Why the Fed spam law is probably pretty problematic after all [sp]

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

---

From: "Sanford Olson" <solson () mailbag com>
To: "Declan McCullagh" <declan () well com>
References: <20031121161312.A519 () baltwash com>
Subject: Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill [sp]
Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:38:46 -0600

Hi Declan,

I'm no lawyer, and that is certainly a long document with all kinds of
legalese..

But, my concern is "...as long as the messages are obviously advertisements
with a valid U.S. postal address or P.O. box
and an unsubscribe link at the bottom."

 - Most spam *messages* are already obviously advertisements.  They just
have misleading/misspelled subject lines.

 - Whose valid U.S. postal address?  Anyone's?  "1600 Pennsylvania Ave" is a
good one to use.

 - Most spam already has an unsubscribe link at the bottom, but it is just
used by the spammers to learn that the e-mail address was a good one and
that the receipient is gullible.

Regards,
Sanford Olson

---

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 17:38:05 -0600
To: hclp () yahoogroups com, Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
From: Parks <parks () uhibpd phys uh edu>
Subject: Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill
 [sp]

Is this the "camel's nose under the tent" end of internet anonymity, where
the government ultimately requires everyone to have a valid internet
account veified with a biometrioc ID?

A "valid U.S. postal address or P.O. box" now reqiires an ID - thanks to
CONgress.

---

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 15:21:58 -0800
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
From: Steve Schear <s.schear () comcast net>
Subject: Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam
  bill [sp]
Cc: cypherpunks () lne com, asrg () ietf org

At 04:13 PM 11/21/2003 -0600, Declan McCullagh <declan () well com> wrote:
> A copy of the bill is here:
> http://news.com.com/pdf/ne/2003/FINALSPAM.pdf

I interpret paragraph 1037(a)1 - 5 as possibly prohibiting the use of 
anonymous remailers, or proxies and nyms in registering email accounts, for 
the purpose of commercial speech.

steve

---

Date: Fri, 21 Nov 2003 14:06:18 -0800 (PST)
From: hypatia popol <heartofhearts2001 () yahoo com>
Subject: Re: [Politech] Congress finally poised to vote on anti-spam bill [sp]
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

I'm sorry Declan, I really don't see the difference than what spam I get 
now. I would have to open 20 to 40 spams a day and say "unsubscribe" which 
takes a long time the way they have it spamming me now. What is the 
difference? I don't know, I just don't see how it will help anything and I 
am in California.


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