Slashdot Mirror
Michigander Beats Spammer With "Junk Fax" Law
TastyWords writes "According to this link, it's possible to apply the 'junk fax law' to successfully sue a spammer in small claims court. For those who are stuck in states which either have worthless (or near-worthless) anti-spam legislation, this creative approach of the law presents a creative method of turning the table on those who choose to spam first and ask questions later. All of the details are available for enterprising anti-spammers!" Update: 02/25 00:30 GMT by T : OK, so it's Michigander, not Michiganian. Too long as a Texon, Marylandite and Tennesseenaut.
we're Michiganders BTW
I want 2D games back.
And for those who haven't read the article, one of the key things as far as I am concerned is the fact that the plaintiff won an award of $539.00 (including court costs). Multiply that by a-very-large-number-of-spam victims and I think some damage will be done.
Never, ever lose a file again. Ever.
At my work, my bos is collecting all of the junk faxes he gets, and someting he is going to take all of these to small claims court. This is great for a precident to be set against an online junk emailer. The problem is identification, though.
If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
They didn't appeal, I got my check. They also sent out a contract thing they wanted me to sign as a disclaimer of responsibility and liability and all this nonsense. I talked to their attorney and he said it was standard. I said, "Not standard for me and I'm not signing it, I will be depositing your check however." He wasn't too happy about that, ... Iwonder what was in the disclamer?
I seem to remember seeing Ralksy's address somewhere (wink, nudge)... he's a resident of Michigan. Now we just need every citizen of the state to sue him for a couple hundred bucks each.
General Geekery
1) Hunt down spammers
...and now we have the missing step 2. Thanks Mark!
2) ???
3) Profit!
Shameless plug for my photos on Flickr
I hope this has some affect but I don't see how it can. If spammers can be sued in Michigan, or even in all of America, what stops the spammers using nations do not recognise US law? Instead of Sears now shutting down it's spam operations (which I assume are incredibly popular) won't it just contract it out overseas through some shady company? Surely it must be proved that they were indeed the originators of the spam?
--
On Slashdot I'm a lawyer.
" For those who are stuck in states which either have worthless (or near-worthless) anti-spam legislation..."
Uh.. what? What states don't fall in that category?
Seriously, is there a state that's got the problem under control?
Although I think laws such as the junk fax law are a step in the right direction, the problem I see with most spam is that the headers have been forged to the point of illegitimacy. Sure, if they include a link to a website, you could go after the person or people listed in the WHOIS record, but it would be easy for the administrative contact to claim that he or she didn't send the spam.
Sears is an easy target -- they probably sent semi-legitimate spam that included contact and/or removal information, as well as the Sears website. However, I doubt that $500 will steer Sears in the right direction regarding spam. For $500, it's easier for them to write a check than to pursue it in court. I'd guess they made several thousand dollars off the spam mail, and that the $500 was written off as a cost of doing business.
My point is, that between completely illegitimate spam that doesn't even have any real contact information, and companies that make a lot of money off of spam and who don't mind writing a $500 check every once in a while, this law won't be very effective.
I will continue to argue that spam is a technical problem and needs a technical solution to solve it. Ultimately, even if the big companies like Sears stop spamming, there will always be the spammers who send out 100 million penis enlargement spam mails with fake headers and fake return addresses that render the spam nearly impossible to trace. The illegitimate spam problem won't be solved by laws -- it will be solved by the intelligence of the Internet community. I'd rather see this solved by technical prowess than by laws that will only encourage spammers to fake their mail headers to avoid lawsuits.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
"Under United States law, it is unlawful "to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement" to any "equipment which has the capacity (A) to transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper." " Seems like this would be a nice source of spare income if it could be done reliably, but do I have to use a modem? :P
Read the article. His tenuous argument is that email is similar to a fax, because he uses a dialup fax modem to read his email
No, the argument was that his computer is a "telephone facsimile machine" since it can "... transcribe text or images (or both) from an electronic signal received over a regular telephone line onto paper" as required by the statute. Further, the statute prohibits "[using] any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine". The statute does not state that the advertisement must be sent over a telephone line, only that it must be sent to a "telephone facsimile machine".
