---
To: gnu@private
Cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Subject: Re: [Politech] Why Fed spam law is absolutely evil, by
John Gilmore [sp]
From: cjlamb@private
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 09:33:25 -0500
John,
I normally agree with what you say, but in this case, I think you're way
out in left field:
>That would make a large fraction of hotmail users instant criminals.
It would only make criminals out of those hotmail users that send
commercial email with false or misleading information. I have a hotmail
account. Would that make me an instant criminal? No, because I'm not
using it to send commercial email.
>It also makes it a crime to remove or alter information in message
headers in ways that would make it harder for a police officer
to determine who had sent the email. Anonymizers will be illegal
as soon as this bill becomes law.
Again, this only applies to senders of commercial email. I read some case
law after reading this to see if there were any precendents, and
fortunately there aren't (at least that I could find in a quick 5 minute
search). So, to recap, you can email to your heart's contect using an
anonymizer as long as it isn't unsolicted commercial email. You can email
anyone you want - you can even use false and misleading headers (if I read
the CAN-SPAM legislation correctly) as long as your aren't selling a product.
I don't believe that anonimity has any place in the commercial realm. Do
you honestly want some anonymous person hawking their wares at you with no
way to track them down?? Do you feel that I should be able to hawk
whatever I want to whomever I want with no way for anyone to limit
me? Can you honestly defend the right of someone to blindly email any
information to anyone with no way to stop them?
I'm proud to call myself a liberal and am very free speech oriented. I
don't even think the CAN-SPAM is a good bill. But, short of taxing email
(which I oppose - for now), I can't come up with a better alternative. Can
you? According to a study by Brightmail, last year over 40% of all email
was spam. That was 2002 - I imagine in 2003, it's inched up to the 50%
mark - at least in my inbox. For my web based mail clients, like Hotmail,
it's about 90 - 95%.
I look forward to your response. I sincerely believe that you're response
wasn't thought out before you wrote it. I can't fathom the erroneous
assumptions you made based on what I read in your response. As I said at
the beginning, you and I normally see eye to eye most of the time and I
respect your opinions, even when we differ, but in all cases except this
one, I at least understand where you are comming from.
Best regards,
CJ Lamb
---
To: cjlamb@private
cc: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>, gnu@private
Subject: Re: [Politech] Why Fed spam law is absolutely evil, by John
Gilmore [sp]
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 10:55:23 -0800
From: John Gilmore <gnu@private>
> Would that make me an instant criminal? No, because I'm not
> using it to send commercial email.
It depends on what your definition of "commercial email" is. The bill's
definition is quite broad. Note that there is no requirement that it be
sent in bulk; a single message is "commercial email" regulated by the bill.
On page 5:
(A) IN GENERAL.--The term ``commercial
electronic mail message'' means any electronic
mail message the primary purpose of which is
the commercial advertisement or promotion of a
commercial product or service (including con-
tent on an Internet website operated for a com-
mercial purpose).
If you sent a message to a company saying, "I saw a job posting on
your company's web site, and found your email address in Google; I'd
like to apply for the job" then you've violated the bill in two
different ways. You used automated means (Google) to extract an email
address, and you sent commercial email advertising a service (your
services).
I won't spend further time on this message because there is an 80% chance
that it will bounce unread -- your antispam software will reject it.
(So far, *every* response I've sent to people who sent me email after
Declan posted my note has bounced.)
John
---
To: Declan McCullagh <declan@private>
Cc: cjlamb@private, gnu@private, John Gilmore <gnu@private>
Subject: Re: [Politech] Why Fed spam law is absolutely evil, by
John Gilmore [sp]
From: cjlamb@private
Date: Mon, 24 Nov 2003 14:48:23 -0500
John, Declan,
After reading Declan's response and thinking a bit more on the subject, I
now better understand John's arguments. I may even agree now - to a
point. I think that the situation is just so frustrating, that people want
to start somewhere and this is the tool that's been given - for better or
worse. I really agree that, unless there were some clarifications, that
it wouldn't work in it's current form and that's what we're discussing, not
a "what-if" scenario. (My mind is spinning while I sit here and ponder
it...).
You guys really get the mind moving. You don't have to respond, as I know
you both have full plates.
Best regards,
CJ Lamb
_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Dec 03 2003 - 06:40:46 PST