Slashdot Mirror
Michigan's Proposed Spam Law Called Toughest In U.S.
goats_in_boats writes "A new bill (PDF
or HTML)
was presented to the Governor
of Michigan that would require spam sent to residents of the State to be identified
as such. Highlights include the requirement that unsolicited email 'Include in
the e-mail subject line "ADV:" as the first 4 characters' and that 'a person who
violates this act is guilty of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not
more than 1 year or a fine of not more than $10,000.00, or both.' An article
in the Detroit Free Press calls the bill 'the most stringent anti-spam law in
the nation.'"
Funny I see this now -- all day today I have been receiving SPAM with "ADV:" in the subject line. I was wondering what this was about! I guess it is safe to set up my filter now.....
10b||~10b -- aah, what a question!
How does this apply to out-of-state offenders Vs in-state recipients, or in-state offenders Vs out-of-state recipients. I've never really figured out how US law works... too many different states with local discrepencies :-)
Would sure be nice if you could nail any spammer from anywhere in the US if you're a Michigan system... I bet it'd be a good place to set up an email server too.
Now we just need a few more laws in different states, mandating a different set of initial 4 characters. SPM:, AVT:, etc... That would make it reasonably difficult to send nationwide SPAM with any guarantee of legality.
1. Enforcement: How will they actually prosecute (or even find) spammers that violate the law? I'd say there's a pretty good chance that there will be quite a few complaints. Assuming they're even able to backtrack and find the spammers who violate the law, a large number of violations could render this law unenforceable. It takes a good amount of time to review the violation, try to track down where the e-mail came from, etc. If they can't effectivly track down violators, the law won't do much.
2. Interstate/International commerce: While this should affect spammers in all states (as explained in another post), how will this hold up with international companies? Does this stop a company in the US from sending it's spam through a Canadian e-mail advertising agency? Does it apply to non-US companies at all? I'm far from a legal expert, so if you have any ideas please share them.
Yeah, Jefferson wasn't barraged daily with details on how to grow his penis.
..Jeff Keegan
seven syllables explain TiVo: kee gan dot org slash ti vo
As much as I dislike spam I find it disconcerting that so much focus has been put on it by politicians. Our current government has major structural problems which have been getting little press as of late (such as the bush mandated discrimination against pro-homosexual bureaucratic policies). The fight against spam is trivial, yet has a powerful hold. I think its largely the result of common support from all consumers + it makes politicians look technologically adept and forward thinking. In short, it's low hanging fruit, an easy win. This question has been asked a million times, but, why can't we focus on what's really going on.
Photos.
(a) "Commercial e-mail" means an electronic message, file, data, or other information promoting the sale, lease, or exchange of goods, services, real property, or any other thing of value that is transmitted between 2 or more computers, computer networks, or electronic terminals or within a computer network.
I can't quite decide if this covers donations and political messages, the usual exemptions you see in these bills.
I'm guessing the word "commercial" was inserted in there to make the exemption implicit. A shame.
What if a Michigan citizen is checking his e-mail from a server in London, from a hotel room in Tokyo?
Michigan never enters the scope. Who and what has to be in Michigan for this to work?
Mental note to self: 'Put ADV: in front of anything just in case'
Well, I have to say I finally got a Bayesian Spam filter when the Outlook plug in came out so, for now, it's like back in the days when no one knew my email. Only 1 in 20 spams scores less then 98%, and only one in a hundred regular messages score more then 3%. It's fantastic!
That said, I'd still be for this law, as long as it was fair. That is to say, if the sender had a 'reasonable' expectation that the person expected to receive mail from them (i.e. opt-in, or if you signed up for a service from them and never opted out). Similar to the 'business relationship' in the Telemarketing laws.
One important thing is to make it clear that you can't sell "lists". I've been sent spams that said "Cd of Opt-in emails" or whatever. It's like, come on. I don't know if I would want to send people to jail for screwing up like that. Jail and very harsh Spam fines should be reserved, IMO for habitual offenders, you know the lowest of the low types like Ralsky, etc, who relay and proxy scan, forge headers, etc.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
If I was thrown in prison for such an offense I'd be sure not to let any of the other prisoners know. I can see it now: "Wha' chu in for?" "Well...nothing bad...really." "Yeah?" "I was a spammer." "YOU SICK BASTARD! GET HIM BOYS!" The picture just is not very pleasant.
