. It's not (well, shouldn't be) breaking a law.

That's like charging someone a million dollars for putting an advertisement in your mailbox. Except, of course, that it's easier to delete spam e-mails than throw out real mail (which is, itself, ridiculously easy).

You're right... it is like putting an advertisement in someone's mailbox.. which is of course illegal. If I go around stuffing things in people's mailboxes, that is a federal offense, tampering with mail. Now, if I throw a stamp on something and hand it over to the Post Office to deliver, then I'm within the law. I payed for that service.

Spammers don't pay to send you junk. Most of them use relay servers to deliver that don't even belong to them. They find a list of relay servers and have them send their mail to whoever belongs to them. People who never asked for it. This isn't possible with snail mail. I can't send something to the post office and it gets sent to everyone in its registry.

Chris,
Ok, perhaps people could defeat spam on their own without government, but that's besides the point. The argument was whether or not spamming is a crime. If something costs me money that I never asked for, I'm pretty sure that's an invasion of my rights.

[Venom]

On a related note this issue may go away but a larger one emerges. On Nov. 1st the Bill that was passed years ago forbiding states from taxing the internet (email, webspace, etc) will be null and void unless the Senete votes on it today or tomorrow. It has already gone through the House and passed but there are 4 Senators who are sitting on this issue and preventing it from comming to a vote. If states start to tax email spam may go away, but our wallets are gonna take a hit. I for one will take Spam over being taxed anyday. Even if your state doesn't tax email, if you send an email that gets routed through another state that does you can be charged.