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."
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
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.
There are a lot of stupid people in this world. You only need about 50 to respond to a mailing to break even, and many spammers have mailings lists of millions.
I don't think that's the issue here though. I'm increasingly beginning to think that spammers are just big time trolls. There's loads of people on the internet, yet there's only 200 major spammers. That's not a lot of people. We all know ads are incredibly annoying, and we all know to what lengths these people go to to evade spam filters. Honestly I think these few people just get their jollies by knowing they pissed off a million people today.
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!