Slashdot Mirror
California Tries Spam Ban
Schlemphfer writes "Spammers have likely received their biggest setback yet, when California governor Gray Davis today signed a bill outlawing all unsolicited email sent to and from the state. Two things about this new law stand out: first, it puts the burden on senders to prove that they are sending solicited email. Second, it bans the entire practice of spamming, with no loopholes at all like allowing messages with ADV: in the subject. Keep in mind California has the world's fifth largest economy, and they are planning to enforce the law with fines amounting to $1000 per each piece of spam. This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st."
The issue here is one of enforcement. What's to stop the dishonest from forging e-mail headers and the rest, to fine a company or individual out of existance?
There's a huge issue with the volume of spam potentially involved. In the case of "fraudulent spam", who's going to investigate it, since the burden is on the sender?
Not that I'm defending spammers, I think the law is a good idea, but if the execution is flawed, it could be short-lived.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
For purposes of spam, on January 1st my address will change to Redmond, California.
Someone you trust is one of us.
What has to be a resident in the state to get the benefits of this bill? The human, or the mail server?
Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos
Spammers generally sell product, if I buy a product from them (yeah I'll play dumb) and if the value of the product is less than the value of the damages I could receive, I still get good compensation for the effort :-)
...in bed
Governor Davis is planning a "Vote No To Recall" spam campaign.
That alone will get him some votes... hasta la vista spam!
"In God we trust, all others must bring data" - W. Edwards Deming
...our penises, credit ratings, and mortgages are all in tip-top shape as is!
But made for a Californian...
SPAM BAN.
Sounds like deoderant, doesn't it?
Nice deficit he's got going, maybe this will balance things out. Enforcable? Suuuuuuure.
;)
Boy, he sure puts his nose to the grindstone when you threaten to throw him out of office. About time he actully DID something other than whine about how W ratcheted up state spending to put us $38B in the hole.
When the RIP Act was released in 2000 in the UK, it contained a lot of nasty legislation including some about encryption whereby the burden was placed on people to prove that they did not still have the key. This opened up the possibility of prosecution of innocent parties who could not prove their innocence (and were therefore guilty until proven innocent). While this law is notionally a good idea, does it not create the same problems of senders having to prove their mail was solicited or face being prosecuted? I am not advocating spam of course, just interested on the civil liberties side.
This won't work! Besides the fact that this law is likely to spell ABUSE with a capital A, it won't help Gray get re-elected. Does he really think that people are going to vote for him again after he single handedly bankrupt California?
Javascript + Nintendo DSi = DSiCade
"Vote against the recall! Only I, not any of my would-be replacements, have the courage to ban spam in California. Also, if you promise not to vote me out, free lollipops and fluffy bunnies for the kids come Christmastime."
That's pretty much every email to someone you're not friends with. ;)
But seriously, Davis is trying to go out with a bang.
A blog like any other.
Now everyone will only have to deal with spam in ICQ, AIM, NewsGroups, MSN, Popup software, Spyware software, and Net Sends.
The Spam companies are going to be RUINED!
How might this affect Hotmail, Yahoo, and other internet email services when spammers use those email addresses as the return? Will California attempt to go after MSN or AOL when hundreds of millions of spam mail turns up with those addresses on the tail end?
If nothing else, it looks like Governor Davis is making the best of his final days in office.
DecafJedi
my weblog: apropos of something
Davis is just trying to save his own skin. He's going group by group and signing off on half-baked laws to basically "buy" each group's vote.
Anyone need a driver's license? Just go to California with a very easily forged Mexican id.
Eventually this law will be pulled as a violation of free speech.
This bill would authorize the recipient of a commercial e-mail advertisement transmitted in violation of these prohibitions,... to recover liquidated damages of $1,000 per transmitted message up to $1,000,000 per incident..
:)
I won't get greedy and just take my chances in small claims
I get most of my spam from unsecured zombies in China and the like. Good luck in even figuring out where it came from, let alone prosecuting the spammer.
The burden will ALWAYS be on the recipient of unsolicited emails. When I login to my computer and find 90 ads for viagra and mother-son sex sites, it is on MY shoulders to inform authorities of the sender. Also, with all of the masking of addresses and such, how are they going to possibly prove who sent what to whom? A smart spammer will still get away with it.
On another note, how will the law apply to someone from another state visiting CA and checking their mail? What about a Californian visiting another state checking their mail? What about someone using an out of state ISP to check their mail?
One state banning spam is just going to create a paperwork nightmare. Call me when you have a real solution.
Celebrate Steak and a Blowjob Day!
I live in California. I got 1276 emails yesterday. One (1) was not spam. Wow, that would be $1,275,000 in penalties due to me alone, just yesterday!
That one, though, was from someone I've never heard of before, asking questions about things discussed on my website. Does that count as solicited or unsolicited?
California's already lawsuit-happy. Now they have the fuel to scam money away from residents of the other 49 states! Woohoo!
_________
The world doesn't just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?
...for all this worm spam I'm getting? $1000 times 200 "important patch" emails plus 300 fake bounce notifications, and that's just while I'm writing this note. So Microsoft has $50B in the bank... Budget crisis? What budget crisis?
I'm all for killing spam, but laws like these all come down to one thing: enforcement. Anyone want to bet that prosecuting/defending these cases are about to be a real growth industry for lawyers, and are liable to kill of a few good companies?
We all hate spam, but this is just going to clog the Cali legal system even further with bullshit litigations.
It has no bite against the real spammers, who don't have to answer to californias laws. It will just be used by people to harass each other.
That out of state ex just sent you an email? Have him charged. Not to mention all the bounces with forged headers from email worms.
California is turning into such a joke. Subsidized heroin use to the tune of 300 bucks a month. Free drivers licenses for illegals, no background check of any kind (also handy if you want a fake ID, kids).
Blech.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
California Moves to Ban Unsolicited E-Mail
By SAUL HANSELL
California is trying a deceptively simple approach to the problem of junk e-mail: It is about to ban spam.
Gov. Gray Davis of California signed a bill today that outlaws sending most commercial e-mail to or from the state that the recipient did not explicitly request. That is a far more wide-reaching law than any of the 35 other state laws meant to regulate spam or any of the proposed bills in Congress.
``We are saying that unsolicited e-mail cannot be sent and there are no loopholes,'' said Kevin Murray, the Democratic state senator from Los Angeles who sponsored the bill.
The law would fine spammers $1,000 for each unsolicited message sent up to $1 million for each campaign.
As the nation's most populous state and the home to many large Internet companies, the California bill could well have a significant effect on spam. The bill puts the burden on the sender to determine if the recipient resides in California.
The marketing industry vehemently opposes the law, saying that it will only restrict actions by legitimate marketers and not the rouges who send the most offensive spam.
The burden of complying with the state law, moreover, could well affect nearly all e-mail marketing.
``California represents up to 20 percent of the e-mail that is sent or received,'' said J. Trevor Hughes, the executive director, of the Network Advertising Initiative, a group of technology companies that send e-mail for marketers. ``Instead of trying to segregate the California e-mail addresses, many of our members are going to make the California standard the lowest common denominator.
Thirty-five states have already passed laws meant to regulate spam. But mostly these ban deceptive practices in commercial e-mail - like fake return addresses - and many require that spam be identified with the phrase ``ADV'' in the subject. But these laws do nothing to stop someone from sending advertising by e-mail, so long as it was properly labeled and not deceptive.
Delaware, also, banned sending unsolicited e-mail in 1999. But that law can only be enforced by the state attorney general, who has not taken any action under the statute.
Action under the California law, by contrast, can be brought by the state, by e-mail providers that have to handle spam and by the recipient. The bill's proponents say the right of individuals to file lawsuits should ensure that the bill is enforced, even if state prosecutors have other priorities. Indeed, a similar provision is credited with helping to insure compliance with the federal law against unsolicited faxes.
But at a news conference today, Kathleen Hamilton, the director of California Department of Consumer Affairs, promised that the state was ready to enforce the new law when it takes effect on Jan. 1.
``There will be a focus to make sure that once this law is in effect that advertisers abide by it so consumers and businesses are free from unsolicited spam,'' she said.
But he can't possibly compete against Marey Carey's not-so-different tactic of giving out free porn.
Turkeyphant
I hope that this law becomes a success and other states start legislating against spam. This could eventually lead to a major victory for the war on spam.
If the burden is on the spammers to govern their spam, I hope they stop to think that it's nearly impossible to determine the destination of their spam.
The new law states that the definition of location is not only defined by the ISP's location, but also the location of the person receiving the spam. In other words, regardless of where the ISP is located, the person can still be receiving the spam in California. I get lots of spam on the East-coast-based server, while I download into California.
