IP: Why a US law against spam is futile, and a bad idea

[Dave Farber <farber () cis upenn edu>]

> Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 09:54:07 -0400
> From: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
>
>
> There is a "junk fax" law on the books in the US. A British firm has
> circumvented this and is busily sending junk faxes to some 3,000,000 US faxes
> because, well, the company isn't based in the US. Snickers the firm: "We're
> covered by European laws."
>
> Special interest groups have lobbied for a US law restricting spam. Given the
> much lower cost of sending email compared to a telephone call, I suspect the
> most likely effect would be simply to force spammers offshore. Such a law
> might
> even have two negative effects: Provide Americans with a false sense of
> security and thus hinder the development of technological countermeasures, and
> push spammers towards judgment-proof havens that would make fraudulent spam a
> more attractive option.
>
> Of course you could have every country in the world pass a law against spam,
> but the odds of that happening anytime soon seem to be remote, and global
> governance structures have their own problems.
>
> The article:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-05/05/108l-050599-idx.html
>
> Also in the Washington Post on the Network Solutions antitrust investigation:
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/may99/nsi5.htm
>
> -Declan
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------
> POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
> To subscribe: send a message to majordomo () vorlon mit edu with this text:
> subscribe politech
> More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------