However, there needs to be some way to ensure that commercial emailers are knowledgable about what they are doing.
Another problem that needs to be solved is impersonating someone else. Sending out fraudulent messages impersonating someone else is just like mail fraud. Why don't we amend the mail fraud laws to include email? Now there's an idea. We'll save tons of time duplicating definitions for what shouldn't be done at all via email, like scams and swindles.
There is also the unsavory problem of pyramid schemes, and other scams which are illegal if done via postal mail. The USPS Inspection Service also states that email chain letters are illegal.
These are crimminal activities. Lets treat them as such and separate them from legitimate activities.
That I can support.
Permits would only be required for commercial companies that send out large amounts of email.
An industry group made up of commercial emailers, online providers, and internet service providers would determine the permit specifications and definitions of message size, etc.
We can charge fees for the permits, use the money to pay for administration, Internic services, educational services, etc.
Essentially, regulate the commercial activity just like TV and Radio.
Also, amend 18 USC 63 (1343) (mail fraud) to apply to email, Usenet News, and other electronic communication.
And mmend USC 18 (1735) (Sexually oriented advertisements), USC 18 (1736) (Restrictive use of information) as well as parts of Title 39 (Postal Service) to apply to email, Usenet news, or other electronic communication.
Permits ensure that commercial emailer are knowledgeable, and do not cause problems by sending out too much at once, or messages that are to large..
It is not unreasonable to handle a few legitimate commercial emails per day per user. Consider that they are say 600 bytes tops. 10000 * 600 is 6meg. Say times 3 is 18meg. Total cost for space? $2.00. Thats 2 dollars per day on a system that has ten thousand users. Now multiply that time the average time between login, and you get the total cost to the ISP for "unwanted" Commercial email. Say a person logs in once per month, its $60.00 Total cost to the ISP.
Frauds, swindles, sexually oriented advertising, locksmithing information, etc that is already illegal if done by postal mail should also be illegal if done by email. These things were made illegal or restricted because of the social harms which would result if they were permitted without any restrictions.
It makes sense that they should apply to email, and usenet news.
Will it work?
Funny, exactly the same thing happened with radio, before it was regulated. Exact same childish emotions: "He using my frequency" "Make him stop" "I'm going to get him off the air if its the last thing I do"
Well, you can't get him off the air as long as he has legitimate business to conduct or something to say that's not obscene, but you can regulate things so that you don't interfere with each other. We have this thing called the First Amendment. It prevents people like you from forcing a sock in the mouth of people like Spamford. It prevents you from breaking their transmitter. It prevents you from stopping their legitimate commercial email business.
There is no question that commercial email activity can be regulated by the United States Congress. There is no question that such regulation does not interfer with any rights to conduct business.
What you can't do, is prevent people from conducting legitmate business.
I mentioned this to another online provider, but it wasn't acceptable. He wasn't willing to discuss anything less than complete suppression of commercial email, and was very agitated by my suggestions. Apparently, some people have a personal vendetta against commercial emailers. Perhaps some of the emailers are jerks who fueled anger with childish responses of their own, but we can't be guided by anger.
At one point in drawing a comparison between junk postal mail and spam, it was pointed out that the First Class mail is subsidized by junk mail. I pointed out that Mailboxes Etc and other private mailbox providers don't benefit from that subsidy. This exchange followed:
>>I'm curious, what would happen if Mailboxes, Etc. (a private post box
>>service) threw away all junk mail to their customers, say without asking,
>
>Go ahead, walk into Mailboxes, Etc with a ream of flyers advertising
>your product and just begin putting them into mailboxes without any
>agreement with the proprietor, and if he tells you to stop, just
>ignore him, make sure you drop a lot of them all over the place and
>annoy as many customers as you can while you do this. Tell me when the
>wounds heal and the court date is set for.
Sure. Its called "Bulk Mail" He can't stop it no matter how mad he is about it.
You're being ridiculous. You know very well that if MB ETC started checking
out your mail, and throwing out the parts they didn't approve of, someone
would be upset. No matter how much junk postal mail they had to deal with.
I'm not sure whether MB ETC can through out junk mail or not. But I think it is important that we choose principles that apply to both. If private post box retailers can throw out junk mail, then Online providers should be able to as well. If not, then the same logic should apply to online providers.