Congress OKs National Anti-Spam Bill

[Kennedy 0]

Congress OKs National Anti-Spam Bill

YIPPEEEEEEE!!!!!
WAHOOOOO!!!!!

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[n2skdvn 0]

now wee need a anti pop up bill!!!!!

if my calculations are correct SLINKY + ESCULATOR = EVERLASTING FUN
my site

[Kennedy 0]

hmm, good point. I spent a good six minutes just fighting to stop them on my copmputer today.

Now I've got this GAIN network crap popping up ads and searches and other assorted crap. I don't think it's connected to a site, but I can't find it on my computer. Anybody out there have an idea?

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[tunaplanet 0]

You mean no more penis enlargement ads? What on earth will I ever do?

Forty-two

[kiltboy 0]

I like the "Stop Spam now fgskeubk" spam myself.

Am I the only one to think it's weird to spam people and ad for a spam blocker? Is this internet extortion?

David

[lawrocket 3]

Yeah, I just received a spam tellign me about it.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Gawain 0]

How, oh how, would this ever be enforced? I'm not a spammer (nor do I like spam), but there's problems here, both technologically, and Constitutionally.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[Jimbo 0]

Yeah, but that doesn't matter. The people want it. How can the Constitution possible stand in the way of what people want? How can technology possibly stand in the way of what people want?

-
Jim

"Like" - The modern day comma
Good bye, my friends. You are missed.

[lawrocket 3]

Enforced? The key question is "how long will it last?" Free speech ain't just for people anymore. It's for corporations and businesses, too.

This is "commercial speech" and is viewed differently from political speech.

In 1980, in the Central Hudson Gas & Electric case, the U.S. Supreme Court established a four-part test for determining whether government limitations on commercial speech are constitutional.

First commercial speech must concern lawful activity and not be misleading. Most spammers can get this one.

Next, the court must determine if the government interest advanced by the regulation is substantial. What's the government interest? Time? Money. They are important, but the government has to identify specific interests when the challenge arises. Identification of the interests may actually diffuse this argument.

Third, if a substantial government interest is at stake, a court determines whether the commercial speech regulation directly advances the government interest. The government may win this prong.

Finally, the court must determine whether the regulation of speech is no more extensive than necessary to serve the government interest. The government will likely lose this one.

This last prong is pretty brutal. The spammers can argue that the government objective is minimal, while the anti-spam regulation does a lot more than necessary to meet that interest.

I think the spammers will win this one through the courts, and there will have to be other bills passed that are more limited in power to meet Constitutional criteria.

I don't like the results of my analysis. But, we'll have to suck it up, is my guess.

Edited: this is not to say that jurisdprudence hasn't changed somewhat. This all started a while ago in what was called teh "Central Hudson" case. But with the tobacco restrictions and alcohol ad restrictions, we may see a change goign on.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[narcimund 0]

Quote

Congress OKs National Anti-Spam Bill

YIPPEEEEEEE!!!!!
WAHOOOOO!!!!!

Congress declaring that spammers must respect opt-out notices will have the same effect on your spam as 535 congressmen farting in unison would have on a hurricane.

Nice try guys. We're all really impressed down here.

First Class Citizen Twice Over

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

. . . there's problems here, both technologically,

Yep.

Quote

. . . and Constitutionally.

Nope.

Spam costs business billions a year. Spam is anything but "free speech" in any sense of the phrase.

. . =(_8^(1)

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Quote

. . . there's problems here, both technologically,

Yep.

Quote

...and Constitutionally.

Nope.

Spam costs business billions a year. Spam is anything but "free speech" in any sense of the phrase.

I'm glad cost isn't much of a factor in constitutional law.

I'm leaning towards Gawain and lawrocket having a point. I think it is enough of an issue that it will go through the appeals process, but I don't think the law [once it is one] will be overturned. Even if you two are right, how many times have you seen rulings based on what the judge thought was right and then rationalized in law, rather than the law itself? We just need to get the justices official e-mails, and then make sure they get a few hundred porn and penis enlargement spams a day like the rest of us, then we can be 100% certain it'll never be overturned.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Congress declaring that spammers must respect opt-out notices will have the same effect on your spam as 535 congressmen farting in unison would have on a hurricane.

You know, I stopped using the opt out long ago because I figured it was increasing my spam rate. I think they take you off, but then they can sell you for more because they know you're a real account.

But if this becomes law, I think it'll really happen. I haven't received any dinner time phone calls in quite a while, thank you very much.

Quote

Nice try guys. We're all really impressed down here.

Down here in Oregon???

