Microsoft speaks out against New Zealand's new anti-spam law

Discussion in 'Computer Security' started by Imhotep, Aug 23, 2005.

  1. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke out
    against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could
    impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.

    Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?

    http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258&from=rss

    Im
     
    Imhotep, Aug 23, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Imhotep

    Max Burke Guest

    > Imhotep scribbled:
    > "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
    > spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation,
    > warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail
    > marketing'.


    > Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
    > http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258&from=rss


    There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
    company.....
    That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....

    --

    Replace the obvious with paradise.net to email me
    Found Images
    http://homepages.paradise.net.nz/~mlvburke
     
    Max Burke, Aug 23, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Max Burke wrote:

    >> Imhotep scribbled:
    >> "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
    >> spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation,
    >> warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail
    >> marketing'.

    >
    >> Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
    >> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258&from=rss

    >
    > There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
    > company.....
    > That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
    >


    ....how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about those same
    companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems from
    becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an "important
    thing"....

    As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...

    Im
     
    Imhotep, Aug 23, 2005
    #3
  4. Imhotep

    optikl Guest

    Imhotep wrote:
    > Max Burke wrote:


    >>
    >>There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
    >>company.....
    >>That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
    >>

    >
    >
    > ...how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about those same
    > companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems from
    > becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an "important
    > thing"....
    >
    > As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...
    >
    > Im


    There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the model
    that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool are
    customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies inspire
    customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places for
    employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago. The
    second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
    Microsoft employees care to comment?
     
    optikl, Aug 23, 2005
    #4
  5. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    optikl wrote:

    > Imhotep wrote:
    >> Max Burke wrote:

    >
    >>>
    >>>There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
    >>>company.....
    >>>That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> ...how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about those
    >> same companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems
    >> from becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an
    >> "important thing"....
    >>
    >> As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...
    >>
    >> Im

    >
    > There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the model
    > that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool are
    > customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies inspire
    > customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places for
    > employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago. The
    > second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
    > Microsoft employees care to comment?


    True. Speaking as a so called "*nix advocate". If they would just stick to
    the business model of "Make the best product at the best price" I would not
    criticize them. However, they will bend (or break) laws to ensure their
    dominance. They have long forgotten about their customers...and have to
    rely on illegal business practices to stay on top...


    They are even for spammers...ah but yes, "email marketers" have money. I bet
    many "email marketers" are also Microsoft business partners...

    Im
     
    Imhotep, Aug 23, 2005
    #5
  6. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:20:13 GMT, Imhotep <> wrote:

    <Snip>

    Take this to alt.microsoft.wingers

    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Aug 23, 2005
    #6
  7. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 12:20:13 GMT, Imhotep <> wrote:
    >
    > <Snip>
    >
    > Take this to alt.microsoft.wingers
    >
    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com


    Ah you're just bummed out because your demigod supports spammers...
     
    Imhotep, Aug 23, 2005
    #7
  8. Imhotep

    Dazz Guest

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:29:44 GMT, Imhotep <> wrote:

    >"Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke out
    >against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could
    >impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.
    >
    >Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
    >
    >http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258&from=rss


    Hmmm.

    According to Mr Hamlin (of M$):

    "He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    relationship with them."

    "This is so long as they label their e-mail as advertising, for
    example by inserting the code "ADV" at the start of the subject line,
    or "participate in an approved self-regulatory programme based on
    e-mail best practices". "

    lol - what a crock.

    Once again, it's a case of M$ dictating what it *thinks* is
    appropriate for the rest of the world.

    I agree with the NZ Communications Minister:

    "Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak
    and has been rejected."

    ""We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you
    have to opt out of spam?" "

    Exactly.

    Dazz

    >Im
     
    Dazz, Aug 24, 2005
    #8
  9. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Dazz wrote:

    > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:29:44 GMT, Imhotep <> wrote:
    >
    >>"Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke
    >>out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it
    >>could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.
    >>
    >>Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
    >>
    >>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258&from=rss

    >
    > Hmmm.
    >
    > According to Mr Hamlin (of M$):
    >
    > "He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    > people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    > relationship with them."
    >
    > "This is so long as they label their e-mail as advertising, for
    > example by inserting the code "ADV" at the start of the subject line,
    > or "participate in an approved self-regulatory programme based on
    > e-mail best practices". "
    >
    > lol - what a crock.
    >
    > Once again, it's a case of M$ dictating what it *thinks* is
    > appropriate for the rest of the world.
    >
    > I agree with the NZ Communications Minister:
    >
    > "Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak
    > and has been rejected."
    >
    > ""We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you
    > have to opt out of spam?" "
    >
    > Exactly.
    >
    > Dazz
    >
    >>Im


    Good points!

