So Someone Tell Me The Point?
Why in the name of all that is holy, would our esteemed imbeciles in the United States Senate pass such a ridiculous end-run around REAL mechanisms to crush spam? Could it possibly be because the spammers have money, and we poor schmucks have nothing but our vote? Or could it be that the staffers and congressional critters are too STUPID to actually have read the bill before voting on it? So computer literate that they think, "duh, well that looks like a good idea..." and press the wrong button? You decide, but I predict an increase in junk email after this rotten bill goes into effect.
From Good Morning Silicon Valley
Christmas came early for the folks at the Direct Marketing Association this year. On Tuesday afternoon the U.S. Senate unanimously approved the Can Spam Act, the spam-friendly anti-spam bill passed by the U.S. House of Representatives last weekend (see "CAN-SPAM: Thanks for nothing..."). Full of loopholes and difficult to enforce, the bill will supercede some 37 anti-spam laws enacted by other states, including a bill in California that requires companies to have consumers' consent before sending commercial e-mail. It's a lousy piece of legislation that allows e-mail marketers to bury us in spam, as long as they include an opt-out mechanism of their own choosing in each unsolicited message. That mechanism could be as simple as an unsubscribe mailto, or as complex as an opt in/opt out menu located on the marketer's Web site which we will legally be required to visit in order to opt-out. Which one do you think the spammers will be more likely to choose? CAN-SPAM is a real disappointment and it's a pity President Bush is expected to sign it into law when it finally lands on his desk in December. Said California State Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), who authored California's "opt-in" anti-spam law: "It's the biggest turkey the president will see all week and he should stuff it the moment it lands on his desk."