Robert A. Costner wrote:
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.
Regardless, you are already preparing to participate in the process of new laws being implemented.
DATA GATHERING While there is nothing wrong with data harvesting in it's self, what one does with the info may be called into question.
The data is going to be misused. Future legislation will be nothing more than a fight over who gets to misuse it.
Data Collection procedures may be less restrictive than identification requirements, or content bans. 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".
This can be translated to mean that the little guys can do the same thing that large companies do, only without having to hire high-priced legal help to tell them how to route around the "rules."
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.
No new laws, just new rules. Doublespeak?
SPAM vs TELEMARKETING 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.
Right. I'm going to receive 300,000 spams a day without taking steps to stop it, because I'm stupid. And nobody in the free market is going to figure out that they can make a shitload of money by providing a product that solves the problem. And enough people are going to sort through 300,000 emails a day and send people money to keep all the spammers operating. Since we're all so stupid and incompetent, I guess we'd better count on the government and the EFGA-type organizations to do what is necessary to "save" us. Robert's immediate solution is to take a law that doesn't work and promulgate "new rules" so that it does. Right. The "new rules" are going to be decided on by the same lame bunch of actors who made the "old rules" which don't work. And all of those people who aren't paying attention to the old rules are going to have a vision from heaven which tells them to follow the new rules. Question: "With all of the organizations 'busting their ass' for our benefit, when do we start seeing the *good* legislation?" I can use strong crypto to keep my communications private and I can maintain control over my private key. The government wants to pass legislation to change that. What's to debate? I need groups of self-appointed saviors to negotiate the method and timing of how my privacy and freedom are going to be taken away? I don't think so! These "saviors" of our rights are doing nothing more than serving as a buffer for the government as what we already have is being stolen from us. They have taken it upon themselves to negotiate our retreat in the face of loss of our privacy and freedom. They are providing the government with a stamp of approval for "reasonable compromise" of our freedom and privacy via "acceptable legislation." If these organizations are so concerned about my rights, then why do I never see the words "Nazi Ratfuckers!" in their press releases? No more free buffets? No more power lunches with the power mongers? No more nights in the Lincoln bedroom? (OK. I'll calm down and be "reasonable." How about the word, "Bullshit!" I've read the government press releases, I've heard the speeches. It's bullshit, but all I hear coming out of the mouths of the "saviors" of my rights is replies in kind--politispeak.) I keep hearing how these organizations that haven't kept us from getting fucked in the past are working for the future, when one of our own is in jail *now*. Want to impress me? Do something for Jim Bell, because tomorrow it's Tim May, and Adam Back a week later (they got Noriega, and they can get Adam, too.) You don't have time to aide Jim Bell, but you have time to give me dire warnings about getting 300,000 emails a day? You have time to tell me that the "solution" is to have the people who wrote rules that don't work write *new* rules? Horseshit! TruthMonger