FCC Rules Spam On Mobile Devices Illegal

[Ed Hansberry]

<a href="http://www.engadget.com/entry/1634319218797387/">http://www.engadget.com/entry/1634319218797387/</a><br /><br /><i>"The FCC have ruled that marketers must have explicit permission from anyone with a wireless device before they send them spam, a ruling eerily similar in scope to the CAN-SPAM act for email which has been largely ignored by spammers."</i><br /><br />Well there you go. It is a law so spammers worldwide will quickly modify their email lists to ensure you have given them permission to hawk their wares on your SMS/MMS enabled device. :roll: Doesn't the government have something better to do? They'd have more success with a law allowing forest fires to burn for only 3 days.

[johncruise]

spammers filtering their engines? Yeah right...that will be the day. Those people have no moral ethics to follow... as long as they continue to earn money, they will not care if they piss majority of people around them.

[Gremmie]

If they found a way to stop spamming you'd whine that there was no law to prosecute, now that they've tried to take a preemptive step you whine that they're wasting their time.

[Jacob]

I'd be perfectly happy if they just found a way to stop it. Preferably without requiring the use of bandwidth on my end.

[bjornkeizers]

The only thing that'll stop a spammer would be a 9mm bullet. And I wouldn't have any problem with that.

[Pony99CA]

If they found a way to stop spamming you'd whine that there was no law to prosecute, now that they've tried to take a preemptive step you whine that they're wasting their time.
I agree with Gremmie. This law could be more akin to the Junk Fax laws than the CAN-SPAM laws, and the feds really put the smack down on one junk fax company.

Is spam sent by SMS easier to track down than E-mail spam? Probably not if you can send SMS messages from any computer. However, it should keep merchants from using any kind of Location-Based Services to send ads to your phone just because you're in the vicinity. It should also keep legitimate telemarketers from spamming cell phones. I think those are good things.

UPDATE: Never mind that comment about SMS. It appears that the law only applies to E-mail, not SMS. In that case, I don't know why the FCC needs any kind of ruling -- I'd think the CAN-SPAM law would definitely apply. E-mail is E-mail regardless of the device it's being received on.

Steve

[lapchinj]

... :roll: Doesn't the government have something better to do? They'd have more success with a law allowing forest fires to burn for only 3 days.
Perfect analogy! I'm very interested to know the thought process behind development of these laws. It reminds me of the doctor who tells the patient to take 2 aspirins and if you don't feel better call him again in the morning. As far as he's concerned he resolved the call. He really didn't fix anything but the fire is out - or is it? The spammers will have a fix before the ink is dry - after all it's their livelihood that's at stake.

Jeff-

[lapchinj]

The only thing that'll stop a spammer would be a 9mm bullet…
I don’t know if any government could get that right either. I think we would only see a lot of law makers walking around with holes in their feet. I would be interesting to see if the foot would still be in the mouth when they made the hole if it would help out their thought process the next time around?

Jeff-

[Pony99CA]

... :roll: Doesn't the government have something better to do? They'd have more success with a law allowing forest fires to burn for only 3 days.
Perfect analogy! I'm very interested to know the thought process behind development of these laws.

[...]

The spammers will have a fix before the ink is dry - after all it's their livelihood that's at stake.
I guess you don't get how laws work. No law can ever prevent somebody from doing something; it merely describes the punishment for those who decide to break the law and get caught. The hope is the threat of that punishment will be enough to discourage most people from committing that crime.

For example, there are laws against burglary, but burglars still steal "because their livelihood is at stake". Do you think that makes laws against burglary stupid?

[lapchinj]

...I guess you don't get how laws work. No law can ever prevent somebody from doing something; it merely describes the punishment for those who decide to break the law and get caught. The hope is the threat of that punishment will be enough to discourage most people from committing that crime….Do you think that makes laws against burglary stupid?
I cannot say that I'm an expert on the ways that laws are supposed to work but...

