The Can Spam Debate Continues… As Does The Spam

from the spam-spam-spam-spam-spam-spam dept

Earlier today we reported how the US has now legalized spam, and now the debate continues. Ray Everett-Church has an opinion piece explaining that the law is called “Can Spam” because it teaches spammers how they can spam. He points out that it’s basically an outline of all the loopholes that will make it possible for our in-boxes to become even more crowded with junk than usual. Meanwhile, the sponsors of the bill have fired back against all the critics, saying that it’s a good first step. They pretty much ignore the point about legalized spam from direct marketers, insisting (against popular perception) that spam is only spam if it’s somehow fraudulent. They also leave themselves a nice loophole if it doesn’t turn out to work – saying that it will only work “with proper enforcement.” So, now, when we end up with more spam than ever, they’ll just say the government needs more money to go after spammers. How about the spammers themselves? Well, they’re not saying much, but they are still spamming. It turns out that last month they took a break from all that porn spam to focus on “health care” spam (at least, that’s what they call bogus diet pills, bogus Viagra and bogus… enhancement pills).

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “The Can Spam Debate Continues… As Does The Spam”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Kevin says:

any lawyers out there?

This stuff is over my head but this item of the bill seems bad…

(C) header information shall be considered materially misleading if it fails to identify accurately a protected computer used to initiate the message because the person initiating the message knowingly uses another protected computer to relay or retransmit the message for purposes of disguising its origin.


I know they are talking about open relays, but is it vague enough to also mean remailers, anonymous mailers and disposable email services such as are now illegal. And if this isnt defined carefully does it mean spammers can use this law to harass such services? And what does this mean for anonymous free speech?

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...