National Do-Not-Email List - - Why not?

There is of course a new national do-not-call list to keep telemarketers from calling your number in the US.

http://www.donotcall.gov/

This is in addition to the numerous state lists already in place. Ours in Indiana has been great, practically eliminating all telemarketing calls.

So, why can’t there be a national registry of email addresses - you sign up - spammers cannot legally send to you if you’re on the list?

I know the first “dubya” stands for “world” in www, but could even overseas spammers be forced to follow international law?

The problem would be enforcement; spammers are hard to track down; offering them a list of addresses, and asking them not to email people on the list would be a bit like giving Hannibal Lecter a list of particularly tasty humans who would prefer not to be eaten.

  • Spammers would steal the list and send spam to it from abroad.

  • There is no way of identifying what country many email address users are based in. Therefore ‘national’ lists would be impossible to establish and defend by any single nation’s law.

  • Spammers, in general, don’t care what’s the law. Their emails contain fraudulent lies, so why should they care about a national do-not-email law?

  • All types of spam should be opt-in, not opt-out. It we set a precedence of opt-out for email spam we’ll be back going through the exact same process for the next method of mass-communication in 10 years time.

  • Do we have opt-out lists for other forms of harrassment? “I’m sorry, but your name is not on the national No-Stalking list. I am therefore legally permitted to sit outside your house ringing your doorbell 24 hours a day.”

Any answers given as a reason it can’t be done should distinguish why it would work for phones, but not emails.

The source of a phone call is easier to track.

International phone calls cost money to place, so few telemarketers will relocate their operations out of the country to evade the laws. Spam, OTOH, has nearly zero marginal cost no matter where you are and where you send.

Email addresses change more frequently than phone numbers; much more overhead to maintain such a list.

As mentioned above, much harder to trace an email than a phone call. A phone switch records the source and destination for calls, but email source information can be forged.

I cannot think of an example where a law regarding international activity that is considered illegal in one country, but not where the act is actually committed, could be prosecuted. I think the computer spy in Germany described in Cliff Stoll’s The Cuckoo’s Nest might be been prosecuted by German authorities, but breaking into another government’s military computers is a far cry from a telemarketing call.

Another distinguishing feature: It’s much easier to randomly guess phone numbers than it is e-mail addresses. So it’s not dangerous to hand a telemarketer a list of phone numbers, but it is dangerous to hand a spammer a list of e-mail addresses.

The do-not-call list is quite limited in scope, by the way. Charities and pollsters are exempt, as are businesses with which you have an “existing business relationship”. I was going to sign up for it, until I realized that it would stop less than half of the phone calls I get.

> - Do we have opt-out lists for other forms of harrassment?
> “I’m sorry, but your name is not on the national No-Stalking list.
> I am therefore legally permitted to sit outside your house
> ringing your doorbell 24 hours a day.”

If spam isn’t illegal, that’s no good… Though it’s a good idea; some of you in the Land of the Lawyer should get hold of one of the people who have been screaming at you - in writing, of course - with big, red letters, several times a day, about your organs being too small. Sue them for a billion for emotional distress and damage to your self-confidence leading you to not having children.

>- All types of spam should be opt-in, not opt-out. It we set a
> precedence of opt-out for email spam we’ll be back going
> through the exact same process for the next method of
> mass-communication in 10 years time.

What if there was a do-not-beat-to-a-pulp register for spammers? If you sign up people will know who you are and can tell you to stop it, and if you don’t stop it they’ll report you for harassment because they know who you are, and if you don’t sign up people will beat you to a pulp with a pile of your own printed-out spam.

I think this law, with possibly needed Costitution amendment, will appear on its own if we sneak in a law banning the White House and Congress from having spam filters. Also, it would take care of the problem with spamming from abroad. (Bush walks into the press room, unshaved and with red, sore eyes and an obvious mouse cramp. ‘Me and Secretary of State Mr.Powell have spent the past seven hours checking our email. Today’s Spam Threat Level is “My husband used to be a politician, give me your account number and I’ll give you money”. The nukes will rain over Nigeria in ten minutes, AHAHAHAAH!’)

Glad to help.

As seen on CSpan, the FTC chairman said that illegal advertisement -spam- accounts for at least 90% of all advertisements sent through e-mail, and then proceeded to hint that this was a conservative estimate.

There are actually requirements for advertisers to send e-mail with “ADV” in the subject line, and some others.

Having a do not e-mail list made available to the scum that does spamming is tantemount to giving drugs to an addict.

Actually, the FTC counted and sampled e-mail over a period of time that did not fit the guidelines for proper adverstisements, so just saying it was an ‘estimate’ is down playing the point.

My bad.

Just to tickle your interest, read an interesting article the other day about “anti spam” legislation in the US congress. Virtually all bills are actually intended to enhance spam’s legality. Money talks and voters don’t matter.

Spammers are lying cheating scum. Every one I know of that has been dragged into court has sworn that they are not spammers, they really don’t own their company, and they didn’t send those emails.

Laws are useless. The ISPs have to band together and institute some very harsh changes to the email system as we know it.

Simply because big business does not like OPT IN. They like OPT OUT. Notice the banks and credit cards got the law passed so that you are IN unless you call or mail them to be opt OUT.

The phone company charges you to OPT OUT of the phone book. I would bet that if you made the service free virtually everyone would opt out. Actually with the proliferation of cell phones it is becoming a mute point anyway.

No one would opt in. Many “lazy” people will not opt out. So they will get the spam and calls etc.

long distance companies can call you too.