Also, I wonder whether California is ready to handle the onslaught of filings of complaints. Perhaps they hope the law itself is enough to stop the spam. Gee... I hope so...
Urantian -- and proud of it!
Problem is, this is meaningless. It will almost certainly be suspended while it goes through the court system, to it's ultimate death at the hands of people who have much more money than you or I to pay off the lawyers, courts, politicos. This bill is meaningless.
I'd just love to see the face of a spammer as they got convicted for sending 1000 or so of these degenerate emails. They'd finally get a taste of the annoyance they have caused to innocent email users (and hopefully a nice stay in prison).
Gray should go out and present his ideas here:
http://www.j-walk.com/other/conf/
I mean what the hell does it make difference to have no-spam laws in the state of California. We've had them all over Europe for ages and what I've seen is the # of nigerians, viagras and the likes continues to rise faster than dot-com stocks ever did...
Just follow the money...
cmon, we all know what this really is.
what ever happened to the philosophy that the government that governs least, is the government that governs best.
"Nothing in the Constitution compels us to listen to or view any unwanted communication, whatever its merit," wrote Chief Justice Warren Burger in a 1970 decision. "We therefore categorically reject the argument that a vendor has a right under the Constitution or otherwise to send unwanted material into the home of another." Chief Justice Burger, U.S. Supreme Court ROWAN v. U. S. POST OFFICE DEPT., 397 U.S. 728
I mention this simply because spammers will say they have a first amendment right to annoy you because a form of 'speech' is involved, which is bullshit, kinda like how I don't have a first amendment right to stand on your lawn yelling advertisements with a loudspeaker 24/7, even though speech is involved. The first amendment doesn't mean anything is legal so long as some form of speech is in the mix. Spam is illegitimate, unprotected speech--much like kiddie porn and threats of violence.
Stupid people make stupid things profitable.
Riddle me this: what's stopping all of these tax-producing companies from moving out of the state of California, so some other state with less harsh spam laws?
The net effect is to drive tech employers out of his state (few though they are, but they seem to have lots of advertising cash), reducing the funds flowing into the state budget. This isn't a solution, this is realizing you're about to be recalled and screwing the next governor.
"Step 3: Geeks Profit!" would have to be religiously adhered to, because I can think of few jobs more dull than sifting through possibly-faked message info. If I've been misinformed and a really well-faked e-mail is indistinguishable from the genuine article, or if the gov't suits refuse to pay geeks good money to waste time investigating this stuff, I can look into the future and see all kinds of poo-poo hitting the spinning blades.
The third choice, I guess, is to set up a Beowulf cluster of SCO-kerneled Linux boxen, give each spammer an original sig, and declare that forevermore all unsolicited e-mail shall originate from billgates@microsoft.com. I'd pay $699 to watch that unfold.
"Linux doesn't exist. Everyone knows Linux is an unlicensed version of Unix"- Kieren O'Shaughnessy
Can any economist explain how these things are measured? For instance, the top economies are often quoted as US, Japan, Germany, Britain, France - but sometimes China is inserted between the US and Japan. I guess that this is because a lot of China's economy goes on feeding their billion peasants, so it could be argued that it doesn't really count - is that what's going on?
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
California, here I come!
Alrighty then -- is this one step closer to being able to hold MS/lazy admins liable for not patching their systems? I mean think about it -- it's not exactly "spam" but those e-mail worms are most definitely unsolicited.
Tis a lovely notion, and as one whose inbox swells with daily e-flotsam, I'm all for some kind of action. But who will enforce this law and how? Let's say the whole country adopts this law... spammers will just set up shop outside the 12-mile limit and we'll just get virility-enlargement adverts from some other time zone ("would you like a 28 cm penis?" CLICK HERE!").
Hoping for the best (but glumly accepting the status quo)...
At $1000 a pop, they should have that $35 billion dollar defict cleared up by next Thursday. And look at all those business that will move thier mail servers back to California just to be protected under this law.
I doubt this will survive the first court challenge. And rightly so. It run right over the first amendment and the commrce clause.
It will solve all California's Budget woes!
Your frustration is understandable. You are stuck in the hellhole that is California after all.
First the privacy for the car blackboxes, now this spam bill. Amazing how nice these politicians are when their ass is in the fire. Maybe we should have more recalls....
If I email an old classmate out of the blue, and they happen to live in CA, it could cost me $1000 if they're desperate for money?
I would be frustrated if my mental acuity was on your level too. If you think Gray bankrupted the State of California, why don't you mull these points over for a bit: 1) California has less money now, why? Because the REPUBLICANS CUT TAXES while the going was good; 2) Isn't it REPUBLICANS that are currently bankrupting the country too?
Dude. Get a clue.
If mail servers count (I am a resident of illinois, though I go to Wisconsin regularly on business) I am so going to purchase a web hosting service from a california ISP. Any people masquerading (or real) lawyers out there to give me a legal opinion on this?
I can deal with spam. What i'd rather see is a law that requires mail server admins to immediately stop the sending of virus generated mails. They should be required to trash every message that tries to go out with an attachment that we all know is from a current virus (.pif for example) and therefore stop the rest of us from receiving these and some people from getting infected by them and just spreading the damn thing.
That way I wouldn't have to suffer through events like two weeks ago when I received over 5000 emails from the same ip address in a 48 hour period, while my requests to the sending ip's tech contact went ignored.
Interesting. Is this a bid for re-election, then? Darned good one, if you ask me. :)
I hate Spam with a passion; in fact, I would happily spend my every waking hour beating the living shit out of spammers and the people that use them.
However, putting the burden of proof on the sender to prove that a given commercial e-mail is solicited will lead to abuse, and the fining of innocent parties. I would hate to see the internet get even more restrictive as large companies immediately start a chain of CYA manouevers to avoid getting fined in California.
While I'm for anti-spam legislation in my gut, I don't know how it can be safely and effectively implemented. As a community, concerned users on the internet need to find better ways. I think learning filters, blacklists, and other tactics are better steps in the right direction.
Generally speaking Governments implement "bans" on things poorly; particularly when the thing in question is something as hard to define as Spam.
Ideally nobody would buy anything from any company that used these bloodsuckers to "advertise" for them, but that ain't going to happen - Einstein's famous comment on the infinite nature of human stupidity ensures this.
Pierre
This idiot governor...ruined our states economy
actually he didn't. the cali economy is ruined for one very specific reason: a few years ago, the electric industry tested how free enterprise would work in their industry. the test was done in cali. electric companies were allowed to charge whatever they wanted for power, and the result was disastrous. at one point, a company was charging $9999 for one unit of electricity (whatever a unit is) because they thought they only had 4 characters for the price (they actually had 7). in addition, some companies were falsely claiming plant failures and malfunctions so that other more expensive plants would pump out the energy at higher prices. this caused massive blackouts. since energy bills were so high, many people couldn't pay them, and had to live without power for long periods of time. others "protested" the prices, and refused to pay even though they had the money.
this has left california's electric industry in ruins. it is the cause of the massive deficit.
...tick-tick-tick-tick...
...tick-tick-tick-tick...
Let's count the seconds until the Direct Marketing Association drops a lawsuit over this bill.
Ding!
Hey, my cookies are done! And I can gain three to four inches overnight!
Washington State has an anti-spam law that forbids sending deceptive spam to state residents.
One judge tried to strike down the law, saying it created too high a burden on businesses to figure out whether an email address belonged to a Washingtonian.
The next judge up the appeals chain said in effect no, the law's just fine, the only "burden" is on companies who lie about their email address, unsubscribe policies and products, and while the law is supposed to facilitate legitimate commerce it doesn't have to cut slack for deception.
If judges in CA follow the same reasoning, the law may not survive challenges.
I have believed for some time there are only two ways the spam problem can be solved. 1. Ending the convention of accepting e-mail from unknown sources, that is, anyone not on a whitelist; and requiring authentication. 2. Legal means. The trouble with California's law is the jurisdictional issues it raises. Regulation of email traffic crossing state lines is arguably soley in the purview of the FCC, so aside from companies in California seeking to spam other Californians, I can't imagine the law will withstand a court challenge.
Yeah, but I didn't think he'd driven all the jobs other than spamming out of California. At least, not yet!
(Now before you think I'm getting political here, Florida's governor is a Republican. And what the hell does anybody do for a living in Florida other than spam the ever-lovin' fuck out of the rest of the planet? :-)
First, a large proportion of address lists can be traced back to someone missing a checkbox that said "I agree to let this crappy company and it's affiliates send me email about anything". The way I read this, if you accidently leave a single one of these boxes unchecked, then crappy company can sell your address to anyone, who can then legaly send you spam, since you requested information.