I wonder where spammed pick up your e-mail addr.
Ecce Europa - Web Design for Business
From the article's paraphrasal of the spam bill, I would say that it misses the mark. The problem is not advertising per se, but email designed to trick you. The leading trick is a fake sender address.
Almost all spam uses a fake sender address. Usually the sender address is bogus. Pernicious spam uses a real, forged sender's address. Not only is this difficult to detect, it causes the victim of the identity theft to receive rejection messages and hate mail. I have been the victim of such identity theft and it isn't pleasant.
I support legislation making it a criminal offense to forge the sender's address, and a lesser offense to send email (especially in quantity) with a bogus sender address.
I believe that legitimate advertisers and freedom-of-expression devotes can agree that forgery has no legitimate purpose.
If emails were signed, it would be much easier to bring pressure to bear on the senders of undesirable email to cease and desist.
If you think the other inmates treat the child molesters bad, just think what they'll do to the spammers :)
Space for rent, inquire within
No, if you wish to solicit by email, you have to put 'ADV:' at the begining of your mail. What's so hard about that?
Then you are in compliance, and you don't get fined, and people who don't like spam can filter you out.
Department of Homeland Security: Removing the rights real patriots fought and died for since 2001
I'm all for wiping out Spam, but this law is a giant piece of junk
No, this law is measured, reasoned, and appropriate. If you don't think so, you are a deceptive and fraudulent scam artist who fully deserves to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law -- and beyond it by tattooed burly fellows named Adolf in prison, as well.
Asshat.
I run a small business. I solicit business by email. Lots of people do. Now you're telling me that if I try and solicit any work from a client that happens to reside in Michigan that I'm going to get hit with a $250,000 fine? Nope.
Yep.
You will be in violation of this law only if you do not comply with Sec. 3. For those who don't bite at trolls like you enough to check it out, here's the text:
Sec. 3. A person who intentionally sends or causes to be sent an unsolicited commercial e-mail through an e-mail service provider that the sender knew or should have known is located in this state or to an e-mail address that the sender knew or should have known is held by a resident of this state shall do all of the following:
(a) Include in the e-mail subject line "ADV:" as the first 4 characters.
(b) Conspicuously state in the e-mail all of the following:
(i) The sender's legal name.
(ii) The sender's correct street address.
(iii) The sender's valid internet domain name.
(iv) The sender's valid return e-mail address.
(c) Establish a toll-free telephone number, a valid sender-operated return e-mail address, or another easy-to-use electronic method that the recipient of the commercial e-mail message may call or access by e-mail or other electronic means to notify the sender not to transmit by e-mail any further unsolicited commercial e-mail messages. The notification process may include the ability for the commercial e-mail messages recipient to direct the sender to transmit or not transmit particular commercial e-mail messages based upon products, services, divisions, organizations, companies, or other selections of the recipient's choice. An unsolicited commercial e-mail message shall include, in print as large as the print used for the majority of the e-mail message, a statement informing the recipient of a toll-free telephone number that the recipient may call, or a valid return address to which the recipient may write or access by e-mail, notifying the sender not to transmit to the recipient any further commercial e-mail messages.
(d) Conspicuously provide in the text of the commercial e-mail, in print as large as the print used for the majority of the e-mail, a notice that informs the recipient that the recipient may conveniently and at no cost be excluded from future commercial e-mail from the sender as provided under subdivision (c).
If you do all this, you're cool, and the law has no effect on you, so quitcher whining. If you don't, then you are a Horrid Evil Spammer Who Should Be Repeatedly Anally Raped and fully deserve all the penalties of the law and more. If you disagree that these are reasonable penalties, then you are either a really bad troll, or a complete asshat. Pick one.
And how many lines of code would it take to block the whole message at the mail server? This could be an option the user could enable, and then the server itself only downloads the header before rejecting the message.
El Karma: excelente(principalmente la suma de moderación hecha a los comentarios de los usuarios)
Don't believe the hype - it's just another opt-out proposal. Opt-out is a flawed scheme only ever pushed by people who are naive to both the technical and practical issues. It's an enormous waste of resources (bandwidth, energy, people's time), and at the end of the day it's only partially solved just one of the issues at the expense of ensuring that we'll never solve any of the others. This really is a case of "the slippery slope exists and it will happen".
Like all the other opt-out schemes, all you have to do is opt-out of those 50 million emails you're about to receive. Legitimately. Enjoy your day.
One mother told me that when she found pornographic messages in the family's e-mail, she immediately suspected that the teenagers in her house had been up to no good. The broken trust took weeks to repair.
and that's the basic tone of the whole piece: spam is a trojan horse rolling sexual material into the living rooms of godfearing, wholesome americans.
of course, it's not worse than the detroit free press who provides for the solicitation of prositution....
2 1337 4 u!
From Sec 3 of the Act:
"an e-mail service provider that the sender knew or should have known is located in this state or to an e-mail address that the sender knew or should have known is held by a resident of this state"
Requiring willful conduct or intent as this law does (in Sec 3, not Sec 4) puts a huge burden on the prosecution/plaintiff. With email addresses that have no physical correspondence to the receipt's real address, how is the spammer supposed to "know or should know" if the resident is in Michigan? Once this, nearly unprovable, element is part of the crime, the crime becomes nearly unenforceable. And, all the draconian requirements that got this law the press coverage may be ignored.
I guess the real battle is "can you assume that if a Domain Name is registered to a MI address that the email server is physically in MI?" After all, the Domain Name's mailing address may be a corporate headquarters and the server may be located in Florida.
Sec. 4 of the Act is a good old strict liability requirement (no intent or negligence needed to prove the crime). But, the requirements imposed by Sec. 4 aren't that odd, just standard "truth in advertising" applied to email.
This has already happened. In 1994 a (married) pair of California BBS owner/operators were tried and convicted on Tennessee porn charges.
CUDigest report
It's a particularly bad idea when an official in some other state decides to set you up for the fall.
Email: slashdot3@FreeMars.org (Address will be abandoned when it gets spam.)
It would be nice to see someone enforce these laws. Every one of these spams leads to someone making money from them - that's why spam exists. Every one of those websites selling viagra knock-offs, or porn, or selling mailing lists can be traced to someone who profits from these sales. Those are the people paying for the spam; make them accountable - cut off the money - and the spammers go away.
California has had "antispam" laws for quite some time - can anyone point to a single prosecution of these laws?
Well, at least "something" in this case isn't worse than nothing... yet... but the way Michigan has been heading, that end seems inevitable.
Any law that says you must label spam (e.g., put ADV: in the subject) has two major flaws:
1) It only addresses half the problem, and it's not the important half. It does nothing to ease the burden on the mail servers that must transport the spammer's trash.
2) It sanctions what would otherwise be an illicit act.
As it is today, the act of spamming may or may not be illegal, but once a law is enacted that says "label it", the spam becomes sanctioned by law. Without that law, a hosting company can dump a user for spamming. With the law, it becomes more difficult because the spammer can say "I followed the law!"
IMHO: We're better off without laws like this.
--Bill
home
gimme back my
If I don't recall, one of the world's biggest Spam Kings lives in West Bloomfield, Michigan (about 1.5 miles from my house in fact) And no, I'm not planning an asassination. ;-);-)
Karma: Bad. Mostly because the only moderators that notice me are conservatives.
Yes.
Other states' laws are available at the same site.
A criminal statute allows for jail, true. However, only one class of people can actually file criminal complaints: law enforcement. Peace officers and prosecutors.
You can call your local police department to make a complaint. However, except for certain types of crimes (Domestic violence and protective order violations in my state-most are similar) there is no law prohibiting us from sending the complaint straight to the shredder. As a point of Federal law (Federal district court ruling for WA DC, sustained on appeal) the police and prosecutors do not have a duty to any one particular person.
In other words, not much will change. A few cases may be filed. Most, however, will end up sitting in some detective's inbox until the statute of limitations expires. My department doesn't even have enough detectives to cover all of the stuff that needs detective followup: if a burglary/auto theft/just about any nonviolent property crime isn't thoroughly handled by the patrol officer taking the initial complaint, it'll languish marked "inactive-open pending leads" forever. The info-hogs can only follow up on the leads in the bluesuits' reports.
Now, take a wild guess how many patrol officers are qualified to handle these. I may be the only one here. And I spent today (a relatively quiet Monday dayshift) taking cold crime reports, three neighborhood disturbances (two of which weren't even criminal and one was petty enough not to charge anyone with anything) one unwanted subject (started screaming in a McDonalds and didn't leave when the manager invited him to eat elsewhere) and a drunk driver.