There is always the deterrent factor that should "discourage most people from committing a crime". I think that we agree 100% on that point. That is a prime ingredient for the creation and "thought process" of any law.

Here in NY the penalty for late payment of county tax was paltry at best. People were intentionally paying their taxes late since they were able to make more money keeping it in the bank than the punishment would cost them by paying late (Cool). The fix to that was to raise the punishment. Although the punishment did not entirely stop the practice, that industry collapsed. Why, because there was no money in it anymore. This is the same reasoning with a seatbelt laws, capital punishment laws and most notably the 3 time looser law. A person who is a 2-time looser will really think hard before he/she boosts another grocery store. So "laws against burglary" are not stupid. We agree again 100%.

Laws are not stupid but when a law doesn't even give the appearance of attempting to solve the problem at hand people become interested in what the thought process behind the reasoning was. The spam laws that I've seen have no bite at all and will not stop any spam from coming our way. There's still a lot of money in it. Do you really think that these anti spam laws do anything? This is where we might disagree.

While it is a start these spammers are sucking the life out of bandwidth - for the user and for the ISP. Before I went to DSL I was getting 300-400 spam emails a day on one of my email accounts before I trashed it. To go through it became impossible and I finally bit the bullet and pulled the plug on that account (a business account). Spam is a problem today that needs to be addressed today not over the next 10 years. We are the ones footing the bill for these guys to be able to make their livelihood. This is money coming out of our pockets. You don't have to put these people in jail just pass a law(s) to at least take the money out of it. I'm tired of being ripped off! :evil:

Jeff - :soapbox:

[Gremmie]

The spam laws that I've seen have no bite at all and will not stop any spam from coming our way. There's still a lot of money in it. Do you really think that these anti spam laws do anything? This is where we might disagree.

:roll: there have been instances where spammers have been tracked down. So what happens the next time they track a spammer down and no one has any tool to prosecute? Besides, most spam comes from infected computers. In reality, being able to prosecute a few key spammers could take a major bite into the market.

[Pony99CA]

The spam laws that I've seen have no bite at all and will not stop any spam from coming our way. There's still a lot of money in it. Do you really think that these anti spam laws do anything? This is where we might disagree.
:roll: there have been instances where spammers have been tracked down. So what happens the next time they track a spammer down and no one has any tool to prosecute? Besides, most spam comes from infected computers. In reality, being able to prosecute a few key spammers could take a major bite into the market.
I agree with Gremmie. There are penalties prescribed in the CAN-SPAM law, and they seem significant.

The problem isn't the lack of penalties but the difficulty in catching spammers. Like most criminals, they figure they won't be caught, and therefore won't have to suffer the penalties. They can hide by bouncing E-mails off of open relays in Asia, by using zombie machines and so forth.

However, that doesn't mean we shouldn't have the means to prosecute them if we do manage to catch one. The Buffalo spammer was caught, but he was prosecuted under identity theft laws because he used other people's E-mail accounts or addresses. If a spammer didn't do that, it's nice to have CAN-SPAM which makes certain types of spam itself a crime.

I'd personally prefer an opt-in model (and double opt-in at that), but I can certainly see why legitimate marketers would oppose that.

Steve

[lapchinj]

...So what happens the next time they track a spammer down and no one has any tool to prosecute?...
I never meant that there should be no laws. But if the laws that are passes have no bite then these are not the right tools.

... Besides, most spam comes from infected computers...
I have no statistics available but those infections started someplace and were meant to spread.

...In reality, being able to prosecute a few key spammers could take a major bite into the market.
While this is true the prosecution could make it totally unprofitable for these people to continue to do business and the small guys will also not venture into this business. A slap on the wrist doesn't help at all. We're talking major bandwidth here that costs us all money since the ISP pass their cost of doing business on to us.

