Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Bans Mobile Phone Spam

Posted by michael on from the you-don't-have-mail dept.

Argyle writes "News.com is reporting that California has banned the spamming of pagers and mobile phones with unwanted text messages."

119 comments

  1. Finally, someone had to do it by Sir+Bard · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I just got one of these calls on my phone and it irked me to no end. I hope there will be legislation against email spam soon too.

    --

    sir bard
  2. First Post by MooseGuy529 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    That's very good--I don't live in CA but I have gotten spammed a couple of times on a cell phone.

    Keep at it!

    --Tom

    --

    Tired of free iPod sigs? Subscribe to my blacklist

    1. Re:First Post by nexex · · Score: 2

      this reminds of when I get a new cell phone not too long ago, who ever had the number previously had every 'alert' imaginable mailed to his phone. The company (verizon) was unable to stop the flood of news and weather, courtesy of msn, i was recieving and had to issue me a new number.

      --
      Winter 2010: With Glowing Hearts
    2. Re:First Post by babtrek · · Score: 1

      Now only if they could ban telemarketers, and email spam the world would be a better place. All of us will be so much happier that we dont awnser the phone just to get some one annoying us and wasting our lives. Also it would be nice to see a nation wide anti-cellphone spam ban, but calif. was a great start.

  3. Not just text messages... by therealmoose · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The article also says that he signed bills to fight junk fax and expidiate do not call lists. Sounds like a great step forward for privacy and anti-stupidity laws!

    1. Re:Not just text messages... by srw · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I wonder how it deals with cross-border spam. That still seems to me to be the biggest problem to deal with.

    2. Re:Not just text messages... by packeteer · · Score: 1

      IANAL but i think it would make it illegal to spam from another state but from another country might be difficult to enforce.

      --
      unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
    3. Re:Not just text messages... by axxackall · · Score: 1
      This problem is much bigger than just a spam. We beging to live in the world of global technologies and global markets. Global here means international. How are you going to enforce anything internationally when the powerest country in the world ignores International Crime Court?

      All such laws will fail until we'll have a *WORKING* and international legal system. Better spend resource on it, rather than on local-wide legal "patches".

      --

      Less is more !
  4. Known Hosts by messiertom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Why not make messages only be accepted from known "hosts" (phone numbers)? Rather like /etc/hosts.allow, but for mobile phones.

    Does such a system exist?

    1. Re:Known Hosts by quackPOT · · Score: 1

      Try explaining the concept to the end users. Your idea would only open a nightmare of support issues and generate many more calls to the help desk/customer support.

    2. Re:Known Hosts by messiertom · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Simple, it's only a few steps:

      1) Go to your menu
      2) Go to "Instant Messaging" (or whatever it's called)
      3) Scroll down to "Allow List"
      4) Scroll to "Add"
      5) Add the phone number of the cell-phone you wish to have call you.

      You could even just have it accept messages from all users, and have this "allow list" be an "advanced user" feature. It would of course, all be documented somewhere.

    3. Re:Known Hosts by quackPOT · · Score: 1

      What about all the phones that just get simple emails and don't have/use IM? I get a random spam once in a blue moon via myphonenumber@myphonehost.com. There is nothing in the menu to allow for blocking that stuff (or IM for that matter)

    4. Re:Known Hosts by messiertom · · Score: 1

      Exactly - what I'm pushing for is an implementation of this sort of thing.

    5. Re:Known Hosts by quackPOT · · Score: 1

      good luck

    6. Re:Known Hosts by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      NTT Docomo have been using this sort of system for about a year. Basically it allows 3 levels:

      1. Allow email from all domains + mobile phones.
      2. Allow email from a user list of domains (slashdot.com etc..) + mobile phones.
      3. Allow email from mobile phones only

      I use the 2nd method, I have a 5 digit @docomo address and have never had a single spam.

    7. Re:Known Hosts by singularity · · Score: 2

      it would be really nice to have an option to only recieve messages from phone numbers stored in your phone's phone book.

      My Samsung SCH-3500 allows for different rings based on whether the caler has CallerID or not. I would like to be able to change the ring type (OR VOLUME) based on whether it is in the phone book (the phone already looks the number up to see if it has a listing for that number).