Therefore, all this law requires is a little more bookkeeping on part of the people who harvest lists, so that they can prove that you did request information, if they ever go to court.
1) To all the folks trashing Gray Davis, your opinion of him aside, this is not Gray Davis' legislation nor does the responsibility of this law rest solely on his shoulders. Legislation must typically first pass through state legislatures and then can be signed into law by the governor once the legislature has voted in favor of the legislation. California has many unique governmental policies, but I'd imagine this one is still in place.
2) As per clogging courts, if each person independently brought their spammer to court over each e-mail, yes it would likely be absolutely awful. I would imagine there would be a series of class action lawsuits against the spammers rather than cases filed by individuals. You'll collect some small portion of the damages while the lawyers get rich. Expect to see lawyers advertising asking you to send them your spam.
3) Spammers cannot make money without pointing you at some contact point, be it a web site, a phone number, or some other form of point of contact. The case can be initiated against the individual for whom the spam advertises. The onus is then on their shoulders to prove they did not send the spam. You will likely see lawyers prosecuting these cases dropping charges against the contact agencies if they comply by providing the spammers they hired.
IANAL
"Give away the stone, let the oceans take and transmutate this cold and faded anchor." - Maynard James Keenan
I, for one, welcome our new spam-obliterating Californian Overlords!
Good luck enforcing this law. Last week it was mandatory health insurance. According to a Long Beach Press-Telegram article, Boeing pays $1 million in worker's compensation insurance (not claims, just the insurance payment) per plane. Thats quite a few $45,000 jobs right out the window. I think tonight I am going to buy myself a 40, go down to Long Beach, sit on the sand and watch the jobs sail right out of the port. At least I'll be there to wave good-bye.
AHHHHHHHHH, sorry... just a frustrated californian here.
Don't just be frustrated. Vote the bastard out of office! and don't let his cronie Bustamante in either. That guy is full of crap too.
What I don't get is why Hispanics think the Democrats' crap is good for them. Yay, illegals get free education and drivers licenses. That means plenty of cheap labor, so there's no pressure on employers to raise workers' pay. That's bad for low income people...which many Hispanics are. And now these low income ILLEGAL people get to drive and go to college...to better themselves, ostensibly...and that puts them in a position to economically displace the low income legal people...
So why are Hispanics supporting Davis/Bustamante, when the two are really just out to screw over their constituency? All I can see about the Dems is that they tell people whatever they want to hear just to get the vote...then go spend spend spend on their little pet projects to "make the world a better place." Barf.
As for the republicans...either McClintock or Schwarzeneggar have to bow down to keep Bustamante out...I'd prefer it was Arnold to leave because McClintock's got a no bull attitude -- he won't tell you what you want to hear just to get your vote.
What a screwed up state. Excuse my rant.
Who ever said the recall was a bad thing needs to realize that davis is going to be working twice as hard now. this is awesome!!!! and i dont even like davis!
This law has absolutley zero chance of standing. It is a total joke signed into law by a desperate politician who is willing to fart at strong constitutional law precedent to win an election.
Give me a break. Anyone who thinks this law will withstand 10 mintues of a challenge is seriously deluded.
"If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
This means, a valid web address, phone #, or physical address must be in the spam.
That's how
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
The irony of this is apparently the burden of enforcing this law falls upon the California Department of Consumer Affairs. Why is this ironic? Well, because the State of California is attempting to lay off 20,000 or more employees to cut expenses and close the budget deficit. So on one hand, you have the State goverment trying to shed jobs while on the other, it is trying to take on more costly responsibilities, however noble (or not) it might be...
m ep age.jsp
You can find the California Dept. of Consumer Affairs website at the following location:
http://www.dca.ca.gov/
I have found no mention of this law on the webpage (or the Governor's webpage either), but then again, departments within the State are rather slow with their updates.
The website of Governor Davis can be found here:
http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_ho
If non-California residents (legal or illegal) find it interesting that almost all California government websites look similar, it is no coincidence. All webpages are supposed to be coded using Frontpage (even while the State Attorney General's Office was persuing the antitrust case with Microsoft)...
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
What does "California Email" mean?
Does it mean e-mail sent from California?
Does it mean e-mail received in California? What does it mean for e-mail to be delivered in California? Must the server physically reside in California or just the reader? This might have implications for those that outsource their email to hosting companies, mega-ISPs (AOL jumps to mind), etc.
Just curious.
Cheers,
Sean
As with any such law what I find distressing is that people fail to realize that businesses are being held to a higher standard than politicians.
Sorry, but with the amounts of money involved politicians are commercial operations. They excused themselves from the no-call law as well.
This might ditch a certain type of spam, but I would prefer to see it thrown out of the grounds that only equal application and enforcement be legal. Its either all SPAM or none at all.
We need not except exceptions for politicians, their PACs, and anything else they deem appropriate (ie other suddenly non-commercial groups)
Lastly, isn't it just like Gray to be kissing so much ass when his own is on the line?
* Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
Mother-Son Sex?
That's disgusting.
Unless the mom is really really hot, of course.
It will be overturned by the Supreme Court or even a lower court on a First Amendment basis. The California law makers know that but they need to look like their acting tough on SPAM. A more reasonable law that would stand the scrutiny of judical review would have taken too long to draft and pass. Most elected people in Sacramento dont give a rats ass about SPAM. This is all about grabbing media attention for a few seconds and having something to say to the next contributor who is effected in a large way by SPAM.
So what if someone's computer is hacked (we hear about all kinds of Windows flaws) and used as relaying server for spam (without their knowledge), is the burden on innocent to prove that their computer was hacked or used as mail relay without their knowledge ?
I have a problem with the term "unsolicited mail". How can you distinguish between legitimate business propositions ( job seeker, partnership, etc. ) and SPAM ? Shouldn't the law cover this somehow ? Thanks for your input.
DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
Indeed, as people have commented clearly enforcing this measure would be undoubtedly hard; verging on the impossible in many a case. More importantly, I'd ask where does the money generated from this go? An idealistical suggestion might be to going into funding "anti-spam" open source products, such that people will get a better chance of cutting out the chaff from their email.
already say that there exists a direct marketer's right to send out notices ? While I applaud this it seems likely to #1 run into huge court challenges, #2 be VERY HARD to enforce, #3 seems to smack of grandstanding....
Otherwise MORE POWER TO HIM..I HATE SPAM...
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
I am so happy this is finally gone through!
But... what if my email server is physically located in Hawaii while myself is located in California?
Ave Molech Setting
This was SB 186
For all you trolls blaming Davis for the actions of the legislature, you can read the actual vote record, and see how the final votes went.
For all you armchair leigslators making guessing about how they define spam, read the bill itself, as enrolled.
If this is written rationally, and the state really is prepared to do it, I'd vote against the recall just based on this law, if I lived in California. As it is, I'm thinking I need to move my mail server to California!
Spammers send out spam to make money. That means there is information in the email about where to send money to recieve the items they are selling. Once you have that information it's easy to trace the money to the final person asking for it, assuming they don't do any money laundering which is illegal in itself.
Outdoor digital photography, mostly in New Engl
This will not hold up in court. Davis is just trying to get votes.
Well its easy to determine Email from pink processed meat ( SPAM is a copyright of HORMEL btw. the correct useage is spam or Spam - lower case ).
And spam is should be defined by the end user, which is where the new law didn't define. If you didn't ask for it, then you should use your own "brain" and define that message as you perceive it.
>> outlaws sending most commercial e-mail to or from the state that the recipient did not explicitly request.
At least as stated... there's no limit on sending spam WITHIN California. Trying to support local business, are we? (i.e. spammers) I'd just send my spam through a California server if that were the case.
q:]
MadCow.
I used to have a sig, but I set it free and it never came back.
I mean 90% of spam wants you to go to a site... unless the SPAM is just malicious SPAM. It's not necessary to go after the emailer, but the company that allows it servers for relaying (dumbasses) or the company trying to sell me everythign from Penis enhancers to Breast Enlargers? Urr one of the other please!
So I read this as unsolicited taxes and thought to myself, heil Gray Davis.
(Yeah, it's been a long day.)
Come on.. laws like this will only impact the few legitimate, opt-in marketers that exist in California (yeah, there actually are some), by making a whole new set of hoops they have to jump through. The 99% of spam that comes from other small countries will just continue to increase. Hooray government.
I've said it once before, and I'll say it again. RBLs and Spamassassin do WONDERS! What, you don't have access/can't migrate to that kind of a set up? Here's what you do. You go to www.Shadango.com, and sign up for a free account. You can use it to check all of your email accounts (and even send from them) from the one interface. So you don't lose any email, and it's easy to check all your accounts.
