Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Anti-spam list maybe in the works?


jbooma

Recommended Posts

They are finally getting smart in DC :)

http://www.msnbc.com/news/933516.asp?0cv=CB20

After do-not-call, is spam ban next?

FTC is looking into feasibility of a ‘do not e-mail’ list

By Jane Weaver

MSNBC

July 1 — The enormous popularity of the national do-not-call list —more than 10 million sign ups in the first 4 days — has raised hopes that a “no spam” registry could be next.

IF MORE THAN 12 million people rushed to put their names onto the Federal Trade Commission’s Do Not Call database, imagine how many would sign up for a national “no spam” registry.

It’s arguable whether the flood of unwanted commercial e-mail messages is worse for consumers than annoying dinnertime telemarketing calls, but there’s no doubt that spam is getting worse. By the end of the year, more than 1 trillion spam messages will flood users’ in-boxes, according to research firm IDC.

In fact, the ban on telemarketing could result in companies bumping up their e-mail marketing efforts to reach potential customers, industry experts charge.

Of the handful of anti-spam bills working their way through Congress right now, only one, introduced by Sen. Charles E. Schumer in June, mandates a national “do not e-mail” registry.

Federal Communications Commission

In the New York Democrat’s legislation, a national “no spam” list would allow consumers to collect from $500 to $1,500 from spammers who violate the law. The FTC could sue companies who violate the registry for as much as $100,000 and repeat offenders could go to jail.

Until the “do not call” list went into effect last Friday, the Schumer bill, which is called the “Stop Pornography and Abusive Marketing Act,” lacked the level of support of other anti-spam legislation such as the “Can Spam” act sponsored by Conrad Burns, (R., Montana) and Ron Wyden (D., Oregon).

The Burns-Wyden bill, which has been unanimously approved by the Senate Commerce Committee, allows the FTC to study the feasibility of a “no spam” list, but doesn’t require it.

Advertisement

Instead, Burns-Wyden attempts to limit unwanted commercial e-mail by requiring consumers to “opt-out” of e-mail by notifying companies that they don’t want to receive messages from them.

But the hugely favorable consumer response to the new telemarketing restrictions could boost political interest in a “no spam” list, industry experts believe.

“If the last few days mean anything, it’s that ‘do not call’ is loudly popular with consumers,” said Ray Everett-Church, chief privacy officer of ePrivacy Group, a Los Angeles technology consulting firm and founder of the Coalition against Unsolicited Commercial E-mail. “Until the [“no spam” list] is added to Burns-Wyden, we’re not likely to see any bill move forward with any positive consumer support behind it.”

Phil Singer, Schumer’s communications director agrees that the telemarketing ban will draw attention to Schumer’s push for a “no spam” list.

“Ultimately the extraordinary level of spam people continue to get will put us over the top,” he said.

The FTC will begin examining a “do not e-mail” list because it could possibly be added to approved legislation, according to commissioner Orson Swindle.

GLOBAL PROBLEM

However, setting up a national list to block unwanted e-mails is “a far more complex problem” than telemarketing, Swindle said.

“The phone industry has relatively finite boundaries. It’s regulated and has a well-established business model,” said Swindle. “The Internet has never been regulated; there are no boundaries.”

There would be big hurdles to overcome with a “no spam list,” including making the database secure enough that criminals couldn’t get into it.

“Spam is from anywhere in the universe,” said Swindle. “I don’t think a national list is feasible.”

David Kramer of the Wilson, Sonsin law firm in Palo Alto, Calif., counters that a national list would take the burden off consumers compared to opting-out of thousands of unwanted e-mails.

“Spam is a much bigger problem than telemarketing,” said Kramer, an attorney who worked on drafting California’s tough anti-spam laws.

Spam’s global reach prompted politicians and industry officials Tuesday to call for new international laws to block the flow of unwanted e-mail. At an international summit on spam in London, officials warned that without international cooperation, spammers will continue unabated.

British anti-spam activist Steve Linford, founder of the UK-based group Spamhous Project called the United States the “spam capital of the world” at the summit. Some 140 individuals, most of whom are U.S.-based, are responsible for 90 percent of the world’s spam, he claimed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think I would, and here's why:

Let's say we outlaw sending spam here in the US. Spammers will simply move outside the US and keep sending us the same ol' crap. And, they just might look up every email address on any anti-spammers list like they do for every other place they can procure a list, and use it to get a whole lot of valid email addresses where they can send more spam :doh: :cuss:

It'd be better if we could just track down these 90 or so people, line them up against the wall, and shoot them all. We could finance their execution by showing the video of the carnage on Pa Per View. That'd be one show I'd pay to watch!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by riggo-toni

I don't think I would, and here's why:

Let's say we outlaw sending spam here in the US. Spammers will simply move outside the US and keep sending us the same ol' crap. And, they just might look up every email address on any anti-spammers list like they do for every other place they can procure a list, and use it to get a whole lot of valid email addresses where they can send more spam :doh: :cuss:

It'd be better if we could just track down these 90 or so people, line them up against the wall, and shoot them all. We could finance their execution by showing the video of the carnage on Pa Per View. That'd be one show I'd pay to watch!!!!

:rotflmao:

You are right, however if they were to spam for a certain US company, then that company would be fined, so in that case those companies would not encourage it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yea, that's the problem with the net these days. You can do anything offshore and there's nothing Uncle Sam can do about it. But yes, if we went after the COMPANIES who were using the spam, then we would be on to something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SPAM is good, when you use butter or a nonstick pan and serve it with scrambled eggs and cheese.

I say go for it with pop up killer now making my adventures with XP and Aol tolerable and Kazaa lite not having ads its fun to be online.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...