      Seems trivial to implement.

      --
      - (c) 2018 Hank Zimmerman
  5. Everyone! by $0+31337 · · Score: 3, Funny

    I just wanted to invite everyone to use my brand new web site www.spamcalifornianscellphones.com to send out any ads for your compan... wait... awwwww shit.

  6. State-law system. by Fantanicity · · Score: 4, Interesting


    So what does this ban?

    Californians in California spamming other Californians in California?
    Californians in California spamming other Californians anywhere?
    Californians in California spamming anyone in California?
    Californians in California spamming anyone anywhere?
    Californians anywhere spamming other Californians in California?
    Californians anywhere spamming anyone in California?
    Anyone in California spamming Californians in California?
    Anyone anywhere spamming Californians in California?
    Anyone in California spamming anyone in California?
    Anyone in California spamming anyone anywhere?

    And several other permutations?

    1. Re:State-law system. by *xpenguin* · · Score: 5, Funny

      And several other permutations?

      No, I think you got every single one.

    2. Re:State-law system. by saskboy · · Score: 1

      Obviously the only posibilities are spam ending [passing through] or begining in California, and the chrages are only valid in the state of CA.

      --
      Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
    3. Re:State-law system. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ok... somebody's gettin metamoderated.

  7. California Laws by z_gringo · · Score: 1, Troll

    Here is another example of well-meaning, yet relatively irrelevant laws being passed. California seems to be really good at that, although some of their "unusual" laws seem to work out quite nicely.

    Did I just say "relatively irrelevant"?

    --
    -- -- Warning. Do not stare directly at the sun.
    1. Re:California Laws by messiertom · · Score: 1

      Yes, but I thought you said "relevantly irrelevant" at first. :)

    2. Re:California Laws by fmaxwell · · Score: 4, Informative

      Here is another example of well-meaning, yet relatively irrelevant laws being passed.

      I disagree. This is a valuable, pro-active attempt to keep Californians from being forced to pay for spam sent to their cell phones and pagers.

      Remember that, unlike the Internet, there are long-distance charges to call cell phones from out of area. Since spammers are bottom feeders that look for ways to pay nothing for their advertising, the vast majority of the spam would come from in-state. Thus, there would be no question of jurisdiction, extradition, etc. in most cases.

    3. Re:California Laws by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No kidding. Irrelevant? I'm in CA and I just got a cell phone, and I can see the relevance a mile away.

    4. Re:California Laws by EvilStein · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Right, except that you don't get charged long distance when it's a text message.
      Some carriers charge per text message. Verizon and ATTWS are the only two that I can recall that do not charge you for incoming text messages, and I might be wrong about Verizon...

    5. Re:California Laws by groke · · Score: 1

      Verizon charges me 2 cents to receive a message, and 10 to send one. they also have "monthy plans" which are packages of 100 (send or receive) for $1.99 or something like that.

      I signed up about 3 months ago, some of their older calling plans may have included SMS-type service free of charge, but I don't know

  8. Note to self... by extagboy · · Score: 5, Funny

    Stop planned cell phone spamming campaign and instead walk up to people with bullhorn explaining how they can win free stuff and save thousands on their mortgage.

    1. Re:Note to self... by mickwd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Will you be walking up to guys on the street with a bullhorn and asking: "Sir, I can tell you might be interested in having a larger penis. Or how about some cheap viagra ? Wanna see some naked teens ?"

    2. Re:Note to self... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Yeah- because thats just as cheap and scalable as spam.

  9. sounds like a good opportunity by NotAnotherReboot · · Score: 1

    this sounds like an excellent opportunity for me to sell legal services and products via cell phone messages to make sure this law works as it should, obviously I would have an opt-out number to call just in case you don't want to hear about these various services.

  10. Skepticism Time by Coffee+Warlord · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Is this really going to change anything? How many laws do we have either in creation or already existing vs email spam? Has the amount of spam lessened?

    How easy is it for a spammer (by any market) to just move their base of operations to another area, where there are no such laws? How are you going to enforce this?

    Really, I could declare a ban on any obnoxious thing in our world, and god knows there are plenty of such things. Enforcing most of them would be an absolute nightmare, assuming anyone even bothers to try.

