Re: Internet legislation impact

[David Farber <dave () farber net>]

Begin forwarded message:

From: "Bob Poortinga" <ip () k9sql us>
Date: December 18, 2008 3:42:50 PM EST
To: dave () farber net
Subject: Re: [IP] Internet legislation impact

> From: "Brownstein, Charles" <Charles.Brownstein () hsi dhs gov>
> Date: December 17, 2008 9:02:47 AM EST
> To: <dave () farber net>
> Subject: Internet legislation impact
> see:
>
> "Failure of law to deter spammers shows limits of U.S. legislation  
> in a
> world of global cybercrime"
>
> <http://www.networkworld.com/news/2008/100608-can-spam.html>

This article contains a rather serious error:

"Industry observers say the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 wasn't a complete
failure because it defined spam."

The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 contains no such definition.  It only defines
a set of minimum standards for commercial email.
The word 'spam' is only mentioned once in the whole law:
<http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/15C103.txt>

   (c) Sense of Congress
     It is the sense of Congress that -
       (1) Spam has become the method of choice for those who
     distribute pornography, perpetrate fraudulent schemes, and
     introduce viruses, worms, and Trojan horses into personal and
     business computer systems;

This is not a definition of spam.  This is an important point because
many senders of UCE/UBE claim that they are not  "spammers" if they
are not in violation of CAN-SPAM.  I know because I was sued for
defamation for referring to someone who was sending UBE as a
'spammer'.  His complaint (filed pro se) stated that since he was
operating "legally" under CAN-SPAM and that CAN-SPAM "defined" spam, I
defamed him by calling him a "spammer"
(http://lippard.blogspot.com/2005_12_01_archive.html).

--
Bob Poortinga  K9SQL
Bloomington, IN  US




-------------------------------------------
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/247/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/247/
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com