Should the Scourge of Computer Spam Be Regulated?

NewsMax.com ^ | Nov. 23, 2002 | Barrett Kalellis

[prman]

As if life isn't stressful enough, along come hordes of junk mailers invading the inner sanctum of my e-mail inbox. Just when I think that I've found a private refuge on my desktop or laptop computer, these uninvited, unwelcome interlopers have managed to post their annoying and intrusive messages onto my private property.

The worthiness or enticing nature of the ads isn't the issue. After all, who wouldn't like to "Lose Weight Without Dieting," or get a "Free Cell Phone With Free Weekends," or maybe even succumb to a "RotoSyling Hair Brush As Seen On TV."

Similar to junk mail and catalogs in the mailbox, or even worse, telemarketing solicitations at the dinner hour, these computer "spammers" have deigned to thrust themselves via their ads in places where I cannot choose to prevent them from doing so.

Like other ad gambits, spammers thrive on the sale and marketing of e-mail address lists. Web sites you may visit and offer your name and e-mail address to gain access may turn around and sell these to companies that in turn resell the data to direct marketers.

The most shameless offenders are the Internet pornographers, who, like catastrophic spiders, lure both the unsuspecting and the jaded to their Web sites. Devious to a fault, they even prey on schoolchildren. In a well-known example, kids who might like to research the nation's White House on the Internet are deceived if they make the mistake of thinking www.whitehouse.com is the address rather than the actual www.whitehouse.gov. The innocent student is whisked into a whorehouse instead.

Porn spammers fill thousands of e-mailboxes with provocative and salacious messages, whose subject titles offend even if the messages are not opened. From the suggestive, "Come watch me!" to the teasing "Ever wonder what college girls do to pay tuition?" to the presumptive "Do you want to enlarge your tool?" – these are sent willy-nilly to both male and female addressees.

Worse yet, HTML links to porn Web sites can be inadvertently viewed on e-mail preview screens, showing the most vulgar and disgusting images, such as barnyard sex, doctored nude celebrity pictures and graphic photos of unidentified genitalia.

Most civilized persons do not want this stuff on their computers. Concerned parents certainly do not want their children to see this junk. What used to be shown in seedy shops in red light districts now is being purveyed as part of daily life, as common and unexceptional as flyers that offer lower mortgage rates. Unfortunately, given the extreme depths to which the popular culture has sunk, too many of us have become desensitized by it.

The question remains: What can be done about this? Unlike their counterparts during the Reagan and Bush years, U.S. Department of Justice officials basically ceased to enforce federal obscenity laws throughout Clinton's two terms in office. Given Clinton's own scandalous conduct, does anyone wonder why?

Commercial spam-blocking software is available for free or for purchase, and host providers like MSN and AOL try to filter out unwanted mail. These have varying degrees of success, and you can count on spammers rising to the occasion to defeat these programs by changing their tactics.

Libertarians and laissez-faire types might argue against any restrictions whatsoever on porn spam or spamming in general on the grounds of free speech. After all, you can just push the delete button to get rid of it. This, of course, puts the burden and any associated costs on the recipients, and it doesn't address the issue of keeping lewd messages out of the sight of minors.

Although conservatives are loath to involve government in any private activity, there are postal laws already on the books that prohibit the sending of unsolicited obscene materials through the mail. Perhaps these laws could be made applicable to porn spammers.

For their part, the Direct Marketing Association, a private business trade group, has consumer opt-out guidelines that member companies must adhere to when soliciting customers, and an enforcement program to deal with miscreants.

Seeking a government solution to the unsolicited e-mail curse is to open a Pandora's box of potentially more burdensome regulation down the road. It's probably more prudent to adapt existing laws to deal with the problem than invoke increased controls whose evils have yet to reveal themselves.

Barrett Kalellis is a columnist and writer whose articles appear regularly in various local and national print and online publications.

[Paleo Conservative]

This will drive out the major companies that are just now starting to spam - Sears, Epson, Norton.

I got an email from Norton saying that the spam offers for Norton Systemworks were from unauthorized third parties.

[Naspino]

Yes -- I'd like to see Truth.Com take on this issue instead of cigarrettes. Some snazzy commercials with an extremely ugly chick holding up signs in front of Big-Spam Headquarter, giving ludicrous statistics that Big Spam kills 54 people every 1.33 seconds in America alone. Its time to brainwash the masses!!