    1. Re:Skepticism Time by silverhalide · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Unlike spam, which uses easiyl forged e-mail headers making it near impossible to trace, text messenging goes through the phone system and CAN be traced back to the orginiator rather trivially. I'm assuming SMS can't be easily forged. This makes such a law much much easier to enforce, as the phone company can simply look to see where the messages are coming from, and make it easier to fine the appropriate people.

    2. Re:Skepticism Time by Fantanicity · · Score: 1

      SMS can be traced ... until people start running open relays

    3. Re:Skepticism Time by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      Then you just charge the owners of open relays. In all technicality if you relay spam then you are also sending spam.

      Its possible to setup redudant servers that are not completely open [in the sense anyone can send from it without a priori knowledge]

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
    4. Re:Skepticism Time by cmallinson · · Score: 1
      Unlike spam, which uses easiyl forged e-mail headers making it near impossible to trace, text messenging goes through the phone system and CAN be traced back to the orginiator rather trivially.

      In order to send a text message to my pager or cell phone, you just need to send an email to 5555551234@text.myphonecompany.com and it comes through as a text message. So forged headers would work just as well here. I make sure that I don't give out that address to anyone, but it would not be hard to send a message out to all known cellular exchanges within my area code.

    5. Re:Skepticism Time by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      The spammers will just move to las vegas or some place just outside the califorian border. Here in the Vegas there are hundreds of companies that hack the phone system so those with caller id's can not track them. My girlfriend use to work at a catalog company and telemarketed. I do wonder how they do it. I have caller-id and can not track down spammers. Alot of states have numbers we can dial to block out the spammers but since they hire hackers to find work-arounds, they do not work. My guess is all the californian spam companies will just move across the border and continue to spam as normal.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
  11. How will they regulate this? by Lardmonster · · Score: 1
    Sure, it's a fine idea. I can't spam on the mobile, even though it's switched off most of the time.

    But how will they regulate this? How will they dentify the offenders?

    Nice idea, but probably unworkable unfortunately :-(

    --
    The more advanced the technology, the more open it is to primitive attack
    1. Re:How will they regulate this? by Lardmonster · · Score: 1
      Arse - that should have read "I can't stand spam on the mobile..."

      [Sorry - I'm rather pissed]

      --
      The more advanced the technology, the more open it is to primitive attack
    2. Re:How will they regulate this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Simple: after you get spam, you will report sender to the authorities.

  12. That's Just Special by zentec · · Score: 3


    The article did not state the penalties involved if you are guilty of spamming pagers and cell phones, but the sad fact is that I'm sure they are woefully inadequate.

    In Michigan, there's a law on the books concerning junk faxes. Yes, it's illegal to send unsolicited faxes of any sort in the state of Michigan. The penalty? $500 or the cost of the supplies used in receiving the fax *which ever is less*.

    C'mon, what a toothless law.

    Spam, junk faxes all fall into the "weather" category in as much as "everyone complains about the weather, but no one seems to do anything about it". Well fellow consumers, unlike the weather, you *can* do something about it.

    It's quite simple. Don't do business with companies that engage in such practices. Let them know, and vote with your wallet.

    Unfortunately, sheeple continue to tolerate practices that they readily acknowledge as annoying.

    Vote with your wallet.

    1. Re:That's Just Special by kaxman · · Score: 0

      I do. Although we've reached a level of saturation in this country that's gotten us pretty much to the point where people don't even SEE advertisements, especially online. I don't know...I just can't see people actually clicking on ads, or responding to unsolicited mail...do they? I don't understand people who do; hell, I can't even envision it...

      --
      Everyone on slashdot has a journal.
    2. Re:That's Just Special by wik · · Score: 1

      Does the cost of supplies include the fax machine or computer that is receiving the fax? Or is it just the consumable supplies?

      --
      / \
      \ / ASCII ribbon campaign for peace
      x
      / \
    3. Re:That's Just Special by balloonhead · · Score: 2
      It'd be interesting if someone argued that receipt of a junk fax cost them over $500 (otherwise the law would be a little pointless with "whichever is less" - should be "whichever is more".

