Spam appears to be protected speech when scrutinized under law. And according to the scumbags who harvest e-mail addresses and send unwanted solicitations through cyberspace, it’s as legitimate as newspaper flyers and menus tucked under windshield wipers. They claim it enables the small businessman to compete with the big boys, merely taking the free market economy to another venue.
Legally, the issue is a mess. They have a right to market, and you have the right to refuse to be marketed to – but only if you can figure out how to circumvent their solicitations.
Capitalism is the ugly cousin of democracy, but you can’t have one without the other it seems. The price of freedom may be the price of anti-spam software.
U.S. legislators are now looking at spam in a different way, which could set a precedent that other countries would be able to adopt. It doesn’t put an end to spam, but it makes it harder for them to send their crap out over the Internet.
The question is no longer whether spam has a right to exist, but whether or not spam meets ordinary consumer protection requirements asked of other products. Seen an ad from a drug company lately? Ten seconds of positive news followed by 20 seconds of information on side effects – it’s narrated in a happy voice, perhaps, but phrases like "erectile dysfunction" and "rectal bleeding" can’t help but jump out at you.
Spam advertisements for penis enlargements, hair growth and other medical products don’t include any of this federally mandated safety information, and ignore several other important requirements as well. Though it’s a fuzzy concept, authorities still demand some truth in advertising.
The bill that is being proposed in the U.S. prohibits spammers from using fake return addresses and subject lines that are misleading, like faked greetings from old friends. The law also makes it illegal to harvest e-mail addresses from Web sites, or to hack into other computers to send spam messages.
Every spam message will have to include an opt-out option, where you can indicate that you don’t want to receive any more messages from a particular company or source. Company information also has to be included.
The crown jewel of the legislation is the part that holds vendors as liable for products and services as the spammers – in other words, if you don’t have complete faith in your product and in your licensing, then you probably shouldn’t be sending out spam.
There are some glaring holes in the legislation, however, that have some critics wondering whether the laws won’t encourage spammers in the long run.
First of all, the bill makes it impossible for individuals to file lawsuits against spammers, although Internet Service Providers are free to take up the cause.
Some are also worried that legitimate companies might see the law as a green light to get into the spam game. E-mails promising larger genitalia, debt consolidation and naughty schoolgirls could be replaced by ads from Pepsi, MTV and Old Navy.
The legislation could also be clearer on opt-out clauses. When you send back an e-mail opting out of future spams, does that apply to the e-mail address that sent the mail, the end source of the mail, the specific spammer that sent it, all spammers in general, the product, or to a particular marketing campaign? Spammers are experts at finding loopholes, so it pays to be specific.
Perhaps the most glaring problem with the legislation, which is not really the fault of the bill, is the fact that a lot of spam already appears to originate in other countries, well out of the jurisdiction to which the law applies.
Futhermore, spam has never been legally qualified. How many e-mail messages do you need to send out for it to qualify as spam? Or is spam determined by the means of delivery?
How far does the legislation go. If your computer has been hacked and used to send spam, are you at fault? Does it apply to wired communications, or to cell phones, fax machines and other instant messaging devices as well.
People badly want anti-spam legislation, but the U.S. government may be premature here. Without a better definition of spam and a more specific law, it’s possible nothing will change.
Still, it’s a start.
Attack on iPod
Apple Computers is riding high these days, and a big part of the reason is a little music player with massive storage called the iPod.
However, one guerrilla campaign is targeting iPod ads in the U.S., informing consumers that iPod batteries only last 18 months and cannot be replaced. To view the short film, visit www.ipoddirtysecret.com.
According to the Apple iPod Web site, the iPod uses a built-in rechargeable lithium ion battery. In the main specifications page, the only reference to the life of this battery occurs in the footnotes, and reads "Battery life varies by use."
The company recently started to provide a battery service option, which costs $99 for parts and labour once the warranty has expired. An iPod warranty expires one year after purchase.
According to an online gadgets weblog called Gizmodo, the battery’s active life also dwindles from 10 or 11 hours on a full charge at the beginning to only a couple of hours after a lot of use.
