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.
W00t.
That is all.
I really wonder how they propose to prosecute this law. I mean, wouldn't it only work in CA-CA transactions, where none of the routing table was outside of CA? Otherwise you'd have that pesky rule about not prosecuting people outside your state under state law.
Do inform me if I'm wrong, though.
I will now redundantly add my name to the end of my post. You know, in case you forgot me or something.
The new get-rich-quick scheme:
1. Get a Hotmail/Yahoo account
2. Get rich.
Vonal Declosion
I hate spam but I'll fight for your right to send it. I don't want the government making laws about
Internet content. Its just a bad idea. Tomorrow they might make a law against something you do.
...filter spam out of the Trash folder and into the Money-Maker folder.
It's certainly a step in the right direction, but as mentioned above, how will it be enforced? Is there going to be a new part of the California government dedicated to tracking spam? I don't think so. Anyway, like I said, it's a step in the right direction...but we could say they're walking blindly...
--<Mike>--
I wonder who lobbied for this. We all know politicians in general are not geeks, and don't care about stuff like this, or even understand any of it. (Again, as someone who deals with politicians day in and out.)
$500/spam... had to be someone important who just _really_ got sick of bestiality advertisements in their inbox or something. (Which, btw, some politicians tend to throw a fit about when they recieve it with inline HTML and pictures, and do things like force you to install half-functional anti-spam software so she doesn't see horse meat anymore.)
I guess I should remove the ignore list from my hotmail and yahoo accounts...
Currently, California law requires spammers to include "ADV" in the subject line of their e-mail so people will know it is an advertisement.
How often do you actually see this? I get occasional spam with ADV in the subject line, but the vast majority of my spam does not, and I know the spammers aren't targetting me by my location (I don't live in California, but they wouldn't have a way to know that). How much difference will this new law make?
Raising the dollar amount and making it easier to sue makes it much more attractive to go to the trouble of actually suing. Successful lawsuits make spamming much less attractive, thus cutting down on actual spam sent. This is a good thing. However, does anyone know how spam will be defined by this law if it passes? It sounds like this proposed law is simply an extension to an existing spam law; does it include a reasonable definition?
Oh, and to the people who are about to start yammering about how 1) whitelists, 2) Bayesian filtering, or 3) a replacement for SMTP are the only solutions to the spam problem and this law is a waste of time: shut up. The war against spam needs to be fought on many fronts simultaneously, one of which is legal. If done correctly, anti-spam laws do NOT endanger free speech.
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Government making laws on content, which is the realm of censorship and free speech, is a whole lot different than for laws on where that content is sent, which crosses the line into rights to privacy and property ownership.
I'll support the right to post any content you want for all to see, but to send it to anyone using their bandwidth is something different.
Use your head, can't you, use your head,
You're on earth, there's no cure for that - S. Beckett
I look at this as nothing more than a bill with good intentions and very little teeth. If one country is not able to force its laws over the internet (ex. DMCA sure doesn't stop illegal copies of everything to sit on servers in China), then one law saying no to spammers will basically have the same effect. You need some sort of internet standard or governing body, something that could be better equipped to handle and enforce these laws, but a central organization structure goes against the idea of the internet in the first place. You're left with the good, with some bad that will be extremely hard to get rid of, if possible at all.
SecondPageMedia - Wha
If this law passes, I bet a lot of people in California are going to turn their spam filter Off. I know for a fact I would. Hit those spammers harder and line my pocket at the same time!
As I barely answer real emails, I'm guessing that this is the evil bastard child of spam and troll.
Trollspam - gets you pissed by accusing you of sending email. So you open it and great! a web bug just confirmed your addy.
Ha. Yahoo mail blocks HTML.
I would be happy to chase those fuckers down for a ham sandwich, nevermind 5 bills.
Man oh, man! I can't wait!! With the amount of spam I recieve, I just may have found a get rich quick scheme that'll work.
Screw the spammers! Weeeeeee!