      You could easily argue that while the cost of: paper and toner for one fax is trivial, the cost of replacing paper and toner, man hours reading the fax, electricity, man hours deciding the fax is spam, deleting it, reporting it to the authorities, going through the legal process thereafter, maintainence of fax machine and a thousand other tiny things (apart from the man-hours and wasted productivity thing which could be quite large) would add up to a hefty sum (at east $500) and then the law might have some bite.

      --
      This idea was invented by Shampoo.
  13. Great First Step! by philovivero · · Score: 2

    This is a great first step. I hope the government has the balls to ban email spam, too.

    I want an email spam law that allows me to charge for equipment, storage, and my time used to stop the spam. Since I'm a DBA, that should come to roughly $1,000 per spam, give or take a couple hundred dollars.

    --
    fifth sigma, inc.
    1. Re:Great First Step! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heh, what are they going to start the National Spam Control Center, and have someone read each email for me to decide if its spam or not? I hope not. Mac OS X's Mail.app does an awesome job of filtering junk mail. I'd imagine there are similar programs for other platforms. And if not..well..yet another reason to switch@!

  14. Email shall use whitelists by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

    Barring some major architectural changes, I'm strongly suspecting that eventually email is going to be an opt-in service, where each user has a whitelist of people allowed to email him, just as some messaging clients do today.

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:Email shall use whitelists by digitalsushi · · Score: 3, Interesting

      you're absolutely right. some of us implement this with procmail and various other filters already. it works 100% of the time. it is the future. now i'm going to spoil it. we'll all spend more time on keeping the white lists current than deleting spam.

      --
      slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
    2. Re:Email shall use whitelists by 0x0d0a · · Score: 2

      We'll have easy to manage stuff. How long do you spend managing your IM client's whitelist? Manually writing procmail scripts takes much longer...

      And I could see a web of trust, if not as peer-based as PGP, at least a hierarchical one.

      --
      May we never see th
    3. Re:Email shall use whitelists by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I do a similar thing with the mail filters on my client. First, I match the mail addresses I know and sort them to the proper folder. Then, instead of deleting all other messages, I match them against words in the subject line or sender that are synonymous with junk. Every time a spam gets through, I pick out a particular word and add it to the filter.

      It's gotten so good that even though 60% of my email is spam, I rarely see any of it, and most legitimate email that is from unrecognized addresses still gets through.

      It would be interesting if I could keep track of which words got matched, e.g. 70% matched the keyword "viagara", 20% matched "mortgage", etc.

  15. I'VE GOT IT! by Have+Blue · · Score: 2, Funny

    I'll start my own business registering cell phones in California and selling them nationwide! Oh, and I've also patented this idea.

  16. um, ok... by jpellino · · Score: 2

    if it's as effective as the ban on junk faxes, then who cares?

    --
    "Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
    1. Re:um, ok... by the_quark · · Score: 2

      Actually, it looks like they fixed the fax law in California, too. The fax law he signed basically undoes the CA fax law (which was awful), which replaces it with the Federal version (which is tougher).

      I wish I could find some details on the penalties for the phone spam law, though. I currently get about one phone spam a month (usually at 4am, of course).

      Interesting question: If they spam my phone's email address, can I get them for the anti-phone-message violation even though spam isn't prohibited? If so, it might be worth getting a throwaway phone just to go after the spammers...

  17. You missed: by 0x0d0a · · Score: 3, Funny

    Anyone anywhere spamming Californians anywhere.

    Though I think it's a safe bet to say that it doesn't cover it.

    --
    May we never see th
    1. Re:You missed: by loxosceles · · Score: 1

      No, that's not covered. States don't have some magical jurisdiction over events just because they involve someone who has a residence in the State. Only sovereigns (like the U.S.) have jurisdiction over citizens when they're outside the country.

  18. In other news, ... by fire-eyes · · Score: 1

    In other news, congress passed a law which prohibits spam via email and faxes.

    --
    -- Note: If you don't agree with me, don't bother replying. I won't read it.
    1. Re:In other news, ... by pediddle · · Score: 1

      Are you joking, or do you have a link? If you aren't joking, then I'm sure we'd all appreciate some more information. If you are joking, then, um, I don't get it..