Anyway, if I had any sort of an online business in CA, I would seriously consider moving my headquarters. With a random, overarching law like this passed so quickly.. what are the next ones going to be like when this doesn't stem the flood?
SpamTrap.dkwri34@shadango.com
-Nate
Is it where the ISP is? The address the bill goes to? Will Earthlink register itself (and all its customers) in California? Even those that retrieve thier mail form a terminal in New York? Will I switch to a company that affords me that protection if it's upheld in court? Oh my heavens, yes!
This is the best Democracy money can buy?!?!?
I am serious. what IM spam? You can set up your IM so that you have in essence a 'opt-in' list. IE: your friends are the only ones that can post to you. I've been using IM since early ICQ, and never have that problem. Just look in the options, or preferences section to block people.
:) $5 and I'll show yo how to keep nuts, kooks, and idiots away from your IM. (oh, this also deals with spammers. Put them in the catagory of your choice.)
I have to show this to EVERYONE, especially ones leaving IM cause of creeps.
Oh well, maybe I should make a few bucks on this
Shadock Delaforge
In Iowa, I can only get $50 per Spam. If I could get a thousand, I might actually go through the trouble figuring out who spammed me. If I get forged-header gobltygook then I can go ahead and sue the organization that spammer promotes. If only 0.001% of receivers purchase anything, 0.001% of them suing them will probably make them think twice, even if the suit doesn't win, it's still a huge burden.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
I can see it now...not only will this not hurt spammers in any way, but it'll give them a lucrative new business model.
What's that? A competitor in California? Sure, I'll fake emails from them, for a price.
Just because it's routed through Korea won't be proof enough that the company didn't send it. Hell, it's advertising *their* product, isn't it?
No comment.
The word "Spam" has been codified into law, and is now an official part of the legal lexicon.
Hormel are likely to be annoyed, and the Pythons are probably shaking their heads in utter bewilderment.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
:)) Thanks for the tip. You are right. Probably the court will establish "what can be considered spam and what not" on a case by case bases. I just don't want to see another dragnet thrown over e-mail traffic.
first, it puts the burden on senders to prove that they are sending solicited email. Is this in keeping with the innocent until proven guilty idea?
This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st.
I agree with you-- in theory. In theory, communism works. In theory.
Use Ctrl-C instead of ESC in Vim!
If you get spam avertizing a mortgage or penis pills or whatever, all you have to do is sue the pharmacy or mortgage house. $1k is worth the money, you might be able to get a laywer on contingency or do it in your spare time.
Even if you lose, which is doubtfull (why would a judge alow a 3rd party to break the law for you) it's still a huge pain in the ass.
The advertizer may just flip on the spamemr anyway.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
It should be quite obvious to anyone that the only reason this law is here is because of the sheer volume of spam out there.
Maybe Davis' is hoping to fix the budget problems with revenue from suing the spammers.
as someone who has received over 1500 pieces of spam emai this week. I would love to put the spamers out of business.
I'm sure the spammers will find a way around this though - probably initially by making more use of compromised computers.
But at least someone's trying to do something about it.
I'm guessing less than 1% of spam originates in California, and that's the only spam that the law will really have solid jurisdiction over. Enforcing the law across state lines could get real interesting in the courts. And since most spam has origins outside the US, any US state's attempt to ban it is a joke.
1) Commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech as Nike just recently found out. Telemarkters are running into the same thing since the introduction of a national "Do Not Call" list here in then the states. I still generally can't stop someone from saying something (prior restraint) but now someone also can't force me to both listen to them and pay for the mechanism they use to transmit to me (i.e., my phone or my internet account). This issue was also addressed some time ago with regard to junk faxes. It costs the recipient and the sender cannot force the recipient to pay for something they don't want.
2) The California law would probably be difficult to enforce against unsolicited, non-commercial (e.g., political, religeous, charitable, etc.) e-mail for the same reason. These are generally protected speech. I would be very surprised if they didn't allow this loophole.
3) The concern about "guilty until proven innocent" is unfounded since this just says that the burden of proof that someone wanted to get a particular e-mail is on the sender. That is, whoever sends the spam has to have some sort of "opt in" record if someone challenges them. This is as opposed to each individual recipient being required to prove a negative: that they never requested the spam.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
Simply amazing. The citizens want you gone, so you use your power to help pass laws that the citizen actually wants!
What's next?
Amnisty for p2p traders?
Caps on insurance hikes?
Regulation of energy to keep costs down?
Actually following the letter and intent of the weed decrimilization law?
As a Californian who isn't too fond of Davis, I have to snicker a bit. So the threat of being kicked out actually does make law makers push to enact laws that the average person wants, instead of pandering to corperations.
Gosh, the next thing you know, Davis will be the champion of providing a quality education.
The Internet is generally stupid
Arnold Schwarzenegger responded to Davis in hopes of gaining some more points in the latest poll.
"If elected for governor I promise to crush the spam into insignifigant puny pieces. I will pump up the fines so that anyone sending or receiving spam will have to give me all their money. Let's just put it this way... the spam won't be back. Hasta la vista."
Just checked the .ca.us registry, and there are a bunch of towns in calif that are willing to give you your own yourname.townname.ca.us domain name for free; unfortunately, you have to be a resident of the place, or have a business (unfortunately, no PO Boxes... damn, I could just get something at a calif mailboxes etc or something...)
1. USA
2. China
3. Japan
4. Germany
5. England
6. France
7. Russia (quietly moving back up list)
??
This is my sig.
It seemed like a reasonable post to me. Don't see a flame in it. But it got modded zero and now we have to click parent to see what the other replies were in reference to. Hmm?
but...I'm still voting for Gregory.
And this has what to do with spam?!? Dumb mods
I hate spammers, but this law is meaningless, as are ALL anti-spam laws:
1. Spammers will ignore the law. Which leads to the next point:
2. Laws are meaningless unless enforced. How will it be enforced? When I get hit with spam that violates this law, who do I complain to? Who will investigate my complaint and then pursue and punish the spammers?
3. Where will all the money and resources come from to enforce this law (see point #2 above) -- to actually enforce this law will take FAR more money and resources than anyone realizes or will admit.
And even if significant money and resources are allocated to enforce the law:
4. What about all the spam originating from servers outside the U.S.
to drive and go to college...to better themselves, ostensibly
Only on Slashdot do we live in some kind of alternate reality where driving and going to college do nothing to improve a person's social standing.
I am a California resident, as well as an email services provider (to my household, via our in-house mail server). It's so great to know that I'll never receive another spam again! Yay! And it's even better to know that should the rare spam actually get sent to me, I can sue the sender and make myself rich.
:)
What a perfect world we live in. No more spam, and now I can quit my job and become rich suing spammers. Thanks California!
For the sarcasm-impaired -->
My bank, my ISP, eBay and Yahoo - they all have my email adress that I gave them by myself. Because I have an account there. Periodically they send the information I really need: about some problems or some events specifically related to my account for example. But very often they spam me with the staff I have never asked them to send me about! ISP is trying to sell me more services that I dont need. Bank is tryng to give me the credit I haven't asked about. Yahoo... they even disactivate "this is spam" link when they send it to me.
How can I complain in the court and prove that the spam they all send me is unsolicited email?
And what if many "anonymous" spammers will turn to subcontract their traffic to such unhonest account holders? How about "Y!Viagra" or "new credit to help Nigeria people"?
Less is more !
It would be relatively easy for a responsible company to prove that they didn't send the spam. At that point they could countersue Company A for damages and libel. All this talk about spoofing in email is really bullshit. You can't spoof everything. I've been fighting spam professionally for a good many years now. I archive and report tens of thousands of pieces of spam each year. It's not hard to find out where a piece of spam came from if you know where and what to look for.
If anyone is surprised by this legislation, they haven't seen this legislature in action. As a resident of California, I get up and read the local paper each morning fully prepared to read that the State Assembly and Senate have just gotten our coin-operated governor to sign a law that will put a chicken in every pot, a Mercedes in every garage, and that we will all be farting through silk (thank you Mr. O'Rourke) while only "the rich and fatcat corporations pay for these little perks of living in the Golden State". This legislature can't find its a55 with both hands. The worst thing is that someone (not me) keeps voting these dreamers into office. Let's try it again, there is no free lunch. As a result of this Leviathan of state government, businesses are bailing out of the Golden State as fast as their lawyers will go. California has turned into Europe without the history. I don't have to go to France (again), I already live there. A quick rundown of recent madness from Sacramento (I'm not making this stuff up): 1. Foster parents (most of whom are committed Christians), will receive sensitivity training to ensure they are not discriminating against their charges who might be homosexual. I figure that just nuked at least 10 percent of the potential foster parent population of the state. Result: state is stuck with an even larger child-rearing tab. 2. The poorest Indian tribes in the state have seen their petitions to build casinos shot down in flames. The already-established tribes with casinos (read big, white-skinned investors with Indian fronts) have nakedly ponied up millions for Gray Davis and his Mini-Me, Cruz Bustamante to ensure this came to pass. The big "tribes" are also paying for protection since obscene casino revenues make a tempting target for our obscene state government. In the meantime, Caesar's Palace will be helping a big "tribe" get bigger while the small tribes keep scraping by on Godforsaken land away from the prosperous coast. 3. The state has established new, strict regulations for the auto industry that will determine what levels of CO2 emissions will be permitted in California a few years from now. Basically Washington D.C. took a pass on mandating new mileage requirements for the automakers so Cali took it upon itself to do so. In the meantime, the infrastructure taxes get dribbled away on all manner of programs that won't take care of the real culprit, congestion and traffic jams.