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[ACMESkydiver 0]

Quote

Congress declaring that spammers must respect opt-out notices will have the same effect on your spam as 535 congressmen farting in unison would have on a hurricane.

...geez that's a nice visual

~Jaye
Do not believe that possibly you can escape the reward of your action.

[Kennedy 0]

Quote

Congress declaring that spammers must respect opt-out notices will have the same effect on your spam as 535 congressmen farting in unison would have on a hurricane.

ps - You know they are all full of piss and wind. [and another four letter word] They might just move that hurricane. But then, we would have to get them to agree. And Lord knows THAT will never happen.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Quote

. . . there's problems here, both technologically,

Yep.

Quote

. . . and Constitutionally.

Nope.

Spam costs business billions a year. Spam is anything but "free speech" in any sense of the phrase.

Consumers too. Many of us pay for our accounts and we have mailboxes of finite size. I object strongly to having my mailbox filled daily with someone else's "protected commercial speech" at my expense. I do not agree that free speech entitles anyone to monopolize a resource paid for by someone else.

I would like to see spammers publically flogged prior to being suspended by the genitalia, as a warning to others.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[WFFC 1]

Quote

I object strongly to having my mailbox filled daily with someone else's "protected commercial speech" at my expense.

I currently spend approximately 90 minutes per day on average deleting spam from my inbox. Time=Money Spam=Money I'm not making sifting through their crap. Can I bill them for wasting my time?

[Lee03 0]

no call is a joke.. they left so many loopholes in it that the companies will continue to call, immuned to any kind of enforcement! and the worthless bastards and bitches in congress conviently left themselves of the list so that theyh could continue to call and harass you for money. I have had two congressmen's offices call and ask me for "donations, and i gave them the answer that i will give all politicians when and if they ever call my house again.. "since yiou people conviently left your own names off of the no call list, I have not the slightest problem in telling you to go to Hell and do not call my house again! You will not only get zero money from me, i won't even give you the t-paper I wipe my ass with!

--------
To put your life in danger from time to time ... breeds a saneness in dealing with day-to-day trivialities.

--Nevil Shute, Slide Rule

[champu 1]

Quote

You know, I stopped using the opt out long ago because I figured it was increasing my spam rate. I think they take you off, but then they can sell you for more because they know you're a real account.

They must get a bonus for "irritable spam-hating customers."

There's really no excuse to put up with pop-ups anymore, there's plenty of software to block this in an all but fool-proof fashion. I just browse using Mozilla.

For spam I use a fun method that prolly doesn't work for everyone. Since I have all the addresses under my namespace, I create aliases for every site I enter an address for (amazon@, paypal@, sprint@, etc) and point them to an address I never use anywhere.

I get very little spam, but when I do I can see what bastards sold my address, or where it got harvested from. I delete that alias and don't put a real address there anymore.

[PhillyKev 0]

Gartner is a technology think tank that studies and reports on everything having to do with IT. Here's their take on it.

Spam Will Likely Worsen Despite U.S. Law

[kallend 2,150]

Quote

Gartner is a technology think tank that studies and reports on everything having to do with IT. Here's their take on it.

Spam Will Likely Worsen Despite U.S. Law

I think my solution is the only way to stop it:

"I would like to see spammers publically flogged prior to being suspended by the genitalia, as a warning to others."

AND I would add anyone found guilty of responding to a spam message since without customers the whole spamming business would fade away very quickly.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[FliegendeWolf 0]

Quote

AND I would add anyone found guilty of responding to a spam message since without customers the whole spamming business would fade away very quickly.

I really wonder who these people are. As you point out, they must exist because without them the whole infrastructure would crumble. But I've never met anyone who would admit to making a purchase from something advertised through spam...

Yes, this goes for Telemarketing, too. Hatred of Telemarketing seems fairly universal, yet no one will own up to having purchased anything from one.

A One that Isn't Cold is Scarcely a One at All

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Congress OKs National Anti-Spam Bill

YIPPEEEEEEE!!!!!
WAHOOOOO!!!!!

NOOO!!! BAD BAD BAD!!!!!

If congress can pass a bill limiting the advertising, what are they going to try to limit next?

This is the first step in the wrong direction.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Chute 0]

Quote

now wee need a anti pop up bill!!!!!

Thanks to Monica. Hillary has already signed it.

Bottomless Beers and Blue Skies!

* Brother_Brian *
D.S.W.F.S.B. #2

[PhillyKev 0]

It's the same thing as a do not call list. They're not lmiting advertising. They're limiting what you can transmit to my private email account that I pay for and own, and should have control over.

Not that it's going to do any good anyway.

Email costs money. How would you like to get unsolicited phone calls on your cell phone?