  19. Mod me up: on-topic comment below by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Moblie Phone Spam

  20. Sounds good, but enforcement will be tough by igotmybfg · · Score: 1

    I get tons of shit in my inbox right now, and I can't trace most of it. BNCs, forged headers, anonymous proxies. It is basically impossible to determine where an email really came from if the sender is knowledgeable and doesn't want you to know. So, like the the laws in Virginia that make porn illegal if it passes through any pipe or computer in the state, these new laws are technically uunenforceable. So while it is a step in the right direction, it is still not really effective.

    1. Re:Sounds good, but enforcement will be tough by maunleon · · Score: 1

      Submit it to Spamcop.net. As a bonus, it will do the analysis of the email for you (if you submit it over the web instead of email).

      And you will be doing the rest of us a favor.

  21. you mean to tell me... by xo0m · · Score: 1

    ...that you can't get spam on ur mobile phone from other states? if only all states enforced this it would actually make a difference.

    1. Re:you mean to tell me... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      when is that wonderful ham company going to stand up for its rights and sue everyone for abusing their GOOD NAME in the description of junk mail. Really people.

    2. Re:you mean to tell me... by Fantanicity · · Score: 1

      We do not object to use of this slang term to describe UCE

  22. Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? by Micah · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I have a Nokia 8250 with AT&T, and I've only gotten one or two "spams" from AT&T itself. Doesn't seem like it's a huge problem at this point...

    1. Re:Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? by myspys · · Score: 1, Informative

      yes,
      but guess it depends on which network you're on and in which country you live in.

      know that vodafone here in the uk are SCARILY evil when it comes to sms-spam.

    2. Re:Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? by dotgod · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maybe it's not a problem at this point...but "[Gov.] Davis said he endorsed the plan because he didn't want unsolicited messages on mobile phones to reach the same level of mayhem that spam e-mails have." The whole point is to nip it in the bud.

    3. Re:Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? by dgulbran · · Score: 1

      And that is why it should be banned now... you would rather wait until your phone is littered with hundreds of Spam messages to do something? Kinda like e-mail...

      --
      The world won't end in darkness, it'll end in family fun, with Coca-cola clouds behind a Big Mac sun.
    4. Re:Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      On Cingular I get approx 2 a month.

    5. Re:Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      None so far with T-mobile, but had an annoying "message from Catherine Zeta-Jones" once when trying to cheeck voicemail. Hanging up before it kicked in, then redialing voicemail, seemed to get rid of it.

    6. Re:Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? by Billly+Gates · · Score: 2

      I get around 10 a week. Almost all recordings. I live in spam capital las vegas where the laws are the weakest so perhaps that is the reason. It is out of control here.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    7. Re:Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? by ColaMan · · Score: 2

      I've only ever gotten one piece of spam on my phone in Australia.

      Telstra (an .au phone co.) got into some trouble when they sent a pre-recorded voice message to all their customers about some crap new network feature they added... it wouldn't have been too interesting, except they also *charge* you for using the voicemail service.

      So, about 800,000 people get a voicemail message, and spend 20c individually to get it , only to find out it's just spam from the damn phone company. 800,000 people grumbling, "f***ing sleazy ripoff telstra!", had quite an effect. Made it into the TV news a few days in a row, and Telstra got a smack and a fine from the ACCC (.au's consumer watchdog) and was forced to issue grovelling apologies and a refund.

      First and last case of Phone spam in Australia it seems.

      Yes , this is a little off-topic, and probably only applies if you get charged for receiving messages (CompuServe, anyone?) , but I thought I'd mention it anyway.

      --

      You are in a twisty maze of processor lines, all alike.
      There is a lot of hype here.
  23. Keep at it by 0x0d0a · · Score: 1, Troll

    Keep at it! ...finish getting rid of those outside irritations and band cell phones entirely!