So now Davis is trying to buy a few votes from those who hate spam along with the votes of all the other Golden State Suckers who believe we can legislate our way to prosperity and happiness. With his a55 on the line, Davis is signing anything that looks like it might help. In my opinion, we would be better off with flypaper instead of the paper these laws will be printed on. Much more useful. In the meantime, the business climate here will continue to implode.
In principio erat Verbum.
Then find a way to take them to court in their country by their violation of US law."
That will never happen. No sovereign nation would agree to try their own citizens domestically for a violation of US law. It is not the responsibility of any country other than the US to enforce US laws. Nor is it the responsibility of the US to enforce the laws of another country.
At best, you could try to negotiate reciprocal extradition treaties and have the spammers sent over to the US for trial. Of course, if sending spam is not unlawful in the country that the spam really originates from, that government is *highly* unlikely to spend the time and resources to investigate and hand over the person(s) responsible.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Why did this get moderated as insightful? This is (as the poster states) a rant. Fact is, folks crossing the border from Mexico illegal or otherwise, in my experience, have the attributes that made the USA great: hardworking, intelligent, family oriented and interested in self determination. John Ashcroft take note.
But why not extend the SMTP protocol a little? To include a new command like "SPMQ", which would query the server on the sorts of spam a given account might actually like to see? Have a pre-defined 'keywords standard', and have 'honest' spammers include the relevant keywords on their spam? Spam without keywords is game for legal action, and sending spam with keywords a recipient has rejected could be dropped immediately by the server (or logged as abuse, since the spammer should be using the SPMQ command to find out what someone wants and doesn't want).
This allows the people who supposedly care about marketing honestly to market to those people who are actually interested, and would also allow people who want no spam to set a null keyword set. I know in and of itself it can't stop abuse, but it gives the (two?) legitimate companies a framework to work within - why would porn companies WANT to send porn spam to a 6 year old kid? It's not in their best interests, as it makes for angry parents, bad publicity and almost certainly no sale.
I know many people would choose null keyword sets, but apparently there are people who really do want catalogues and such emailed to them. I know I wouldn't mind receiving ads for new technology, but I don't need to see another fucking viagra ad for a good few decades yet.
Governor Gumby Davis has fouled things up traditionally for our state, but this is a step in the right direction! Still, I would like to see Ahhnold as our governor. That would rock. :)
I reside in arkansas, but my mailserver is located in california. Does this law apply to mail sent to me?
Email is dead.... Give up email. I just use the phone now - I actually talk to people - its quite good - there isn't a record of what your conversation was. I just use Email to confirm in writing (if required). If you aren't on my contact list - YOU GET BOUNCED! I've taken our companies email address off our web-site.
ILLEGAL people
So what's wrong with legalizing people?
Will I retire or break 10K?
"Did you ask him to send you an email? Nope? Then its unsolicited."
You're not REQUIRED to press charges. And in the OP's example, the email he got was NOT COMMERICIAL.
If I don't mind getting spam about something or other I don't have to press charges. If I get spam about something or other I don't like, it's now an OPTION to press charges.
"The potential for abuse with this loony law is enormous."
Only when your world view is black and white as yours is. Fortunatly the law isn't as dense.
And this will just cut down on spam comming out of CA.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
Why would the government grant amnesty from people who are committing an illegal act? The only time they do that sort of thing is when they're cutting a deal to catch a bigger fish.
Next you'll want the government to grant amnesty for black market shops and warez site owners.
Fortunatly we live in a republic which recognizes the fact that the majority is often wrong. In the case of illegal file sharing over P2P, the general public has lost it's mind.
Ben
Work Safe Porn
I think this is just a clever ploy for Davis to lure voters away from Georgie during the recall election we're going to suffer through in a few weeks.
The problem is the ability to send email with complete anonymity. I can setup a throw-away domain and a website for $80 (or less), and get a free month's dial-up ISP, all on a stolen credit card number. I send out my 10M spam messages, collect orders at $30 per from the .025% that respond within two weeks, and disappear with $75K. Do this every three months with a different "product" and gross $300K/year. Not a bad income.
The authorities will always be six months behind. Virtually impossible to keep up.
Or worse, how about I spoof the IP address of my biggest competitor's mail server, forge headers to look like messages are coming from a real mailbox on their server, and send out one of their press releases to 50K California residents? After all, I don't need to receive SMTP responses in order to send messages, I just assume to get valid responses and blindly send away. It's even faster that way! Then I sit back while my competitor files for bankruptcy after getting hit with a $50M fine. How would they prove they didn't do it?
As well meaning as this and every other anti-spam law may be, they will not make any difference in eliminating illegitimate spam. What is needed is a change to SMTP to require server/domain authentication via authenticated certificates. While I cringe at the prospect of sending more money in Verisign's direction (they are, after all, the biggest certificate authority), I can't see any reasonable alternative.
Also keep in mind that we in CA are upwards of $40 billion in the hole, and next year it will be even more. We have a compelling positive incentive to hunt spammers down, skin them alive, and take all their money.
To all the spammers of the world: Watch it fuckbrain, we're from California.
OMG! Davis must be 50 feet tall!
Heh. McClintock voted to allow spam. And you want a technoidiot like that running the state?
In any case, it doesn't matter. Modern day spammers utilize offshore locations to spam. Locations such as Russia and Taiwan.
This is just another case of the lawmakers finally catching up...ten years too late. But they're probably doing it to try to make it look like they're doing their jobs by making headlines.
About the only thing that will end spam forever is to fix the SMTP protocol. Something that will probably take as long as IPv6. I know there's a bunch of so-called working groups working on it, but it ain't gonna happen any time soon.
Just add {In Space!} to anything.
when there hasn't been one "please paste the article its asking for a login" post
bite my glorious golden ass.
This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st."
Ruinous to spammers. I love to savor those words. They tickle my tounge as the roll off it so smoothly. I want to say it over and over. Ruinous to spammers. Try it. Say it with me. "Ruinous to spammers". You like that, don't you.
-=-=-=-=- osjedi uses Debian GNU/Linux. -=-=-=-=-
On the other hand, California does have a lot of unemployed or underemployed computer experts (sorry, consultants in private practice who are available on short notice), many of whom have the spare time and skills to start hunting spammers. Most of them don't have the legal skills to negotiate these things through the courts efficiently - but there are also a lot of unemployed technology-oriented lawyers (sorry, lawyers in private practice or small firms who are available on short notice) who might be interested in some joint activities on spec. The lower end of this business is hunting down $1000 spams; the higher end is bounty-hunting for ISPs.
On the other hand, it does increase the opportunity for email about "You can make Thousands of Dollars in your Spare Time Hunting Down Spammers! Buy our Instruction Kit!"...
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
What a screwed up state. Excuse my rant.
The fact that you support McClintock makes the rest of your coumn pretty much meaningless. Oh boy, he has a "no bull attitude". Great. Who cares about his policies, as long as he has a "no bull" attitude. How is this comment not a troll?
Help, Mr. McClintock, protect us from the evil hispanic immigrants!
Omnes arx vestrum sunt adiuncta nobis.
Courtesy the California Legislature web site.
So... my friend emails me one of his increasingly less funny email jokes. Can he be fined $1000?
Better yet, I send my friend an invitation to a party, can I be fined $1000?
Does the email have to be commercial in nature to be fined? It seems to me that in both of the above cases, the sender cannot prove that the email was "requested". In fact, no uninitiated email can be proved to be requested, but it's a bit farfetched to say that it's all legally spam.
It *is* a serious problem for email service providers, who do see a significant impact on their resource usage, but for the rest of us, most of the impact really is the annoyance and the time wasted on it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
1) Commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech as Nike just recently found out.
False. It is protected in a different manner.
some links.
