![]() |
CAN-SPAM: Law Barring Junk E-Mail Allows a Flood Instead
http://nytimes.com/2005/02/01/techno...rtner=homepage
"Can Spam legalized spamming itself," said Steve Linford, the founder of the Spamhaus Project. By TOM ZELLER Jr. Published: February 1, 2005 A year after a sweeping federal antispam law went into effect, there is more junk e-mail on the Internet than ever, and Levon Gillespie, according to Microsoft, is one reason. Lawyers for the company seemed well on the way to shutting down Mr. Gillespie last September after he agreed to meet them at a Starbucks in Los Angeles near the University of Southern California. There they served him a court summons and a lawsuit accusing him, his Web site and 50 unnamed customers of violating state and federal law - including the year-old federal Can Spam Act - by flooding Microsoft's internal and customer e-mail networks with illegal spam, among other charges. But that was the last the company saw of the young entrepreneur. Mr. Gillespie, who operated a service that gives bulk advertisers off-shore shelter from the antispam crusade, did not show up last month for a court hearing in King County, Wash. The judge issued a default judgment against him in the amount of $1.4 million. In a telephone interview yesterday from his home in Los Angeles, Mr. Gillespie, 21, said he was unaware of the judgment and that no one from Microsoft or the court had yet followed up. But he insisted that he had done nothing wrong and vowed that lawsuits would not stop him - nor any of the other players in the lucrative spam chain. "There's way too much money involved," Mr. Gillespie said, noting that his service, which is currently down, provided him with a six-figure income at its peak. "And if there's money to be made, people are going to go out and get it." Since the Can Spam Act went into effect in January 2004, unsolicited junk e-mail on the Internet has come to total perhaps 80 percent or more of all e-mail sent, according to most measures. That is up from 50 percent to 60 percent of all e-mail before the law went into effect. To some antispam crusaders, the surge comes as no surprise. They had long argued that the law would make the spam problem worse by effectively giving bulk advertisers permission to send junk e-mail as long as they followed certain rules. "Can Spam legalized spamming itself," said Steve Linford, the founder of the Spamhaus Project, a London organization that is one of the leading groups intent on eliminating junk e-mail. And in making spam legal, he said, the new rules also invited flouting by those intent on being outlaws. Not everyone agrees that the Can Spam law is to blame, and lawsuits invoking the new legislation - along with other suits using state laws - have been mounted in the name of combating the problem. Besides Microsoft, other large Internet companies like AOL and Yahoo have used the federal law as the basis for suits. Two prolific spam distributors, Jeremy D. Jaynes and Jessica DeGroot, were convicted under a Virginia antispam law in November, and a $1 billion judgment was issued in an Iowa federal court against three spam marketers in December. The law's chief sponsor, Senator Conrad Burns, Republican of Montana, said that it was too soon to judge the law's effectiveness, although he indicated in an e-mail message that the Federal Trade Commission, which oversees its enforcement, might simply need some nudging. "As we progress into the next legislative session," Mr. Burns said, "I'll be working to make sure the F.T.C. utilizes the tools now in place to enforce the act and effectively stem the tide of this burden." The F.T.C. has made some recent moves that include winning a court order in January to shut down illegal advertising from six companies accused of profiting from thousands of X-rated spam e-mail messages. But so far, the spam trade has foiled most efforts to bring it under control. A growing number of so-called bulletproof Web host services like Mr. Gillespie's offer spam-friendly merchants access to stable offshore computer servers - most of them in China - where they can park their Web sites, with the promise that they will not be shut down because of spam complaints. Some bulk e-mailers have also teamed with writers of viruses to steal lists of working e-mail addresses and quietly hijack the personal computers of millions of unwitting Internet users, creating the "zombie networks" that now serve, according to some specialists, as the de facto circulatory system for spam. "We've thrown everything but the kitchen sink at this problem," said Chris Smith, the senior director of product marketing for Postini, a company that filters e-mail for corporations. "And yet, all of these efforts have yet to make a significant dent." Mr. Smith was speaking in a conference call with reporters last week to discuss Postini's 2005 e-mail security report, which echoed the bleak findings of recent academic surveys and statistics from other vendors that filter and monitor e-mail traffic. -- Maybe the media should glorify it a little more and make it more appealing... </sarcasm> :1orglaugh |
lol ... you a funny girl.
|
yup why not :)
|
all the law did was move all the spammers offshore..
|
Suck on all that yummy mail mother fuckers!
- Not that I have anything to do with it.. What do they expect to happen when they try to stop people from making money as they should be allowed to do. |
sucking all the way to your bank
|
email taste better warm
|
Quote:
or maybe I'm just overestimating their intelligence :helpme :1orglaugh |
cheapbp, are you not being sued by MS right now?
|
If the US Govt was given 10k per year or so per spammer for licensing and shit and permission to send email, they wouldnt give a rats ass
|
just another case of over legislating something in a stupid and nonsensicle way.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
exactley. you can't kill an industry or product when there is a high demand for it. |
I don't see anything wrong with Can Spam itself. If people don't like the rules in it, try to change it.
It's good to have rules for marketing. Eliminating email marketing altogether wouldn't be good. It's a great way to market legitimate things. Offshore unsolicited non-opt in spam operations are a completely unrelated phenomenon. You can't stop it, at least it doesn't appear to be something that can be stopped right now. Those operations aren't endorsed by legitimate email marketers and those who abide by Can Spam. |
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:58 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123