by Mike Masnick

CAN SPAM Effectiveness Questioned

from the surprise-surprise... dept

It's unlikely that this is a surprise to anyone who actually uses email, but more people are starting to wonder why we bothered with the CAN SPAM law, when it appears to have done next to nothing in actually slowing down the parade of spam in our in-boxes. In fact, most people have experienced more spam. When the law was first passed, we asked what was the backup plan by the government if (when) the law proved ineffective, and the answer is that they don't have one. We also noted that the original sponsors said the bill would work "with the proper enforcement" which gave them an obvious scapegoat when the law didn't work at all. So is it at all surprising that this is exactly what the sponsors are now saying? The latest article quotes CAN SPAM sponsor Conrad Burns saying that "enforcement is key" in getting the law to work.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 29 Dec 2004 @ 12:27pm

    No Subject Given

    explain to me what the government can actually do about this, and why we're casting the problem upon them? The only reason why spam is still on the rise is because people RESPOND to the spam. If people stopped giving spammers a source of revenue, they'd dry up the natural market way. Instead, people actually give in to the crap.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.