Spam Lawsuit Dismissed
from the even-opting-out-isn't-good-enough dept
A high profile "test case" against Sprint for spamming a guy in Salt Lake City (in violation of Utah's new anti-spam law) was
dismissed today, as the judge ruled that Sprint had a "pre-existing relationship" with the guy who filed the lawsuit. The focus of the article seems to make a big deal out of how this is somehow a "blow" to the spam law - but it's not. The ruling has nothing to do with the law itself, but how it was applied in this case. However, what I find more upsetting is that this guy clearly "opted-out" of receiving messages - and yet he still received the spam a few days later. Basically, what the judge is saying is that even opting-out of receiving spam isn't enough to "void the pre-existing relationship". So, the question is should there be a time limit on how quickly a company needs to remove you from a database? Some may argue that there should be some leeway, but if you're going to put a system in place to send out mass mailings, I don't see why you shouldn't also set up an
automated system to
immediately remove those who want off the list.
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
SPAM Killers
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: SPAM Killers
Would that be similar to the Napster Death Sentence imposed on Doctor Dre and Metallica?
the NDS isn't working: people are still buying way too many albums, ignoring Lars' flapping gums and, apparently, eagerly accepting the title of Potential Thief.
Yeah, I'd be all for a supervirus inflicted on evil spammers, IFF, like the death penalty, we can be sure it's only used vs spammers; hacker kids don't have a good reputation for avoiding power plays and getting all petty (ISS's 0-day announcements are always fun).
Either way, it'd be the first nod toward the Internet Governing the Planet, and not the other way around.
[ link to this | view in thread ]