Another round on what Congress spam bill actually does [sp]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

To: gnu () toad com
Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Subject: Re: [Politech]         Why Fed spam law is absolutely evil, by 
John Gilmore [sp]
From: cjlamb () camharris com
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:33:25 -0500

John,
I normally agree with what you say, but in this case, I think you're way 
out in left field:

>That would make a large fraction of hotmail users instant criminals.

It would only make criminals out of those hotmail users that send 
commercial email with false or misleading information.  I have a hotmail 
account.  Would that make me an instant criminal?  No, because I'm not 
using it to send commercial email.

>It also makes it a crime to remove or alter information in message
headers in ways that would make it harder for a police officer
to determine who had sent the email.  Anonymizers will be illegal
as soon as this bill becomes law.

Again, this only applies to senders of commercial email.  I read some case 
law after reading this to see if there were any precendents, and 
fortunately there aren't (at least that I could find in a quick 5 minute 
search).  So, to recap, you can email to your heart's contect using an 
anonymizer as long as it isn't unsolicted commercial email.  You can email 
anyone you want - you can even use false and misleading headers (if I read 
the CAN-SPAM legislation correctly) as long as your aren't selling a product.

I don't believe that anonimity has any place in the commercial realm.  Do 
you honestly want some anonymous person hawking their wares at you with no 
way to track them down??   Do you feel that I should be able to hawk 
whatever I want to whomever I want with no way for anyone to limit 
me?   Can you honestly defend the right of someone to blindly email any 
information to anyone with no way to stop them?

I'm proud to call myself a liberal and am very free speech oriented.  I 
don't even think the CAN-SPAM is a good bill.  But, short of taxing email 
(which I oppose - for now), I can't come up with a better alternative.  Can 
you?  According to a study by Brightmail, last year over 40% of all email 
was spam.  That was 2002 - I imagine in 2003, it's inched up to the 50% 
mark - at least in my inbox.  For my web based mail clients, like Hotmail, 
it's about 90 - 95%.

I look forward to your response.  I sincerely believe that you're response 
wasn't thought out before you wrote it.  I can't fathom the erroneous 
assumptions you made based on what I read in your response.  As I said at 
the beginning, you and I normally see eye to eye most of the time and I 
respect your opinions, even when we differ, but in all cases except this 
one, I at least understand where you are comming from.

Best regards,
CJ Lamb

---

To: cjlamb () camharris com
cc: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>, gnu () new toad com
Subject: Re: [Politech] Why Fed spam law is absolutely evil, by John 
Gilmore [sp]
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:55:23 -0800
From: John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>

> Would that make me an instant criminal?  No, because I'm not
> using it to send commercial email.

It depends on what your definition of "commercial email" is.  The bill's
definition is quite broad.  Note that there is no requirement that it be
sent in bulk; a single message is "commercial email" regulated by the bill.
On page 5:

  (A)  IN GENERAL.--The  term  ``commercial
  electronic  mail  message''  means  any  electronic
  mail  message  the  primary  purpose  of  which  is
  the  commercial  advertisement  or  promotion  of  a
  commercial  product  or  service  (including  con-
  tent  on  an  Internet  website  operated  for  a  com-
  mercial purpose).

If you sent a message to a company saying, "I saw a job posting on
your company's web site, and found your email address in Google; I'd
like to apply for the job" then you've violated the bill in two
different ways.  You used automated means (Google) to extract an email
address, and you sent commercial email advertising a service (your
services).

I won't spend further time on this message because there is an 80% chance
that it will bounce unread -- your antispam software will reject it.
(So far, *every* response I've sent to people who sent me email after
Declan posted my note has bounced.)

        John

---

To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
Cc: cjlamb () camharris com, gnu () new toad com, John Gilmore <gnu () toad com>
Subject: Re: [Politech] Why Fed spam law is absolutely evil, by 
John  Gilmore [sp]
From: cjlamb () camharris com
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:48:23 -0500

John, Declan,
After reading Declan's response and thinking a bit more on the subject, I 
now better understand John's arguments.   I may even agree now - to a 
point.  I think that the situation is just so frustrating, that people want 
to start somewhere and this is the tool that's been given - for better or 
worse.   I really agree that, unless there were some clarifications, that 
it wouldn't work in it's current form and that's what we're discussing, not 
a "what-if" scenario.  (My mind is spinning while I sit here and ponder 
it...).

You guys really get the mind moving.  You don't have to respond, as I know 
you both have full plates.

Best regards,
CJ Lamb

_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)