Slashdot Mirror
California Could Get $500/Offense Spam Law
Bud Higgins writes "CNN has a story about a law the California Senate passed which will allow people to sue spammers for $500 per unwanted email. This is one of the strictest anti-spam measures in the country and will set a precedent for other states to follow." This bill needs to pass the state assembly and the governor to become a law, though.
Trollspam - gets you pissed by accusing you of sending email. So you open it and great! a web bug just confirmed your addy.
In OSX Mail: Uncheck "Display images and embedded objects in HTML messages" in Preferences/Viewing.
In Mozilla: Check "Do not load remote images in Mail & Newsgroup messages" in Preferences/Privacy & Security/Images.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
I think you're a little confused. No one is forcing you to run an email server. Also, no one is forcing you to run an email server accessible to the internet. I hate spam, but get your argument straight.
What lawyer is going to pursue a case where the fine is $500?
Can you say class-action? Given that a spammer may pump out thousands, if not millions of pieces of spam, I'm sure sure that there are many lawyers who would be willing to settle for a small percentage cut of the gross.
However, lawyers really aren't the audience for this law. Spam bounty hunters and rabid anti-spammers like myself can take the tens of thousands of junk e-mails we've been saving against this day, and use those messages, as well as previous research into spammers, and the experience we've built up, tracking down the bastards, past false fronts, multiple layers of redirection, hijacked mailservers, fraudulent accounts, and nail em good.
And even if you could engage in some sort of class action suit, most of these spammers don't have any assets in the first place
We're already spending the time to nail these punks. Getting judgements that we can then sell to collection agencies only sweetens the feeling of satisfaction. Besides, at the very least we can claim the computer that they used to send the spam 8). Eventually, the bigger spammers (the ones with more to lose) will avoid California, and the spammers already living IN California will be forced to leave, lest they be served with a summons when they get sued.
You're right. Existing laws aren't being enforced. So why complain when we get a law that allows end users, rather than resource-constrained prosecutors, to enforce justice against these scum?
I caught a segment on NPR of a person claiming
that we could indeed prosecute those outside of
California. Something about long-arm laws and "full faith and credit" and so on... yeah, I know nothing.
...but the only company I ever got SPAM from that was "sue-worthy" never sent me another mail after I quoted the local (up to) 70$ fine/spam law. Normal companies, advertising from their domain (this one did), simply don't do that kind of thing, because they have a reputation to think of.
Digging through fake headers that really came off a home DSL routed through an open relay in China won't be worth it no matter what, no matter what they set it to because you'll never collect it. And the "company" will claim they never sent it, that someone illegally spammed on their behalf. On a good-bad dimension of course stronger fines are good. But it's a cardboard fence against an avalanche.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
So you're saying that because I run an email server connected to the Internet that I am obligated to accept postage-due advertisements, which is what spam is? Because I have a mail server I am obligated to receive hundreds of fradulent advertisements every day on my dime and on my time? I am required to subsidize someone else's marketing campaign?
The fact that I run an email server does not give you--or any spammer--the implicit right to abuse it or shift costs to me. Mail servers are accessible via the Internet because they have to me--it does not convey some automatic invitation to subsidize the costs of an advertising campaign much less a fradulent or pornographic one.
While we're at it, why don't we go ahead and have some human refuse unloaded on your front lawn and charge you for delivery? After all, your front lawn is publically-accessible. No-one forced you to have a front lawn so everyone is free to unload whatever refuse they want there because we thought it "might be useful". And charge you, to boot.
AOL is number 1 because it's the easiest to use (no, AOL is number 1 because it's the best at marketing),
AOL's commercials don't say they're number 1 because their service is the easiest to use. They say: "So easy to use, no wonder it's number 1!" They are number 1 in terms of number of customers, and they're suggesting that this relates to ease of use, but not stating it as fact. If they did state it as fact, you can bet they'd have fine print at the bottom citing a source that did some kind of study or survey or something.
those ginsu knives really *can* cut through a solid steel block (uh huh), and OxyClean really willl get out ANY stain (um, no.)
Be careful about exactly what they do and do not state, for example "this steel block" vs. "any steel block", "almost any stain" vs. "any stain", etc. If you're still sure the claims made in their advertisements are false, buy the product, try it, and if it fails as expected, talk to a lawyer. Be careful though, because most companies won't actually make false claims - because of the laws against doing so.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Maybe this applies:
Ferguson v. Friendfinder, Inc., Case No. A092653
http://www.timothywalton.com/ferguson.html
(Thank you, Mark Ferguson, for going to the trouble of following this case through. For that matter, thanks for starting it.)
Spam is: 1) Bulk (yes, more than several), 2) Commercial (a direct solicitation to purchase a product or service WITH A PRICE), 3) Unsolicited (obvious)
We can argue about definitions, of course, but #2 definitely isn't a requirement. A non-profit organization soliciting donations is spam even though it's not commercial. A religious email sent to a million people with a religious message is spam even if it just offers words of encouragement. A political email soliciting support in a vote or campaign contributions is certainly spam.
I'd say spam is more accurately: 1) Bulk and/or non-personal, 2) Unsolicited.
Depending on your definition "Bulk" is usually non-personal, but most non-personal unsolicited email is also spam even if we don't know how many people were targetted. Since we aren't in a position to know exactly how many people received a given spam I'm almost more comfortable saying that any email that is 1) Non-personal and 2) Unsolicited is spam. Pass go, collect $500.
March 4, the NV state assemply voted unanimously for a bill that allows for up to $500 per offense as well. Here's a link. The article aslo states that the current law, which has a maximum of $10 in damages has never been enforced. If I can find out a way to capitalize on this, I'm going to send out emails to everyone telling them how to get rich.... Oh, wait.
Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
What a load of delusional road apples. Here in Washington State, we've been able to sue spammers for $500 a pop for years. And y'know what? It does NOTHING. The attorney general's office isn't interested in pursuing any spammers on their own, the courts have had to have been browbeaten into even letting citizens sue, you can't collect even when you win, and the amount of spam flooding into the state continues to increase at exactly the same rate as it floods into the Internet as a whole.
The $500 joke could become federal law and it still won't make a bit of difference. Laws against spam won't make a difference until they're criminal laws and enforced. As long as anonymous SMTP relay hijacking is a civil matter, it will continue to be practiced by spammers.
No, The Simpsons dealt with an amendment, specifically to eliminate freedom of speech as it applied to no-good hippies. Simpsons had the Amendment to Be, while Schoolhouse Rock had the bill sitting on capital hill.
Hers links about how to do it. Some people think $500 is not enough to get an attorney to do it, but you dont need one (in fact you cant even use one if you go to trial the right way)!
2 op winman_1.html
http://www.infoworld.com/article/02/04/19/02042
http://purplecow.com/vaspam/
http://news.com.com/2010-1080-281494.html
AND THE BEST SITE:
http://smallclaim.info/media/playboy.php
Now get to it!