    -- Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, Aug 24, 2005
    #9
  10. Imhotep

    Winged Guest

    optikl wrote:
    > Imhotep wrote:
    >
    >> Max Burke wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>
    >>> There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
    >>> company.....
    >>> That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >> ...how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about
    >> those same
    >> companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems from
    >> becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an
    >> "important
    >> thing"....
    >>
    >> As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...
    >>
    >> Im

    >
    >
    > There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the model
    > that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool are
    > customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies inspire
    > customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places for
    > employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago. The
    > second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
    > Microsoft employees care to comment?


    To me it is a question of "who" Microsoft considers its most valuable
    customers. Apparently it is not the paying customers, but DRM
    advocates, and "advertisers" and their own interests (they do own the
    worlds largest movie archive and worlds 3rd largest studio and 2nd
    largest TV network).

    I have already considered the hardware DRM based approach that MS is now
    foisting indicating they have to because the "movie studios demand it"
    (indication of customer) before they will allow us the next generation
    of digital content. I calculate it will take about $500 in hardware
    modifications to break the protection.

    Additionally the broken content will be free of any DRM constraint.
    This would be illegal however the pirates I do not believe will have any
    issue with the limitation.

    I am just curious how many millions it will cost their paying customers,
    to protect the DRM advocates, on a scheme that won't work. Yes, it
    will require hardware modifications, but this behavior has always pushed
    the envelope. I expect Freenet and other similar technologies to
    blossom in the next decade completely changing the web as we know it
    today, and thwarting those who think they control it. It shall be fun to
    watch.

    Winged
     
    Winged, Aug 24, 2005
    #10
  11. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Winged wrote:

    > optikl wrote:
    >> Imhotep wrote:
    >>
    >>> Max Burke wrote:

    >>
    >>
    >>>>
    >>>> There are far more important things to hate in the world than a
    >>>> software company.....
    >>>> That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> ...how about major companies that stickup for spammers? How about
    >>> those same
    >>> companies that do not do much to protect their over priced systems from
    >>> becoming spyware magnets? Nope, I am content with this being an
    >>> "important
    >>> thing"....
    >>>
    >>> As for being a "*nix advocate" I am and I am proud of that...
    >>>
    >>> Im

    >>
    >>
    >> There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the model
    >> that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool are
    >> customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies inspire
    >> customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places for
    >> employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago. The
    >> second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
    >> Microsoft employees care to comment?

    >
    > To me it is a question of "who" Microsoft considers its most valuable
    > customers. Apparently it is not the paying customers, but DRM
    > advocates, and "advertisers" and their own interests (they do own the
    > worlds largest movie archive and worlds 3rd largest studio and 2nd
    > largest TV network).
    >
    > I have already considered the hardware DRM based approach that MS is now
    > foisting indicating they have to because the "movie studios demand it"
    > (indication of customer) before they will allow us the next generation
    > of digital content. I calculate it will take about $500 in hardware
    > modifications to break the protection.
    >
    > Additionally the broken content will be free of any DRM constraint.
    > This would be illegal however the pirates I do not believe will have any
    > issue with the limitation.
    >
    > I am just curious how many millions it will cost their paying customers,
    > to protect the DRM advocates, on a scheme that won't work. Yes, it
    > will require hardware modifications, but this behavior has always pushed
    > the envelope. I expect Freenet and other similar technologies to
    > blossom in the next decade completely changing the web as we know it
    > today, and thwarting those who think they control it. It shall be fun to
    > watch.
    >
    > Winged


    Excellent comments. I also agree. Most modern commercial inventions were
    invented based on customer need. However, now-a-days we are seeing
    companies dictate what customers want! Hummm....something is wrong with
    that. I see it going down like this. Microsoft and various other groups
    will team up to try to slow down and stall technologies other than the
    technologies that fit into their plan (Linux, etc) by pitching bogus IP
    laws, etc....Eventually, things will work out and MS will be left with a
    bad rep and unwanted software....

