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.)
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
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
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;
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?
In pine... uh.. hm.. don't.. hmm.. click? Hmm. Profit?
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
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
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.
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!