    YACH -- Yet Another Cell Hater

    --
    May we never see th
  24. rant... by Cyno01 · · Score: 1
    please, please dont use the term anti-stupidity laws, every day more and more common sense is being replaced by laws, and if theres one thing most people need more of, its common sense, people will asume if theres no law against it, it must not be bad or bad for them, my big example is the guy whos suing the fast food chains becuase he got fat, this guy deserves to have a massive cornary episode and be taken out of the gene pool if hes so stupid as to think eating burgers and fries every day and sitting on his ass isn't gonna make him fat, c'mon, do we really need a law requiring the food industry to tell us if we eat a lot of their products and dont excersice were gonna get even fatter, we need to use our heads, not the lawbooks

    /end_rant

    --
    "Sic Semper Tyrannosaurus Rex."
    1. Re:rant... by tomstdenis · · Score: 1

      There are two sides to this

      a) I do stupid things then sue the provides for my inability to control myself

      b) Taking advantage of the lack of laws to exploit unwilling others.

      So suing tabacco [while funny and overall product] falls under the former while sending out mass amounts of spam because its not illegal is the latter.

      Tom

      --
      Someday, I'll have a real sig.
  25. Forget SPAM laws... by dmadole · · Score: 1

    I am still waiting for them to share with the rest of the states their apparently endless knowledge of "substances known to the State of California to cause cancer."

  26. What about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > spamming of pagers and mobile phones

    What about cellular phones?

  27. Re:Tracking SMS messages is very easy to bypass by justMichael · · Score: 1

    OK, so if I send a message that goes through here and I have passed through say here how are you going to track the origin again??

  28. obligatory by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in a related story, the names of convicted spammers will be stored in a database purchased for roughly 1 gajillion dollars

  29. email gateways by Cyberop5 · · Score: 1

    I have an email forwarding setup so one can easily e-mail an address rather than knowing my phone number and provider. There is no way to know that its an SMS address. What kind of reward/compensation can i look forward to when i do start receiving spam? Is it even covered? I already get a newsletter from the email fwding provider that i don't want, and there is no way to have myself removed since the email gets cropped with the 160 char limit.

    --
    Urgo: "I want to live. I want to experience the universe and I want to eat pie!"
    Jack: "Who doesn't??"
  30. Yet another step in the right direction... but... by HaloZero · · Score: 2

    They could still send you messages. I live in New York state, and, with our new telemarketer "do-not-call list" (circa 2000), the spammers still have the option to call us to try and make appointments, rather than outright selling their product. Just because they can't call to solicite their wares, they can still call to set up appointments to do the same. Which is lame. Very, very lame. I know that the frequency and magnitude of each call from each company is still increasing, atleast to my house, even with being on said list.

    Spam should remain where it belongs; in the can, and on the shelf. Not in my face.

    --
    Informatus Technologicus
  31. When will other states chime in? by LowAmmoWarning · · Score: 1

    The question is when will other states follow this? And what are the consequences of companies that do spam your cell phone with text messages? How will the average consumer be able to retaliate for the damages or money they have to pay for the text messages? Will it cost the average consumer too much money just to penalize companies for their transgressions when they do leave spamming text messages? In essence... is it really enforcable?

    --
    We could all benefit from my education.
  32. The bills' origins by minesweeper · · Score: 1
    According to the article from the San Francisco Chronicle,
    "The measure banning unsolicited text messages to cell phones and pagers emerged after Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, read about the case of Rodney Joffe, who had been interrupted during a performance of "Riverdance" by a text message advertising new mortgage rates."
    So, while spam messages on cell phones are still fairly rare, they are happening, and it was only a matter of time before it would have gotten out of hand. Links to the text of the bills Gov. Davis signed are below. How the state actually plans on enforcing the part on spam emails is anybody's guess.

    SB 1560 - This bill creates a statewide "Do Not Call" list to be maintained by the attorney general.
    AB 1769 - Here is the bill making it a crime to send unsolicited text messages to cell phones or pagers.
    AB 2944 - Here is the bill closing a loophole in CA's junk fax law, and decreeing that all spam emails include "ADV:" at the beginning of the subject line or "ADV:ADLT" in the case of adult material.

    1. Re:The bills' origins by Registered+Coward+v2 · · Score: 2

      of Rodney Joffe, who had been interrupted during a performance of "Riverdance" by a text message advertising new mortgage rates."

      Sounds like good targeted marketing - anyone watching Riverdance probably has the right IQ to fall for a spammer's pitch.

      --
      I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
    2. Re:The bills' origins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this guy's cell phone turned on during a performance?

