NationStates Jolt Archive

Why are we debating on SPAM when we are still sending telegrams?? :D

JC of Jucorel

this resolution is crap and i'll tell you why.

Whereas,
The electronic mail inboxes of every man, woman and child on the face of the planet are being clogged with unwanted solicitory email, hereafter referred to as SPAM.

completely false; only about half of the world population has access to the internet.
---------
Whereas,
This problem is causing minutes a day in irritation, millions of kilobytes of bandwith waste, and millions of dollars of corporate money from the clogging.

deal with it
-------------
Whereas,
The problem is and has been growing at a nearly exponential rate for years now.

also completely false
---------------
Whereas,
All people have the right to be free from barrages of obscenity and unwanted sales offers, and these serve only to worsen the general mood and lifestyle of civilization

this is highly debatable. there is clearly no right self-evident enough for the author of this resolution to merely assume that everyone will agree with him. he offers no argument for his case. he also does not mention the rights of those who are sending the e-mail. he could, in the least, make a statement that no one has the right to send unwanted e-mails (which i would not agree with anyway, seeing as how its a free society with free speech and a free internet). besides, who are we to decide what the purpose of e-mail is? we are here to protect citizens from danger, not minor, daily inconveniences; and we certainly have no place regulating technology.
-----------------
It is proposed that from twenty days after the passage of this bill, laws be put into effect in every member country of the United Nations stating that any company found to be in posession of a list of emails for the usage of SPAM be fined the equivilent to five hundred thousand dollars and any company found to be sending unsolicitated email be fined the equivilent of five thousand dollars per email.

1. define "spam." 2. i believe by "emails" you mean "e-mail addresses" - this confused me at first. 3. the UN is designed to prevent international conflict and provide international aid, not to fine people for minor offenses.
-------------
Companies wishing to continue sending emails to private citizens must be in posession of a valid electronic signature which was gained without deceit and with a full disclaimer explaining what form of email the signee was subscribing to.

again, who are we to regulate technology? creating an e-mail account is a contract agreement between two parties and should remain completely legal and unimpaired by the government. there is also no defnition for "companies."

in short, this resolution would make sense at a local or even national level, but at an international level it just makes no sense. so say if china, for whatever reason, fails to comply with this resolution. what are we going to do, have an economic embargo or lead a bombing campaign as if they were hiding weapons of mass destruction (which would violate one of the more critical UN mandates)? if we want nations to respect the UN, we need our laws to be dealing with serious matters, not minor inconveniences like spamming. kafi annan has enough to deal with as it is, what with war in chechnya, israel, iraq, kashmir, and people starving all over the place. you think he wants to deal with spamming? get real.

My position on the current UN proposal. I agree with the propsal to ban SPAM fully up to the part where the proposal states that companies will be fined if they are caught using SPAM.

I cannot vote for this motion because of this. We cannot fine our businesses just for sending e-mails its rediculous.
PROTET YOUR ECONOMY- VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL!!!

Because spam is useless crap and a waste of time and resources. If i want something i will GO AND LOOK FOR IT.

It is after all the internet. There is absolutely no good reason to spam someones inbox. I have never and never will buy anything from a spammed email. There are dozens of search engines to find anything you could possibly want or need on the internet from porn to bibles.

I personally dont mind fining buisinesses in the least as it will make them realize that this is serious. Spam regularly clogs mail servers with ridiculous amounts of information that otherwise with normal mail would never even begin to be taxed in the least. It costs the ISP's money and in turn then costs the customers money and time to delete the 1000's of unwanted emails just because some email spider happened to grab their email.

no to junk mail

Although the members of my country do find SPAM a nuisance, the leaders can find no connection between banning solicitory e-mail and the increase of civil rights. In fact, we hold that our people have an important right to send SPAM, just as they have the right to telemarket. Thus, Germany and France will vote against the proposal.

We must vote against the current proposal in order to protect our businesses. I agree that there is to much "spam", but we cannot outlaw the practice because some have to spend a few more minutes a day to delete it. We need to regulate it, not ban it.

1. No use of the subject line to make it seem like the e-mail is from friends and family.

2. No mass SPAM. If you want to send it, you must e-mail them one at a time. That will cut the amount exponentialy.

3. No SPAM from sources that are not government approved, ie. weight reduction pills, get rich quick schemes, and porn.

JC of Jucorel

My position on the current UN proposal. I agree with the propsal to ban SPAM fully up to the part where the proposal states that companies will be fined if they are caught using SPAM.

I cannot vote for this motion because of this. We cannot fine our businesses just for sending e-mails its rediculous.
PROTET YOUR ECONOMY- VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL!!!



You have a good point and the Federation of Teracknor will have to go against this resolution until the part of punishing the companies is taken out or be set so each nation set punishment on the aggressors as they please

R/ President of the Teracknor Federation

While I am troubled by the provision stating that any company found sending an unsolicited email is to be fined (the company might be sending a single email proposal to someone that was recommended as a valid prospect), I see the wisdom in the resolution. We know the difference between one email sent to a legitimate prospect as compared to 1,000,000 of the identical email sent to whomever they can get a address on.