[Poohbah]

It shouldn't be regulated. Purveyors of spam, however, should be terminated with extreme prejudice.

[Poohbah]

I got an email from Norton saying that the spam offers for Norton Systemworks were from unauthorized third parties.

That's what THEY say.

[Naspino]

E-mail Spam, Snail Mail Spam, and Telemarketers should all be eliminated. Actually today I received only one human telemarketer and four recordings. The recordings have been something relatively new to me in the past six months but they appear to have taken over.

[Naspino]

I got an email from Norton saying that the spam offers for Norton Systemworks were from unauthorized third parties. That's what THEY say.

Don't worry I'm sure they'll do an e-mail campaign apologizing for this -- or course they'll include a link to their newest "special".

[Poohbah]

BWAHAHAHAHA!

Next thing I hate: idiots who click "Reply to All" when telling people to quit sending group emails.

[aruanan]

Working Bayesian Mail Filter August 2002

I'd prefer the bastinado combined with property confiscation to solve the problem.

[Poohbah]

Email the spammer's home address to al-Qaeda, and tell them that the spammer said Osama was light in the loafers?

[steve-b]

The digression into porn is just that -- a red herring to divert attention from the actual issue, which is theft of services. The nature of the message sent over the stolen bandwidth is irrelevant.

The Monica given to the Direct Marketing Association in the penultimate paragraph suggests that this obfuscation is not accidental.

[MEGoody]

It's strange. . .the right to privacy is of utmost importance when it comes to abortion. But there's no problem with invading our privacy with a constant barrage of advertising in various forms.

[Malcolm]

Why can't they develop a system that returns the spammail to the sender without opening it, and gives a message not to e-mail that address again, and this be legally binding? If from outside the US, a filter for that as well. This is a problem that is too easily solved, yet no one is doing anything substantive about it. Makes you wonder why the ISPs tolerate it. Under the table bribes? There is something wrong here, as the solution is so simple, yet everyone seems baffled.....

[steve-b]

The only things that will stop the spammers is either eliminating email altogether or making the sender pay

True, but a punishment in proportion to the crime (e.g. imprisoning the spammer for a period equal to the total time it takes his victims to "just hit delete" -- figure about one second per spam e-mail) would get the problem down to a manageable size.

[taxcontrol]

I support SPAM - it is great fried and in a BLS (bacon, lettus, and spam) sandwitch.

As for the electronic variety, I would simply want all emails (solicited or not - and HTML pages as well) that sell a product to be required to use the tag ADV - for advertisement.

Porn email and sites should be required to have a tag as well. This would allow a firewall/filter to cut that junk out of my mail box with ease.

[Paleo Conservative]

Here's a web page from the Symantec site warning about unauthorized third party spam. They seem to be implying that these offers are not only unauthorized but also for pirated software.

Users should exercise caution in the following circumstances:

If the Web order form page of an online store is not a secure Web site.

If the URL refers to a Web page that does not include a recognizable retail outlet or legitimate reseller.

If the address of the Web order form page does not begin with "https://", and a locked padlock icon does not appear in yellow, or in a yellow box, on the bottom bar of your Web browser when visiting the order form page.

If a software offer seems "too good to be true" (Samples below).

If the bottom of the browser window is intentionally hidden.

If a promotion suggests a combination of one or more of the following sentences. Samples for online promotions NOT affiliated to Symantec

[Mamzelle]

The porn ads really annoy--a lot of them come with pictures. It's kind of a game to see if I can delete all the junk as fast as it gets listed in the mailbox. Some of it is sexual harassment, pure and simple.

[taxcontrol]

Here in Colorado, we have a "no call" list. Telemarketers are required to first check you number against that list. If they find a match, they are required to remove that number from their database.

I understand that in less than a year over 2 million people have subscribed to the "no call" list. In fact, it is so sucessfull, the pols are looking to expand the list to cover cell phone numbers as well.

[wewillnotfail]

Can I be first?

[Paleo Conservative]

The porn ads really annoy--a lot of them come with pictures.....

They are so indiscriminate that I am surprised porn vendors have not been hit with felony charges for sending indecent material to minors. There's no way these scum are not sending email to minors. I would like to see prosecutions occur in conservative jurisdictions, and some serious jail time awarded to the porn spammers.

[Paleo Conservative]

Here in Colorado, we have a "no call" list.

We have that in Texas too. I even got spam explaining how I could be taken off of telemarketers's phone lists.