2) The California law would probably be difficult to enforce against unsolicited, non-commercial (e.g., political, religeous, charitable, etc.) e-mail for the same reason. These are generally protected speech. I would be very surprised if they didn't allow this loophole.
Again, it will depend. Even the exceptions are still regulated with respect to suitable calling hours, misrepresentation, et cetera.
In these cases, it is not as simple as a pamphlet. With e-mail and phone calls you use (and sometimes abuse) someone else's resources to deliver a message. In a sense, that message is the "freedom of speech" part and the means of transmission (spam, commercial, billboard, mail) is where the battlelines get most often drawn.
While this law is notionally a good idea, does it not create the same problems of senders having to prove their mail was solicited or face being prosecuted?
The senders must be able to prove that they have permission to do whatever they're doing. That's quite normal in real life too. If there was a bunch of people running around painting houses pink without permission, and you asked me to paint your house pink, I'd demand that in writing so I have proof if and when someone reports me for it.
It would be an entirely other matter, if the companies apparently sending the spam would have to prove that they did not send it. That would be having to prove their innocence.
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Most of the Nigerian 419 spam is illegal in Nigeria, under Section 419 of the law. The economy's enough different that a $1000 fine is a lot of money. The government over the last few years hasn't done much to stop them, and it's been corrupt and violent enough that stopping people from scamming a few greedy foreigners isn't a high priority. On the other hand, if they get a cut of the anti-spammer reward money, corrupt violent officials might find it more profitable to burn some scammers and even extradite a few. The problem, of course, is that most of these scammers aren't *successful* scammers, they're just wanabees hoping to get lucky, and there's no profit to anybody in prosecuting or shaking down an unsuccessful wanabee scammer.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Try reading the actual law instead of the article. The unsolicited clause only applies to businesses. (And you should read the law to figure out what the word "businesses" really means in this context.)
No Zen is good zen
Your proposal would make it easy for anybody who wanted to stifle their competition to joejob them, which would make it illegal to buy their product in spite of the fact that the spam is obviously bogus.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Now, here is a list of advantages this law gives Californians:
Here is a list of disadvantages this law gives Californians:
- less freedom on the Internet
- increase dependence on lawyers and a busy legal system
- precedent to create other laws against of Internet usage patterns
Now, the reason we want junk e-mail is this: we use statistical filters, and the more junk e-mail we get, the better our filters work. By cutting out most junk e-mail, filters have a harder time catching the few junk e-mails that will inevitably be sent.Small fines won't work. Even at $1k a pop, it would cost more money to pursue the spammers, and most of them are small time losers with very little money who would simply declare bankruptcy. You can't find a lawyer willing to take action. It's a waste of time.
The only thing that's going to work is criminalizing spamming. Actually, it's already criminal but the authorities don't enforce it. We don't need more laws. We need the feds to get in gear and go after the spammers, who break plenty of laws already in the process of propagating their junk e-mail.
If you are sick of spam, write your Federal Attorney General and demand that they take action against spammers. Any ISP can deliver enough logs and evidence to indict a spammer at will. Until the Feds decide to stop ignoring this plague, nothing else is going to work.
I am as happy as a pig in shit.
Ive been waiting for this to come to fruition for a long time.
enforcement will definately be a challenge.. but this is definately a step int eh right direction.
If someone asked ole Darl the SCOInformationMinister this question he might just try to sue all the spammers for us...
Here's a potential loophole: the new bill talks about "california email addresses". What does that mean?
Is someuser@hotmail.com a California email address? How about if the owner of that address lives in California?
Is someuser@provider.nl a Californian or a Dutch email address, if its owner lives in California?
Spammers could argue in court that only *.ca.us addresses are California addresses. While that may be enough to keep the governor and his officials spam-free, it won't help the rest of us at all.
profit
Last post!
1st known failed CIA coup in South America : http://www.chavezthefilm.com/index_ex.htm
So far it's been challenged on First Amendment grounds and interstate commerce grounds.
"Declined" says the Supremes
"Judgement stands" says the local court.
Sorry, trying to stay out of the full legal treatiste on the difference between commercial speech and individual speech. Bottom line is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only grant rights to individuals; not to corporations. Some of these spill over to an individual acting for a corporation and some grant to the ownership of a corporation as individuals (e.g., a corporation, even one as slimy as Enron, can still make statements to defend itself).
There are a number of cases (liquor and tobacco advertising come to mind) in which the "speech" of corporations is highly regulated in a manner that would not be tolerated if it were applied to an individual. Likewise, individuals can tell all the lies they want so long as they don't purger themselves or slander someone else; false advertising, however, is illegal. I can go on with a number of examples in which the speech of an individual is protected while the same speech from a corporation is either not protected or is prohibitted.
Ergo, commercial speech is not protected to anywhere near the extent that individual speech is protected (again, as Nike found out). To me, this means commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech; sort of protected under certain circumstances and at a lawmaker's, regulator's and/or judge's discretion doesn't cut it.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
This law will be quickly struck down as unconstitutional. It not only violates free speech, with the outright ban, but also violates the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution which gives the authority to regulate such to the federal government alone.
I don't like spam, but I like even less the idea that the government can tell someone who they can and can't send email to.
People (this could be ISPs _or_ end users) who don't like spam should come up with better filters (or just use the ones out there) or put up with it or a combination of the two (my chosen alternative to an inbox full of nothing). I would much rather use a filter and put up with a minimum amount of spam in my email (5 seconds to delete an entire day's worth of spam) than have the government tell me that I can't send mail to someone unless they asked for it.
Don't become a regular here, you will become retarded. -- Yoda the Retard
"I'll be damned if I'll trust my fate to 12 people who aren't even smart enought to get out of jury duty..."
Speaking as a former member of several juries, and as the foreman of one of those... Some of us are smart enough to get out of it if we want to, but realize that it's our civic duty.
The only reason we have the rights we have is that people just like us died to gain those rights. -- Cheerio Boy
All I can see about the Dems is that they tell people whatever they want to hear just to get the vote...then go spend spend spend on their little pet projects to "make the world a better place."
You mean this isn't what politicians in general do?
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
We already have a number of laws on the books that can be used to take action against spammers:
How about we get the government to enforce some of the laws listed above instead of passing more? How's that for an innovative idea?
If the recipient doesn't want it he can appraise the solicitor of that fact directly, or through a sort of preemptive notice (e.g. by putting up a sign).
How does the owner of an e-mail account put up such a sign? And how does the owner of an e-mail account "appraise the solicitor" without the solicitor adding the e-mail account to a list of accounts whose owners have "appraised the solicitor"?
Will I retire or break 10K?
...I have to say I am appalled that this could even happen. Back in the dot.com days I was doing really well making about $2000-5000 a week just helping direct marketers by finding open relays on the net and charging them for access to my services. After all this is America and any guy who manages to find a way to sell something is entitled to the spoils. But when people started wising up and closing those open relays, times started getting harder on me.
Now with everybody and his brother using guerilla tactics like this to put people like us out of business, it's time to fight back. What I don't understand is why there isn't an outrage amongst the general populace. The people who oppose our services are cutting people off from their right to be marketed to. Potential customers are not being given the freedom to choose whether or not they feel a product or service is worth their money. This is most unfair and the public needs to be made aware of it. And this is our plan... to make the public aware of how many marketing opportunities they are missing out on. I think once people find out that their freedom to choose is being interfered with by these people, there will be an outrage.
I think this is a great move, although I'm still voting yes on the recall of this nut. It's the companies that profit from these spam campaigns, and this law is giving Californians (more) rights to go after these shady businesses. Sometimes I go and research certain spam emails, and while it may be true that the spamming server is in Brazil, the company reaping the profits from the sale of the product is most often somewhere in the United States. Hypothetical situation: Considering the fact that I get about 100 spam messages a day, it is therefore likely that I will receive 11 spam messages from California companies. I am a California resident. Moving right along, let's say that only two out of these 11 emails proves to lead to real, commercial, non-judgment-proof entities that will pay. After fees and my time, let's say I make $800 off of these two combined. 5 days in a work week * $800 a day = $4000 a week $4000 a week * 4 weeks in a month = $16,000 a month Not a bad monthly income, even if they DO tax the hell out of the rich. Am I missing something here?
We can't let spammers have free speech, 'cause then we'd have to let everyone say what they want. Must love Bush, must love Bush, must love Bush, must love Bush, must love Bush, must love Bush, must love Bush!
(d) "Direct consent" means that the recipient has expressly
consented to receive e-mail advertisements from the advertiser,
either in response to a clear and conspicuous request for the consent
or at the recipient's own initiative.
what's to stop a spam advertiser from spending a spam formatted to say:
We are asking for your concent to send you ads such as this:
I'm not a spammer - never have been, never will be. I don't work or do business with spammers. I hate them with a passion.