Ie, the sender used a "computer" to send an "unsolicited advertisement" to his "telephone facsimile machine," which is prohibited section (b)(1)(C) of the statute.
On that note, how many of us use a fax modem any more
I doesnt matter, if your computer has one, then it is a "telephone facsimile machine" as defined by the statute.
I've always suspected that it will come down to small claims court to bring spammers down. And it won't be attorneys, it'll be the little guy like you and I.
Here's why:
1. We have the time. A reward of $500 a day isn't too bad, tax free, I assume. Getting the headers, and finding a local spammer is the most difficult part of our task.
2. It pays. Illegal acts are being committed, even without the fax laws, there are truth-in-advertising laws, smut laws, etc.
3. Spammers are in your state. The sheer volume of mail sent means you're likely to eventually getting spam that originates from your state. This is important as most small claims courts will require both parties reside n the same area.
I'm employed, not really worth my time, but there's a business model and a "Support-your-American-Economy" cheeriness about this. Now go take on the day!
fslg503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8686503-985-8
The definition of a fax machine under the TCPA does cover a computer with faxmodem and printer. There are many lawyers who argue that it is not intended to be used that way and the courts will not support it. I have been unable to find any binding case (ruled on by an appeals court) in the country that has said a computer with faxmodem and printer does not qualify as a fax machine. The only case that comes close is one that argues over jurisdiction in state of federal court. The appeals court mentioned that it was spam in a footnote, but took no action. As this was an appeals of a summary judgment, the court had the ability to dismiss on the issue of spam TCPA not applying to spam, but did not do so.
More information is at http://www.phillipsnizer.com/int-art111.htm
Fight Spammers!
I was wondering how one might argue that e-mail == fax (unless the law is very loosely worded) from the write-up. Here's what the article says:
/dev/null to your printer, and watch the money roll in. It's like printing currency!
Essentially, I argued that under the title code, my computer is also a fax machine and that email is really no different from fax. My computer has a fax modem, fax software, a scanner and a printer, I received this email using a dial up phone line connection and printed the message.
That's really creative! (Especially from a non-lawyer).
It's not even particularly deceitful -- the reason fax spamming is illegal is because you use the resources of the recipient fax machine and associated items (fax paper, ink).
E-mail does, in fact, use the resources of the recipient computer, not least of which is the downward ISP connection, for which recipient pays a monthly fee, and which has limits imposed.
Still, it's pretty creative to say: "I printed it out. Now it's a fax. Pay!"
So, if you think the decision will be upheld on appeal, you might as well start cashing in in advance: Change your spam redirect from
For more information, please send a self-addressed stamped envelope to the e-mail address in my profile, along with a check made out to my username in the amount of $3.99. This includes shipping.
It's an informational brochure with no obligation. This guy is making it big. After a careful study of his case (IANAL), I've concluded that so can you.
You'll never have to work again.
Note: If you print this message you agree to opting in to my Slashdot Troll Service and may not sue me for junk faxing you. (If you don't print it it's not a fax).
--
I took some notes on our conversation, and then he sent me a fax. Do you want to see them?
Just the fax, ma'am.
Suddenly there is a use for those things!
I think the judge screwed up here, and this will likely be reversed on appeal. Even if you accept that Mark's computer qualifies as a "telephone facsimile machine" under the terms of this act, it's pretty tough to make the argument that what Sears did was "to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine". They sent an email message to an SMTP server, which stored it in Mark's mailbox. Using his fax modem to dial his ISP and retrieve the message was Mark's choice. Printing it out was Mark's choice. I'm very surprised that the Sears lawyers didn't slam-dunk this one.
This article is about a guy that used a punitive damage law to punish a spammer. Hardly and eye-for-an-eye. That would be spamming a spammer. See a slashdot article from a couple of months ago for that.
