Stopping Spam (Californians READ THIS!!!) Re. SB 12

[teacher]

It's always going to be a fine line. E commerce is meant to be the way forward in our modern society, yet with this we seem to take step back when it comes to spam. I am not supporting spam, but where do we draw the line. Businesses have to run.

I gree about use of emails in the school system, but there are measures that schools and universities employ to stop abuse from both parties.

Laws do need to be tightened, however, if it becomes too tight then we are in danger of killing off our own rights to communicate on every electronic level.

[ibcsweb]

Originally posted by teacher
It's always going to be a fine line. E commerce is meant to be the way forward in our modern society, yet with this we seem to take step back when it comes to spam. I am not supporting spam, but where do we draw the line. Businesses have to run.

I gree about use of emails in the school system, but there are measures that schools and universities employ to stop abuse from both parties.

Laws do need to be tightened, however, if it becomes too tight then we are in danger of killing off our own rights to communicate on every electronic level.

To combat spam by using laws, it is important to first define what isw to be classed as spam. You will note that most spam now comes with a disclaimer which states this mail is not unsolicited and cannot be considered spam or something to that effect. Well every time you legislate they weill add something or take something away to keep themselves outside of that catagory. Unless the definition is so all encompassing it infringes everyones right to send email then it will be a difficult balancing act. The only real way to stop it forever is not to support it by refussing to the products.

[teacher]

Originally posted by ibcsweb
To combat spam by using laws, it is important to first define what isw to be classed as spam. You will note that most spam now comes with a disclaimer which states this mail is not unsolicited and cannot be considered spam or something to that effect. Well every time you legislate they weill add something or take something away to keep themselves outside of that catagory. Unless the definition is so all encompassing it infringes everyones right to send email then it will be a difficult balancing act. The only real way to stop it forever is not to support it by refussing to the products.

The trouble is that it is not

all encompassing

and quite frankly will not be - because it is not economically and legally pragmatic.

Each country has its own legislation, what goes on in the States does not necessary go on in Europe. And within Europe itself, laws do not bind each country. The main problem is that E commerce is here to stay and that does mean unsolicited marketing, which if you take into account other economic factors, still only represents a small percentage, but is rising on a fast scale.

As I say, I am not a fan of spam, but economics will dictate, as is the case in many aspects of society. Governments will not ultimately want to jeopardise anything that means good commerce and that does include E commerce.

[hadaso]

Originally posted by teacher
... E commerce is here to stay and that does mean unsolicited marketing, ...

E commerce doesn't mean that I have to receive every day 5 offers to refinance the morgage I don't have in a country I don't live in, or to buy cheap low quality printer cartriges in the other side of Earth, or to watch the latest photos of genitals.

E commerce means that iif and when I decide to refinance, I'm a few clicks away from offers to do just that from parties that are really willing to do that for me.
E commerce means that if I want to buy a new or used car I key in the details, and then I get real offers from dealers or individuals in my neighborhood in my computer (or other device ?!)
E commerce means that I can describe my needs or life style in detail over time to a party I trust to respect my privacy, and they solicit commercial information for me, sift it, and serve me what I would probably want to see.

E commerce should be built on consumer trust. This is the only way E marketers would be able to get the info needed to do pinpinted marketing and not just "targeted" marketing.

When I put a small website for my students on tripod, I was asked to give some very general description of the contents (something like chose from these few choices). The ads they served were mostly for gambling sites. I thought how stupid this was. They should have asked for a more detailed text description of the content, and the intended audience. Then use some AI to methods to find the right stuff to advertise. I would have written then something like "math, calculus, linear algebra"in content, "IT students, engineering students" in audience. Then they could have used the ad space to advertise scientific calculators, textbooks etc. Could have made much more revenue for them.

Another good solution for banner ads can be a protocol that negotiates content without compromising privacy.

Anyway, there are great possibilities in E marketing, and instead they are fixed on sending everything to everyone!

[teacher]

I refuse to have any ads or any sort of advertising with my website - all it does is to promote my business for anyone who is looking for Business English, Commerce or IT training.

