CAN Spam Bill to Become Law

Loading thread data ...

formatting link

Didn't you hear? It's now known as the 'YOU-CAN-SPAM' bill.

Warm up those blocklists, folks. You're gonna need 'em!

--
Dr. Anton Squeegee, Director, Dutch Surrealist Plumbing Institute
(Known to some as Bruce Lane, KC7GR)
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Dr. Anton Squeegee

Never mind that we in California had a stiffer anti-spam law weeks before that, which will now be superceded by this lower grade of crap. (Washington state residents must be pissed too.)

Reply to
JeffM

What the hell ever happened to state's rights?

Reply to
Baphomet

I think the cost of testing the Constitution get's it tossed out the window all too often....the EPA is a good example...it ignores states rights.... As far as the spam laws go...I am all for them if they will actually work but I suspect the spammers will just move their operations to the Caymens or Eastern Europe etc....though I suppose I could start blocking whole countries???? Eventually with the pop up blockers, IP blockers, spam blockers and such....we will logon to blank screens....Just a thought! Later, Ross

Reply to
Ross Mac

window

or

When I only used to get about fifty or so spams a day, I rather enjoyed them. I was exposed to sexual acts that I didn't believe possible this side of the Kama Sutra, I was gratified that so many wanted to make me rich beyond my wildest dreams, and that finally the promise of a long and healthy life would allow me to one day die erect.

Now that I get about five hundred spams per diem, I scream for surcease. Thank God for fast internet connections ;-)

Reply to
Baphomet

rights....

work

Caymens

side

healthy

That's funny Baphomet....and not a bad way to go the way I see it! I too have gotten a bit of an education from some of those spams....hehehe...have a great holiday....Ross

Reply to
Ross Mac

spams....hehehe...have

And Happy and Healthy holidays to you too.

Reply to
Baphomet

In article , snipped-for-privacy@no.spam.us mentioned...

Well, in this case it is specified in the law that it overrides state laws. Of course that could be challenged in court, but might lose.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dar

In article , snipped-for-privacy@example.invalid mentioned...

Looks like you haven't read the bill. It says that initiators can be prosecuted. In other words, not just the spammers, but the marketers that hire them. That should help a lot.

I just wish that people would quit speculating, since most of them, especially the media wags, have no idea of how things are going to turn out. As with any law, it must be enforced. And that may be a problem for the FTC which is authorized to enforce ths law.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dar

window

rights....

work

Caymens or

You are correct sir. I didn't read the bill but only the David Berlin article on ZD Net. While I didn't much care for the article because of its almost endless equivocation, Berlin believed the bill to be unworkable.

Did the bill contain an FTC supplemental funding provision? If not, it's a guarantee of no effective enforcement.

You know, it's not rocket science to craft good legislation. If (and I repeat...I have not yet read it) this legislation is full of loopholes and can't be enforced because of inadequate funding or such other structural impediments as might exist, then this is the exact result the legislator's intended. My cynical side/sense is that in an election year, they wanted to appear to be huffing and puffing with self righteous indignation about attempting to do something to stem this internet scourge while ensuring that defacto, nothing gets accomplished. Otherwise, you would be forced to believe that the pols are all incompetent stupids oblivious to unintended consequences, which is hardly the case.

From my point of view, better no law than bad law but I'll try to read the actual legislation before I pass final judgement.

Reply to
Baphomet

to

that

I just read the CAUCE

formatting link
position on S.877 Ammended and they don't appear overly thrilled with it.

Reply to
Baphomet

in

its

a

and

legislator's

unintended

the

I just read part of the bill. As usual, the legislature did a brilliant job of outling the problem; it was their proposed solution that was sadly lacking. If they had wanted an immediate halt to spamming, they would have declared it a deliberate assault on critical global infrastructure, declared it a terrorist act, and handed enforcement over to Homeland Security. They are in the unique position of having the resources to effectively deal with the problem.

Reply to
Baphomet

In article , snipped-for-privacy@no.spam.us mentioned...

I'm sorry to hear that. I also read the Berlind article. I cannot understand how these supposedly well-informed journalists can be so harshly critical of the bill when they can't offer a solution that would be acceptable to all parties involved.

I'd like to quote two important sayings, both sum up the situation.

"Evil flourishes when good men do nothing."

"The longest journey begins with the first step."

Berlind and others want congress to do everything _now_, and when they can't get congress to do that, because of the big money the marketers and their sock puppet The DMA have, they throw a journalistic tantrum and say that the bill will be worse than no law at all. They talk foolishness.

Berlind and others want the journey to be completed on a single step, and are totally unwilling to compromise to any other journey. This has caused the federal government to take no steps at all, so for the last 5 or 6 years, absolutely nothing has been passed at the federal level. Thanks a lot, you bunch of journalistic Chicken Littles. Because of your constant harping that "The sky will fall" if a bad law is passed, we have had no federal laws at all. And the states have had to go it alone, with little results because of almost total lack of enforcement. If the journalists would stop putting a bad spin on the new law, and give it a chance to work, maybe someday we will see a reduction in spam. So far, without a federal law, spamming has turned into a free-for-all, literally smothering the email system with spam. It cannot, in any way, be worse with any federal law, no matter what!

And Linford has done just as much damage, with his naysaying. He, a Brit, should mind his own business and keep out of U.S. political and legislative processes.

Bills are bills, not laws. There are USC codes, and then there are CFRs Codes of Federal Regulations. We will have to wait to see how the law is implemented.

Congress is giving the executive branch a tool to do a job. How the Federal Trade Commission uses that tool depends on a lot of things.

There is going to be a lot of pressure on the FTC to get this to succeed. The law supercedes the state laws, and states are going to want to get something done. It's going to be some time for the law to get rolling because it will be challenged on First Amendment Constitutionality. That's already happened at the state level, but it will probably take a year for the challenges to be defeated in courts.

You can't pass final judgment because the bill requires the FTC to report back to congress after an amount of time, I believe it is 24 months. Then the legislators may modify the laws to get more results or to stop unintended results. Only time will tell.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dar

In article , snipped-for-privacy@no.spam.us mentioned... [snip]

I used to be a member, but withdrew my membership once I found out that they were part of the problem, not part of the solution. >:-(

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dar

In article , snipped-for-privacy@no.spam.us mentioned... [snip]

That's not how things are done with something that's protected as Free Speech. They'd get the courts to issue an injunction to stop enforcement, claiming that it doesn't meet the Central Hudson tests. But the 'zeroth' test, before all of the other four tests, is 'Is the speech legal?' If not, then it isn't free speech. Well, the FTC has already said that more than 2/3rds of all spam is fraudulent in some form. So one might say that the new spam law is only codifying what's already known to be illegal. But if that makes the FTC get off their duff and enforce it, I'm all for it.

--
@@F@r@o@m@@O@r@a@n@g@e@@C@o@u@n@t@y@,@@C@a@l@,@@w@h@e@r@e@@
###Got a Question about ELECTRONICS?   Check HERE First:###
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
Watson A.Name - "Watt Sun, Dar

on

job

have

declared

They

with

You can't enforce that for which you have no budget and or technical expertise.

Since a preponderance of the spams are for MLM (a.k.a. pyramid schemes which are largely illegal) bilking those who can least afford it in their attempt to work from home, the legislature had a multitude of avenues from which to approach the spam problem. Sadly, they chose none of them.

For the time being, I will stick with my original assertion that our "esteemed" lawmakers are in bed with the spammers on one level or another, getting vast sums for their reelection coffers, and that they deliberately crafted a bill they knew full well would be unworkable.

Reply to
Baphomet

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.