The CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 (Controlling the Assault of Non-Solicited Pornography and Marketing Act) establishes requirements for those who send commercial email, spells out penalties for spammers and companies whose products are advertised in spam if they violate the law, and gives consumers the right to ask emailers to stop spamming them. (FTC)
Any Mindsay veteran familiar with the "Top Blogs" from the last few weeks has seen the spam. How big is your penis? Is it big enough? What about you tits and your ass, do they need something? Do you need antioxidant prophylactics? How's your blood pressure? Want to invest in the hottest penny stock of the year? And I could go on...
Five years ago, the Congress ended spam, though. We were all told that spam would cease because FedGov was on the case. In fact, we could cease spam just by asking spammers to stop, they said. Even John McCain co-sponsored the thing, just like he had the McCain Feingold Incumbent Protection (Campaign Finance Reform) Act that made his tax-funded, zero-donor 2008 campaign possible (that's right...everyone in America is a donor to John Mccain on April 15th). So, why are we still getting Spam?
Spam has changed. In 1995, there was precious little of the stuff. In 2003, we were all getting email about penises, asses, and tits. In 2008, we get a ton of spam email, but only 3-4 a month make it through my dual-filtered email system. Instead, people are now logging onto sites like Mindsay to set up click farms, hoping to get any traction possible with Alexa and search engines. The law had nothing to do with it...the filters made commercial spam email unimportant. Now, you and I have to be on the lookout for spammers in forums like this, sort of like volunteer rangers. The point?
Spam law is about as effective as gun bans, as
Tauramandil points out. Spam changes its form, but the law stays stuck in a 2003 mindset. Laws do not force people to comply, they merely give us recourse after something has occurred. Once a law is made, however, it stays frozen in the paradigm of the time it was adopted unless it is constantly revised. Therefore, we should use laws to control the behaviors that will always be unacceptable, and stop trying to use them to micromanage all aspects of existence. Otherwise, we're going to lose all our freedoms and leave an embarrassing paper trail of petty legislation that will make future generations scorn us.
email
