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."

36 of 119 comments (clear)

  1. 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. 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 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.

    2. 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
  3. 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.

  4. 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.

  5. 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 ?"

  6. 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 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/
  7. 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 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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...

  12. 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
  13. 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 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.

    2. 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/
    3. 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.
  14. 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
  15. 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
  16. 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.

  17. 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.
  18. 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...

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

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

  20. 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?

  21. 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.

  22. 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."