I didn't say that the hard sell is right, but you know as well as I that governments will not step into put stringent controls on this type of marketing. A parallel example of this is the tobacco industry. The governments may have made some steps to to govern advertising, but it sure hasn't stop taking in revenue from the industry, which still actually makes up a fair wack.

E commerce is the way forward and I doubt that at this stage or the near future will it be jeopardise by any government if it means keeping the economy a float.

Yes, I agree with you that "E commerce should be built on consumer trust", but what it really boils down to is that the consumer is fickle. In business it's every one for themselves and the includes E commerce.

[elvey]

Originally posted by admiralu
I beg to differ

With whom about what? Seems your evidence supported what I said in the previous post!

[elvey]

For anyone who still thinks there's a place for UCE, I can't be bothered to write yet another personal response; there are thousands already (e.g. the thank the spammers thread on this board has a good link), or http://www.eprivacygroup.com/article...estatic/58/1/6 isn't bad, if you grok economics.

[teacher]

Excellent Article

[elvey]

How 'bout
http://www.nanae.org/thank_the_spammers.html ?

[teacher]

The article is too emotive and does not show any factual evidence to support the argument.

It's these kind of articles which lend no credibility to campaigners. The other article does have a case study which gives a less clouded picture.

[elvey]

Interesting - different approaches work for different folks. A lot of people praised the latter like it was the (US) Declaration of Independence.

[hadaso]

Originally posted by teacher
Excellent Article

I agree!

From that article:
A study by the Wall Street Journal (11/13/02) showed that a return rate as low as 0.001% can be profitable when using email.

That's a number that has to be beaten. A much lower return rate would kill spam by starvation. To achieve that we need that most email addresses that spammers can obtain would be useless for them. Many of us here on these forums know how to do it with all kinds of "disposable addresses", but for it to become a practice that is adopted by most email users, and for that to happen, it has to be something that is automatically done by email software. If ISPs let customers have subdomain addresses by default, and if the major email clients (OE, Eudora etc.) automate the task of creating custom addresses and creating server to receiver filters that limit the use of each address to a specified list (or list of patterns) of senders, then the return rate of spam can fall to a value below profitability. One piece of technology that would probably be needed is a standard protocol for an email client to pass the filters to the ISP's servers. And then probably a way to use those filters to block those emails at the SMTP servers. And for this probably a filtering language much more primitive than Seive to handle only sender-receiver pair patterns (perhaps some sort of BNF style code, that would be converted to some binary format that would then be accessed by the SMTP server each time an email message is received).

Back to thre topic:
I see a great diffference between spam and the promotional papers that go into my snailmail box: amuch higher percentage of the unsolicited ads I get in my snailmailbox is useful (up till now it's 0% for spam )I saved many $s by using offers I got in my mailbox. This kind of advertising seems much more focused than spam (that is not focused at all!) It's usually from local businesses, and a lot of times seems to be based on some research and shows that someone really checked that you might want the service advertised (I mean, even if I don't need it, I can see a lot of times that there's accessible info showing that I belong to a group of people that might have a good reason to want that product/service). In spam the only criteria is that I belong to that exclusive group of people who actually have an email address!

Another diffrence: it is usually much easier to sift commercial snailmail. I just have to look at it. Most of the stuff is designed profesionally to show at a glance what's it about, so if there's something I might want to keep I usually notice it while my hand maks the short trip from the mailbox to the trash bucket we keep by the mailboxes. And of those I keep, they are usually sifted out on the elevator before I reach my apartment. With email I have read through a long list of subjects that try to cnceal their commercial nature. With snailmail they try to look commercial and provide the info instantly so I would keep reading only if I'm interested (at least those that don't get thrown immediately look this way).

[elvey]

SB 12 will be heard on May 19 in the Senate Appropriations Committee.


I don't understand why SB 12 has gone to the Appropriations committee,
because of the last item in the bill:
/ SEC. 5. / No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to
Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because
the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school
district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or
infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty
for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the
Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the
meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution.
AND because it's a Non-Appropriations bill, according to


http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/s...07_status.html

[elvey]

I'm kinda ticked off at CAUCE.
The least they could do is alert their members to this bill! 6 days 'till the Appropriations hearing and likely vote!

[elvey]

The bill has been amended further.... nothing was strengthend, more was weakened. Marked up changes: here.