    Im
     
    Imhotep, Aug 24, 2005
    #11
  12. Imhotep

    Winged Guest

    Dazz wrote:
    > On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 03:29:44 GMT, Imhotep <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>"Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group spoke out
    >>against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation, warning that it could
    >>impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail marketing'.
    >>
    >>Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
    >>
    >>http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258&from=rss

    >
    >
    > Hmmm.
    >
    > According to Mr Hamlin (of M$):
    >
    > "He says businesses ought to be able to send unsolicited e-mail to
    > people even if they are unsure if they have a pre-existing business
    > relationship with them."
    >
    > "This is so long as they label their e-mail as advertising, for
    > example by inserting the code "ADV" at the start of the subject line,
    > or "participate in an approved self-regulatory programme based on
    > e-mail best practices". "
    >
    > lol - what a crock.
    >
    > Once again, it's a case of M$ dictating what it *thinks* is
    > appropriate for the rest of the world.
    >
    > I agree with the NZ Communications Minister:
    >
    > "Mr Cunliffe says Microsoft's proposed "opt out" approach is too weak
    > and has been rejected."
    >
    > ""We decided it's going to be opt-in. End of story. Why should you
    > have to opt out of spam?" "
    >
    > Exactly.
    >
    > Dazz
    >
    >
    >>Im

    >
    >


    Has anyone found this bill? This is the most sensible approach I have
    heard of.

    Advertisers don't pay for my bandwidth, I do, therefore I should be the
    one who asks to use it.

    I am curious if the law precludes someone requiring an opt in as part of
    a EULA. The law will not be effective unless they ensure explicit
    permission are separate from any software or hardware licensing
    otherwise everyone will be allowed to extend opt in with company and
    their business partners, which is not uncommon now.

    The opt in should be explicit and outside any other agreement.

    There should also be something that also constrains their (or their
    authorized business partners) the frequency of contact. I surly don't
    need 25 mails from the same entity for Viagra daily. Pretty sure I
    didn't need the first one.

    Winged
     
    Winged, Aug 24, 2005
    #12
  13. Imhotep

    Dazz Guest

    On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:19:16 +1200, "Max Burke"
    <> wrote:

    >> Imhotep scribbled:
    >> "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
    >> spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation,
    >> warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail
    >> marketing'.

    >
    >> Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
    >> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258&from=rss

    >
    >There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
    >company.....
    >That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....


    Whether or not someone is a *nix advocate doesn't have anything to do
    with it.

    I know numerous people who have a strong dislike of M$ for various
    reasons (bugs, security issues, anti-competitive behaviour, dirty
    trick campaigns, etc etc) and most of them have never even heard of
    Linux or any other *nix variant.

    M$ is a target for peoples dislike for a reason - and it's got nothing
    to do with being a *nix advocate.

    Dazz
     
    Dazz, Aug 24, 2005
    #13
  14. Imhotep

    optikl Guest

    Winged wrote:
    > optikl wrote:


    >>
    >> There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the
    >> model that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool
    >> are customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies
    >> inspire customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places
    >> for employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while ago.
    >> The second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third; any
    >> Microsoft employees care to comment?

    >
    >
    > To me it is a question of "who" Microsoft considers its most valuable
    > customers. Apparently it is not the paying customers, but DRM
    > advocates, and "advertisers" and their own interests (they do own the
    > worlds largest movie archive and worlds 3rd largest studio and 2nd
    > largest TV network).
    >
    > I have already considered the hardware DRM based approach that MS is now
    > foisting indicating they have to because the "movie studios demand it"
    > (indication of customer) before they will allow us the next generation
    > of digital content. I calculate it will take about $500 in hardware
    > modifications to break the protection.
    >
    > Additionally the broken content will be free of any DRM constraint. This
    > would be illegal however the pirates I do not believe will have any
    > issue with the limitation.
    >
    > I am just curious how many millions it will cost their paying customers,
    > to protect the DRM advocates, on a scheme that won't work. Yes, it
    > will require hardware modifications, but this behavior has always pushed
    > the envelope. I expect Freenet and other similar technologies to
    > blossom in the next decade completely changing the web as we know it
    > today, and thwarting those who think they control it. It shall be fun to
    > watch.
    >
    > Winged


