Slashdot Mirror
Louisiana Tries Anti-Spam Law
chompyZ writes "The legislative battle against SPAMMING heats-up as a new law became effective yesterday in Louisiana. According to KPLC, the new law requires senders of sexually explicit e-mail to include a note in the subject line, "adv-adult," to let unsuspecting internet users know ahead of time. The Olympian reports that Louisiana officials actually think this will be effective... leaves you wondering if "officials" have any clue how SPAMMERS operate..."
and so I don't know the law you have there, but won't it just cause spammers to move outside Louisiana?
Most every porn type email I get can be traced back to servers in China or The Netherlands. I doubt those Cajuns will be going overseas anytime soon to prosecute.
Hmm, just got a new porn email, from Pythonvideo, up in Canada. Hope those guys have a large travel budget.
Pete Carr Owner Chatmag.com
Spammers are already breaking laws; highjacking mail servers, using trojans such as 'jeem' and 'proxy-guzu' to make others send spam, etc. I doubt this law is going to be the one that finally makes them operate ethically.
Perhaps they need to also make it a crime for an individual in the state to purchase a product or service from a spammer...
Whenever the offence inspires less horror than the punishment, the rigour of penal law is obliged to give way...
It may be ineffective in getting spammers to stop their penis and lolita porn spams, but it does give the state a way of prosecuting spammers. Remember, going after a criminal is just a matter of technicality. After all, they got Al Capone for tax evasion of all things.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online. I consider the Internet to be something futuristic, where individuals are free to choose their own code of ethics, rather than having one dictated to them in a larger society, and individuals are free to interpret others' actions as they want and defend themselves as they want. I know that's not very realistic, but the quasi-anarchy "back in the good old days" before the Internet was Serious Business, before the Web was Important was something amazingly freeing and fulfilling. I do not want other people just discovering the realm of computers and global communication to be shoved into just another restrictive, judgemental society like the one in which we all participate in Real Life.
Spam ruins the online experience in the same way that mass-marketed commercialism does, and I hate to see the Internet become a thing of money and corporate power and not of freedom and individual power, but imposing restrictions doesn't seem to address the issue. However, maybe the problem will always be impossible to solve, because with freedom comes greed, and with freedom comes abuse...
But don't forget to try our new Suction Pump!!! Garanteed results!!! An inch every week!!! Girls will beg for you!!! Order from our website!!!
--TheOrangeSquid Is it any wonder things seem so awry? We swim in a sea of confusion and don't have to think to survive
It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Extremely unrealistic... The same case could be made for Slashdot itself. In the early days of /. there were no user accounts, there was no karma whoring because there wasn't a need for moderation at all. The "community" was small enough that you knew everyone and people could be trusted not to spoof other people. As /. grew, changes had to be made to the social structure in order to cope with scale.
This is true of any society. This is not anything new, as society changed from small family groups to tribes to cities to city states to nations, more laws and force had to be applied to keep things moving smoothly.
The challenge isn't keeping a state of "quasi-anarchy" at all costs, and whining about your rights. The challenge is taking responsibility and tutoring your elected officials on how law, technology and society intersect. Personally, I think there should be some regulation on unsolicited commercial email. Back in the good ole days I could actually use my email, now I get 20-25 spams a day vs about 1 or 2 actual useful e-mails. Personally, I find that a great restriction on my behavior and a burden to my resources.
The more you know, the less you understand.
Yeah, you're totally right. Spammers have a right to use up my mailbox space and my time. Is anyone crying over the illegality of junk faxes? Come on.
Making laws against spam is not censorship. Stop acting like it.
If I send unsolicited porn through the USPS I can be arrested, why is email any different? You don't hear to many people screaming that not allowing porno junk mail is a violation of freedom of speech.
>> leaves you wondering if "officials" have any clue how SPAMMERS operate..."
Actually it leaves me wondering if you have any idea how the law operates. As silly as this legislation may at first appear, you have to realize that (mostly) nothing is illegal unless there is a LAW to make it so. Yes, spam is already illegal in many states, but creating a law where spammers must insert adv-adult in their subject line is another point where would-be prosecutors can trip spammers up with, thus increasing penalties and even prison time. Its like when a murder is really heinous, prosecutors dont just try someone for murder 1, they get them on just about every count thats feasible to the case.
As much as I hate spam, it really bothers me to see any laws which restrict my behavior online.
Oh, come on. Does the requirement to honestly label the content of a -commercial- message really affect your freedom that much? Businesses -do not- deserve the same rights that private individuals do. As an individual, I believe I have a right to control what mail arrives in my mailbox. That right trumps your right to send me whatever spam you may wish to.
I think it's high time that more first-ammendment acivists (and I consider myself almost a first-ammendment radical) realize that along with freedom-of-speech comes an equally important right to "freedom not to be forced to listen to someone elses freedom of speech". Historically, there was no need for such a law, since you could always go elsewhere if someone was saying something you didn't chjose to listen to. As media becomes more & more closely intertwined with our lives, however, it's becoming impossible to ignore content that you want to. It's important to remember that the proposed law does not prevent you from sending me as much junk mail as you want, it just allows me to easily filter out any messages that I don't want to recieve before they reach my inbox. Laebling laws such as this one (along with adequately severe penalties to ensure compliance) are the ideal way of deailing with the problem. It allows your freedom-of-speech, and me my freedom-to-ignore.
So let's say you limit those in the US from sending you spam, what are you going to do when they start relaying from borked out servers abroad... Better yet what can you do. Waste taxpayer money tracking down spammers abroad... Let's see $5000 to track them, another $1000 to bring them down here to face the music, $100,000k miminum for some sort of farce trial for something you could have taken care of with spamassassin.
Boy oh boy I don't know who is dumber the politician who passed this law or the spammer I hit d on using mutt.
MoFscker