That said, these laws scare me. I've had client's who's competitors sent out spam in their names to try to get their web sites shut down. I've spent countless hours trying to convice customers that their email account wasn't "hacked" because some other than them sent mail from their domain. I've spent countless hours trying to explain forged headers in spam and viruses.
Can you imagine trying to explain all this to 12 technophobes? And even if you win it, think of your legal bills. Our legal bills on normal months, where nothing unusual happened - just standard contracts, etc. is around $5000 a month. And we are a SMALL business. Imagine the bills from days/weeks/months of defending yourself against false claims.
Like someone smarter than me said, "you can't trust your fate to 12 people who aren't smart enought to get out of jury duty..."
Shut down your mail system. If you're running a server, shut it down. If you're running a client, never open it. If your spam to signal ratio is at the point where you're losing legitimate messages anyway, then why even mess with it? Just turn the whole God damned thing off and let people get in touch with you some other way.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
The burden of proof is to maintain a working SMTP mail server that properly stamps each and every email with the various SMTP headers that includes the following information:
1. Sender's IP address (critical!)
2. Sender's reverse DNS name (time perspective)
3. Sender's SMTP EHLO (useful if syntaxically-enforced)
4. Sender's purported "From:" (helps to state sender's intent; "Am I forging or not?")
These information should be readily available and stamped each and every time the email is received by the mail server.
With these information, it goes to proved that the email is really SPAM or not.
(Me? I always validate the "From:" against the sender's IP and drop them if they don't match via reverse DNS. Never mind the roving laptops and web mail portals, they should use Mobile-IPv6).
Get real.
The marketing industry vehemently opposes the law, saying that it will only restrict actions by legitimate marketers and not the rouges who send the most offensive spam.
/. posters to spell "rogue" correctly. I do, however, expect anyone referring to themselves as the "Paper of Record" to distinguish scoundrels from cosmetics. Unless it actually is blush that sends "the most offensive spam" in which case I apologize to the Times.
I don't actually expect
This sig is not the Zahir. Lucky for you.
Why is it that when other countries pass laws like this it's country wide yet the so called 'united states' does not.
It should not be legal to make money with somebody elses resources without their permission. It's that simple, folks.
Computer crimes involving spamming are not going to be on the top of law enforcement's priority list. Online pedophiles are far higher on the list, and they already present a vastly overwhelming caseload. Don't expect those $1000 fines to start flooding in.
But the ability to sue in civil court - especially small claims court - will be the proverbial smallpox outbreak for spammers. They'll have to fight thousands of individual cases in countless courts against persistent victims whose tactics against spammers would be considered stalking in any other situation, and not showing up in court means a default judgement in the plaintiff's favor.
Ouch.
--- Grow a pair, liberals... stop letting the Republicans bully you!
To survive the courts, you want a definition that maximizes the damage of spam while minimizing any overlap between spam and free speech issues. This is why I like a definition of "bulk email from a stranger." Bulk is what fills inboxes and servers, bulk clogs up pipelines, bulk requires hijacked resources and stolen credit cards to send out. 'Stranger' = tens of millions of businesses = even 1 email per year from each of them would be too much to handle, let alone try to opt-out from. I think courts can see that the burden and damage from bulk email from strangers is extremely large.
In contrast, courts might not like a law that lets Bob sue Sue for sending a "Hi Bob, Fred said you're starting a Foo business. Do you need a consultant with 10 years Foo experience?" Certainly its unlikely that Bob would sue because of this commercial email from a stranger, but the law as written will allow it. As this particular message would be legal in other formats, the courts might not like banning it simply because it is email, absent any other damage. (And a related argument would apply to bulk emails from people/businesses to which you voluntarily gave an email address.)
Wait, you mean Fallout 2 isn't real life? Sheesh, and here I thought I was a hero for jumping in and helping that mob squash that poor, defenseless spammer.
This tagline is copyrighted material. Please send $10 for an affordable replacement.
This is a great law. I haven't read it, but I know it's great. I don't worry that it won't work, I don't worry if it will create some problems for legitimate commercial e-mail. Look, spam causes large losses for the economy, if we are to believe analysts' estimates, many billions of dollars per year. If you can significantly reduce spam, while only causing losses on the order of, say, tens of millions, it's a working solution. So what if Amazon will have to spend extra 5 grands to ensure compliance? So what if some webmasters of small non-profit sites will have to spend a few days proving they didn't send the spam. Big fucking deal. You can't have a law that works 100% of the time. It's all about the trade-offs. And this new law looks to me like a really good deal.
Future Wiki -- If you don't think about the future, you cannot have one.
Since you fight spam professionally, can you please tell me, when I report spam messages to abuse@wherever, does it actually do any good?
Bottom line is that the Constitution and the Bill of Rights only grant rights to individuals; not to corporations.
...
And later
There are a number of cases (liquor and tobacco advertising come to mind) in which the "speech" of corporations is highly regulated in a manner that would not be tolerated if it were applied to an individual.
The distinction is more between commercial versus non-commercial rather than individual versus corporation. E.g., an individual engaged in any heavily regulated industry (like drugs, food, tobacco, alcohol) is similarly regulated as the corporation.
The individual cannot advertise their microbrew hootch in all locals/venues. The individual cannot claim their apples are "organic" (a descriptor... just a word) even if they are technically "organic" (carbon compound) unless they are also legally organic (maze of silly regulations). Nor can the individual claim their miracle potion is a cure for cancer if - in fact - it is not.
I think you eventually come to the same/similar conclusion:
Ergo, commercial speech is not protected to anywhere near the extent that individual speech is protected (again, as Nike found out). To me, this means commercial speech is not a protected form of free speech; sort of protected under certain circumstances and at a lawmaker's, regulator's and/or judge's discretion doesn't cut it.
IMO, commercial speech is one of those areas where the supreme court has collectively brain-farted. The restrictions would not be so readily swallowed in - e.g., - print newspapers.
Up until now I had a blast watching some professional beauracrat squirm like a worm on a hook. The only guy I know who bitched about it was ... you guessed it ... a professional (wanna-be) polititican in New York. My incredible pleasure had nothing to do with Davis' per se. But with the idea that one of these @#$#$ was finally getting b--- slapped. It wouldn't bother me in the slightest if Pataki got the same treatment in N.Y. (well, a little, but that would be overshadowed)
Sadly, tragically, Davis has finally done something that outweighed all his other B.S. Thus, it is with a heavy heart, that I now declare the race for Gov. over. I'm sorry Arnold, Larry, etc.
-ron
Chris Brush
I have a better idea for Davis: how about to ban software patents in California?
Less is more !
More votes would be from banning software patents!
Less is more !
He would be the most famous US governor of this century yet, would he do it.
Less is more !
Mikey, where's the love you cumdumpster?
"Do you think Grey Davis has any intention of keeping this up? With the CA recall election now slated for Oct 7th, he will do whatever he can to appeal to "the people" . Even if it's with empty legislation."
Grey Davis must be pretty impressive if he can travel back in time to convince Senator Murray to introduce a bill in February in order to head off the recall vote.
----- quote -----
BILL NUMBER: SB 186 ENROLLED
BILL TEXT
PASSED THE SENATE SEPTEMBER 11, 2003
PASSED THE ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 8, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY SEPTEMBER 5, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 25, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY AUGUST 18, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 10, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JULY 9, 2003
AMENDED IN ASSEMBLY JUNE 26, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 22, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE MAY 6, 2003
AMENDED IN SENATE MARCH 17, 2003
INTRODUCED BY Senator Murray
(Principal coauthor: Assembly Member Correa)
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Bermudez, Maldonado, and Simitian)
FEBRUARY 12, 2003
Enable 3D printed prosthetics!
I say Gray Davis for President!
I mod down all the "free iPod"-sig losers.
(i) Many spammers have become so adept at masking their tracks that they are rarely found, and are so technologically sophisticated that they can adjust their systems to counter special filters and other barriers against spam and can even electronically commandeer unprotected computers, turning them into spam-launching weapons of mass production.
I am a viral sig. Please copy me and help me spread. Thank you.
I'm glad to see that someone is at least trying to control spam. It's a start, and I'd like to see more governments, either state or federal, try the legislative approach.
------ Will of Iron, Knees of Jello.
IANAL (of course), but isn't such a broad ban unconstitutional? Does the First Amendment protect commercial speech like any other form of speech? And doesn't the fact that the burden of proof is transfered from the accused to the accuser violates the principle of "innocent until proven guilty"? Or Am I way of base here?
I am not trolling here. Just asking.