    Well, you make some very keen observations. In the end, it's the paying
    customers who count. In the past, there were really few options for home
    users, or businesses. For example, 15 years ago, having a Mac was not a
    viable option within my business organization, so I got rid of the Mac's
    I owned. Today, there is no reason, financial or otherwise, for me not
    to be using a Mac. The price gap has narrowed considerably, for both
    software and hardware. I just recently purchased a new PowerBook and
    will replace all my Windows machines with Mac's in the near future. Or I
    may go FreeBSD. It's like with Broadband, when there is no competition,
    or it's not viable, you put up with the service they give you. But you
    wait until the time comes when you have a viable other option. In your
    examples above, it looks like Microsoft needs to remember "you dance
    with the one who brought you to the dance".
     
    optikl, Aug 24, 2005
    #14
  15. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:18:39 +1000, Dazz <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:19:16 +1200, "Max Burke"
    ><> wrote:
    >
    >>> Imhotep scribbled:
    >>> "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
    >>> spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation,
    >>> warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail
    >>> marketing'.

    >>
    >>> Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
    >>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258&from=rss

    >>
    >>There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
    >>company.....
    >>That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....

    >
    >Whether or not someone is a *nix advocate doesn't have anything to do
    >with it.
    >
    >I know numerous people who have a strong dislike of M$ for various
    >reasons (bugs, security issues, anti-competitive behaviour, dirty
    >trick campaigns, etc etc) and most of them have never even heard of
    >Linux or any other *nix variant.
    >
    >M$ is a target for peoples dislike for a reason - and it's got nothing
    >to do with being a *nix advocate.



    in this case it is, as the guy is always bleating about it and
    attacking anyone who says that MS is good, and the story
    is probably just that too.

    Thankfully nobody is burning heritics ... yet.
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Aug 24, 2005
    #15
  16. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 19:18:39 +1000, Dazz <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 23 Aug 2005 19:19:16 +1200, "Max Burke"
    >><> wrote:
    >>
    >>>> Imhotep scribbled:
    >>>> "Ryan Hamlin, head of Microsoft's Technology Care and Safety Group
    >>>> spoke out against New Zealand's proposed anti-spam legislation,
    >>>> warning that it could impinge on 'the amazing vehicle of e-mail
    >>>> marketing'.
    >>>
    >>>> Anyone wonder why Microsoft is so hated?
    >>>> http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=05/08/22/1717258&from=rss
    >>>
    >>>There are far more important things to hate in the world than a software
    >>>company.....
    >>>That is, if you're not a *nix 'advocate' of course.....

    >>
    >>Whether or not someone is a *nix advocate doesn't have anything to do
    >>with it.
    >>
    >>I know numerous people who have a strong dislike of M$ for various
    >>reasons (bugs, security issues, anti-competitive behaviour, dirty
    >>trick campaigns, etc etc) and most of them have never even heard of
    >>Linux or any other *nix variant.
    >>
    >>M$ is a target for peoples dislike for a reason - and it's got nothing
    >>to do with being a *nix advocate.

    >
    >
    > in this case it is, as the guy is always bleating about it and
    > attacking anyone who says that MS is good, and the story
    > is probably just that too.
    >
    > Thankfully nobody is burning heritics ... yet.
    > --
    > Jim Watt
    > http://www.gibnet.com


    Jim, I never attack anyone who says that Microsoft is "good" when they can
    back it up with data. Microsoft has it's place in things and when they do
    something right I will give them credit. Just the same when they do
    something wrong I will "attack" them.

    Now, when linux/BSD or open source does something wrong I will also point it
    out. And when they do something right I all also toss them praise.

    I believe this to be fair and reasonable.

    The problem I have with people like you is; you tend to not only believe but
    also defend the Microsoft propaganda machine. Instead, I would suggest that
    you be honest with yourself and the people you talk with.

    As for Microsoft I will continue to "attack" them for their business
    practices, for forgeting about their customers, for their illegal business
    maneuvers, etc, etc. When they cease so will I. Again, this is fair.

    Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, Aug 24, 2005
    #16
  17. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:17:46 GMT, Imhotep <> wrote:

    >Jim, I never attack anyone who says that Microsoft is "good" when they can
    >back it up with data.


    and yet you did in the thread I started about MS taking legal action
    against a spammer. As I've already said, I don't own shares in the
    company, but I do remember using other products before MS got
    going and they were also full of bugs. Even the best, IBM was
    continually releasing patches for the System/3 OS and the machines
    that followed it.

    At present nearly all my business involves machines running MS
    software, having dropped the clients using SCO products and the
    sole Linux user because its too much trouble The only guy who
    liked Macs died and they went in the bin.

    Now turning to what MS are actually advocating:

    "Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that
    businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases
    that they had already compiled to send out email.

    He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies
    would be able to email information about new products and services
    to customers, even if they had opted out of receiving email about
    other services they had bought from the company in the past. "

    That sounds reasonable to me.

    "Mr Hamlin's critique came as it emerged that the Government has
    significantly tightened its anti-spam bill, tabled in parliament
    late last month.

    Businesses would fall foul of the law by sending out just a single
    unsolicited email"

    And that sounds unreasonable, its very easy to send someone a
    single email by mistake.

    "Microsoft is keen to stamp out spam, but Mr Hamlin is concerned the
    bill as it stands could prevent businesses from sending out emails
    to people who had been their customers."

    I think what MS are actually talking about is a long way from
    backing professional spammers as you originally suggested,
    and articles in the online computer press are often written by
    people with an agenda too,


    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Aug 24, 2005
    #17
  18. Imhotep

    Imhotep Guest

    Jim Watt wrote:

    > On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:17:46 GMT, Imhotep <> wrote:
    >
    >>Jim, I never attack anyone who says that Microsoft is "good" when they can
    >>back it up with data.

    >
    > and yet you did in the thread I started about MS taking legal action
    > against a spammer. As I've already said, I don't own shares in the
    > company, but I do remember using other products before MS got
    > going and they were also full of bugs. Even the best, IBM was
    > continually releasing patches for the System/3 OS and the machines
    > that followed it.


    The spammer probably was not a "Microsoft Partner"...

    > At present nearly all my business involves machines running MS
    > software, having dropped the clients using SCO products and the
    > sole Linux user because its too much trouble The only guy who
    > liked Macs died and they went in the bin.


    Not sure what that has to do with anything but, playing along, my day job is
    at a major Fund company. Specifically, I work in a subsidy that does all
    the statical market research including stock market mathematical algorithm
    research. We are a 98% Linux company from the desktop to the servers. We
    are also a 19 Billion dollar company (that number is our contribution and
    does not count the parent company's contribution). Again, not really sure
    what this has to do with the original post....

    > Now turning to what MS are actually advocating:
    >
    > "Mr Hamlin says Microsoft would like to see the bill changed so that
    > businesses could be confident they could continue to use databases
    > that they had already compiled to send out email.


    This is spam technology 101. Where you think your email address is stored
    anyway?

    > He also wants definitions in the bill changed so that companies
    > would be able to email information about new products and services
    > to customers, even if they had opted out of receiving email about
    > other services they had bought from the company in the past. "


    <snip OK, I have read enough>

    A rose by any other name is still a rose and spam by any other name is still
    spam. In the article, and I qoute:

    He also suggests that CAN-SPAM has been effective in deterring spammers.
    From The Article: 'Though often criticized as too meek, US anti-spam
    legislation - which relies on people opting out of spam - has proved
    effective in supporting prosecutions and deterring spammers.

    Look at what he is saying:
    1) CAN SPAM has been effective???? Bullshit!
    2) We want to be able to spam because we (Microsoft) make money from it...so
    screw the people and everyone else...
    3) You will enjoy your daily SPAM because we (Microsoft) say you will

    Yet again, this is another case of Microsoft forgeting about their customers
    because they have teamed up, and are making money, from "marketing"
    companies that use SPAM...

    Are you really that blind to come rushing to the defense of a company that
    supports "marketers" that use spam to "market"? I remember you were the
    one, about 3 months ago, that was calling for a DEATH penalty for SPAMMERS.
    Hummmm...what changed Jim? Did you change your mind just because you found
    out that Microsoft supports SPAMMERS???? Are you really that bind and like
    to be lead around by the nose? Do you really believe in the unholy Gospel
    according to Microsoft? Are you really that naive?

