NationStates Jolt Archive

Bottom of page one, I think that this would help everyone who is getting annoyed at the volume of spam that people get on a daily basis.

Spam Prevention Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Uber Penguins

Description: This propsal states that sending unsociltated e-mails advertising products (hereafter refered to as spam and spaming) is illegal, and those held responsable for these actions will have the full force of the law thrown upon them, with a penalty to be decided by member nations.

Thank you for your time.

This propsal states that sending unsociltated e-mails advertising products (hereafter refered to as spam and spaming) is illegal, and those held responsable for these actions will have the full force of the law thrown upon them, with a penalty to be decided by member nations.
If you are going to make something a crime, you need to establish punishments, especially since most of these e-mails could be from one nation to another. Some countries may think that the death penalty is an appropriate punishment for spamming. I would suggest replacing that clause with one placing the crime within the jurisdiction of the UN.

Bottom of page one, I think that this would help everyone who is getting annoyed at the volume of spam that people get on a daily basis.

Spam Prevention Act

A resolution to improve worldwide human and civil rights.


Category: Human Rights


Strength: Significant


Proposed by: Uber Penguins

Description: This propsal states that sending unsociltated e-mails advertising products (hereafter refered to as spam and spaming) is illegal, and those held responsable for these actions will have the full force of the law thrown upon them, with a penalty to be decided by member nations.

Thank you for your time.

I have one or two questions.

1) What definition do you have for "products"?
2) Which member nation decides the penalty? (The one in which the spam is sent, or the one in which it is received?)
3) What does "full force" mean?
4) How many e-mails does it take to be classed as spamming? One? Ten? A million?
5) Who will be held responsible? The people who send the mail, or the company that sends the mail?
6) Why is this human rights?

If you can answer all of these questions to a suitable level, I will consider supporting your proposal.

1) What definition do you have for "products"?
This is up to the member nation to decide
2) Which member nation decides the penalty? (The one in which the spam is sent, or the one in which it is received?)
See above
3) What does "full force" mean?
As in how much resources are put toward this (aka a solve asap crime)
4) How many e-mails does it take to be classed as spamming? One? Ten? A million? Any.
5) Who will be held responsible? The people who send the mail, or the company that sends the mail? Both
6) Why is this human rights? IT is your right not to be solicted where you di not want to. Think do not call list.

1) What definition do you have for "products"?
This is up to the member nation to decide


So it can include political parties, product recall notices, safety warnings, general announcements etc....


2) Which member nation decides the penalty? (The one in which the spam is sent, or the one in which it is received?)
See above


That's not an answer. All you say above is that the member nation decides. So I could easily say "there is no pentaly for sending spam" in my nation. So anyone who sends spam in my nation is free to do what the will, even sending it out to other nations, and they can't do anything to me. Because while I will accept laws are different in every nation, I don't think anyone would accept that people in one nation can be punished under the laws of another if they have committed no crime inside the borders of that nation.


3) What does "full force" mean?
As in how much resources are put toward this (aka a solve asap crime)


Oh. So we don't have any penalty, and therefore we don't have to investigate?


4) How many e-mails does it take to be classed as spamming? One? Ten? A million? Any.


So you send one mail to one person, that person decides he doesn't want it, and suddenly the person who sent it is a criminal?


5) Who will be held responsible? The people who send the mail, or the company that sends the mail? Both


So the copmany tells you to send out the mail, or you get sacked, and suddenly you are a criminal? I get why that applies to war crimes and murder, but for sending e-mails? Are you kidding me?


6) Why is this human rights? IT is your right not to be solicted where you di not want to. Think do not call list.

Yeah - that's not a suitable justification. The do not call thing saves people behing phoned, because they have to stop what they are doing to answer the phone. Spam e-mail can be filtered and deleted with no effort on the part of the user. I have a spam filter set up, and now it barely bothers me at all.

I have no objection to this proposal as it relates to my nation. I just object to it on the grounds that it hasn't been thought through, there are massive loopholes that can pretty much make it pointless and generally spam and the internet should not be regulated by one body.

1. This is a horribly written and poorly thought out proposal. The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta will not support it until it is rewritten and submitted by someone else.

2. You needed to include something about excluding companies with prior relationships. My bank sending me info about new products and services is not the same thing as viagra and breast enlargement ads.

3. Some of my best friends make decent livings off spam. National governments can't possibly put a stop to it. You should think about, and write about, how the UN can help coordinate national activities. You should think about, and write about, how UN jurisdiction will prevent 419 scammers from evading national and regional law enforcement agencies. Be careful not to say anything that could be construed as a NSUN police force, though.

4. The elf makes good points. How a dragons and magic elven kingdom can be having a spam problem is beyong me, but address TilEnca's issues. Uber Penguins response to TilEnca's issue #2, for instance, indicated a complete misreading of the issue. If a Nigerian 419 scammer spams 500,000 Germans, does Nigeria or Germany get to decide the penalty?

