Can-Spam Act Leads To More Spam
from the bottled-Spam-is-better dept
Back when President Bush made spam legal, we predicted the floodgates would open and actually increase spam. Now we've got some numbers to back up that prediction. According to anti-spam vendors, spam is on the rise and increasingly complies with the Can-Spam Act now; almost 10% of spam is legal up from 1% in January. And given that 7% of email users actually buy products from unsolicited email (ugh!), spam doesn't seem to be decreasing at all. So there don't appear to be any easy solutions to the spam problem, but if we're going to pass silly laws, maybe we need to pass a law against buying products promoted by spam.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
No Subject Given
Myria
[ link to this | view in thread ]
No Subject Given
Not that he's any more or less to blame than Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bye bye Techdirt, you've lost credibility
You fail to mention that the spam that is Can-Spam compliant is very easy to filter out.
You fail to mention that Can-Spam has led to prosecutions.
You fail to mention that before Can-Spam *all* spamming was legal (outside of whatever may be illegal in the messages themselves).
And most importantly Can-Spam was a first step. Where we go from there with technology, law enforcement, and additional regulation is what will make the difference.
It's just retarded to imply that Can-Spam *increased* spam or to bash Bush for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bye bye Techdirt, you've lost credibility
You fail to mention that the spam that is Can-Spam compliant is very easy to filter out.
You fail to mention that Can-Spam has led to prosecutions.
You fail to mention that before Can-Spam *all* spamming was legal (outside of whatever may be illegal in the messages themselves).
And most importantly Can-Spam was a first step. Where we go from there with technology, law enforcement, and additional regulation is what will make the difference.
It's just retarded to imply that Can-Spam *increased* spam or to bash Bush for it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
correlation does not imply causation...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: correlation does not imply causation...
But, I think the issue is that there are more "legitimate spammers" now who feel comfortable spamming people.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bye bye Techdirt, you've lost credibility
1) I don't think I was bashing Bush. You're reading a bit too much into things.
2) Not ALL spam was legal before Can-Spam. Existing laws against fraud probably could have lead to prosecutions even before Can-Spam, if enforcement was made a priority.
3) The problem is the law, not Bush, I did not mean to imply he in particular was stupid/whatever. Any politician probably would have signed the bill, but the law is still not effective. If you think the law is effective, and you're getting less spam, then I wish we could trade our spam or spam filters.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bye bye Techdirt, you've lost credibility
Uh, like the first sentence, "Back when Bush made spam legal"?
"2) Not ALL spam was legal before Can-Spam. Existing laws against fraud probably could have lead to prosecutions even before Can-Spam, if enforcement was made a priority. "
Which is why I added the "outside of whatever may be illegal in the messages themselves" part...and that still applies!
3) I believe the law was a minor step in the right direction. Certainly I see no evidence that it has led to more spam as your title indicates. I have seen some spammers prosecuted and I have seen other spammers go into compliance with the law. The spam that is in compliance is like a bazillion times easier to filter/block or retaliate against by other means.
And by the way...where are your numbers that supposedly back up the prediction that "the floodgates would open and actually increase spam"? Spam was always on the rise, higher numbers don't mean a thing unless you can point to how they would've been lower without the law, which you fail to do in supporting your argument.
Can-Spam was a baby first step in combating spam, but a necessary one. The fighting back and forth to get anything passed was just letting a problem grow and get much worse. At least now we have something to work with for additional legislation, enforcement and technology.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bye bye Techdirt, you've lost credibility
Cheers,
A.C.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bye bye Techdirt, you've lost credibility
That would be a spam law I would approve.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bye bye Techdirt, you've lost credibility
Other posters have replied to your points, so I won't add to those responses...there's just one of your points that I have a bone to pick with:
You fail to mention that the spam that is Can-Spam compliant is very easy to filter out.What YOU fail to realize is that "easy to filter out" is quite a naive thing to believe. The law says they must identify their email as sexually explicit...but it does NOT legislate HOW they must do this (and if the law makers had given it some thought and specified a method, then it WOULD be easy to filter...but that wasn't the point of the law...it was just a feel good thing).
I mean so far I've seen "compliant" spammers using:S3xually 3xplicit adlut orientd sexua11y excp1icit A D U L T M A T E RI A L SE X U A LL Y 3 X PL1C1T
...so you still have to spend most of your time writing up filters for each variation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Re: Bye bye Techdirt, you've lost credibility
Really? On what basis do you make that claim?
Oh, and don't let the door hit your @ss on the way out.
[ link to this | view in thread ]