Jeff-

[lapchinj]

I'm sorry if I give the impression that I'm against legislation. I think that we agree more issues than not. But I do find legislation that doesn't fix a problem a waste of time. There are enough people that say any legislation is good and while I don't disagree with this point of view totally I would rather see the time and effort put into securing more stringent laws and constraints. While I realize that it is not an easy task to catch spammers, once they are caught is it a mere inconvenience? The Buffalo spammer (I haven't heard of him) you mentioned, were there any penalties against him? Were the penalties in line with the crime? Is he back in business?

Opt-in works fine for me but we'll have to see over time how it works out in general. I probably wouldn't be against an initial welcome email either from a company if I was able to opt-out afterwards.

Jeff-

[Pony99CA]

I'm sorry if I give the impression that I'm against legislation. I think that we agree more issues than not. But I do find legislation that doesn't fix a problem a waste of time. There are enough people that say any legislation is good and while I don't disagree with this point of view totally I would rather see the time and effort put into securing more stringent laws and constraints.
You keep saying the same things -- that the laws don't "fix" the problem (which, as I've said, laws really can't do) and that they don't have enough bite. So what do you think they should do? Let's hear your proposal to make things better.

While I realize that it is not an easy task to catch spammers, once they are caught is it a mere inconvenience? The Buffalo spammer (I haven't heard of him) you mentioned, were there any penalties against him? Were the penalties in line with the crime? Is he back in business?
Doing a :google: on Buffalo spammer should have helped find out more. I just did that, and found that he got 3.5 to 7 years in prison (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,63640,00.html). I wouldn't call that a "mere inconvenience". However, as I said, he wasn't convicted of spamming; he was convicted of indentity theft and forgery.

By the way, Earthlink has also won a $16.5 million judgment against him.

Steve

[lapchinj]

You keep saying the same things -- that the laws don't "fix" the problem (which, as I've said, laws really can't do) and that they don't have enough bite. So what do you think they should do? Let's hear your proposal to make things better...
If laws are not made are not to fix anything then what are they for?

Yeah the "Buffalo spammer" got 3.5 to 7 but then you say that it wasn't for spam it just so happens that this crook is also a spammer and he got 3.5 to 7 because he's a convicted felon and repeat offender not a spammer - forgery was the big ticket. One more time and he's a three time looser but again not for his spam business. So why bring him into the picture at all? (Could it be because of the Earthlink side of the story?)

Anyway as I said before that if laws could be created and "applied" where a spammer's ROI would cease to exist that would be perfect place to start. If he can't make a buck then he's not going to do it for the glory. Yeah Earthlink went after the guy and sued his pants off and won a $16.5 million judgment against Mr. Buffalo spammer. It seems that lawsuits brought by companies affected by spam are doing more to fight spam than all the laws that are now on the books. Which Google says that there are nospam laws here in NY.

One other piece of info I saw while Googling is that "Unwanted bulk messages now account for roughly 83 percent of e-mail traffic" according to filtering company Postini. This is spam no matter how it gets bounced around the net. Whether it is by Mr. Buffalo or some infected machines it's still spam. And it seems that Earthlink has found a way to start "fixing" the problem where our legislators cannot seem to get it together. I wonder how much of a case NY would have had if it wasn't for Earthlink?

Jeff-

[Pony99CA]

You keep saying the same things -- that the laws don't "fix" the problem (which, as I've said, laws really can't do) and that they don't have enough bite. So what do you think they should do? Let's hear your proposal to make things better...
If laws are not made are not to fix anything then what are they for?

Do you have a defective memory? I already told you -- they're to punish those who get caught. Hopefully fear of that punishment will discourage people from doing things, but the law won't (and can't) "fix" the cause of crime -- people. People still commit murder, rape, burglary and so on despite laws and harsh punishments. Why do you think spam will be any different?

And, again, I still haven't seen one constructive suggestion from you as to what anti-spam laws should do. If you don't have any, that's OK, but maybe you should consider if it's worth complaining about the laws being passed if you can't offer anything better.

