Slashdot Mirror
California Anti-Spam Law Approved
Metroid72 writes "Zdnet reports that "A California anti-spam bill passed the Senate on Wednesday, a first step toward the passage of a law that would give people the right to sue spammers." I guess there's light at the end of the tunnel"
I wonder how Hormel feels about all of this Anti-Spam sentiment.
IIRC, this sort of law exists in a few other states. How simple is it to actually use? Does the spammer have to be in California? Do I need to be able to locate the spammer?
I'll quit my job and rake in easy money by suing spammers. If you'd like to know how you too can do this, send $5 to...
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
Find a spammer, heck, in the time it would take you to do that you could go out and find 500 bucks on the street.
Banaaaana!
Yes but it's waaaay over there, very tiny. Just a speck.
Until something like this gets approved at the federal level, at least.
And I know that won't do much good for overseas spammers and so on, but perhaps it will increase the cost of doing business.
In those case, we can only hope that other countries will do the same. China and Korea, especially.
... has been e-mailed to every California taxpayer.
Sigs are bad for your health.
SB 342, "Unsolicited email advertisements" (Florez)
SB 186, "Privacy: unsolicited e-mail advertising" (Murray)
SB 12, "Electronic Mail Advertising" (Bowen)
AB 567, "Unsolicited electronic mail advertisements" (Simitian)
For those about to rejoice, remember this is simply the first step. It still has to finish going through the state assembly, and then get signed by Governor Davis. Let's get some of this stuff pushed through for the better of the anti-spam community, shall we?
This sig no verb.
With the junkfax laws, one may go after the junkfaxer (entity that sent the fax) and/or the entity on who's behalf the fax was sent. that has been proven in many cases where the fax entity could not be identified or was an offshore (often Canada) service. If your local carpet cleaning service pays a junk fax service to send the ads, then you can sue them directly. If they want to suggest they didn't do anything wrong, then just have them identify the people that sent the ads and simply add them as a defendant and let them fight it out.
Some cases will be more tough to prove, but with a little case law, you can win. One difficult case would be something like mortgage lead spams. The spammer and website are offshore, and once they have your information, then they sell the leads to numerous companies that 'claim' to not know how the information was obtained, however this will not be a valid excuse. I haven't seen the text of the bill (will a karma whore please post it if found), but I hope the wording is like that of the TCPA (Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991). In order to be sent a prerecorded commercial message or commercial fax, one must have a prior business relationship or have given prior *express* permission to receive such. Express permission cannot be sold nor purchased. Those of us that run our own email servers or use catch-all domain forwarding or other such service will be able to track all emails quite easily where you can simply create a new account for every location you post, web site registration, sweepstakes entry, etc so that you can decidedly trace the method a company used to obtain your address. A company trying to suggest that you must have 'subscribed or requested at some point to be added' will be shot down faster than my advances on prom night.
You don't have to worry about stopping the spammers per se, but the people that are knowingly paying others to send the illicit ads. The spammers protect themselves decently well just like junk faxers and scamming telemarketers, but when you hit their source of money, then you cut the body off the head of the snake. If the business think they were unfairly treated, then they are free to go after the spammers they paid to send the junk. States can pass all the bills they want, but until the public has rights to collect damages that have been made themselves, such laws or bills will continue to be toothless. Washington's law, from what I understand, has been decently effective. I simply do not see how Congress can site idly much longer on this issue. This is something that is affecting more people than before. The junk fax problem was quite so widespread when Congress acted in the early 1990s. Senator Disney did well with the TCPA, so maybe an anti-spam bill would be considered someday. It would see the best time to pass this is on the heels of the implementation of the FTC/FCC regulations. Awareness will be at an all time high and the same arguments DMA, Fax.com, and other scum will try to usee will have already been shot down with fresh case law or interpretation of regulations. While some people get in the news for winning spam cases using the TCPA, it seems most of those involved default judgments (like the recent Sears case). I know this isn't an junk email list, but thought some would be interested in the obvious mirroring of aspects of the TCPA. Interesting aspect is also the additional penalty 'read: tax' going to state coffers, that will be included even if it is a private action.
Cave, wreck, and deep diver.
Three laws have been in effect in California since 1998. They've not been widely used, but about a dozen cases that I know about have resulted in positive results for the prosecutors. You can follow current cases on the Suespammers discussion list, or read the archives.
The new law appears to be more protectionist than previous ones, which required either (a) opt-out by the recipient, (b) status as an ISP, or (c) evidence of fraud.
--Tom Geller
Founder, SpamCon Foundation
Tom Geller
I'd *really* like e-mail coming from domain.com to actually come from domain.com. I.e. No fake-mail. If you have the email-address user@domain.com, you should also have to authorize with the domain.com servers in order to send mail. And mail servers should verify that mail from domain.com actually was sent by a domain.com server (they must know where the mail is to be delivered to that domain, why not if it was *sent* to that domain?).
Yes, I know that *unless* you do/can authenticate with your email server now, this will break a few setups. And it's not the end-all of spam solutions. But it'd sure be a good help.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings