Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Michigan Governor Signs Anti-Spam Bill

Posted by timothy on from the we-hates-it dept.

mrtaco01 writes "Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm signed today a law billed as the 'toughest in the nation' against spam. It makes it law in Michigan that all unsolicited email contain 'ADV:' as the first four characters in an email, contain contact information and a way to opt-out of subsequent mailings. Violations are subject to a $10,000 fine. The press release announcing the new law is found here. It will be interesting as to how this law has any effect on laws in other states or even possibly a federal anti-spam law. It will be more interesting to how well the State enforces this,or how it will be enforced."

36 comments

  1. *All* unsolicited email?? by SN74S181 · · Score: 1

    I am into older hardware and chips and things.

    Sometimes the only way I can find info on a piece of equipment or a chip is to search the old USENET archives. Often there are only partial threads of info about a particular topic.

    I have had good luck sending email sometimes to people who participated in the discussion, sometimes as long as 6-8 years ago. Some messages go into 'a black hole' but I have gotten important info from people who I've contacted in this way.

    Now Michigan is saying that because it's an unsolicited email message, I have to prepend ADV: on the front, even though it's not an advertisement? That shuts down the whole possibility of contacting these people.

    Further, the whole fact that I am able to contact these people negates the anti-Spam propaganda. There are people who post on USENET, who aren't so chickenshit about Spam that they refuse to use a real email address in their post. I've met some of them. They're good people.

    One could say that the damage to communications brought on by the 'fear of spam' is worse than the spam itself in some cases.

    1. Re:*All* unsolicited email?? by MohammedNiyalSayeed · · Score: 1

      Granholm has done the ridiculous again, but I think she's aware that it's unenforceable. By passing legislation like this, Michigan officials have posed publicly as if they will do something about spam, but when you really look at the legislation, it's short-sighted, unenforcable, and simply doesn't apply to anyone outside of Michigan. Sure, there are some spammers in Michigan that may get nabbed, but this isn't going to significantly impact the amount of email anyone gets, and most likely won't stop you from contacting people on USENET, which I'll agree is an excellent source of information on outdated technology.

      Granholm is grandstanding. What's offensive to me is the whole retarded idea that spam will be solved with additional toothless legislation. We don't need more laws; there are plenty of ways to stop it technologically, or with cultural pressure.

      --
      /*- Mohammed -*/
    2. Re:*All* unsolicited email?? by Matchu · · Score: 2, Informative

      The press release states "unsolicited commercial email."

    3. Re:*All* unsolicited email?? by FoxIVX · · Score: 1

      You just posted a whole rant based on the off-handed description of law by a slashdot poster. You might want to review the actual law for descriptions of what constitues "unsolicited email" in the posters wording.

      Without reviwing it myself, I can count myself a pretty sure that just initiating an email exchange doesn't require you to put ADV: in your email, since every other email on the net would be required to have it.

  2. Great! by Z0mb1eman · · Score: 1

    Well, that does sound good to me! I don't really see any downsides to it, although I'm sure people will find something to point out...

    I realize it probably won't directly affect the amount of spam I get in my inbox that much; I don't know how much spam originates from Michigan. But it's definitely a step in the right direction!

    --
    ClutterMe.com - easiest site creation on the Net. Just click and type.
    1. Re:Great! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      I suspect it violates the guarantees of freedom of speech under both the constitutions of the United States and of Michigan. That's a bit of a down side.

      I don't like spam either, but I'm not sure that there's a great deal that can be done to get rid of it. At least not that can be done to get rid of truthful spam.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    2. Re:Great! by XO · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech does NOT cover traffic that is passed on AT OTHER PEOPLE'S EXPENSE through email systems...

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
    3. Re:Great! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      Yes it does, all else being equal.

      Just like how it is legal for people to, without permission, trespass on your property for purposes of knocking on your front door in a reasonable manner to sell you things.

      Or to fill up your mailbox with junk mail depriving you of space within it to accept other mail, and using up your valuable time in having to decide whether to throw it out or open it, and having to carry it all.

      Or to call you on the phone with offers at a reasonable hour, which keeps you from using the phone otherwise or enjoying some peace and quiet.

      The mere fact that you HAVE a telephone, or a door, or a mailbox -- or an email address -- is an implicit invitation for people to use those things to communicate with you.

      If you don't want them to do that, you need only post a reasonable sort of notice telling them not to. This could be a a sign, such as 'no solicitors' or it could be presence on a particular 'do not call list' that telemarketers reasonably ought to be aware of.

      If you haven't told spammers not to email you, then that's your problem.

