<nettime> Re: [RRE]Unsolicited Commercial Electronic Mail Act of 2000

[Andreas Broeckmann <abroeck@v2.nl>]

   [cross-posted from Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE).
   
   http://dlis.gseis.ucla.edu/people/pagre/rre.html ]
   =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
   
   Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2000 01:41:00 -0500 (EST)
   From: Ray Everett-Church <ray@everett.org>
   To: Spam-L List <spam-l@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM>
   Subject: MEDIA, COURT: Revised HR 3113 passed unanimously, heads to full
   Cmte.
   
   In a unanimous voice vote today, the House Subcommitee on
   Telecommunications, Trade, and Consumer Protection substituted new
   language for HR 3113 and sent the bill to the full committee on
   Commerce.
   
   The new bill language:
   
   * Outlaws forged headers, invalid return addresses.
   
   * The FCC from the original Wilson bill has been switched to FTC and
   has been radically changed to remove all "opt-out" list issues.
   
   * "Pandering e-mail" has been removed entirely.  The constitutional
   experts thought it would raise too many constitutional problems.
   The object of that section of the bill is addressed by expanding
   the definition of "commercial" e-mail to include spam that may not
   advertise a specific product, but advertises something of a commercial
   nature (e.g., a porn site that makes money selling banner ads).
   
   * If you have a business relationship with someone, you may send
   commercial email, however you must provide a means for them to rescind
   that relationship vis a vis future e-mail from them.  If you don't
   honor the request, you're spamming.
   
   * Spammers required to abide by ISP anti-spam policies (including SMTP
   banners).  Ignore the ISP's posted policy and you're nailed.
   
   * The bill also includes "identifiers" to facilitate filtering, to
   be prescribed by the FTC.  Yes... that's like "ADV" in the subject
   line or something similar, BUT... they are IN ADDITION to abiding by
   ISP policies, not in lieu of.  So in practice, what happens is that
   if an ISP doesn't have or enforce policies, users still have some
   means of at least identifying spam accurately.  It's an added burden
   on spammers, an added cause of action, yet doesn't place any onus of
   spam fighting on recipients or ISPs who are already given recourse via
   posted policies, etc., if they avail themselves of the opportunity.
   
   * ISPs who profit from allowing subscribers to be spammed, but who
   don't make reciept of UCE a condition of their service (such as free
   email services, free ISPs, etc.) must maintain an opt-out list for
   those customers who don't want to be spammed.  There is an exemption
   
   Your message could not be posted to the Red Rock Eater News Service list
   because posting is not allowed.
   
   You are receiving this message because you attempted to send a message
   directly to the Red Rock Eater News Service (RRE) mailing list. Please
   note that RRE is not a discussion list. Only the list editor can send
   messages to RRE. If you have something that might be suitable for the
   list, you are most welcome to send it to the list editor at
   <rre-maintainers@lists.gseis.ucla.edu>. Thanks very much.
   
#  distributed via <nettime>: no commercial use without permission
#  <nettime> is a moderated mailing list for net criticism,
#  collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets
#  more info: majordomo@bbs.thing.net and "info nettime-l" in the msg body
#  archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime@bbs.thing.net