1. That Ralsky fellow, him what allegedly got millions by spamming, lives in Michigan. 2. So do many Slashdotters. Hmm....
Here's my canned reply for these:
....
;)
I would like to see citations (especially case law) that specifically address your claim that 47 USC 227(a)(2)(B) is applicable in this case. In particular, such legal advice as I've seen states that this is *NOT* applicable to E-mail in general, and for this statute to be applicable, there would need to be a finding of fact that E-mail is legally a FAX. If E-mail *was* ruled to be legally fax, then you would have to comply with all the legal requirements that would entail.
In particular, I suggest that you also read 47 USC 227(d)(1)(B),
which states:
(d) Technical and procedural standards
(1) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -
(A)
(B) to use a computer or other electronic device to send any
message via a telephone facsimile machine unless such person
clearly marks, in a margin at the top or bottom of each
transmitted page of the message or on the first page of the
transmission, the date and time it is sent and an
identification of the business, other entity, or individual
sending the message and the telephone number of the sending
machine or of such business, other entity, or individual.
Be careful what you ask for, you may get it....
(Hint - was *your* e-mail stamped with the originating phone number at the top of each page?
What about faxs that come from Russia? When faxer pays Russian mob to look the other way? When police want to wheel and deal with George Bush instead of listen to him like they should (in order to take care of Russian crime with advice and recommendations)?
Other countries may be so corrupt that their affairs are not in order. They can not deal with some problems effectively, which means that we may feel the pain for some time. Pricey faxes are only one of them.
I suggest you read Slashdot
This post is from the Slashdot Troll Archive.
:)
Here's the link to this particular post: Lex Talionis is a morally bankrupt code
If you're going to troll, may I suggest The "Moon": A Ridiculous Liberal Myth? It's one of my personal favorites.
Simpli - Your source for San Jose dedicated servers and colocation!
"Ask yourself this: should we rape the rapist? If not, why not? "
No, we shouldn't rape rapists. We should shoot them. Twice. Once in the crotch, let them suffer the pain and loss of manhood for a few minutes, then shoot them in the head. None of this rehabilitation crap.
So. This guy successfully sued his local Sears branch for sending him a piece of Spam mail, for a total award of $539. The theory is that (being that Sears is a place you can sue), them sending it to his computer, means that the Sears store, wherever it is, is culpable for doing 'damage', 'irritation', or whatever, to his computer. Great, good for him.
How do we apply this logic to things like copyright infringement over county, state, national, international borders?
This is bullshit.
The same people who are cheering this ruling, convinced it will slow down or stop spam, because those damned spammers will be liable for the shit they send will be the very same people screeching in horror because the **AAs are 'breaking into your computer' by browsing what's already there to find illegally traded files.
Ladies and gentlemen, you can't have it both ways. Either computers exist on the internet, so they exist in all countries at once and are obligated to follow any law in any place someone decides to sue them with, or they're not. But I for one am sick and tired of reading what feels like opportunistic banner-waving: if it serves my interests, then that's what I want.
Look at the bigger picture. Please.
Bandwidth doesnt cost money ??
It does when:
- you get your email via GPRS and you are paying for every single byte transferred.
- when you are dialing up to the Internet via a modem and you pay phone charges (in Europe there is no flat fee local calls).
Spam IS expensive wether you want to believe it or not, and I'm not getting into the whole "wasting time sorting it out" and "time is money".
Can't we all just accept the fact that we are all Earthikans and live in peace?
Vote Nixon in 3000!
(it's a Futurama joke)
Over 10 years ago (back when I still lived in Michigan), a resolution was adopted by the state legislature that formally dubs residents of Michigan Michiganians.
Yeah, it's a stupid monkier and no one follows it, but it could be worse. The 2nd choice was "Michiganeers".
The person who spearheaded the legislation found being called a duck insulting.
I read it as:
"meshugener(1) beats spammer!"
Ahhh.... violence that everyone agrees to....
