[IP] more on Porn Spammers Thumb Noses At FTC, CAN-SPAM
Begin forwarded message:
From: Joshua Tinnin <smogmonster@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: May 30, 2004 9:27:49 PM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [IP] Porn Spammers Thumb Noses At FTC, CAN-SPAM
On Saturday, 29 May 2004 5:11 AM -0700,
David Farber <dave@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Begin forwarded message:
From: EEkid@xxxxxxx
Date: May 29, 2004 8:00:07 AM EDT
To: dave@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Porn Spammers Thumb Noses At FTC, CAN-SPAM
<snip>
Brightmail, an acquisition target of security firm Symantec, reported
that its analysis of mail during a 40-hour post-FTC ruling period
showed about 40 percent of pornographic e-mail used the
SEXUALLY-EXPLICIT label, or a variation of it. (MX Logic only counted
those messages that used the exact label required by the FTC.)
I report and save all spam. In the month of May, so far I've received
1911
spams over a few different email addresses. Seven of those carried the
required "sexually explicit" wording in the subject header. While I am
not
sure of the exact percentage of porn emails of the total, I'm positive
the
compliance is not anywhere near 40% of the spam sent to me. This is
anectdotal, but I'm pretty sure that my experience is not atypical. On a
side note, I'm not comfortable with the government prosecuting people
based
on labelling (or not) of content of emails which some people find
"morally
objectionable," but I do feel that the consumer or target of spam emails
should be able to demand with force of law that nobody send them
unsolicited
advertising, much as "no mail" (snail-mail) and "no call" lists have
done.
Porn and other content compliance laws are diversionary and ignore the
central point of privacy and consumer choice.
- jt
-------------------------------------
You are subscribed as roessler@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
To manage your subscription, go to
http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip
Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/