Judge ties antispammer's hands

TalkBack 10 of 30:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

You could have seen this comming

Judging from some of the anti-spyware initiatives. The idea being 'we have a right to advertise ,as long as we are with the law to do so'. But users have a right to refuse advertisement,even before it enters their email inboxes. The reference regarding 'spam law,has to do with 'advertisements,it has nothing to do with delegating how users would use a service to prevent that advertising.

Users are lucky that spam legislation did not go for the 'opt-in type legislation. Because just the same as the wording for the 'end-user within 'spyware legislation , 'opt-in makes the inititive of the user part of a business arrangement between the sender and receipient. Something 'opt-out does not have.

As with this delegation for 'spamcop,most users receiving emails have no idea of ip addresses,or there utilization. Spamcop is merely do its welcome as that of the 'users choice,no matter that of wich the advertiser displays as a 'freedom of speech'inititiative to do so.

Because 'this type of freedom of speech deals with the acesory of the users initiative. Rather than the accesory of with the 'speech givers relationship deems from adjucent 'spam-law. The user is not required to 'receive the advertisments via the can-spam act to promote this 'freedom to do so. The user as well has the 'freedom to associate themselves from the advertisment using a utility of their own choosing. This is competitive marketplace,when the user feels they can do with,or do without a given relationship. And that is what spam cop does. Even though the pattern is assertive through known user-components that make up the 'ips for those businesses.

The advertisements would have been calling the shots for users under and opt-in veriation of 'can-spam. For now users can call the shots in maintaining there freedom to disassociate themselves from the marketeers 'marketed expression(s). And THIS is done via an 'opt-in in the accesory available via the users relationship to their own email inbox. NOT a relationship to the unknown assailant making statements as to the functionality of a complaint against a marketer. Whos claim to the same accesory really has nothing the user wishes to pertain to themselves with.

Basically the power of the users initiative to relate to association is not part of the receiption of a marketers 'freedom of speech. It is the functionality of their email inbox,or the ISP that controls it.

They retain that small edge,rather than the faculty of 'legality assumed via representation of indemnity present compared to previous delegations of legislation.

It is the users inbox that maintains that indemnity,not the initiative of the corresponding advertisment(s).Or condition of law that might,or might not have included it.Becuase there is not any .

.just talking.Getem SpamCop.

Posted by: ParadigmOdyssey   Posted on: 05/11/04 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now
• Five Steps to Determine When to Virtualize YourServers VMware Server virtualization isn't just for big companies. Entry-level ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now