(1) madman in yidish
^_^
Lex talionis is not, and never has been, "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life". Lex talionis is a view towards law that treats justice as interchangeable with retribution. If someone puts out your eye, then go over and slaughter the sonufabitch--that's lex talionis in a nutshell. What the lex talionis codes did was codify this pre-existing principle and give it color of law.
On the other hand, Hebrew law has not been viewed as proscriptive, but rather prohibitive. Instead of saying "retribution is justice", the Hebrew scriptures actually put limits on the government's ability to authorize retribution--you were forbidden from exacting vengeance past the wrong done to you. If someone put out my eye, I wasn't allowed to put their entire family to the sword.
"An eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life" is, like much of the Old Testament, usually read with absolutely no clue about the context in which it was written. Look at the Code of Hammurabi, which is another legal code from roughly the same period in antiquity. The Code can be summed up as "if you transgress these laws in any way, you're going to get killed. Or if your transgression was really minor, just permanently maimed." That was a helluva system of laws, let me tell you. That's all it was: a system of laws. There was no concept of justice at that time, just pure, unadulterated law, and if you broke it, you died.
Then along come the Jews and their principle of "an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a life for a life"... and this system of laws was hailed as moral, merciful, and just. Why? Because it established limits on what the government could mete out for punishment.
So the next time you feel like condemning Hebrew law ("an eye for an eye") as a "morally bankrupt code", please consider the other options available at the time. And also consider that you're completely misunderstanding what the entire point of the Hebrew "an eye for an eye" instruction was and is.
It was, believe it or not, perhaps the first time in human history that someone put limits on the power of government and established that there were moral limits to governmental power. As such, it deserves our respect.
Gentlemen,
While this small victory is somewhat nice, it is quite too early to celebrate. It's a simple algorithm: take the number of emails produced by a spam-king, multiply by the number of possible suckers (gross profit), subtract the $500 per infraction of those willing to take the time and effort (net profit), and the result is well a very, very large pot minus a few pennies.
I would suggest taking a drug that fixes the infection rather than the symptoms. But I could be wrong.
Peace out
"This isn't a study in computer science, its a study in human behavior"
I was hoping to see a title like "Michiganian Beats Spammer With A Baseball Bat". THAT would have been more to my taste.
Follow your Euro bills at EBT
Some will say the TCPA applies to fax, some will not. Most will not -- most don't even know much about it, let alone have a willingless to stretch it to define an E-mail as a Fax.
Sadly the TCPA is fairly toothless. Yes, you can sue for $500 and you might win. I have done so myself, and collected. But after spending several hours of work, and the average amount of time spent per successful collection is normally high enough that it's not worth your trouble.
Some small claims judges think you can't sue somebody out of state, some thing you can. Even on spam laws where there isn't the TCPA question.
There is a valid question of whether you should be able to sue somebody out of state in small claims court for $500. Think about it -- it costs $500 at least to come and defend yourself in an out of state case, so how can you win, even if you are totally innocent?
How would you feel if you -- not a junk faxer at all -- got a summons to appear in court on the other side of the country to face a $500 payment for junk faxing? You could go and defend yourself, but it would cost you way more than $500 in costs, don't even talk about your time. You can't send a lawyer, if somehow that would save money.
So it's tough to figure out how to allow this. And spammers and junk faxers are rarely local, though sometimes they are.
What if you took the risk that if you sued an out of state spammer, you would have to pay his expenses to come out if you lost, or take them out of your winnings if you won? I would not.
Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
...and start an organization that gathers the email/snail mail addresses of spammers and signs them up for every junk mail publication known to man.
IANAL but I believe that the reason he was able to sue Sears in small claims court was the fact that Sears was doing business in the same state.
If the party you are sueing is out of state, you have to take the matter to district court. The filing fee is usually only a little more, but if you don't win your case, you can expect to be held accountable for the spammers attorney fees.