Yeah the "Buffalo spammer" got 3.5 to 7 but then you say that it wasn't for spam it just so happens that this crook is also a spammer and he got 3.5 to 7 because he's a convicted felon and repeat offender not a spammer - forgery was the big ticket. One more time and he's a three time looser but again not for his spam business. So why bring him into the picture at all?
Ummm, maybe because he was spamming and got caught, convicted and sent to prison. Was that connection really too difficult to get? :roll:

He wasn't convicted using anti-spam laws because New York didn't have any such laws and his spamming occurred before the CAN-SPAM law took effect. However, the government was able to use some other laws to convict him. Had he not been spamming, he probably wouldn't have "needed" to steal people's identities or commit forgery.

Anyway as I said before that if laws could be created and "applied" where a spammer's ROI would cease to exist that would be perfect place to start.
And exactly how would the laws do that? Taking the ROI out of spam is a goal, but not a suggestion to fix the law. Give some specific suggestions.

You don't seem to think that CAN-SPAM is sufficient, but what exactly do you find inadequate about the penalties spelled out by CAN-SPAM?

If you think CAN-SPAM is too permissive of spam, what do you think should be changed to make it less so? I mentioned one possibility already -- making commercial E-mail opt-in instead of opt-out.

However, CAN-SPAM made some items in a spammer's arsenal illegal -- harvesting E-mail addresses using robots and dictionary spam attacks. So tell me again why the law is a waste of time.

One other piece of info I saw while Googling is that "Unwanted bulk messages now account for roughly 83 percent of e-mail traffic" according to filtering company Postini. This is spam no matter how it gets bounced around the net. Whether it is by Mr. Buffalo or some infected machines it's still spam.
Who said it wasn't spam? All I said was that open relays and zombie machines made the true source of spam more difficult to track down.

Steve

[lapchinj]

Do you have a defective memory? I already told you -- they're to punish those who get caught. Hopefully fear of that punishment will discourage people from doing things, but the law won't (and can't) "fix" the cause of crime -- people. People still commit murder, rape, burglary and so on despite laws and harsh punishments. Why do you think spam will be any different?
Temper, Temper. If you would read my posts instead of flaming them you would notice that I’m saying the same thing. The fear of punishment does discourage people from doing unlawful acts. It does not stop illegal acts however but if there is a strong enough punishment then it will reduce unlawful acts.

And, again, I still haven't seen one constructive suggestion from you as to what anti-spam laws should do. If you don't have any, that's OK, but maybe you should consider if it's worth complaining about the laws being passed if you can't offer anything better.
I am not a lawyer so I don’t know how to go about creating a law only my own personal suggestions on what the main ingredient should be or should accomplish. And we can all complain if we don’t like the ingredients.

Ummm, maybe because he was spamming and got caught, convicted and sent to prison. Was that connection really too difficult to get? :roll:
No maybe because he was caught and convicted of forgery. Although I do admit that it is a very useful tool to get rid of these guys. But we should not have to run around the bush to nail these guys we should be able to define what spam is and then go after them for that. What would be with the guy who didn’t steal any identities and instead of sending out 800 million pieces of spam (I think over 2 year span) only sent 1,000 pieces of spam a day? Probably nothing. A large ISP would never bother with this and we the end user would be stuck trying to get rid of it.


You don't seem to think that CAN-SPAM is sufficient, but what exactly do you find inadequate about the penalties spelled out by CAN-SPAM?
My understanding of the CAN-SPAM law only allows the FTC, State’s Attorneys General and ISP’s to sue spammers. So who will sue? Probably only the ISP. But the FTC did nail a guy in Florida yesterday (8/8/04) but only after they gathered 40,000 complaints. The states will not do much since the spam will always cross state borders unless there is a joint state effort. The user can only sue for things like fraud. Not much biting going on.


If you think CAN-SPAM is too permissive of spam, what do you think should be changed to make it less so? I mentioned one possibility already -- making commercial E-mail opt-in instead of opt-out.
Already agreed with you.