    3. Re: The bills' origins by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
      Unfortunately the SF Chronicle's article inaccurately also claims that
      " Unlike with e-mail spam, however, consumers end up paying to read unsolicited ads sent to fax machines, cell phone and pagers, since many people pay per-message fees,and fax owners must buy paper, toner and phone lines."
      If this distinction is supposed to make anny sense, one has to wonder since when Internet connectivity comes for free.

      BTW, mobile spam may be rare right now where mobile messaging has just been introduced only recently, but figures from Japan where the e-mail address has been enabled on most mobile phones for a while already show to what heights that tide would rise:

      "Of the 900 million messages that go through DoCoMo's servers each day, 880 million (98%) are spam, according to the company."
    4. Re:The bills' origins by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Anyone who's watching Riverdance and leaves their cell-phone on you mean...

      not that i like Riverdance but i hope the audience kicked the s*** out of that guy, just in case he ever attends a performance i'm at in the future - he'll already have learned his lesson

  33. No More Crazy Californians by OffTheRack · · Score: 1

    I feel odd about this, but California is making sense. First they rule that programmers don't have to flip burgers for a living once they leave a technology employer, now this.

    I guess I should say kudos.

  34. A way out? Never. by paja · · Score: 1

    I suppose, that Operator can check IMEI and subscriber number on its SMS gateway, but this needs an integration of customer helpdesk (to report spam) and SMS gw staff (to ban it).

    The other way how to spam is to go thru e-mail2sms gateways - these could be easily checked by operator (ordb etc.) and via customer helpdesk centre.

    And here we have a problem no law can solve: my mobile operator spams me with ton of messages regarding any stupid marketing action (which I do not want to know of), but I've subscribed to interesting mail list (active police speed radar places via sms in realtime, nice) via email and this is filtered out as spam. And worse, any host used to forward these messages is banned from the network.

    - the result: Do NOT choose T-Mobile anywhere in Europe.

    I've made a change recently, but:

    Still I get a TON OF SPAM from my own mobile operator. Do You think, that this is the law, that will provide anyone from stoping mobile operator from spamming its customers?

    Have You read the "EULAs" (:-)? Something like: "...customer agrees to receive occasional messages pointing out new features of our glorious network?..." - can the law force operator not to send spam to the customer, who explicitly wants it?

    --
    paja

  35. T-Mobile can filter text messages now by lkk17 · · Score: 1

    T-Mobile customers can set up filters for their text messages on the company's web site (click on "My T-Mobile"). You can have messages blocked, forwarded to an email address, or accepted on your handset.

  36. Re: Mobile devices receiving e-mail spam by D4C5CE · · Score: 1
    This is the very reason, as outlined e.g. by Commissioner Liikanen on November 12, 2001,
    "The sender cannot know whether a message will be received on a mobile or fixed terminal because of the convergence.
    That is a technological fact.
    Banning unsolicited commercial SMS messages while allowing unsolicited electronic messages based on other technologies is therefore not a workable solution."
    which led to the widely-acclaimed decision to outlaw unsolicited communications in all kinds of electronic media in the "model anti-spam law" now in force throughout Europe as Article 13 of Directive 2002/58/EC.
  37. California is ahead by phorm · · Score: 1

    Seems that California tends to lead the way for many controversial tech/legal issues, for better or worse. It's nice to see that this round is a definitive win for the good guys. Hope they make the same decision up here in BC. I haven't gotten cellspam yet, but I'm expecting it to start soon. At 10c/message, they would be a lot worse than just spam email.

  38. Maybe CA wouldn't have this problem... by Guppy06 · · Score: 2

    ... if they just passed some decent privacy legislation. Whoops!

  39. Does it matter if anyone actually gets much spam?! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    "Doesn't seem like it's a huge problem at this point..."

    Neither were Usenet and e-mail spam in 1994, before Canter&Siegel and "Spamford" Wallace started "doing business online".

    Where there are no marginal costs that stop the senders, nothing keeps the number of advertisements from skyrocketing, and the recipients inevitably drown in a deluge of spam.

