LawMeme LawMeme Yale Law School  
LawMeme
Search LawMeme [ Advanced Search ]
 
 
 
 
Can We Nickel and Dime Spam (to Death)?
Posted by Robert Heverly on Saturday, June 29 @ 22:09:17 EDT Consumers

Everyone seems to be complaining about spam today. It's taking up too much bandwidth, too much time, too much effort. It's making E-mail worthless and unreliable. Even the N.Y. Times is paying attention to spam (free registration required to read the NY Times story). But is it really a problem? Put your E-mail address on the Web and see what you get (here's a study that shows that even an invisible E-mail address on a Web page will bring you spam).

You get spammed once, you're in for life. 

Go ahead, click on the "unsubscribe" link and either run the unsubscribe gauntlet or confirm for the spammer that you're actually a real person with a real, live E-mail address, and then watch the spam increase; of course, whether that's true or not is subject to debate. It's interesting, though, that the primary disputant of that folk lore--the Direct Marketing Association--doesn't make the vehicle of its dispute, its 2002 E-Commerce Report, available on the Web unless you join the Association (the report claims that the unsubscribe option is valid). Even the politicians are sending spam (excuse me, sending unsolicited political announcements was just an "innovative way to use the Internet"). Spam is an exponentially expanding problem, eating up bandwidth, time, and effort. The story of "Nadine" (who came into existence when someone typed an incorrect E-mail address into a spam site's gathering tool) is probably a pretty common one. 



It's not like nothing is happening to counter spam. Online service providers are fighting the use of their facilities for this stuff; AOL has had some success, for example. We could pass laws that would preclude any unsolicited commercial advertisements being sent. So why isn't there a law?? Congress just hasn't been moved to pass one at the federal level (though as eWeek points out, we're still trying). Besides, national or state laws won't be likely to reach spammers from other lands. And even if we had universal jurisdiction through treaty or agreement, more often than not the return address on spam is faked or forged or both. When we can't find the senders, we can't shut them down. So we've tried going after the ISPs and users by blacklisting those who let these people flood us with mail, either as subscribers or because they don't secure their mail servers, again with some success (and again, not without controversy). Other than that we sit around and gripe and hit "delete" over and over again.

Well, maybe now we (the little guys) have a new way to fight spam. Inforworld ran a story on June 29 entitled "Sue a spammer Today" (Gabor Por brought this little legal gem to my attention; thanks Gabor!). The article tells the story of how Ben Livingston has sued spammers in state small claims court, under state anti-spam laws (which have been upheld against commerce clause challenges at least once), and won. CNet has also covered the issue. I wondered about this (as have some others along with me); why do we complain about not being able to find the spammers? Spam makes no sense if you can't find the person or business that is advertised in the spam. Is there some reason we think we can only sue the person who actually sent the spam? If there is, I haven't been able to figure out what it is. 

I've received spam recently advertising Norton Utilities, Nokia Phones, and X10.com (big surprise there; if I ever find anyone who's bought an X10 and supported the most obnoxious advertiser on the 'Net, I'll have a fit). I receive about 20 spam messages per day at my various E-mail addresses. But in each case, as Ben points out, someone is advertising something. Even if I can't do the Sam Spade or the SpamCop thing and ferret out the sender, I can still ID the business that's selling the thing (even if I have to pretend to want to buy the thing). They're responsible for the spam, as much as the actual sender, aren't they (unless of course we think spammers are now advertising products without authority; a strange notion indeed and one I doubt is actually occurring)? Infoworld writer Brian Livingston calls for "1,000 Windows users to do what Ben's doing." The idea: maybe one person suing in small claims court won't stop the spammers, but maybe one-thousand will. And if not one-thousand, maybe ten-thousand.

So, while spam continues to proliferate, and while the feds fail to stop the abuse of this new "costless" advertising method--costless, that is, unless you're receiving and dealing with it every day--maybe there is something we little guys can do. Let's sue 'em!

 
Login
Nickname

Password

Don't have an account yet? You can create one. As registered user you have some advantages like theme manager, comments configuration and post comments with your name.
Related Links
· complaining
· study
· politicians
· story
· example
· Congress
· eWeek
· blacklisting
· controversy
· Gabor Por
· anti-spam laws
· commerce clause
· CNet
· Sam Spade
· SpamCop
· More about Consumers
· News by Robert Heverly


Most read story about Consumers:
Can We Nickel and Dime Spam (to Death)?

Article Rating
Average Score: 4.25
Votes: 20


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Bad
Regular
Good
Very Good
Excellent


Options

Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend
"User's Login" | Login/Create an Account | 6 comments
Threshold
  
The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content.
Afilliate programs (Score: 1)
by anthony_dipierro on Monday, July 01 @ 14:12:47 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://slashdotsucks.com/
The problem is affiliate programs. The seller of the product is not responsible for the spam, and won't release the identity of the spammer without a court order. And you can't sue John Doe defendants in Small Claims Court.
I have over 10,000 bounces from a spammer who forged my address. If anyone wants to put up the legal fees for me including either a lawyer or specific details of how to file a John Doe lawsuit, I'll give you 50% of my settlement.


[ Reply to This ]

Re: Can We Nickel and Dime Spam (to Death)? (Score: 1)
by sheep on Tuesday, July 02 @ 08:50:05 EDT
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.guydickinson.com/sheep
In the latest issue of CPU Magazine (unfortunately, not online) Rob Malda of Slashdot suggests that we could pretty much eliminate spam by charging US$.01 for every e-mail sent.
"Sending a million emails offering a million people a chance to buy a CD containing a million email addresses now costs the spammer $10,000."
His proposal, which he admits has no chance of working, avoids the free speech issues involved with regulating the content of email. And, he suggests a scheme where the penny charged for email rejected by the recipient goes to the ISP -- who is currently bearing much of the cost for the enormous volume of spam.


[ Reply to This ]


Leges humanae nascuntur, vivunt, moriuntur
Human laws are born, live, and die


All stories, comments and submissions copyright their respective posters.
Everything Else Copyright (c) 2002 by the Information Society Project.
This material may be distributed only subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the Open Publication License, v1.0 or later (the latest version is presently available at http://www.opencontent.org/openpub/).

You can syndicate our news using the file backend.php