I spend about 30 minutes of my day dealing with nothing but deleting spam from my various "real world" mail boxes. Unfortunately, now that I average over a 100 per day, I have begun deleting in bulk which may cause me to miss some legitimate business inquiries and possibly causing me a loss of business. The problem is bad enough that the "real world" U.S. government feels that it is a legitimate issue for legislation. I say Aye!

Sugar Bear
Founder: Shadowland Region

Of course we have to say No to spam. But in our nation we don´t have this problem because of that all the companies are owned by the state.

So maybe you should follow our example instead?

/The President of Socialistic Youth

The people of Zuchinni will not support this bill, and here's why:

Freedom of speech - Even the spammers have this right in my country. Every country has it's own level of freedoms, some more or less than Zuchinni, and it is not the place of the UN to tell those that have freedom of speech that it must be limited.

Anti-Spam software - These are effective and affordable, sometimes free.

Economy - The companies that send spam employ people. I'm sure some nations have this as a significant industry. This bill will have a disruptive effect on the economy of many nations.

The Fines - Who gets the fines? Who pays for the court costs? Is the U.N. itself going to set up a police force to oversee these acts?

I totally agree that spam is anoying, but this is not the way to go about solving the problem. This should be an issue for individual countries to handle on their own.

Zuchinni

you know when you opp out of unwanted spam you let them know that your email address is real and alive so they can sale it to others

Well I just joined the UN so I'll try to get my point across quick. It's a complex issue. I don't know if this would be the best solution. It is a very bad problem, but I think before we go international, we should consider it on a smaller scale first. If it proves to be effective in smaller areas, then we should consider expanding the idea.

Because people are idiots - that's why they spam.

If I would let the UN decide if I want to spam or not?

I dont think its anyothers buisness then my own what my nation will do in this issue. If other nations feel like spaming me I spam em back in retrobution, but for other nations via UN bar me for allowing my nation companys (those that really dont excist) to spam or not is no ones buisniss but mine.

Now if spam will be an issue in my nation then I will deal with it as I like and not in a manner UN think I should deal it with.

We cannot fine our businesses just for sending e-mails its rediculous.
PROTET YOUR ECONOMY- VOTE AGAINST THE PROPOSAL!!!

Whereas,
The electronic mail inboxes of every man, woman and child on the face of the planet are being clogged with unwanted solicitory email, hereafter referred to as SPAM.

completely false; only about half of the world population has access to the internet.

If you understand syntax, the subject of this paragraph is the ELECTRONIC MAIL INBOXES, not the population of the earth. The electronic mail inboxes belong to a man woman or child on the face of the earth, and it is the inboxes the proposer is referring to that is being clogged with spam. This statement is completely accurate (well accurate enough for someone with a grasp on english grammer to understand), maybe you should have stayed awake during english class ;)

Yes spam is annoying but our people have the right to say anything annoying or not.

The Black New World is not willing to change it’s stance on free speech just because we don’t agree with what is being said or the how it is said.

Desdemona,
UN representative for The Black New World.

What has the world come to... Email is no more than a simple protocol for the transfer of electronic mail.. mail is no more than a readable file of text mixed with lagniappe (Sorry, I'm from Louisiana!) The internet to be what it is has to be completely free, and government interferrence can never be a part of the equation. The reason microsoft is such a powerhouse is because we the people have made them that way. The reason spam is what it is, is becasue SMTP and email was made so simple, that it allows it to happen. It can be stopped and dealt with from the individuals and people. A new secure email can be created.. possibilities are endless before LAWS and Government should EVER have to step in and safe the people from their troubles once again. When are people going to help themselves?

The nation of Altonland echo the statements of the members that are against this issue to ban SPAM.

I urge all members to vote with their head, and not their emotions. While SPAM is an issue that should be addressed, it should be on a national level. This should not have even been brought up for voting, as it will strike a blow to free speech throughout the world.

I urge all my fellow UN members to vote no.

You all have no life. :lol: Ur loses especially Mr. Poiye

You all have no life. :lol: Ur loses especially Mr. Poiye

The nation of Altonland echo the statements of the members that are against this issue to ban SPAM.

I urge all members to vote with their head, and not their emotions. While SPAM is an issue that should be addressed, it should be on a national level. This should not have even been brought up for voting, as it will strike a blow to free speech throughout the world.

I urge all my fellow UN members to vote no.
Actually, it will increase free speach, because it is classified as a human rights proposal.

Like the latest proposal that all nations are to be forced to out law spam is and insult to every nations sovereignity over themselves. Its an abuse of the UN as an forum for different nations to come together to discuss and use diplomacy instead of laws that are enforced on every UN nation that one for me makes me wanna leave the UN. Any liberal nation (im not saying my nation is liberal) would in its right mind would not aggre with these kinda proposals.

