* Readers weigh in on the potential for misapplication of the CAN-SPAM Act
Last week’s article on the potential for misapplication of the CAN-SPAM Act by an overzealous prosecutor elicited some very good feedback. Here’s sample of that feedback:
* “[The CAN-SPAM Act] does not allow the fair use of ‘due process of law’. CAN-SPAM Section 6(a) provides no protection against unscrupulous acts of cyber-terrorism. [For] example, suppose a person in Hong Kong wants to get Microsoft in trouble by spamming one of Microsoft’s new products. According to the definition in Section 6(a), Microsoft ‘should have known’. How? A crystal ball? Hire soothsayers? Then, the law turns around and says, ‘took no reasonable action to prevent the transmission, or to detect the transmission and report it to the Commission,’ which places the onus on the vendor who may benefit. When is Microsoft supposed to know? What if everyone else but Microsoft or Microsoft-based users are spammed? The law breaks down under simple logic scrutiny.”
* “If the constitution of our government is being misused, I’m sure the CAN-SPAM act will be misused. The problem is, there’s a whole lot of bad people out there. And those bad people are going to push every limit and find every loophole and create alternative ways to get what they want. And, in response, we’ll make more laws and more red-tape.”
* “Legislation of this kind is virtually unworkable and shows a lack of basic understanding on behalf of the legislators. An opt-out system puts the onus on the recipient, but how does he or she identify a legitimate mailing company? Almost every spam I receive has some kind of disclaimer clause and an ‘opt-out’ link. Experiments I have done with dead mailboxes indicate that an e-mail address submitted for opt-out invariably attracts more spam. Web sites advertised via spam invariably state an anti-spam policy, but the referral systems they operate cannot work by any other means.”
Thank you to everyone who provided feedback on the article.