      OTOH, if spammers are sending you fraudulent advertisements, including if they're sufficiently disguising ads as other content, or have false email addresses, or false claims, etc. THEN I'd agree that that behavior can be regulated.

      Truthful advertisements are a different matter however, and this law, IMO, is interfering with them impermissably.

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    4. Re:Great! by AngryPuppy · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech is a right, but there are no guarantees for a platform for that speech (my mailbox).

    5. Re:Great! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      I agree. (with regards to the mailbox -- there are guarantees for other platforms for that speech, or else the freedom of speech would be worthless)

      However, until you revoke people's access to your mailbox as a means by which to contact you, it is implicitly open to them to use for that purpose.

      If you don't want some people sending you mail, all I'm saying is that you should give them some sort of reasonable notice as to your wishes. I wouldn't tolerate people that violated such an explicit ban.

      But I don't expect them to be mind readers either. It's up to you. Is this so difficult?

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    6. Re:Great! by AngryPuppy · · Score: 1

      Sure. Personally, I feel that it should be made illegal for people to contact me at my mailbox for the purposes of UCE. Their speech remains free, my mailbox remains clean.

      It is unreasonable for me to have to opt out of every promotion that hits my mailbox. For every product that may comes out, there are how many resellers and how many spammers to promote the stuff? My job of notifying spammers becomes a never ending task.

      I don't see any reason why we cannot close e-mail to UCE (Unsolicited commercial e-mail) completely. If they want to advertise, they can use avenues where THEY bear the cost (phone, snail mail, etc.) rather than costs being passed back to me from my ISP because of server space and bandwidth issues.

    7. Re:Great! by cpt+kangarooski · · Score: 1

      The problem is that the First Amendment guarantees freedom of speech. This includes commercial speech.

      The government can regulate it to an extent -- the advertising might have to be truthful, nutritional or medical information might have to be included on some products. But overall commercial speech is only a shade less unrestricted as everything else is.

      And I mean, what's the difference between your not wanting to be contacted for UCE, and your not wanting to be contacted with political or relgious speech? The only difference is the content, and the government regulating speech because they don't like the content is very bad indeed. Thus it's safer all around if you personally are required to take steps to inform people that would mail you not to; it isn't the government's place to do so.

      A centralized opt-out list, or an alteration to the email protocols to include a 'do not send mail of 'x' type' would probably be sufficient.

      As for cost, you bear a cost for the use of phones, snail mail, etc. as well. There's nothing particularly special about spam. (in fact it's probably much more cost efficient for ALL parties involved)

      --
      -- This and all my posts are in the public domain. I am a lawyer. I am not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
    8. Re:Great! by AngryPuppy · · Score: 1

      But the government can control advertising. When is the last time you've seen a tobacco product advertised on TV (assuming you are in the US)?

      As far as cost, traditional methods shift the primary cost on the seller... the cost of the call itself the cost for telemarketer salaries, the cost for bulk mail processing. The cost to send UCE is almost nil. If you sum the costs for ISP's and individuals, it does become quite expensive. One by one, no, but over time, yes.

      The government can regulate this type of thing. Take, for example, junk fax laws.

      It does apply to snail mail, as well. An advertiser cannot send me sexually oriented materials without my explicit opt-in.

      From Rowan vs. the US Post Office:

      "Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or to view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit. . . We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has the right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another. . . We repeat, the right of a mailer stops at the outer boundary of every person's domain."
    9. Re:Great! by AngryPuppy · · Score: 1

      I pulled this quote from the CAUCE web site, by the way... thought I would mention that. The opinions you find there in their FAQ are in line with my own.

    10. Re:Great! by AngryPuppy · · Score: 1

      Sorry for so many responses from me... after I posted, it hit me that you mentioned a centralized database. I do think that would work well assuming that there were significant legal penalties for violators. I do like that idea.

  3. Michigan, make up your damn mind! by woodix · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    To the Legislators of the Hand Shaped State:
    Either get behind technology or start admitting you cash checks from Disney and Viacom. This back and forth shit is just pissing me off. While it's wonderful you've passed an anti-spam law aren't you also the same group of slackjawed retards that passed a law technically making NAT illegal? Hey I've got an idea for your next legislative session! Why don't you investigate the legality of compression technology; there's sure to be a good law in there somewhere....

    1. Re:Michigan, make up your damn mind! by XO · · Score: 1

      And if you read the law rather than just the general synopsis, and a few other slashdot reader's posts, you'd see that it didn't actually outlaw NAT of any kind or in any way shape or form. Moron.

      --
      "Champagne for my real friends - and real pain for my sham friends!" http://ericblade.postalboard.com/
  4. Read the text of the law by Matchu · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/2003- 2004/billenrolled/house/htm/2003-HNB-4519.htm

    Your fears are unjustified.

