IP: Why a US law against spam is futile, and a bad idea

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>Date: Wed, 05 May 1999 09:54:07 -0400
>From: Declan McCullagh <declan@well.com>
>
>
>There is a "junk fax" law on the books in the US. A British firm has
>circumvented this and is busily sending junk faxes to some 3,000,000 US faxes
>because, well, the company isn't based in the US. Snickers the firm: "We're
>covered by European laws."
>
>Special interest groups have lobbied for a US law restricting spam. Given the
>much lower cost of sending email compared to a telephone call, I suspect the
>most likely effect would be simply to force spammers offshore. Such a law
>might
>even have two negative effects: Provide Americans with a false sense of
>security and thus hinder the development of technological countermeasures, and
>push spammers towards judgment-proof havens that would make fraudulent spam a
>more attractive option.
>
>Of course you could have every country in the world pass a law against spam,
>but the odds of that happening anytime soon seem to be remote, and global
>governance structures have their own problems.
>
>The article:
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/WPlate/1999-05/05/108l-050599-idx.html
>
>Also in the Washington Post on the Network Solutions antitrust investigation:
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/business/daily/may99/nsi5.htm
>
>-Declan
>
>
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------
>POLITECH -- the moderated mailing list of politics and technology
>To subscribe: send a message to majordomo@vorlon.mit.edu with this text:
>subscribe politech
>More information is at http://www.well.com/~declan/politech/
>--------------------------------------------------------------------------