    Open up your eyes...and stop being a hypocrite.

    -- Imhotep
     
    Imhotep, Aug 25, 2005
    #18
  19. Imhotep

    Winged Guest

    optikl wrote:
    > Winged wrote:
    >
    >> optikl wrote:

    >
    >
    >>>
    >>> There wouldn't be as many nix advocates had Microsoft followed the
    >>> model that makes great companies great. The three legs of the stool
    >>> are customer focus, market share and employee focus. Great companies
    >>> inspire customer loyalty, dominate market share and are great places
    >>> for employees to work. Microsoft got rid of the first leg a while
    >>> ago. The second leg is still strong. I have no idea about the third;
    >>> any Microsoft employees care to comment?

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> To me it is a question of "who" Microsoft considers its most valuable
    >> customers. Apparently it is not the paying customers, but DRM
    >> advocates, and "advertisers" and their own interests (they do own the
    >> worlds largest movie archive and worlds 3rd largest studio and 2nd
    >> largest TV network).
    >>
    >> I have already considered the hardware DRM based approach that MS is
    >> now foisting indicating they have to because the "movie studios demand
    >> it" (indication of customer) before they will allow us the next
    >> generation of digital content. I calculate it will take about $500 in
    >> hardware modifications to break the protection.
    >>
    >> Additionally the broken content will be free of any DRM constraint.
    >> This would be illegal however the pirates I do not believe will have
    >> any issue with the limitation.
    >>
    >> I am just curious how many millions it will cost their paying
    >> customers, to protect the DRM advocates, on a scheme that won't
    >> work. Yes, it will require hardware modifications, but this behavior
    >> has always pushed the envelope. I expect Freenet and other similar
    >> technologies to blossom in the next decade completely changing the web
    >> as we know it today, and thwarting those who think they control it. It
    >> shall be fun to watch.
    >>
    >> Winged

    >
    >
    > Well, you make some very keen observations. In the end, it's the paying
    > customers who count. In the past, there were really few options for home
    > users, or businesses. For example, 15 years ago, having a Mac was not a
    > viable option within my business organization, so I got rid of the Mac's
    > I owned. Today, there is no reason, financial or otherwise, for me not
    > to be using a Mac. The price gap has narrowed considerably, for both
    > software and hardware. I just recently purchased a new PowerBook and
    > will replace all my Windows machines with Mac's in the near future. Or I
    > may go FreeBSD. It's like with Broadband, when there is no competition,
    > or it's not viable, you put up with the service they give you. But you
    > wait until the time comes when you have a viable other option. In your
    > examples above, it looks like Microsoft needs to remember "you dance
    > with the one who brought you to the dance".



    Sounds like Apple may be supporting the new hardware restrictions too.
    The too want to protect their digital content. I wonder if this is
    related to Apple moving to the X86 platform.

    http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/hdcp-vista.ars

    Of course Apple has media interests too. I suspect they may just
    eventually turn off playback at some future point in time the lower
    resolutions. I wager the how to will be posted long before the turn off
    the low res content.

    Winged
     
    Winged, Aug 25, 2005
    #19
  20. Imhotep

    Jim Watt Guest

    On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 23:08:22 GMT, Imhotep <> wrote:

    >A rose by any other name is still a rose and spam by any other name is still
    >spam. In the article, and I qoute:


    clearly we read different articles.

    However if the Microsoft objection is as I quoted, then its
    reasonable
    --
    Jim Watt
    http://www.gibnet.com
     
    Jim Watt, Aug 25, 2005
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Ed Mullikin

    Anti-spam law arests

    Ed Mullikin, Dec 12, 2003, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    465
    d w a c o n
    Dec 14, 2003
  2. Daniel Rocha

    (update) Protest against CPE law

    Daniel Rocha, May 18, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    480
    Helen
    May 19, 2006
  3. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    780
  4. Jerry

    New Zealand anti-spam bill

    Jerry, Dec 15, 2005, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    289
    Robert Cooze
    Dec 20, 2005
  5. ~misfit~

    "New Zealand gets insane copyright law"

    ~misfit~, Feb 21, 2009, in forum: NZ Computing
    Replies:
    65
    Views:
    1,389
    ~misfit~
    Feb 23, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page