Spam
Someone doesn't want blood chilling slow roasted revenge on spammers.

One Billion Dollars More troubling, and unaddressed by the Maryland court, is the concept of statutory damages for automated emailing, which can lead to serious disparity between the severity of the activity and the fines imposed. Nowhere is that more that more clear than the recent case in Davenport, Iowa, where a state law entitles plaintiffs to compensation of $10 per spam message. An Iowa ISP sued 300 spammers in federal court for the amount of spam it received on a single day in 2000. The spammers did not show up, and the ISP, CIS Internet Services, obtained a default judgment against three spammy companies: $720m from AMP Dollar Savings of Mesa, Arizona; $360m from Cash Link Systems of Miami, Florida; and $140,000 from TEI Marketing of Florida. That totals to more than $1,000,000,000.00 - that's a Billion with a "B". To put that award in perspective, the Bhopal accident a decade ago cost Union Carbide about $470m - less than half the claimed "damages" suffered by a small Iowa ISP. The Register

The Can Spam law is so full of holes, it resembles string theory.

But some antispam activists assert that the law has aided spammers because CAN-SPAM requires recipients to opt out of unwanted commercial e-mail by contacting each sender, instead of forcing senders to get opt-in permission. The federal law also hurt spam-fighting efforts by preempting parts of some tougher state laws, including a California opt-in requirement, said Laura Atkins, president of the SpamCon Foundation. CAN-SPAM also prohibits private citizens from suing spammers, instead allowing only state attorneys general or ISPs (Internet service providers) to file civil suits. People like Atkins, who operate their own mail servers and receive thousands of spam e-mail, have no recourse against spammers under CAN-SPAM. "CAN-SPAM has not made it any easier to find spammers," Atkins said. "It has not decreased the amount of spam." ... About 30 percent to 50 percent of spam came through zombie spam relays in April, MX Logic estimated. In a three-week survey in November and December, the company found 69 percent of spam sent through zombies. "I think CAN-SPAM caused spammers to change their tactics significantly," Lochart said. "The spammers got even more creative at hiding, and they've always been pretty good at it." ... Despite these efforts, antispam vendors predict more spam in 2005, not less. "Even from a service provider perspective, after all the lawsuits and convictions, we still have not seen a deterrence effect happen," said Scott Chasin, chief technology officer at MX Logic. "Spam has continued to increase and saturate inboxes, and we've not seen a decline whatsoever. From that perspective, CAN-SPAM is pretty toothless." MackCentral

However, the constant legislation and deep seeded hatred by, well, everyone except that guy in the above quote (who is just trying to buy some links with an opposing opinion) may actually have a positive effect here.

Better spam-blocking technology and stepped-up law enforcement may be having a deterrent effect on spammers. Time Warner Inc. (TWX) unit America Online said Monday it has seen a big decline in overall junk e-mail volume this year, in a dramatic reversal of a five-year escalation in spam targeted at AOL members. AOL said the drop is evidence its multi fronted fight against spam is working. "We used to be the largest target," said AOL spokesman Nicholas J. Graham. "The target's becoming a lot smaller," in the face of aggressive filtering and spammer prosecutions that have made sending junk mail to AOL members less financially rewarding. SmartMoney.com

So, 75% of emails is spam at the moment. What do we do when it is 95% or 99%? What happens when we cannot use email the same way we use it today? The company I work for at the moment uses email on such a scale, that the company would suffer if it were to fail on a long term basis. Whatever replaces email will just fill up with spam as soon as all the dumb-asses who buy that crap move over to whatever new system comes up. The only way to stop spam is to take the money out of it. I'm not sure how to do it in such a way that hurts the spammers without stopping legitimate business. I don't think spam is legitimate. I just don't. If I have any say, it will not be legitimate.