More of this and im leaving UN and will use other forms of discussion and exchange of ideas and thoughts to strive for a comon goal without force.

If this was the real world this could never happen the independent nations would just ignore the proposals they dont like if they feel they are trying to be forced to something that they dont agree too and would like to do different. If UN is going to have the right to force laws upon other nations why not totally give up the idea with different goverements and just have big votes in UN all the time and not consider the regional nations originality and independce. :evil:

Ha Ha The Republic of El maniana laughs at you capitalist swine. Drowning in Cheap low quality meat. You would not have this problem if you were to ban free enterprise. May this be the sounding call of your neo liberalist ideals foundering on the rocks of freedom. (more bellious laughter) :lol: :twisted:

Ha Ha The Republic of El maniana laughs at you capitalist swine. Drowning in Cheap low quality meat. You would not have this problem if you were to ban free enterprise. May this be the sounding call of your neo liberalist ideals foundering on the rocks of freedom. (more bellious laughter) :lol: :twisted:

Ha Ha The Republic of El maniana laughs at you capitalist swine. Drowning in Cheap low quality meat. You would not have this problem if you were to ban free enterprise. May this be the sounding call of your neo liberalist ideals foundering on the rocks of freedom. (more bellious laughter) :lol: :twisted:

Like the latest proposal that all nations are to be forced to out law spam is and insult to every nations sovereignity over themselves. Its an abuse of the UN as an forum for different nations to come together to discuss and use diplomacy instead of laws that are enforced on every UN nation that one for me makes me wanna leave the UN. Any liberal nation (im not saying my nation is liberal) would in its right mind would not aggre with these kinda proposals.

We do consider ourselves a relatively "liberal" nation--and we're totally opposed to this resolution. Nations like Ursoria that want to remain within the U.N. are being forced to leave it, simply in order to maintain a decent economy for their people.

We know that admin (for one) doesn't like the concept of "national sovereignty"--but it's something we feel strongly about. We can't let the U.N. write all our legislation for us--and it's coming to that.

The Anarchic Communuty of Bearbrass encourages everyone to vote against this proposal.

It will waste money and damage our economies. It will require legitimate business to comply with costly and time-consuming regulation.

It will not work. Anyone wanting to send spam will still be able to do so, using a non-UN member as a base. Just as, in the real world, the USA's efforts to block spam don't work: they are a real cost to legitimate non-US businesses that have some dealings with the US, but do absolutely nothing to prevent spammers operating from Nigeria, Pacific Islands, or anywhere else outside the US.

The ways to deal with spam are:
(1) technological - filters are improving, and within 2-3 years will have substantially mitigated the problem;
(2) individual and collective responsibility for your own destiny: if you don't like the way a business does its marketing, then don't buy from it. Organise others to join a boycott. Don't expect the government to legislate all your problems away for you!

The decision to block spam should not be up to an international organization. The legislation of such a law must be the choice of individual countries. It is not the place of the United Nations to interfere with the internal affairs of the State or the choices within such a State. The UN existence is for the interaction and delegation of nations, and it is to legislate only on international relations, not the internal laws of separate countries.

Poorly worded, poorly phrased, poorly thought out, and poorly executed.

Frisbeeteria encourages all UN Delegates to advise against passing this resolution. It's not enough just to cast your Delegate vote Against, you should also mention it in your Civil HQ.

Don't do the knee-jerk thing and vote for this because it appears to be anti-spam. This is a BAD idea.

This is not a case of the right to free speech being violated beacuse a) the right to private property trumps the right to free speech (you can't protest at someone's private residence) and also because with the right to free speech comes the right not to listen.

On other issues:
The amount of spam has indeed grown very quickly from around 5-10% of all e-mails sent a few years ago (1999 or 2000, I believe it was) to from to 40-50% today.

Outlawing spam would not wreck anyone's economy. The great majority of spam is known to come from around 100 or so spammers. Legitimate companies are losing money due to bandwidth and time the spam takes up and would be benefited by this resolution.

You say the government has no business regulating what's legal and illegal on the Internet? Under that logic hacking a campany's website is perfectly OK.

Organizing a boycott would not work. Spammers can get 1 customer for every 25,000 messages they send and still be profitable. Also pornography is addicting and those who are addicted can find it very hard to give up their habit.

Im not saying nations arent not allowed to outlaw spam in their own state im saying that UN shouldnt be allowed to roule on such a thing over other nations goverement, and I do not think that no spam is a human right.

We do not have the necessary technology to prevent spam; how can we enforce a ban?

I think we have the technology. Its easy. Have the Law Enforcement storm the spammers house or where ever he is. Then take the computers away. easy as using hands and fists.

How to enforce the ban: (link (http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/internet/12/12/spam.charges/index.html))