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

"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 scribbled:

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

 

<Snip>

Take this to alt.microsoft.wingers

 

Ah you're just bummed out because your demigod supports spammers...

 

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

 

Good points!

-- Imhotep

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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".

 

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, 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

 

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,

 

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

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....

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

<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

 

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

 

clearly we read different articles.

However if the Microsoft objection is as I quoted, then its
reasonable