Electronic Communications, Privacy, Data Protection, and More: Recent Comments2008-07-24T23:49:49Zhttp://spamnotes.com/comments/atom.aspxQuick BlogComment on Junk Mail – A Proposaltag:spamnotes.com,2008-07-02:1164376John Levinehttp://weblog.johnlevine.com2008-07-02T06:35:54Z2008-07-02T06:08:03Z Incidentally, the DMA's do-not-mail list is fairly effective at cutting down on paper junk from commercial mailers (but not the nonprofits who have been mailbombing us as above), and they've been shamed into ending the obnoxious $2 shakedown fee for adding yourself. https://www.dmachoice.org/MPS/]]>Comment on MySpace Wins Big Against Richter?tag:spamnotes.com,2008-06-18:1130736Ryan Pitylakhttp://combatspam.blogspot.com/2008/06/700000-mobile-phone-do-not-spam.html#links2008-06-18T20:58:52Z2008-06-18T19:17:35ZComment on Who Came up With LinkedIn's Algorithm?tag:spamnotes.com,2008-05-22:1064046Manas2008-05-22T01:25:14Z2008-05-22T01:25:14Z When you send someone a mail, some mail apps (like gmail) add those ids in your contact list.
so two things could have happened
1) You imported your contact list to linked in and those members were found in your contact list
2) They imported their contact list and your mail id was found in that
I mentioned that in my blog post (the first link in your post)]]>Comment on Law Firm Bloggingtag:spamnotes.com,2008-05-10:1034907jeffhttp://www.proskauer.com2008-05-10T04:27:56Z2008-05-10T04:27:56Z Jeff Neuburger]]>Comment on California Anti-Spammers Push Misguided Anti-Spam Billtag:spamnotes.com,2008-04-30:1013147Dan Balsamhttp://www.DanHatesSpam.com2008-04-30T15:25:21Z2008-04-30T14:41:18Z Deliberate misspellings (e.g., "p/e/n/1/s") is a facially deceptive practice intended to deceive spam filters. There is no first amendment right to false & deceptive commercial speech.
It is a travesty that the federal CAN-SPAM Act acknowledges injuries from spam, but yet legitimizes "truthful" spam and removes a private right of action. Contrast to the federal junk-fax law, which expressly DOES let recipients sue. ISPs, AGs, and the FTC can only do so much. If you really want to take down the spammers, you empower the little guy (i.e., the individual recipient) to bring his/her own lawsuit upon being damaged. Congress didn't empower the individual to bring legal action because Congress was heavily lobbied by the Direct Marketing Association and other business lobbyists, who learned their lesson after the junk-fax law.
Sure, some spammers/advertisers are offshore. But lots of them are right here in the U.S.
Finally, I'll point out that CAN-SPAM *only* lets the states regulate false & deceptive advertising. Which is what AB 2950 does. It's a pretty tough position, standing up in favor of falsity & deception.]]>Comment on California Anti-Spammers Push Misguided Anti-Spam Billtag:spamnotes.com,2008-04-23:994069Alex2008-04-23T11:30:48Z2008-04-23T09:51:57ZComment on California Anti-Spammers Push Misguided Anti-Spam Billtag:spamnotes.com,2008-04-19:983451William Silversteinhttp://www.barbieslapp.com/spam2008-04-19T13:12:53Z2008-04-19T11:02:43Z Your partial cite of "deliberately misspelling" to read as "misspelling" is really deceptive.
Empowering individuals does deter. Take a look at the TCPA. Junk faxes went from many a day to maybe a few a month. It is not that there are millions of lawsuit a month that is the discouragement, but the risk of being sued vs. the profit resulting from it. Are there many people breaking into the vending machines in the police station?]]>Comment on VA S.Ct. Rejects First Amendment Challenge to Spam Statute (on Standing Grounds)tag:spamnotes.com,2008-02-29:864554John Levinehttp://weblog.johnlevine.com2008-02-29T23:00:25Z2008-02-29T22:18:39Zhttp://weblog.johnlevine.com/Email/jaynesappeal.html]]>Comment on Wowtag:spamnotes.com,2008-02-06:815028Derek Linke2008-02-06T19:38:28Z2008-02-06T17:34:05ZComment on Copying the Clienttag:spamnotes.com,2008-02-05:812016Eric Goldmanhttp://www.ericgoldman.org2008-02-05T12:07:59Z2008-02-05T12:07:59Z