  5. This does not solve the problem by AngryPuppy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    There are still servers that have to store the UCE until it gets filtered, not to mention the extra traffic that is generated. Ultimately, consumers are still the ones footing the bill for this garbage as provider pass their costs on for the extra server space and bandwidth needs. All this does is provide an easier filtering tool. It does not stop them from sending it in the first place... something I never opted-in to in the first place.

    1. Re:This does not solve the problem by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      I have to disagree.

      Let's go with what appear to be your premise. The spammers all abide by the law and make spam easy to filter.

      If this were to happen, then I disagree with you and I believe that this does solve the problem. Not by direct cause and effect, but indirectly.

      If spam were all easily and effectively filtered at the client side, after the bandwidth, storage, processing and forwarding costs have already been incurred, then this will still kill spam. The effective filtering is simplified by just looking for "ADV:". But even without this, if everyone used Mozilla and had high quality spam filtering at the client, this would kill it.

      My reasoning is thus. If spam ceases to be effective, then it will go away. Even moreso if there is a criminal penalty for not making it easy to filter. I know of NOBODY who likes spam. Therefore, everyone will universally filter it. Since spam as a species will disappear, this indirectly ends up solving the bandwidth, storage, etc. problem that you mention.

      Now some might argue that some few will not apply effective filtering. So spam will still reach a few, and some of them will reply or even fall victim to the spammer's scams. So spamming will still be profitable, some would argue. This will greatly increase the volume of spam, even though it is all filtered. But then think what happens. For those poor souls who are NOT filtering, the incentive becomes tremendous to begin filtering. So the greater volume the spammers send, the more effective filtering will become, both in terms of technology (due to incentive) and in terms of number of users who actually employ filtering.

      So if you're still following, my conclusion is that effective filtering WILL stop spam. The "ADV:" thing just makes effective filtering easy. But the latest learning filters seem to be very effective without legislation.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
    2. Re:This does not solve the problem by AngryPuppy · · Score: 1

      You make a good point, but to quote you:

      Now some might argue that some few will not apply effective filtering. So spam will still reach a few, and some of them will reply or even fall victim to the spammer's scams. So spamming will still be profitable, some would argue. This will greatly increase the volume of spam, even though it is all filtered. But then think what happens. For those poor souls who are NOT filtering, the incentive becomes tremendous to begin filtering. So the greater volume the spammers send, the more effective filtering will become, both in terms of technology (due to incentive) and in terms of number of users who actually employ filtering.

      I believe that there will always be that minority that the UCE will reach - constant new victims. As long as that minority exists, it remains worthwhile for the UCE to be sent. As long as there are victims to reach, the volume remains, and I keep paying for it. I like having the filter, but I only see it as a stopgap measure, not a solution.

  6. This is great by Hellraisr · · Score: 1
    Now if only Canada would adopt the same legislation..


    Now the lusers that send spam in the first place will be forced to go back to clicking on banners for pennies to make their money.

  7. Homeland Security by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does anyone else find it disturbing that there is a Michigan Homeland Security link on that page?

    This SS-like organization is really spreading out!

  8. Job Opportunities Abound by bruthasj · · Score: 1

    > It will be more interesting to how well the State enforces this,or how it will be enforced.

    Hmm, 10K per spam... I think I'll apply to work for the Michigan Spam Swat Team. I've used nmap a couple of times. ;)

  9. Mod me offtopic or something... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... but when did Michigan get a new Governor? What happened to Engler?

    Gawd, you move away for 5 years, and everything changes!

    1. Re:Mod me offtopic or something... by mrtaco01 · · Score: 1

      Engler hit his term limit in 2002. Michigan elected Jennifer Granholm (D) over Dick Postumus (R), making her the state's first female governor.

  10. What is the jurisdiction of this law? by sab39 · · Score: 1

    One important question isn't answered in the /. article or in the press release: Does this law, like state 'Do Not Call' lists, apply to all email sent to addresses in Michigan, or does it only apply to email sent from Michigan addresses?

    Sure, there are limits to the jurisdiction of the former kind of law, too (good luck enforcing it if the spammer is outside the States) but it would be massively more effective than the latter kind. How many spammers can figure out which of their target addresses are in Michigan?

    1. Re:What is the jurisdiction of this law? by lightspawn · · Score: 1

      One important question isn't answered in the /. article or in the press release: Does this law, like state 'Do Not Call' lists, apply to all email sent to addresses in Michigan, or does it only apply to email sent from Michigan addresses?

