CNET is running a story (http://news.com.com/2100-1028_3-5065739.html?tag=lh) stating that the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission today criticized the current crop of anti-spam legislation initiatives stating that although well intentioned, they “will do little to solve the current spam problems” and could be even “less useful” than existing laws the FTC has been using to sue spammers. He also stated that the long term answer will require core technological changes, not legislation. I could not agree more, making spam illegal is a joke and will accomplish nothing, and lawmakers who are busily drafting anti-spam legislation are doing so more to convince constituents that they mean well than anything else. This is obviously nothing new. So why do I quote this CNET story at all? Frankly, I am utterly amazed that the chairman of the FTC actually gets it! Incredible!

One thought

  1. I think spam should be handled the same as normal paper spam mail.. thus commercials and stuff.. here in the Netherlands we get a lot of mail in our regular (in the door) mailbox and if you don’t want that you just put a sticker on your mailbox "no commercial mail please" and the postman doesn’t put any commercial mail in your mailbox….. can’t we make a "no spam" sticker on our online mailbox?? πŸ™‚ that would be nice wouldn’t πŸ˜‰

Leave a Reply to Tjarko Cancel reply