    From the Japan Internet Report No. 64 Spring 2002:

    "One colleague of mine was being woken up repeatedly during the night by the increasing number of unsolicited messages. After resorting to turning off his phone at night, he would find 20 or more spam messages on his handset in the morning.

    Meanwhile, a test conducted by Net Village and Digital Street using an i-mode phone with an as-issued e-mail address (telephonenumber@docomo.ne.jp) found that the handset received 857 spam messages in August of last year, 2,898 in December last year, 2,945 in January this year, and 2,578 in February of this year.

    Like the landline Internet everywhere else, the mobile Internet in Japan is now awash in junk mail. With e-mail transmissions accounting for 80% of Internet-enabled mobile phone activity, and 98% of that activity spam, we can calculate that more than three-quarters of all data-phone activity is basically garbage."

    Anyone yearning to be part of this bright advertising future in the recipient role? If you don't, then opt-in laws are the answer...
  40. Void where prohibited. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This offer is void for residents of the state(s) of CA...

  41. Re:Help me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stick something about thornbury ADSL registration in the title, fool :P. maybe more people will actually look at it then :). Oh ye, people of Rothwell (and surrounding villages) register too, please

  42. Is California ban happy? by SLot · · Score: 1, Troll

    First cigarettes, now spam.

    Sheesh.

    I'm awaiting the day when meat is banned in California. At that point, perhaps it's citizens will tire of dining on fruit & veggies, and demand that every restaurant serve big chunks of raw animal.

    In a smoking section.

    Until that day, I'll avoid California religiously, and continue praying for the day that Los Angeles slides into the deep, making Vegas that much closer to the beach.

    1. Re:Is California ban happy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i cannot begin to describe the utter pain i feel with the newfound knowledge that a smoker religously avoids my state.

    2. Re:Is California ban happy? by NanoGator · · Score: 2

      Too bad the moderator didn't catch that this was a joke, and a funny one at that.

      At least you can have the satisfaction of knowing that the moderator's been meta-moderated. :)

      --
      "Derp de derp."
  43. What about email forwarding? by krokodil · · Score: 2

    What if I have email->SMS gateway (most cell
    phone carriers provide one). Is sending email to this address is governed under this law? What if I have another email address forwarded to this one?

  44. Cell phones suck. Which one do you recommend? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I bet the quality of life in California (or anywhere else I've been in the past 3 years) would be greatly improved if they banned cell phones entirely. I know they're extremely convenient-and even more economical than hard lines now, but I still dream of a land where wireless phones don't exist or are confined to non public places. (a.k.a. The 80's)

    Maybe if cell phone use is linked to some debilitating condition (other than wreckless stupidity) my dream will become reality.

    Yes, I'm getting a cell phone for work/long distance calls. Resistance is futile.

  45. Understanding SMS by mcdirmid · · Score: 1

    I guess there are not alot of SMS (simple messaging system?) users that are posting to this story. Many carriers (like AT&T), do not charge you for incoming text messages. Not only that, but you can commonly send a text message to a phone via an email address, so its not necessarily the case that somebody is charged at all when a message is sent to a cell phone.

    I have my email forwarded to my cell phone via SMS, granted it cuts off after the first 150 characters, so I only really know who sent me the message, and its subject, then the first one or two sentences. But its free so I can't complain about it. The alternative is GRPS, which is a bit pricey right now.

    I'm sure you could hack procmail to break a message up into multiple text messages 150 characters, then you could read all your email on your phone for free, including SPAM.

  46. Voicestream is doing this by eap · · Score: 2
    Voicestream has recently begun the dubious practice of sending you "one time informational" voice mails. However, the catch is that you must listen to the entire message, otherwise THEY CHARGE YOU FOR THE AIRTIME OF LISTENING TO THEIR SPAM, as I understand it.

    I am going to terminate my Voicestream service, and I would urge anyone else not to sign up with them in the first place.

  47. Sorry dude, I'm not going back to land line by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I need my cell phone. It is my only phone. I ditched my land line when I got my cable modem. It's great not purchasing anything from PacHell.

  48. Last Post! by alpg · · Score: 1

    An idea is an eye given by God for the seeing of God. Some of these eyes
    we cannot bear to look out of, we blind them as quickly as possible.
    -- Russell Hoban, "Pilgermann"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...