-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Myself, and EFGA supports no anti-spam law at this time, nor have we suggested the world needs one. Over the last year we have repeatedly said that existing laws may prove to be sufficent. What is clear is that there has been little attempt at using today's laws against spam and failing. If EFGA has a position, it is that first the current laws should be tested against spam. No new laws should be proposed until today's laws can be shown to be useless against the problem. To the contrary, Cyberpromotions has been to court five times, and has lost five times. These are not internet issues as much as they are fraud, consumer protection, and commerce issues. Education of applicability of existing laws may be more effective than new laws. New laws are being proposed. And I feel comfortable commenting on the faults of a law, or of it's languge. I can suggest what is wrong with a law, or what it lacks without supporting a flawed bill. DATA GATHERING The original issue is one of data collection. For many, this is the opt-in, opt-out argument. For others it is adherence to a convention such as the robots.txt file found on web pages. While there is nothing wrong with data harvesting in it's self, what one does with the info may be called into question. The currently proposed bills look at various areas. 1. Identification 2. Content 3. Data Collection procedures 4. Tonnage/automated processing Data Collection procedures may be less restrictive than identification requirements, or content bans. There is a law precedent in the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 to handle each of these issues. For data collection, the TCPA requires a removal database be maintained and an opt-out strategy be employed. One of the largest problems with "spam" is that the data collection strategies employed today are deceptive, fraudulent, and do not come close to fitting the model carefully considered in the TCPA. The reason the TCPA is carefully considered is that once the law allowed for the promulgation of rules, the FCC had a series of public comment periods and promoted rules that highly favored privacy while trying to balance the fair practices of telemarketers. Unfortunately, with spam, most spammers do not have "fair practices". If is highly likely that the spam question could be quickly addressed and more clearly defined without new laws simply by a comment period and the promulgation of new rules. Additional comments after Tim's quote.... At 09:28 AM 5/31/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
If it is "ILLEGAL" (your emphasis) for someone to call me on the phone for spamming, why then do I get so many such calls? Why aren't the prisons full?
(Answer: Because it is NOT illegal for people to call me, or for me to call others, or for me to even call thousands of others. True, it is possible for me (I disagree with these laws, though, and cite the First again) for me to _ask_ that they not call me. Maybe even jump through hoops and get an injunction. )
There are laws on the books which prohibit fully automated calls with no humans in the loop, but these are easily bypassed. (E.g., the boiler-room minimum wage employees in Detroit and Chicago who pick up the phone several seconds after I have picked up and then start a barely understandable spiel...I've prettty much taken to hanging up if no human voice appears within the first couple of seconds, as I know I am being handed off to the next available "human.")
Well, prisons *are* full. Many of the inmates are telemarketers. But this is not because of telemarketing laws. You are confusing "illegal" with "criminal". The laws we refer to are civil law, not criminal law. 47 USC 227 is a federal civil law. It also allows for state Attorney Generals to file civil suits on behalf of it's citizens. This, if not taken to extreme, is a proper function of gov't. To protect citizens from that which they cannot protect themselves. Why do you get such calls? The existing laws not only apply to fully automatic calls, but predictive dialing systems such as you mention and pure manual voice calls. I cannot answer why you get the calls. Perhaps you have not requested to be in the national "don't call me database". Perhaps your callers just use illegal data collection procedures. I'll summarize some of the law to you. The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 made effective December 1992 the following: 1. Calls only allowed 8am to 9pm 2. Lists must be maintained of "do not want to be called" 3. Telemarketers must identify themselves - address & phone number 4. Employees must know rules & know how to use remove list. Additional info can be found at http://www.fcc.gov/Bureaus/Common_Carrier/Orders/1995/fcc95310.txt Quote from the Act: Because unrestricted telemarketing can be an invasion of consumer privacy, and even a risk to public safety, Congress found that a federal law is necessary to control telemarketing practices. SPAM vs TELEMARKETING A telemarketing operation has a high level of entry. Not that high, but phone lines, desks, office space, employees. etc must all be provisioned and paid for. The level of entry for being a spammer is much, much lower. For some it may be a dedicated connection, but millions of spams can still be sent with a dial-up account. Accordingly, EFGA sees that the number of spammers could grow to be far more than the number of telemarketers. Easily a figure could be reached that ten times more spammers could start a business than the number of telemarketers. In 1990, more than 30,000 telemarketing operations employed over 18 million Americans. Easily we could see over 300K spam operators in business, employing less than one million people. Each of these individual spammers could be sending out daily spams. Many of them would be able to reach a significant portion of the internet users on a daily basis. At 09:28 AM 5/31/97 -0700, Tim May wrote:
Your point being?
Any laws forbidding spam generation in the U.S. will simply (or already) move the spam-originating sites offshore. Then what happens?
As long as the companies who are advertising have US offices, the offshore factor will not matter. Existing fax precedent makes the advertiser the one ultimately responsible for the ad. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 5.0 beta Charset: noconv iQBVAwUBM5Ht90GpGhRXg5NZAQH4RQIAnm4mbPbsF3JVCK2mFwzZ0frOa6CJBcA3 CHv7lvhxndUT+wPlV40BjCohL9kknuOkLbeZeAoMCGlZkZ9ThIXVYQ== =srDk -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- Robert Costner Phone: (770) 512-8746 Electronic Frontiers Georgia mailto:pooh@efga.org http://www.efga.org/ run PGP 5.0 for my public key