Open Letter to US Representative Thaddeus McCotter

[turetzsr]

In reading Representative McCotter's web site, I found the web page "McCotter Bill Fights Illegal Email and Cell Phone spam." I wanted to thank Representative McCotter for his concern about spam and raise two points about this web page to his attention:

• In both the title and content if that article, the word "spam" is referenced (it is used twice as an acronym; I don't refer to these uses although they might be a problem, as well). "S P A M" in all capitals is a trademark of Hormel Corporation (see web page spam and the Internet, especially the third paragraph).
  
• The article mentions the "CAN-spam" act. There are several problems with that Act if its goal was to significantly reduce or eliminate spam. I would refer the Representative to "The CAN-spam Act of 2003: A Six-Month Progress Report," Policy Notes , no. 15, July 2004. Anything he can do to plug the holes would be most welcome, provided it does not significantly increase federal government intrusion or regulation.
  

[rconner]

In reading Representative McCotter's web site, I found the web page "McCotter Bill Fights Illegal Email and Cell Phone spam."

Thanks for the post. It couldn't hurt to put more money into spam enforcement, particularly if there's promise to recover that money from the convicted spammers.

I see that Rep. McCotter uses the "P" word to describe the dangers of spam -- certainly, unsolicited porn ads are a prominent example of the evils of the practice (although I personally get far, far less of the stuff than I used to several years back).

Frankly, however, I'd like to see more emphasis on the fact that much spam (at least the stuff I get) is launched by foreign or international operations who have demonstrated the ability to wield massive computer resources, mostly stolen, to promote their schemes. Not to sound alarmist, but the day may come soon when these guys decide to do something else more sinister with those resources besides selling penis pills.

If spam were just a matter of chickenboners trying to sell TV descramblers, it would be more easily laughed off or ignored. It is this very diffuse and hard-core criminal aspect to spam that has kept me focused on dealing with it more proactively.

I also read the policy report you linked, and learned a couple of new data points (including the fact that some spambots can successfully harvest HTMLCE-encoded addresses -- which the report somewhat inaccurately refers to as "ASCII addresses"). Also it stands out clearly that trying to "opt-out" from spam simply gets you even more spam.

Finally, I dunno where people get this compulsion to all-cap the word "spam;" maybe people assume that it is an acronym (like so many other "words" we use on the net).

-- rick

[Farelf]

<RANT>Yeah well, there's exploitation of the vulnerable in the community, any civilized society will seek to make that unprofitable - but with the revulsion against eugenics fading (though that being the principal part of the "perverted science" Winston Churchill so famously attributed to the Nasties) some of the stronger-stomached might argue in favour of a bit of un-natural selection (they should be ashamed).

But for me, the main abhorrence is to do with the monumental waste of resource. The internet limps along despite spam; but it takes every ounce of ingenuity, endless innovation, exponential technological advance and every spare joule of energy to keep up with even that much. And it engenders/encourages asociality, criminality, cupidity, stupidity and solitary vice. Okay I made up the last one, perhaps; and it mightn't be such a bad thing anyway, if it was to reduce 'their' rate of reproduction before they found a way around it.

Trouble is, nobody sees the full extent of spam/spim these days. It has become the 'dark matter' of cyberspace, hidden or ignored at every opportunity. I lay all blame at the feet of the beancounters myself. Turning themselves - and the rest of us - inside out in surmounting the insuperable, making every momentary profit there is to be had out of unsustainable 'local conditions'. Even the economists know better than that. Hmm ... maybe eugenics isn't such a bad thing - is there an 'accountancy gene', do you think?</RANT>

[turetzsr]

<snip>

I see that Rep. McCotter uses the "P" word to describe the dangers of spam -- certainly, unsolicited porn ads are a prominent example of the evils of the practice (although I personally get far, far less of the stuff than I used to several years back).

Frankly, however, I'd like to see more emphasis on the fact that much spam (at least the stuff I get) is launched by foreign or international operations who have demonstrated the ability to wield massive computer resources, mostly stolen, to promote their schemes. Not to sound alarmist, but the day may come soon when these guys decide to do something else more sinister with those resources besides selling penis pills.

<snip>

...At this point, though, my impression is that most knowledgeable folks don't see enough evidence of this kind of international cyberwar to worry all that much, so such concerns might seem too much like paranoia to mention. But I agree with you!

<snip>

It is this very diffuse and hard-core criminal aspect to spam that has kept me focused on dealing with it more proactively.

...Absolutely! At least Rep McCotter's web site mentions that:

• spam's new focus is identity theft
  
• <snip>
  
• Scams via spam are rising
  

I also read the policy report you linked

...Plagiarism! I lifted that from another post I found in the SpamCop Forum but I couldn't find it when I wanted to attribute it! <g>