The CAN-SPAM bill examined
Posted Nov 26, 2003 12:02 UTC (Wed) by ekj
In reply to: The CAN-SPAM bill examined
Parent article: The CAN-SPAM bill examined
Too complicated. I am completely convinced that allowing spam at all has no positive benefit for the economy or society whatsoever. Why not simply forbid it ? The Scandinavian countries have, and it works ok.
The bill needed is not complicated. It is forbidden to send comercial email to a person unless this is either a) a current and ongoing customer of you or b) the person has given prior, informed consent to receiving such.
Yes, this *does* mean that say my online-bank can legally "spam" me aslong as I am a customer there. But the thing is: they have a very strong incentive not to; they want to *keep* me a customer there.
I fail to see why all US legislation and debate assumes as a default that random people on the Internet want to receive spam, and only want to provide a way for you to say that you don't. In my experience the reality is completely the oposite: 99% of the people do *not* want any spam, and it'd be sufficient to provide a way for the remaining 1% to say "yes please".
Make a national "spam please" list, people on the list can be spammed, others not. See how popular the list will be....
to post comments)