-Scott scott@surrealistic.org
What I find most interesting about this is not the use of the junk fax law, but that Mark was able to sue Sears about it. This is something I've been wondering lately anyway: even if it might be next to impossible to track down the sender of a spam email, could you not still hold the company whose products are being advertised responsible for the spam?
IANAL, but I don't find it a fair stretch to say that, possibly even in a legal sense, the spammer was respresenting the company. The same can extrapolated to cover owners of websites, etc. -- any person, company or service that is the subject of the spam.
I was doubtful of this until now -- it seems like Mark pulled it off!
So then, why we don't stop trying to stop spammers, and go after the source? By attacking those that fund the spammers the spammers will still go down, and the targets are easier to find.
Punctanym: alternate spelling of words using punctuation or numerals in place of some or all of its letters; see 'leet'
read the law.
Section 227.b.1
Prohibitions
It shall be unlawful for any person within the United States -- to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine;
Doesn't say anything about the fax having to come over a phone line, just that it has to go to a telephone facsimile machine.
Looks like cable modem users can sue. Luckily I have about 10k spams saved, I'm sure I can find some for local florida companies, then I'll go buy myself a faxmodem !
Amazing, he did the right thing. He modified his computer until it fell under the fax machine law. He uses a modem to connect over telephone lines (not cable, not dsl). He prints his email to paper, and he has fax software installed to send scanned paper documents to other fax machines. So his equipment can be considered a fax machine.
We saw a similar thing recently, with Lexmark. Everybody can produce a plastic box that fits into Lexmark printers, and nothing can stop them from doing so. Except Lexmark & the DMCA - Lexmark found that they have to mix the plastic box (which is not protected by law) with an intellectual property item (which is protected by copyright) and an access restriction (which is protected by DMCA). Glue all 3 things together, and voila. You've got a plastic box which can not be legally copied.
So, when the law works AGAINST us consumers so often, why shouldn't it work FOR us once or twice?
Lex Talionis, the principle of an eye for an eye, is a morally bankrupt code of law we've been moving away from for the past few thousand years, thankfully.
Wrong. Lex Talionis was the principle that you take NO MORE than an eye for an eye - promulgated as an "improvement" in an era where the response to losing an eye (or a purse) might be to do in the alleged perpetrator and confiscate all his worldly goods.
It's morally bankrupt, all right. But only to the extent that if the theif only loses what he stole, and has a nonzero chance of getting away with it, thevery remains a profitmaking enterprise despite full enforcement of the law. So it becomes an endorsement of theft as a lifestyle. This is why there are "puntitive damages" - extra penalties to punish the perpetrator (thus making continued misbehavior a losing proposition even in with imperfect law enforcement).
None of which applies here. Applying "Lex Talionis" to the spammer would mean spamming him, rather than seeking compensatory and puntitive damages.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Said it once, said it a thousand times:
Unsolicited-fax law is based on theft of resources: you use my paper and my ink to print your "speech". This costs me the money that it should cost you [you should have to print it and send me a flier in the mail where you pay postage too]. So "we" made it illegal.
It is not a major logical hurdle to show the similarities of fax-spam with e-spam.
1) ISP bandwidth costs money. ISP's have to pay for enough bandwidth to handle their customers' traffic. If they had less spam coming into their network, then they would have lower bandwidth needs and could charge customers less. [You may not pay metered bandwidth charges, but your ISP probably does, and those charges ARE passed on to you and ARE built in to your flat rate]
2) Space costs money. A similar argument to bandwidth can be made for space. In addition, more people are metered by their space. Many ISP's provide a limited amount of space for email storage and additional space does cost money. Also, go off on vacation for a week and what happens when your inbox gets filled up? What's the cost of having all your legitimate emails bounce because spam used all your space?
When you consider the numbers (a recent article said 70% of email volume to hotmail is spam), it's plain to see the costs are not small.
Despite your narrow interpretation of what constitutes "cost", anyone who has taken a high school economics course knows that there is no free lunch. Someone is paying for the spam to reach you. And odds are that it's coming out of YOUR pocket, not the spammers'.
passetspike!
