Forum Moderators: skibum
[clickz.com...]
I don't want to revisit my well-known feelings about the business and freedom of speech impact of the anti-spam movement. Perhaps Paul makes the points better than I do.
This author apparently neither understands the problems caused by spam, nor the methods that are currently applied to reduce their impact.
First of all, he considers the establishment of filtering (which is merely a symptom) as worse than the actual cause of the problem, the spam itself. By doing so, he completely ignores the fact that sending unsoliticed bulk e-mail equals theft of service, bandwidth, storage space, and time, all paid for by the recipient without his consent. This undeniable fact has been repeated in previous discussions here at nauseam, but it is worth repeating again.
Then he uses a very unspecific definition of "blocking". He seems to assume that this always has to mean that a message is dropped unseen. In reality, most people using filtering technology will store them in a seperate "spambox" instead, and look through that every few days for the off chance that it might have caught something they actually wanted to receive. I can't even remember the last time that I was unable to recover a wanted message myself.
He further claims: "Companies underwriting the development of this software view any solicitation as spam, regardless of whether it was requested by the recipient", which is a blatant and completely unfounded lie.
He also doubts that spam can be filtered with an accuracy of 99%. My own success rate is closer to 99.8%, and still getting better by the day.
Last, he seems to assume that someone intends to force him to use filtering software himself, which couldn't be further from the truth.
Fortunately, he is honest enough to mention that he is an e-mail marketer himself. In other words, he is one of those people who cause the real problem, that my filtering software tries to reduce. Do you really expect an unbiased opinion from this guy?
This is not an article about "freedom of speech". This is plain, self-interested marketing spin. He is completely free to say whatever he pleases, as long as he doesn't force me to pay for him doing so.
This may be your opinion but it is NOT the law! Today unsolicited bulk email is perfectly legal under federal law and protected by the constutution in the US.
My opinion is that the use of filters by an individual does not infringe on my freedom of speech. I can still speak (send email) but an individual does not have to listen (he can decide to filter or not).
I post on this topic because some of my clients send unsolicited bulk email and I advise others to do it too. Therefore I have an interest. Many legitimate businesses on the Interent employ unsolicited bulk email to advertise. If they couldn't do it they would go out of business. Many have been priced out of the search engines.
There are efforts to make sending unsolicited bulk email illegal. So I want to get my arguements on the table because people are trying to change the law.
I used to print enough enough junk mail to choke most sorting facilities so I can empathise with the threat to your revenue.
The only thing that keeps most large DM (dirent marketing, junk mailers) operators at bay is the cost of postage, they are forced to "mail smart".. Right now, there is no "equalizer" in place for spammers on the web.
You need to recognize that the the traditional DM firm totally missed the boat when it came to the web and now they are grasping at straws. Learn the web, forget the traditional stuff, they are totally different animals.
Free speech does not entitle you to my resources (including my mailbox).
Interesting read:
"I don't want your money, spam your friends instead!"
link [sun-sentinel.com]
[edited by: john316 at 5:41 pm (utc) on Aug. 26, 2002]
>spam can be filtered with an accuracy of 99%. My own success rate is closer to 99.8%, and still getting better by the day
I'm a little sloppier. I go with the theory that anyone that really wants to get a message to me can figure out what they're doing wrong and fix it. I tend to err on the aggressive side of filtering. Still, my false-positive errors are well under 3% probably closer to 1.5%.
BTW, you can "filter" your direct mail, too, though the process is more cumbersome thanks to DMA lobbyists. Go to [junkbusters.com...] and fill out the online form. The site then generates 15 or 20 "remove-me-from-your-database" form letters ready to sign, date, and mail. I did it about 6 weeks ago and land-based spam has dropped by more than half already.
Finally, my office filters my snailmail based on postage. To get to my reading list, one has to pay First Class rates.
Check your assumptions: Not everything that is "legal" is "right".
This may be your opinion but it is NOT the law! Today unsolicited bulk email is perfectly legal under federal law
All you're saying is that the legal system in the US hasn't been asked the right questions yet. Those jurisdictions that have dealt with the issue have invariably declared spamming to be theft as I described it. While there currently are no explicit laws banning spam in the US, the spirit of the existing business laws clearly points into that direction. There's currently another thread [webmasterworld.com] going on about a class action suit against a fax spammer. E-mail spam is banned in most civilized countries (except the US) either by explicit laws or as a consequence of court decisions, for exactly the same reasons that motivated this suit.
and protected by the constutution in the US.
Please show me the clause in the US constitution that gives you a free license to force me to pay for your advertisements.
Many legitimate businesses on the Interent employ unsolicited bulk email to advertise. If they couldn't do it they would go out of business.
If a business can only stay in business by forcing me to pay for their advertisement activities without my consent, then I don't consider that a legitimate business.
The lack of a significant per-message cost to the spammer results in jammed inboxes. This is a major productivity issue. Filtering helps a lot, but filtering itself has costs associated with it. I'm a laissez-faire kind of guy, but I'm in favor of legislation similar to controls on junk faxes. That, in combination with controls on spam at the ISP and country level, could put the worst offenders out of business but still permit legitimate solicitation by prior relationship, opt-in, affinity groups, etc.
Since bulk emailers pay almost nothing for each email they are able to mail hundreds of thousands of emails with very little cost.
I agree with bird that it is a problem and a better solution is needed. I just don't think you can legislate this problem away and I see compelling arguements why you shouldn't.
I don't buy into buckworks' comment at all. In a society based on the rule of law, laws are certainly right. If they don't fit a new situation, then the laws need to be changed. Until they are the laws are 'right' and binding.
Now I see this issue as not one of who is right and who is wrong. The process is technically flawed so correcting the flaw seems to make far more sense that trying to write laws, arrest people and sue companies.
Email is based upon an agreed upon standard. Some people are saying that the standard is flawed. Shouldn't this whole issue be sent back to the standards people to be re-thought? Shouldn't the majority of the email users be represented in a change?
I have experience trying to build consenous. The use of derogitory terms like 'spam' and calling the other guy a thief gets in the way.
I urge anyone that thinks the process has a problem to think it through and come up with a solution.
Actually this reinforces my point that what is "legal" (or at best "not yet illegal") and what is "right" are sometimes out of step. In many cases the laws of various countries have a long way to go to catch up with evolving cyberspace realities.
But even in cyberspace, the ancient ethic still applies: "Thou shalt not steal."
But maybe not as much as you hope for! The DMA is taking a long-range view these days, and is working to preserve a future for opt-in marketing. The biggest danger is that even double opt-in marketing might get caught in restrictions that are too broad.
January 25, 2002In an interview with News.com, DMA senior vice president of government affairs Jerry Cerasale was quoted as saying, "We view spam as sending a commercial e-mail to someone with whom a marketer has not had any prior business relationship and as being sent to someone who has not asked for the e-mail,"...
Cerasale added that the DMA planned to revoke the membership of companies that failed to give consumers notice and choice before sending commercial e-mail or before selling, sharing or renting their e-mail addresses to a third party.]
Full Article [cauce.org]
"technology moves faster than the legal system."
This leaves a window of opportunity open for the dodgy operators.
"The law may slumber, but it never dies."
This closes the door on the dodgy guys. Just ask Napster, the crew that runs the marketing for "passport" or the SE's in a few months who don't comply with disclosure.
The law is designed for the lawless.
