USS Clueless              Voyages of a restless mind

Main: normal long no graphics Contact Log archives Best log entries Other articles Site Search

Stardate 20010712.1131 (On Screen): I have no kids but I don't like getting smut spam any more than anyone else does. But this article describing a proposed law to make it illegal to send such spam to children without a tag which could be used by parents (and me) to filter. It also would impose immense penalties for doing so. It is really quite pointless. The last line of the article reads "It is unclear at this time how e-mails originating overseas would work with such a tag."

Actually, it's completely clear: it would not be enforceable. If this law passes, some spammers will start using the tag (and will see their effectiveness drop through the floor) and others will go offshore to do their spamming, or do their spamming in a fashion which is untraceable. If you receive a letter advertising Gloria's Lovely Lesbian Farm Girls (yum!) or some such thing, how do you prove that it was really sent by Gloria? Remember, there's presumption of innocence in the US legal system, and if Gloria covers her tracks well, there's nothing that can be done.

This is the latest example of a long line of cases which points out the fundamental truth of the Internet: it's beyond the control of any single country's laws. The global village has arrived, and no-one governs it because it's bigger than any nation. (discuss)

Update: "A European Parliament committee has voiced objection to a proposal supported by most European Union member states that would virtually ban unsolicited commercial e-mail." Virtually-ban is right, because it sure wouldn't really ban it.