Jeff-

[Kati Compton]

This thread is really drifting towards personal insults - please try to keep your anger directed where it belongs - at the spammers! ;)

[johncruise]

and I say... make e-mail a pay-per-send system. you receive a number of e-mails, then you get credited. People can invest $10 initially or less. (this would go a long way since you get credited with incoming emails).

Once that is implemented, then I will disable my spamassasin and let those spam emails come in. Otherwise, they will all bounce back.

(Hmmm ... should I start sending application to copyright this idea?)

[lapchinj]

This thread is really drifting towards personal insults - please try to keep your anger directed where it belongs - at the spammers! ;)
Done :|

[lapchinj]

and I say... make e-mail a pay-per-send system...
I think I heard this idea before (if I understand correctly). Your saying what would be wrong if it would cost let's say 1cent to send an email? For the typical end user that wouldn't really hurt but for a big time spammer it would. One problem that comes to mind is what happens to legitimate companies like PCMall or sites like this one who send out return emails?

The idea I like the best is to opt-In list like Pony99ca suggested as opposed to opting out. It would make it my responsibility to maintain a subscription list and not the sender (or spammer).

Jeff-

[johncruise]

One problem that comes to mind is what happens to legitimate companies like PCMall or sites like this one who send out return emails?
...

Jeff-

Then they would have to require the subscriber to pay them or give them a credit. We would be credited back when they send an email to us :-)

I know it's farfetch... but hey.... it's better than saying "hey mr spammer, can you stop spamming me, pretty please?" :lol:

[Pony99CA]

and I say... make e-mail a pay-per-send system. you receive a number of e-mails, then you get credited. People can invest $10 initially or less. (this would go a long way since you get credited with incoming emails).
One problem with pay-per-send is that most suggestions don't have any free limit. For example, I'd allow regular users to send maybe 50 E-mails per day (or 1500 per month) before charging them anything. E-mail above that would get charged per piece.

Businesses with needs for more E-mail could buy a plan with more E-mail. This is getting more like wireless phone companies with their various plans and free minutes.

The other problem, though, comes with zombie machines. Imagine the poor schmuck who accidentally turns his machine into a zombie and gets a $10,000 bill from his ISP the next month. (Yes, some people would say he deserves it for not taking precautions, but even intelligent, Internet-savvy people have been tricked.)

(Hmmm ... should I start sending application to copyright this idea?)
No, because you can't copyright inventions; inventions are patented. :-)

Regardless, pay-per-send has been suggested before. The only item that might be new is giving a credit for E-mail received, but even that might have been suggested.

Steve

[johncruise]

(Hmmm ... should I start sending application to copyright this idea?)
No, because you can't copyright inventions; inventions are trademarked. :-)

Steve

Ah... yes of course!

[Pony99CA]

(Hmmm ... should I start sending application to copyright this idea?)
No, because you can't copyright inventions; inventions are trademarked. :-)
Ah... yes of course!
GACK! Stupid me! I of course meant to say that inventions are patented. :oops:

I really do know the difference. I was just testing to see if anybody was paying attention. Yeah, that's the ticket.... :wink:

Steve

[Gremmie]

and I say... make e-mail a pay-per-send system. you receive a number of e-mails, then you get credited. People can invest $10 initially or less. (this would go a long way since you get credited with incoming emails).

Once that is implemented, then I will disable my spamassasin and let those spam emails come in. Otherwise, they will all bounce back.

(Hmmm ... should I start sending application to copyright this idea?)

One small economic problem. As is, spamming is a low-capital industry. It takes a little money to get started, build up a bit and you can reinvest into bigger, better, more efficient servers. Doing a form of e-mail stamp will only make spamming an industry requiring a larger initial capital investment. I'm presuming that the charge per send would be low; so low that it could be made up through revenue. A $10 product only needs one buyer in a 1,000 to break even if it's a penny stamp. Unfortunatly, this idea only shifts the natural structure of the industry, but doesn't solve it. I suppose I could provide graphs on how it works.

If you're trying to capture credit cards, I think ISPs are a better way to go, but that opens a pandora's box...