Spam, Spam, Spam, Spam
The Senate Commerce Committee has approved a bill that would crack down on the deluge of spam e-mail that Internet users currently receive. I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I hate to see increasing government regulations of private business. On the other, I hate receiving constant spam and am not sure why corporations ought to have the right to send me unsolicited crap. Television and radio commercials are one thing - I choose to watch TV or listen to the radio at certain times. There is nothing active that I choose to do that invites spam advertising, other than having e-mail (and, yes, I do feel the same way about unsolicited junk mailings).
It also bugs me that my personal information is valuable to businesses, yet I do not get to reap the profits of that value. It is completely out of my hands. Other people are making money off of my personal information. I grant that they perform a service by aggregating millions of bits of personal information into usable form. Nonetheless, it is my information, and it seems to me that I ought to be able to determine whether or not it gets aggregated and sold and, if I am willing, receive some fraction of the compensation the aggregator gets.
One part of the bill I have no issues with is increasing the penalties for hijacking user accounts. Sorry, no one gets to steal someone else's address and use it to send out mail. If you did that via the USPS, it would be mail fraud. It isn't any different just because it's On The InternetTM.
In the meantime, could you do me egg, bacon, spam and sausage without the spam?
Comments
In the print edition of the Readers Digest (July issue) one of the trivia pieces they put at the end of stories dealt with spam and junk mail.
The ratio of useful to junk mail (absolute and relative terms) the numbers are better in the internet world (12/4 ?) than in the paper world (12/12 ?) on a daily basis. Seems to me IF there is a problem then the bigger problem is in the paper world, not the internet world. And what's more internet junk is easier to dispose of, click on the X and it is gone (okay delete and empty the trash bin), with the paper junk you should open it to decide if it needs shredded then shred or toss it and haul it out to the curb on trash day.
Posted by: Justin | June 19, 2003 06:06 PM
Ah, but Justin, in the paper world, I don't get junk mail telling me how to grow my penis, satisfy my woman, see hot chicks doing all kinds of things, or make millions of dollars by helping out the assorted relatives and friends of late African dictators. The content factor outweighs all else, at least to me (and apparently to a lot of parents whose kids are getting porn spam).
Posted by: Lesley | June 19, 2003 06:12 PM
I get the snail mail version of "funnel money out of nigeria" scam, but other than that point taken.
Don't ya wanna see hot chicks satisfying their man with a large ... what was that again?
Posted by: Justin | June 19, 2003 06:55 PM
I got one the other day from Lesley telling me that she was horny and missed me. Imagin my dissipointment when it discoverd it wasn't from the houseofplum - dot - com.
Posted by: Rick DeMent | June 20, 2003 03:06 PM
That wasn't her?
Dammit, now I have got to get a stop payment order out on my credit card.
Posted by: Justin | June 20, 2003 05:33 PM
The direct mail industry uses your information to send you only the offers you will be interested in. Direct mail is expensive so it makes no sense to mail people who would not be interested in their offer.
However, email is virtually free so they do not try to limit their lists to people who would be interested. The bulk emailers are happy if they can get one response out of a million emails.
The solution to the problem is to make bulk email as expensive as regular bulk mail.
Posted by: Jake | June 21, 2003 11:23 AM