Can You Create A Good Anti-Spam Bill?
from the back-and-forth dept
I would like nothing better than to see a law that could actually stop spam. However, I still don’t see how it’s possible to write a really good spam law. All of the really loosely defined anti-spam laws which are supported by marketing lobbyists seem to be “pro-spam” laws rather than anti-spam laws. They continue to work off the definition that spam is only spam if it’s fraudulent – not unwanted. Thus, they contain “opt-out” provisions instead of “opt-in”. The problem, though, with the universal “opt-in” provisions (such as the new California anti-spam law) is that they do make plenty of perfectly legitimate email spam. As I said at the time it was passed, Techdirt receives plenty of email every day from people who we have no relationship with – and who we have not requested email from. Usually they’re asking for a link to their site or some sort of information from us. These aren’t spam – but there’s no prior business relationship either. How do you set up an “opt-in” anti-spam law that still allows these types of communication? The only thing I can think of is making sure an anti-spam law outlaws bulk email – so that truly personalized email gets through. The problem, then, is on the definition of personalized. If it includes my name, is it personalized? If so, plenty of spam would fit through that loophole.
Comments on “Can You Create A Good Anti-Spam Bill?”
No Subject Given
I’m wondering if a law could be crafted to institute penalties for henous acts of spammage to do *something* about it without “legitimizing” other forms of spam. Because that’s the best you are going to get out of folks right now, unfortunately. The DMA is just waiting for people’s defenses to wear down and then they will start spamming, I’d wager.
I think that you need to require that any unsolicited communication be written, in it’s entirety, by a human being. You’d want to explicitly define limits to how people’s “consent” may be sold, probably defining a sunset date for all currently existing “consent” so as to remove temporary loopholes, and also dictate a definition of double-opt-in permission.