When I work swing shift, my normal shift, I'm running from call to call to call. It'll be close to midnight before I have time to follow up on a funny email. I think my time from 11 PM to end-of-shift is better spent on drunk drivers.
In other words, most cops will consider this to be a waste of time that could be better spent on areas where someone might actually get hurt.
That's why it's CIVIL spam laws that actually matter. The clown who wrote this law knows we won't be able to really do much, living in the real world and all. A civil law, OTOH, with a private right of action, would make the spammers shit themselves with fear and consider career changes. That's because a victim with the legal power to act may actually do something, when the police don't have the resources.
Some will complain that it's not their responsibility to do anything, even when the whiner is also the original victim. Who has the moral responsibility to act is an open question. However, the real question IMHO is 'if you don't give a shit, and you're the victim, then why should I care?' And if someone can't be bothered to take an interest in his own life, then I've got better things to do than fix his minor annoyances for him.
I've had the same email account for 20+ years. Two years ago, spam was a minor annoyance. One year ago it was annoying enough that I started using spamassassin. This year it is annoying enough that I can cope only by using spamassassin with a bayes filter. Next year?
Let me quantify my statements. In June 2002 I received 732 legitimate email messages and 375 spams. In June 2003 I received 683 legitimate email messages, and 1872 spams. in June 2004, I expect to receive 700 legitimate messages; how many spams? Let's start a pool!
Technology is cool but not a panacea. I ran a personal version of Spamassassin 2.60 on my last 15 months' email. Every decision was fed back into the automatic learning process, and every incorrect decision was corrected manually. Here are the numbers:
total legit: 13726
total spam: 11441
false positives: 11
false negatives: 272
These numbers look good (2.3% of spams slip through under the radar and 0.08% of legit mail gets trapped). But they aren't that good. The numbers mean that one or two spams a day get through right now, and who-knows-how-many next year. Hardly an adequate approach to keeping offensive material from my eyes. The numbers also mean that I would have missed 11 legitimate messages in the last year or so had I not sifted through the crap.
While I'm not holding my breath for a legislative panacea, I believe that something has to be done to check the uncontrolled growth in the volume of spam being sent. Receiver-end controls won't cope.
As I have mentioned in a previous comment, I believe that the volume can be abated by prohibiting deceptive email, as opposed to trying to adjudicate the consensuality of the relationship between sender and receiver.
Aside from the significant limitation imposed by this being a state law (who can tell if a particular E-mail address belongs to a Michigan resident or not?), this law will likely fail because as soon as users (or providers) start to filter ADV:, the spammers will stop putting it in the Subject line, and there are too many of them out there for law enforcement to go after.
Japan enacted a law similar to this in July of last year, requiring that all UCE have a subject beginning with the Japanese equivalent of "ADV:". Spammers started following the law pretty quickly; so far so good. Then, last October, cell phone provider NTT DoCoMo started up a service that would let users reject such mail at the server. Having been subjected to lots of cellphone spam until then, I was very delighted at this, and as soon as I switched it on my spam level dropped to roughly zero.
Until this past May, when spam once again found its way to my phone. The spammers seem to have realized that adding the mandated text makes their mail not reach its destination, so they've decided to just ignore the law completely. I spoke with someone at the agency that handles spam complaints, and was told that "we're doing what we can, but there are so many of them it's hard to keep up."
C'est la vie, I guess--or should I say, shikata nai desu ne...
Absolutely correct. I didn't write quite what I meant.
More along the lines of 5 years from now, the state discovers that John Q. Public once sent an email to a Bill Grudgeman asking him if he was interested in a deal on widgets. The whole story? Mr. Public sent the email b/c Mr. Grudgeman has a website describing how he uses similar widgets. John Q. wrote him a personal, friendly email asking if he was interested in a new supplier.
Grudgeman's friend is embarassed by John Q.'s investigative website, and remembers this old email. Grudgeman presents it to his local D.A. (sister-in-law's neigbor), who is looking to "make spammers pay" before the upcoming election. John Q. is charged, and faced with a year in jail, pleads out for 90 days and the $10,000 fine.
Justice indeed.
I don't think a personally written message destined for one recipient is considered spam, it's just salesmanship. The problem isn't with individuals mailing other folks based on some sort of market research or indication that they might be interested (i.e. from your example above) the problem is with people hawking their wares by sending out millions of emails to randomly harvested addresses.
I don't think even OUR shitty justice system could mess this one up.
This message brought to you by the Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People.