1. This is a horribly written and poorly thought out proposal. The Oppressed Peoples of Asshelmetta will not support it until it is rewritten and submitted by someone else.
Why does it matter who writes it, as long as all bases are sufficiently covered?

This has been done better, and it was still killed by the Mods.

Freedom From SPAM Act (http://ns.goobergunch.net/wiki/index.php/Freedom_From_SPAM_Act_(removed)) (Removed by mods, Jan 04)

I think it was removed because it too was categorized as Human Rights. It's actually "Restraint of Trade", which doesn't really have a good category to go with.

I can't believe such a vague proposal need only 3 endoresments to become a resolution.
where are the mods when they are needed?

It's not really illegal, just poorly written.

It's not really illegal, just poorly written.
I know, but I thought it will be enough for deleting, as it happened in previous cases.

It failed to achieve quorum.

It failed to achieve quorum.
maybe now it will resumbitted with more "meat".

4. The elf makes good points. How a dragons and magic elven kingdom can be having a spam problem is beyong me, but address TilEnca's issues. Uber Penguins response to TilEnca's issue #2, for instance, indicated a complete misreading of the issue. If a Nigerian 419 scammer spams 500,000 Germans, does Nigeria or Germany get to decide the penalty?

Just out of curiousity, am I "the elf"?

Bottom of page one, I think that this would help everyone who is getting annoyed at the volume of spam that people get on a daily basis.

This resolution is poorly written, but apparently there is interest in it. Please give it some body, write it properly (use the UN resolution writing guide), and then it might make sense. It certainly is a UN issue, as spam is international.

Feel free to TG me if you have any questions, I'd be happy to help you out to make this a good resolution.

How about something that does not conflict with freedom of speech? Like 'freedom to use a spam blocker' or 'freedom of the delete key'.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

This is a good idea - but not feasible. Yes, there is interest in it because who wants spam? Other than really strange british people on the telly...

This would be another one of those proposals that makes you feel good, but won't come anywhere near accomplishing its goal. This doesn't even take into account the issues raised by everyone else.

One good way to cut down on spam is to (1) use a spam blocker; (2) stop going to the sex sites; and (3) stop clicking on those promos that say FREE, since we all know there is no such thing.

Forbidding spam does not conflict with free speech. It's "free speech", not "obliged listening". Everybody is allowed to have an opinion, but nobody has to listen to it. Free speech is often confused with freedom of abuse. So this draft (poorly written and fortunately not reaching quorum so far) has no technical of judicial objections as far as I am concerned.

One good way to cut down on spam is to (1) use a spam blocker; (2) stop going to the sex sites; and (3) stop clicking on those promos that say FREE, since we all know there is no such thing.

Spamming (sending unsollicited messages) is a crime in Groot Gouda. We believe that it is not the task of the recipient to block unwanted communication, but that the sender should take their responsibility when approaching people. This law was adopted after it became clear that salesmen were harvesting large amounts of e-mail addresses from the web, through viruses, etc. Tight laws have decreased the amount of Groot Gouda originating spam, though a lot still comes in from abroad. Even people never visiting a sex site or giving their address have fallen victim of spam, to the point where e-mail started becoming unusable.

OOC: I get 1500 spams a week without visiting sex sites, clicking on promos or leaving my e-mail address. Yes, it's on my website but that's for people wanting to contact me personally with a good reason; business is not a good reason, especially when someone tries to sell me a mortgage from the USA. All this junk means I have to waste time and money to prevent that unsollicited junk from coming in, therefor it is in effect roughly equal to thieving IMO.

Spamming (sending unsollicited messages) is a crime in Groot Gouda. We believe that it is not the task of the recipient to block unwanted communication, but that the sender should take their responsibility when approaching people. This law was adopted after it became clear that salesmen were harvesting large amounts of e-mail addresses from the web, through viruses, etc. Tight laws have decreased the amount of Groot Gouda originating spam, though a lot still comes in from abroad. Even people never visiting a sex site or giving their address have fallen victim of spam, to the point where e-mail started becoming unusable.

OOC: I get 1500 spams a week without visiting sex sites, clicking on promos or leaving my e-mail address. Yes, it's on my website but that's for people wanting to contact me personally with a good reason; business is not a good reason, especially when someone tries to sell me a mortgage from the USA. All this junk means I have to waste time and money to prevent that unsollicited junk from coming in, therefor it is in effect roughly equal to thieving IMO.

I agree and admit to being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. As you say, however, even with tighter laws, it still comes through whether from within your nation or not. As to it being thievery... what did they steal from you? Your time? Or are you talking about harvesting e-mail addresses? If so, why not concentrate on the origination of the issue -viruses. The problem with the resolution is how does one define spam? What is the difference between spam and advertisement? Why should advertisement through the mail (which operates by sending unsolicited information), on the television (unsolicited) and on the telephone (unsolicited) (assuming most nations still use 21st century communication equipment) be treated differently than advertisement on the internet? Isn't this a form of commercial discrimination?

