Slashdot Mirror
Minnesota Spam And Privacy Act Takes Effect
2cv writes "The Minnesota Internet Consumer Information Privacy and Commercial Electronic Mail Solicitation Act takes effect today. An article in the St. Paul Pioneer Press focuses on the spam aspect of the law. However, its chief author admits the measure has no teeth. While not an earth-shattering event, the signing of the bill by former Governor Jesse Ventura did break ground. It was the nation's first online privacy bill. Jesse jokes are welcomed but likely to be modded down as irrelevant."
Minnesota Spam And Privacy Act Takes Effect? More like celda
As a side effect, the others that send spam could be easily clasified as foreign or without care about law and costumers, and maybe with this some people that efectively buy spamvertised products will not follow that kind of spammers
Is who the hell are these people who actually read spam and then buy something advertised in it???
Enforce this law? spammers have already been classified as the antichrist(s) surely they wont go to all of the work of finding out where people are from and deciding whether or not to send them e-mail.
The law is a good start, but if we could effectively identify spam and track spammers, there would be so many filters in place that many of us wouldn't even consider spam a problem. That said, let's hope for the best.
On Apple Input Peripherals: They're okay, I guess, but I was really hoping for a one-key keyboard and a 109-button mouse
I guess the SPAM folks are required to put "ADV" in the subject line. So lets do the math: 3 extra bytes TIMES about 200 SPAMS/day TIMES 2,000,000 internet users in MN TIMES 365 days/year * 8 bits/byte = an extra 3,263Gb of email traffic we don't need.
Article 1.2.5. Personally identifiable information. "Personally identifiable information" means information that identifies: (snip) any of the contents of a consumer's data storage devices.
Article 1.3. Disclosure of personal information required. Provides for when an ISP must disclose personally identifiable information about a consumer: (snip) pursuant to a court order in a civil proceeding on a showing of compelling need that cannot be accommodated by other means;
So does this mean that an ISP, under pretext of obtaining a suspected file sharer's personal information, could also be compelled to provide the contents of that person's hard drives?
Probably not, I know.... but this privacy legislation has a hole large enough to drive the RIAA through. They certainly could have written it better.
your turn!
Subd. 5. Blocking receipt or transmission. Permits an interactive computer service to block commercial e-mails that it reasonably believes are being sent or will be sent in violation of this section. The blocking service is not liable in an action by a recipient for good faith blocking.
Seems an ISP isn't liable if they accidentaly delete some false positives.
bance.net
From reading the link to the law itself, this looks like a good start. I especially liked the fact that it clearly spells out that a private citizen can go after a spammer for not putting the ADV/ADLT-ADV tag at the beginning of the subject line (A2.7.1.2). And at $10/non-compliant SPAM, it should add up to enough, pretty quick, to make going after them worth while. It'll be interesting to see if this holds up in court.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
What about bounties? Bring a spammer in, dead or alive, for a cash reward? Hasn't anyone suggested this before?
Alternately, states could set spammer limits and sell hunting permits. That works for the deer population, for bears, etc. Why gang up on the fuzzy wildlife when lower forms of life still go about their business unaccosted?