Virginia Anti-Spam Law; FTC Forum on Spam

kiwimate writes "According to this press release, the state of Virginia has just passed a statute making 'the worst, most egregious and fraudulent kinds of spam' legally actionable. And yes, this includes header forging. The article reads like a big AOL PR piece in some places -- the VA governor led the signing at the AOL HQ in Dulles. The story also states this comes on the eve of the first-ever FTC forum on spam in Washington D.C." The FTC also made the insightful discovery that most spam is fraudulent in some fashion.

Comments

Sadlly of shore spam would not be stopped

[fozzy(pro)]

This may be good for Spam originating in the US, for the residents of VA, however Spamers from other countries could still fill our inboxes.

Re:Sadlly of shore spam would not be stopped

[David_W]

Why the fuck are you you cable/DSL-providing assclowns so unwilling to control your customers?

I find the idea that the providers are supposed to be in a controlling role offensive. I am the customer, I am paying for the service, I should be resonably free to do what I want with the connection. The attitude you present will lead us down the road of everything being blocked or filtered except for what our provider approves for us.

I agree that something needs to be done about spam, and that the providers should help, but please don't advocate them "controlling" us.

Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong

[ObviousGuy]

So apparently we can use our 'common sense' to figure out what's 'the worst, most egregious and fraudulent kinds of spam'. I'm not sure I feel safe in a system where such a statute can be passed. The definition is too open for interpretation. Today it's porn spam with forged headers, tomorrow it's legitimate advertising getting outlawed.

If the state representatives don't have the balls to outlaw all spam outright, perhaps the residents of Virginia could grow some balls and vote these jokers out of office.

Re:Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong

[smashr]

I am a voting resident of Virginia. I am quite happy with this law. You know, the people on /. spend so much of their time whining about how we must stop the spammers, and someone finnally comes along and passes a law that will help curb the worst types of spam, and suddenly it is a horrible trangretion.

You cannot have both sides of this argument. Any restriction the government places on things like this can be interpreted by some people as too broad. Either you take your government in small doses and shy away from government regulation, or you allow the government to regulate. You cannot be wishy-washy and take whichever side of the argument you feel like supporting that day.

Spam with forged headers is bad. I dont pretend to think that this will elimnate the mass amount of email i recieve, but I can only hope.

-Dan

Re:Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong

[MrLint]

"legitimate advertising" wont be using forged headers. Try reading the article and look at the criteria for actually being a felony.

A legitimate business should stop bothering you if you tell them to.

A legitimate business with legitimate advertising should be oneou have done business with that you haved opted into.

Spam is none of these things.

Re:Either it's all illegal or the law is wrong

[danoatvulaw]

So apparently we can use our 'common sense' to figure out what's 'the worst, most egregious and fraudulent kinds of spam'. I'm not sure I feel safe in a system where such a statute can be passed. The definition is too open for interpretation.

Today it's porn spam with forged headers, tomorrow it's legitimate advertising getting outlawed. If the state representatives don't have the balls to outlaw all spam outright, perhaps the residents of Virginia could grow some balls and vote these jokers out of office.

You raise an interesting point about the lack of standards. A law based on community standards as to what is egregious may just prove Constitutionally facially invalid. That remains to be seen. At very least, it presents an issue to be dealt with, and most likely (note - i have not read the actual text of the bill) will be challenged in court. The prospect of changing standards based on conduct does not sit well with me either.

Please dont construe what I am about to say next as supporting spammers, cause I hate 'em just like everyone else, but you cannot just ban spam outright... not without tossing the 1st Amendment in the process. Both commercial and noncommercial speech is protected (like it or not), and here, a prior restraint banning spam will likewise not pass consitutional muster. Forcing truth in advertising, true header information, true return addresses == fine, but not banning spam entirely.

Oh boy

[Anonymous Coward]

I hope there can be a war on spam that is as effective as the war on drugs or the war on terrorism or the war on poverty.

If you think this will help � you�re right.

[insecuritiez]

This wont put even a tiny dent in spam. In Virginia or any where else. What it will do is set a precedent. This is one huge step in the right direction. Now you can write your local representative with "If Virginia can do it, why can't State X?" Lets take this spam victory and run with it.

Re:Going after header forgers?

[The Turd Report]

Go after the site advertised in the spam. The spammer (or who paid the spammer) has to get replies about their ads somehow.

Whoring to Capitalists is The Problem

[SubtleNuance]

The article reads like a big AOL PR piece in some places -- the VA governor led the signing at the AOL HQ in Dulles.

Hm, thats what I want, my Legislators delivering law directly from the BoardRoom. The same people who send you "buy this penis pump" emails will, next month, be sitting next to this Virginian Politician at a $5000-a-plate fundraiser... and the viscious cycle begins again.

FTC recruits rocket scientists

[SuperBanana]

The FTC also made the insightful discovery that most spam is fraudulent in some fashion.

Duuuh. That's because nobody selling something legitimate wants the negative side effects of spam- mainly, the disgust it causes. Hell hath no fury like a consumer who's just been spammed for a product; they'll probably, even out of spite, go for your competition, if they just so happen to be in the market for your item. Remember those stupid little remote control cars? They learned the hard way that spam didn't work; retailers reported a backlash from the spam, people coming up to them and chewing out -the store employees- for the spam other resellers were sending.

Re:This isn't new

[nolife]

Verizon is one of the SOURCES of spam.

Meaning Verizon itself or a customer using Verizon services for the initial internet connectivity? Very big difference. Claiming the provider responsible for the actions of specific users is a very sharp double edge sword that has far more reaching effects then spam.

They don't act on complaints, and willing let scumbags and thieves operate on their network.

Your perception of what they do behind the scenes may not be exactly what is going on. If that is the common practice of theirs, then it is a problem.

Re:At last, a fair use for slashdotting websites

[amuro98]

There's also "joe jobs" where a spammer intentionally advertises a website of an enemy or competitor in an attempt to get the site yanked by the ISP.

I've also gotten "newsletter spam" where there are dozens of websites with different owners, none of whom are related to the spammer, nor given permission to have their website advertised in such a manner. I got one for a bunch of casinos - none of whom were thrilled at the attention. Since my complaint was CC'd to all of them, they had a handy mailing list to band together and take the spammer to court for defamation of character in a class action suit...

Where do I turn myself in?

[ajs]

From the article, here are the criteria:

consciously (with intent) alter either e-mail header or other routing information (a technical characteristics common to most unsolicited bulk mail, but not present in normal e-mail messages); and

Have you ever seen such hogwash?! What, pray are, "a technical characteristics"?! Since when are headers and routing information common to "unsolicited bulk mail", but not "normal e-mail messages"?!

attempt to send either 10,000 messages within a 24/hr period or 100,000 in a 30-day period OR the sender must generate $1,000 in revenue from a specific transmission, or $50,000 from total transmissions.

Ok, so where do I trun myself in? I've certainly generated $1,000 from a specific transmission (we in the spammer game call it an "invoice") and I (just like tens of thousands of other evil spammers like me) forge headers and alter routing information. For example, I have mailing list managers that alter headers and routing information and then take that single modified message and send it to DOZENS of users! I also send mail from my laptop at home and claim to be me at work and visa versa!

Before tonight I didn't know I was a spammer, but if Virginia says I'm a spammer, I must be one! Is there a reward for turning my evil spammer ass in?

I'd add a smily, but this is just creepy!