2+2=5 for extremely large values of 2
This is not the first law that's had such a penalty and it has already proven to be a complete waste of time.
What lawyer is going to pursue a case where the fine is $500? To even find the identity of the spammer you have to serve subpeonas and all sorts of time and money intensive processes which make such a case impractical.
Add to that the fact that most spammers are small operators that float around from one ISP to another and are incredibly difficult to track. The amount of time to identify and take legal action against such losers makes the payoff a joke. 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.
This is a total waste of time. I applaud any effort to recognize spam as an issue that needs to be dealt with, but this old idea of small fines has been tried and has proven to be totally ineffective.
The only true way to get rid of spam is to push not for new laws, but enforcement of existing criminal laws which spammers routinely violate, which include hijacking mail relays and third-party computer networks. The government refuses to pursue these cases and even if they nailed just a few spammers for computer break-ins, it would have ten times the effect that these spineless civil laws have in reducing spam.
Says quite clearly UNWANTED. Content is irrelevant, sending it without prior permission is the crime.
I can print all the leaflets I want. How about I use your envelopes and stamps (and return address) to send them out?
Infuriate left and right
I'll start actually using my real email address for stuff on the web (appropriately unchecking the subscription buttons). Oh yeah, and I'll turn off that Slashdot SpamGuard(tm) thingy, and maybe put my real email there. Since I am a CA resident, I'll just keep a good record of which emails I receive which are unsolicited. Since I'm a nerd, I should have no problems creating a whitelist or similar to filter stuff out. Then I've got loads of evidence for the very large class action lawsuit which is sure to follow.
:P
"Court awards Graveyhead $500,000,000 for 1,000,000 offensive messages received"
Well, I can dream, can't I? Someone's gotta fund this video game I've been spending nights and weekends working on for the last two years! I gotta eat too!
std::disclaimer<std::legalese> sig=new std::disclaimer; sig->dump(); delete sig;
What if I live in Ca., but the company hosting my domain/email happens to reside in another state? eg: co-located server etc?
Windows is not the answer.
Windows is the question.
The answer is "NO."
...because we're about to see a valid moral justification for lawyers in their droves getting rich!"
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
Pose as an employee of your competitor, and hire a spamming company to promote them.
-- In the beginning was the WORD, and the WORD was UNSIGNED, and the main(){} was without form and void...
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'm surprised it's not a $500 tax per email.
Wow... you should probably tell that to pretty much all the phone companies in the world. I'm sure they'd be happy to hear it.
...but the only company I ever got SPAM from that was "sue-worthy" never sent me another mail after I quoted the local (up to) 70$ 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
- they guess my address;
- they have screened my address from the web;
But how about to protect me from this spam:- I registered to the service, but I didn't want any related spam and the warning about upcoming spam was unclear in a very small font;
- I gave up my emaill address to one company, but they gave it up to another and so on;
- I have subsrcibed to the mail list, but something is broken and I cannot unsubscribe anymore;
No chance yet?Less is more !
I like the SpamAssassin picture. Those little rubber ninjas will be this year's hottest Christmas toy!
It's obvious you're not a lawyer. Good luck finding a lawyer who's going to spend a ton of time and money to track down some broke looser who last week was selling Herbalife, and this week is spamming.
Assuming you can find a lawyer to take this case, which will likely prove more difficult than Andrew Dice Clay getting a date at an Indigo Girls concert, the fun will just be beginning.
After spending several thousand dollars on legal fees, you can slap him with a class action lawsuit, IF you can find him, and that's a huge IF because in some of the larger cases, you'll need to get computer records from other states, other countries, etc., then find out if you could even take action. Even then if everything went well, you'd find out the guy has approximately $347.22 to his name, not including his 1988 Toyota Corolla with a bad valve cover gasket leak that makes the car smoke every time he stops at a traffic light. But definitely get a lien on that Corolla because that'll cover 1/1000th of your legal bills.
So you nail his ass. After approximately 1-2 years worth of legal action after which he declares bankruptcy and you and your lawyer walk away with the satisfaction that you've gotten back at this poor dorf for daring to not put "ADV" in the subject of his penis-enlargement product solicitation, you have zero money from the perpetrator, and you also haven't discouraged anyone else to stop spamming.
Congrats! You are now qualified to run for Congress!
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.
This may be redundant but...
The obvious solution isn't to penalize the spammer, but the beneficiary of the spam is obvious because an email contact or a phone number or something, eventually, at some point, they have to charge your card to get your money.
The one who benefits from the spam should be penalized since they are the one's paying for the spam and instigating it.
Thanks,
Leabre
>> people to sue spammers for $500 per unwanted email
:P
Does that mean if I get my Visa bill by e-mail I can sue?
but in the grand scheme of things, it's irrelevant.
.1% that are gullible and have low self-esteem or self confidence and think "wow, 3 extra inches in 2 weeks will get me any woman I want", or "wow, I want to work from home so I can make $10000 a week".
Well if you want to carry it that far then everyones lives and accomplishments are pretty irrelevent in the grand scheme of things. Two centuries from now Bill Gates will be just a name in an encyclopedia with a three line description, as will 9/11, George Bush jr. will be just a picture amongst dozens of presidents, and you and I will be completely forgotten except for the times our great-great-great-grandkids do their family tree.
But in the day-to-day events of my 75 years of life on this planet those 2-3 minutes per day are very relevent, important, and precious to me and I have better things to do than spend an hour a week or 50 hours a year deleting email for garbage that I did not request, would never request, and will never buy.
The problem with spam is that it interferes with your entire day. Junk snail mail is only a once a day problem since you get your mail once a day, and you can immediately recognize the fliers from your actual mail and get rid of the crap. But most of those fliers are useful to many people because they advertise events, announce upcoming sales, and somtimes introduce you to activities that you did not know existed in your area. Imagine how annoying junk snail mail would be if each piece arrived every 50 minutes and you were interrupted from what you were doing and had to answer your door to get the junk mail.
Spam on the other hand is getting more difficult to recognize and you often have to read the message to know it is spam. Send out a million messages with "Hi from Barbara" or "Hey dude it's John" and invaribly they will make their way to someone who is expecting an email for Barbara or John, so they think it is an NB msg but instead waste their time to open it up. If all spam occured just once a day like snail junk email it would not be so annoying, but it's something ppl have to deal with all day long.
Also spam is always selling useless crap that 99.9% of the population never would use and takes advantage of the
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.
Check this out:
[8:58pm] 31 [/usr/local/bin]:jezebel% sudo spam-stats
spam: 2219
clean: 555
skipped: 0
total: 2774
processed: 2774
[9:09pm] 32 [/usr/local/bin]:jezebel%
Out of 2774 emails, 2219 were SPAM.
The machine has SpamAssassin, is using several RBL lists, and pretty tight Postfix anti-UCE settings. Spam is *still* getting through.
At $500 a message? Great. I can pay a lot of bills even if I win against 2 spammers a month.
I don't care if they're relaying it through an open relay somewhere. Most of them are hawking a porno website, and that cashflow has to go *somewhere*
My now unemployed ass (Fuck you, Spherion!) has *plenty* of time to chase spammers down.
Geez, 4 payments a month, and I'm beating out my old salary.
Sounds worth it to me.
It should also be $500 for each message that claims I "opted in" - don't want to pay? PROVE that I opted in. SHOW ME that I opted in and you *verified* my opt-in.
Lying ass 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.
1) Sue over spam
2) Become millionares
3) Use millions to buy X10 cameras and penis mightiers
4) Repeat
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!
California is deep in deficit now and it looks like taxes are going up. Instead: Why not just pass this law and let the state government set up a bunch of spammer honeypots, then start suing them to fill the gov't coffers? Budget crisis solved!
For the record I also propose deputizing motorcycle riders and bicyclists to hand out $500 tickets per double-parked vehicle in San Francisco.
filmcritic.com - Movie reviews on Internet time