Forbidding spam does not conflict with free speech. It's "free speech", not "obliged listening". Everybody is allowed to have an opinion, but nobody has to listen to it. Free speech is often confused with freedom of abuse. So this draft (poorly written and fortunately not reaching quorum so far) has no technical of judicial objections as far as I am concerned.
You don't have to read or take notice of spam. It isn't 'obligated listening' if you don't need to take a blind bit of notice of it.

Nobody will die if you press delete.

business is not a good reason

That is debatable.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

It was my first proposal, so please forgive me if it was poorly written. I will post a revised version soon, to adress your questions. Whatever you want me to ad, just say so.

Ok, here is an idea for it, that I hope this will answer some of your questions. "Those wishing to send e-mails to others, which advertise products without the consent of the indevedual that is reciving the e-mail, must first get consent" This could be the defintion of spam. Ideas?

Ok, here is an idea for it, that I hope this will answer some of your questions. "Those wishing to send e-mails to others, which advertise products without the consent of the indevedual that is reciving the e-mail, must first get consent" This could be the defintion of spam. Ideas?
1) How do you get consent.
2) If I was an individual would I have to get the same consent. After all, you may not want to hear from me.

Rose,
Acting UN representative,
The Black New World

Ok, here is an idea for it, that I hope this will answer some of your questions. "Those wishing to send e-mails to others, which advertise products without the consent of the indevedual that is reciving the e-mail, must first get consent" This could be the defintion of spam. Ideas?

So would you not have to send an e-mail to get the consent first? Which would be spam anyway?

Just out of curiousity, am I "the elf"?
Aren't you?

I thought you had the fantasy kingdom with elves and dragons and sorcerers.

Aren't you?

I thought you had the fantasy kingdom with elves and dragons and sorcerers.

I do (Elves, Dwarves and Humans). But I am human. If it helps my husband is an Elf :}

I agree and admit to being somewhat tongue-in-cheek. As you say, however, even with tighter laws, it still comes through whether from within your nation or not. As to it being thievery... what did they steal from you? Your time? Or are you talking about harvesting e-mail addresses?

They "steal" my resources, both in my time, in storage capacity, in cpu use. I don't want to pay to get commercial messages. Like I can protect my normal mail box by putting a sticker on saying that I don't want unaddressed commercial mailings, I should be able to have my inbox protected.

If so, why not concentrate on the origination of the issue -viruses.

That should be dealt with too, but it's a seperate issue because not all spammers get their e-mail addresses or zombies directly through viruses, but buy them from other sources. What needs to be done is give a clear signal to businesses that spamming (unsollicited commercial/bulk e-mail) is wrong, illegal and immoral.

The problem with the resolution is how does one define spam?

Unsollicited commercial and/or bulk e-mail.

What is the difference between spam and advertisement?

Spam need not be commercial, it is unsollicited.

Why should advertisement through the mail (which operates by sending unsolicited information), on the television (unsolicited) and on the telephone (unsolicited) (assuming most nations still use 21st century communication equipment) be treated differently than advertisement on the internet? Isn't this a form of commercial discrimination?

No. The difference is, that I pay very directly for advertisements via e-mail, but not for brochures, phone calls or TV ads. It is also more trivial to ignore tv ads for example than spam. That is why the people need extra protection.

I do (Elves, Dwarves and Humans). But I am human. If it helps my husband is an Elf :}
I didn't realize you were a woman either.

uh, has my delegate said anything inappropriate?

I didn't realize you were a woman either.

uh, has my delegate said anything inappropriate?

(smirk) I like the way you assume I am a woman just because I have a husband. (I am, but eh - I like playing with people's minds sometimes!)

And no - it's very hard to say anything inappropriate to me, if only because a) I have sat through Council Meetings, Town Hall Meetings and "meet the public" and everyone here is way more polite than the general public and b) (ooc) it's only a game :} and c) (back in character) misunderstandings occur, but they are hardly a reason to go to war about, or even get vaguely huffy.

How about an international do not spam list?

resubmitted with more accuracy.

resubmitted with more accuracy.

We're lazy. Please post the text here. If you seriously want to improve your proposal, it's also best to place it here for discussion, rather than submit it immediately. Because that makes it a simple yes/no decision, rather than here where we can actually help you.

I just thought of something that has parallels with a proposal i looked at earlier and had the same thought ( forget which one )
Whats to stop non UN nations from spamming UN nations?

ergo whats the point? ok no spam from UN Members but spam is not eradicated.

By the way i really really hate spam and gennerally i am for this measure.

President Murphy,
The Realm of Hibernia.

I would post it here butmy proposal magicly disappeard, with no deletion e-mail or anything.