Asking you to sign a contract when they lost in court, is pretty goddamned sleazy. I'd suggest you send a copy of that to the court, and ask the court to bitch-slap Sears and their law firm for that.
You don't have to enter into any kind of agreement with someone who owes you money pursuant to a judgement in order to collect what they owe you.
BTW, Sears has a long history of sleazy shyster tricks. Look up what they did to the inventor of the socket wrench sometime. When I want tools, I go to snap-on.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think you mean a Texan. A Texon would be, like, the quantum unit of Texases.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
I really don't care if a big company like Sears spams me, as long as they aren't abusive and maintain a "do not mail" list. What I hate (and I think everyone else hates too) are the fly-by-night overseas operations. Every week I get: Enlarge your penis! Enlarge your breasts! Make money fast! Sueing Sears does nothing to prevent this. The odd thing is though - it only happens on my hotmail account. All my other email accounts are 99% spam free.
Hunt down spammers for fun and PROFIT!!!
Many states will not honor small claims suits if it can be determined that the venue is improper. In California, you can go after somebody if you have a REALLY good reason outside of state lines.
It's why that pet supplies guy can't legally sue somebody outside of his area. You file an improper venue plea and they effectively dismiss the case with prejudice.
This sig no verb.
Aberdeen, Scotland -- Aberdonians
Afghanistan -- Afghans
Alabama -- Alabamians, Alabamans
Allentown -- Allentonians
Argentina -- Argentines
Arkansas -- Arkansan, Arkansawyer (NW Arkansas only)
Arizona -- Arizonans
Austin -- Austinites
Bahamas -- Bahamian
Boston -- Bostonians
Camden -- Camdenites
Cincinnati -- Cincinnatians
Colorado -- Coloradans
Delaware -- Delawarians
Florida -- Floridians
Ghana -- Ghanaians
Gibraltar -- Gibraltarians
Greece -- Greeks
Houston -- Houstonians
Illinois -- Illinoisans
Indiana -- Hoosiers
Key West -- Conchs
Los Angeles -- Angelenos, Los Angelenos
Louisiana -- Louisianans
Madagascar - Madagascans
Maine -- Mainers
Maryland -- Marylanders
Miami -- Miamians
Michigan -- Michiganders
Naples -- Neapolitans
New Jersey -- New Jerseyans
Ohio -- Ohioans
Oregon -- Oregonians
Phoenix -- Phoenicians
San Antonio -- San Antonians
San Francisco -- San Franciscans
Seattle -- Seattleites
Sierra Leone -- Sierra Leoneans
Singapore -- Singaporeans
St Louis -- St. Louisans
Switzerland -- Swiss
Tennessee -- Tennesseans
Texas -- Texans
Turkey -- Turks
Twin Cities -- Twin Citians
Utah -- Utahans
Wichita -- Wichitans
"I received this email using a dial up phone line connection and printed the message."
It seems to me the junk FAX doesn't apply unless you automatically print out all your e-mail. Otherwise, you're not using paper and ink for an unsolicited ad. Voluntarily printing out an e-mail just to take the spammer to court sounds like it oversteps the bounds of the law since at this point you chose to use the printer, not the spammer. I'm surprised any judge would convict. It probably will be overturned if it becoomes a big problem for spammers. People have been trying unsuccessfully to use the junk FAX laws to prosecute spammers for years now.
Vote for Pedro
I'm on broadband, my PC doesn't even have a modem in it. Even if I dropped a cheap fax modem in, the spam still doesn't *arrive* by phone line, so this law doesn't apply.
I am NOT a man!
I am a free number!
Jurisdiction and venue are both easier and harder than you paint them. There are entire law courses on things like jurisdiction.