      There are typically FOUR physical addresses related to any single spam - the address of the sender, the recepient, of the sender's customer (the web site advertised, etc) and of the computer used to send the spam (which belongs to the spammer for legal operations, but could be some home user's PC or a school in china running old and non-secure software).

      Can somebody please make a four-dimensional matrix summing up the laws regarding every possible combination?

      These laws need to be GLOBAL. If they can't for now, at least make them federal. State-by-state legislation is a phenomental waste of time and money, and may actually make things worse.

    2. Re:What is the jurisdiction of this law? by jon787 · · Score: 1

      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:

      Similar text heads section 4

      http://www.michiganlegislature.org/documents/200 3- 2004/billenrolled/house/htm/2003-HNB-4519.htm

      --
      X(7): A program for managing terminal windows. See also screen(1).
  11. Al Ralsky? by AtariAmarok · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The first question that comes to mind is how this affects the operations of Michigan-based super-spammer Al Ralsky. Does anyone know? I think this is a good way to figure out whether or not this law helps solved the problem.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
  12. Legal Spam? by Fareq · · Score: 1

    Well, see I am a little concerned here. For the most part, I suspect that this law is well intentioned, and perhaps even well-drafted.

    But something that you may miss at first. Take a look at the annoying spam you get. Look at the e-mail headers. How many of those, do you suppose, accurately reflect the spammer? Any? probably, Most? doubtful.

    Now, I recall reading proposed legislation somewhere to ban header forging, but again... if the header lies about where the mail came from, and it was sent through some poor open relay somewhere, how are you supposed to find the owners.

    A $10,000 fine is great, except that the real spammers are not likely to get themselves caught.

    Besides. I don't want to get spam. Putting some junk in the subject telling me it is spam doesn't make it go away. Yes, I can auto-delete it, but I've still got to download it.

  13. Getting rid of Spam by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    "Putting some junk in the subject telling me it is spam doesn't make it go away. Yes, I can auto-delete it, but I've still got to download it."

    Not necessarily. If this approach worked (not sure that it will), you might end up being able to choose from your ISP e-mail in which "ADV" spam is filtered (by the ISP) before it ever gets sent to you. Or imagine relays that filter out "ADV"s automatically. Then you would not have to download it.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Getting rid of Spam by DickBreath · · Score: 1

      SMTP servers could be designed such that as soon as the subject "ADV:" appears, they hopelessly slow down in receiving the rest of the spam, bogging down the spammer.

      --

      I'll see your senator, and I'll raise you two judges.
  14. Opt-out - bad plan by jmason · · Score: 1
    It's worth reading Ray Everett-Church of CAUCE's comments on another opt-out based anti-spam bill:

    'Any legislation that permits all of America's estimated 23 million small businesses to legally send everyone at least one email cannot be considered anti-spam. And any bill that limits a consumer's recourse to clicking an opt-out link 23 million times isn't going to make our lives any better. ....

    Opt-out laws have let the problem grow to the state it is today; no one in Congress can supply an adequate explanation as to why opt-out at a national level will make any difference. Opt-out in Korea has been an unmitigated disaster and their legislature is rushing to repair the global damage their opt-out law has done to their Internet economy. California's opt-out law is being scrapped. And the European Union knew better than to waste time with a discredited approach and went straight to opt-in.'

    CAUCE points out that the current proposals to Congress all suffer the same problem. Opt-in, as the EU have chosen, is the only way to reduce the flood of spam effectively, through legal means.

    At least this law allows ISPs to prosecute spammers, and it does not block class action suits from multiple spam recipient consumers (AFAICS). Also the damages of $500 per message is a lot better than the proposed Texas state law's puny $10 per message.

    But consider these facts: there's 23 million small businesses in the US. That means a lot of "I would like to opt out" mails you'll be sending. Multiply that by however many possible addresses you can receive mail at: foo@domain1.com, foo@[211.11.22.34], foo%domain1.com@domain1.com, root@domain1.com, postmaster@domain1.com, foo@forwardingservice.net, foo@perl.org, foo@users.sourceforge.net, etc. etc. etc.

    Then there's the "tagged addressing" concept, where you "tag" the addresses you give out with additional text to identify who you gave it to, e.g. foo+amazon@domain1.com, foo+slashdot@domain1.com. Each of those is a different "e-mail address".

    Better get those typing fingers in shape :(

  15. I have your matrix right here... by mog · · Score: 1

    *

    It's mapped to 0 dimensional space.

  16. Maryland by gav1n · · Score: 0

    I forwarded this information along to my rep in Maryland, who said he is considering introducing legislation regarding Spam during the next session... We'll see how that goes. Let's get more states to follow Michigan's lead.