Then there is subject matter jurisdiction versus personal jurisdiction, and the constitutional limits on jurisdiction versus the prudential rules of venue. If you're going to small claims court you hardly have to worry about all that. The pivotal issue is fairness. Sears was "present" locally, both because they had a store and because they inflicted an injury on the plaintiff in his home jurisdiction (imagine they'd sent him a bomb -- no one would quibble that it was "unfair" to drag Sears to the plaintiff, and the prosecutor). The small claims court has subject matter jurisdiction under the federal junk fax law, meaning they were the right place to hear this sort of case. And so on.
The bomb example is a little unsubtle, but an illegal email is just a milder example of the same sort of civil wrong. It would be quite unfair to force the plaintiff to go to whatever rock the defendant was lurking under to litigate a $500 claim.
If you really want to bend you mind, sometimes a place is appropriate for the lawsuit to be heard, but the law of another jurisdiction is applied (choice of law). Then you may find yourself applying a mix of local procedural law and foreign substantive law.
I really wish I could agree with you, that there is a tech solution to spam. But I refuse to believe that spammers can't in time outsmart a dumb filter. The filters performs very well now -- I use one -- but how long will that last? Few people are blocking spam at all, but when they do the spammers, like the Borg, will adapt.
Moreover, the mere transmission of spam is causing harm. It clogs the arteries of the Internet. The ISP's despise it, and spend money fighting it -- my money. Finally, even though I have broadband it takes significant time for me to download those extra 20 messages. Thanks to some idiot out there who typed in my email as his, I've seen geometric growth in spam lately, from maybe 10% to 60% of incoming material.
It is often argued that if you make something illegal people will just break the law, but that proves too much --- the same argument would supposedly undermine every law. Making it illegal will scare off the legit or semilegit bulk emailers, and it will make the shadiest spammer tempting targets for the prosecutors who has much better investigatory abilities than we do. I've talked to one of these guys, an assistant attorney general in Washington state, and was impressed how much work it took them to pin down one spammer. The state spam law was the hook they used to snare him, then they could also be sure to put him out of business. Believe it or not, there are smart people working for government, and in that case they even hired some outside help, PI's to track the guy down (he was quite slippery).
I don't like the idea that the defense to burglars is better locks, and I'm willing to ask for the government's help on this one.
If email sent to a given address is carbon copied at your end to an Email->Fax gateway, then their spam emails are indeed being sent to a Fax machine and are protected by the law.
The trick is to redirect messages that seem to be spam; you'll get the occasional false positive, which is totally fine; at the end of the day, you shred the positives and pick a spam to write up a small claim about.
Hell, you could profit off of this, with the quantity of spam that's out there. Make a living off of receiving spam, perhaps.
If it was accepted as a valid use of the law, that'd destroy the spammers pretty quickly, with the effort of Slashdot behind those fax machines.
Imagine the force of Slashdot behind an initiative to print out and submit a small claim for at least one spam a day, per user. Thousands of claims would be filed in a single day against the same small set of companies. Some spam companies pull you off their list if you bring legal action against them, so a few hundred Slashdot users stop getting spammed by someone.
Repeat this daily for a month; you can also file multiple suits per day, if you have time. The sky's the limit (and your 100% recycled printer paper). Make some friends at the court; people will consider you a superhero if you help shut down spamming as a profitable enterprise.
I hope this case is validated; if so, there's ways to make people listen. Perhaps file a thousand small claims in a thousand courts on a single day, providing attached to the claim a list of all thousand courts. Send a press release to the major papers (and the local papers), tv & radio at 12pm after the filings, and see what happens.
The way to end spam is to make it unprofitable.
All done, the spam gets filtered into the caughtspam mail folder no more spam (1 spam per month gets through, 10-25 per day get filtered). For some "spam" that I'm asking for (yes I opted in on some commercial mailing lists such as travelocity), I just add them as a 'whitelist_from' in the ~/.spamassassin/user_prefs
--- Hindsight is 20/20, but walking backwards is not the answer.
If a spammer would've shown up in small claims court or if they would've appealled, then it would've been a true test of whether the junk fax law can be used to stop spam.
As it is, it can still be a deterrent if 10000 unemployed dot commers file suit similtaneously, it'll be like spamming the spammers.