If I don't want to look at spam, I don't look at it. I can even filter based on headers alone and delete messages without ever downloading the message body if I prefer. I don't need the government to pass a law over this.
[100% ISO 646 Compliant]
SVM, ERGO MONSTRO.
Er, how about the law against spam?
(Someone mod that back down please.)
mt
The police/government would have to leave a paper trail and spend real money.
It will probably never happen.
The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. - Benjamin Franklin
The fact that you support McClintock makes the rest of your coumn pretty much meaningless. Oh boy, he has a "no bull attitude". Great. Who cares about his policies, as long as he has a "no bull" attitude. How is this comment not a troll?
Help, Mr. McClintock, protect us from the evil hispanic immigrants!
How are you not a troll? I never called illegal immigrants evil. But does it make sense to give them handouts? I don't know about you, but I'd rather keep the money myself than give it to this screwed up state government for them to subsidize Mexico. It's not California's job to pay benefits to people who aren't supposed to be here, and then those people go and pump that money back into Mexico.
Just who are you voting for, and why?
I'm not just voting for McClintock because he's got a "no bull attitude". I'm voting for him because his fiscal stance makes sense for California. We need to take a machete to the state budget and hack off all the crap. That's what he's going to do.
All I can see about the Dems is that they tell people whatever they want to hear just to get the vote...then go spend spend spend on their little pet projects to "make the world a better place."
You mean this isn't what politicians in general do?
Well, unless you're a libertarian. But they're not in charge in California, and neither is anyone who's willing to trim back on all the crap.
and a republican goes in, you can bet the signature will be removed from the bill with kyoto-like kung-fu precision.
How many times is this same canard going to be recycled?
Spam is not, and has never been a freedom-of-speech issue. It is a property rights issue. A spammer's right to speak does not include a right to use my property for the purpose.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Free Speech applies in public forums.
The right to free speech does not mean that I have the right to (as someone else said) stand in your yard shouting advertisements. As long as there's no community statute that says that door to door solicitation is illegal, I suppose sales people can do it until you explicitly tell them to get out of your yard.
If a community wants to make door to door solicitation illegal, I don't think that a salesperson could successfully mount a First Amendment challenge to that statute though. The right to free speech doesn't apply on private property... I don't have a "right" to stand on your lawn and say whatever I want.
As part of why "junk mail" in the real world may not fall under this same argument, IANAL but once heard that a person's real-world mailbox is not considered their own private property. It's considered government property... making possible Federal charges for some related offences(?) That would mean that junk snail mail is "public" speech and thus perhaps First Amendment protected.
Maybe someone can back me up or shoot me down on this?
If we were discussing the illegalization of websites, free speech would make sense as an argument. The web is a public forum. My email inbox on the other hand isn't a public place or public property. If I and the majority of my community members are of like mind to prohibit junk email, it seems to me that we should be able to enact a statute telling the sales people to "get outta my yard!"
Quoth he
"It's all academic anyway..."
I guess that explains why slashdotters tolerate CmdrTaco too...
1. Spammers will ignore the law.
Whenever was that a reason? Robbers ignore the law, too. That doesn't mean we should make robbery legal, does it?
2. Laws are meaningless unless enforced. How will it be enforced? When I get hit with spam that violates this law, who do I complain to? Who will investigate my complaint and then pursue and punish the spammers?
That is the interesting question, and the one that will likely take more time to solve. But with $1000 fines per piece I can imagine that something will happen. Those are billions we're talking about, all Cal needs to do is collect.
3. Where will all the money and resources come from to enforce this law
The spammers. That is what fines are for, you know?
4. What about all the spam originating from servers outside the U.S.
Bullshit argument. 90% of the spammers are US citizen. True, they bounce their crap off in the entire world, but if you can trace them, you will find they sit just down the street.
You also forgot one point: Just by making it illegal, you will move some spammers out of the business. A lot of them really think what they do is all ok. When they can no longer hide behind that argument, a few of them just might decide to pack up and play somewhere else. There are cowards everywhere, and I'd guess the ratio is pretty high amongst spammers.
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
For once I'm glad I live in California. I have an e-mail address that, until I discovered spam-assassin, was inundated with spam. So now that every e-mail sent to me that spam-assassin tags is illegal (It may not always catch spam, but I've never had it mark a real mail as spam), is there some agency I can set my filter to forward the spam to that will enforce this?
Even better, can that agency hire me to help sort and enforce this?
Got Apathy?
Since you can basically make any web service you want, wouldn't it be possible to make up a "spam-retardant" email transfer program, and then let your Linux distribution slip it into your mailbox?
That way, we could get a parallel email system up and going. Once it was up and going, then I'd think that more and more people would pick that as the email where they did their real business -- and the flawed email would die.
Correct Horse Battery Staple: 72 bits of entropy. Enter "Correct H" into google. When it generates the phrase, that's
I think it's dumb and misguided bringing up 'First Amendment' in a debate related to the despicable practice of spamming. A person's email in-box is not a public free-for-all forum. Freedom of speech is fine and well but your freedom stops where my rights to privacy begins, and that's my doorstep and its electronic equivalents. First Amendment has nothing to do with this, and it's a completely misunderstood phrase abused over and over by ignorant cretins. The correct interpretation is that anyone is FREE to express an idea (commercial, or otherwise) in a PUBLIC forum. No-one is OBLIGATED to facilitate your expression of your idea, and no-one is OBLIGATED to listen to what you have to say.
/redundant
A commercial operator's internet infrastructure (network, mail servers, etc) is not in any way a PUBLIC commons, you, cretin spammer, have NO RIGHTS to use this facility for the expression of your ideas if neither the commercial operator of the service, nor it users, desires to hear your noxious ideas.
You know, if you read the text of this spam law it has so many loopholes, and here's one: what defines a "California" email address? An ISP headquartered in California? A recipient based in CA? A server based in CA? Hotmail's based in Redmond. Yahoo, on the other hand, might benefit.
Don't waste people's time with such nusiences.
Well, OK, here's my perspective. I consider myself a responsible member of the community, I hate spam and do not consider myself a spammer. I do admin a mailing list for local clubs, flyers, free admissions, party announcements (about 4 emails a month) - it's all opt-in at the club's websites; however, we used to not have a confirmation (but we always used a legit reply to address, never hid ourselves and always unsubscribed people). After a run-in with a spam complaint, we added confirmation.
So it's opt-in and confirmed. Only about 4,500 people on the list. And in the last 60 days we've received about 30 spam complaints, all from the AOL "click the box if this is spam" thingy that AOL started a few months ago. ALL FROM PEOPLE WHO I KNOW SIGNED UP FOR OUR LIST. There's nothing shady, no sneaky email snatch. We say if you want us to send you mail, give us your email address, that's all.
When we got our first complaint, it came through spamcops, our ISP immediately shut down both our locations (including my house and our webserver which hosts a dozen sites including political sites and art galleries...). From one, unsubstantiated complaint. Unverified. And our ISP didn't even inform us first! Spamcops didn't tell us who complained (so we couldn't remove them from our list). The ISP restored our service afer a day but it was STUPID.
The reason they could shut us down was because we DIDN'T HIDE, nothing forged, all above-the-board. At the time I'd not even considered that someone might sign a third party up to our list (because we lacked confirmation), it was a small thing, local stuff, and, you know, I still doubt that was the case. The clubs are 'adult' and I suspect someone's wife found they were on the list and bitched him out, he said no, honey, I didn't ask for these emails, look, I'm reporting them.
OK, so lesson learned, we now have confirmation (thanks to the lovely folks at mailermailer.com) and our list is so fucking opt-in'd it's unbelievable, but we STILL GET SPAM COMPLAINTS FROM AOL LUSERS (none from a non-aol address since that one time, hell, it was prob. someone from AOL who contacted spamcops).
I'm rambling, but doesn't anyone else see this is insane? It's a clasic case of "they came for the jews, but I wasn't a jew so I said nothing".
I'm not a spammer. But this law scares me. What do you use the internet for, and how long until someone comes after you?
closed minded is as closed minded does
Sounds like this law could easily be struck down by the supreme court for the same reason that a state sales tax on outside state goods would be struck down. Single states can not regulate operations between states. Spam is global by nature.
Davis is grasping for anything he can, legal or not, to make him look like a great chum.
Recognize him as a guy who has lived his whole life in politics. It is his oxygen and the citizens of california has taken away his respirator.
Guy is a worm. Should be put down. Call Kavorkian
I know that this is completely OT, but you really should read this this.
Looks like it's time to rent a server in California. I could make a fortune tracking these lusers down!
*Condense fact from the vapor of nuance*
I think technology problems can be solved by technology only, and not by law.
on cell phones we know the name of the person calling from our address book, and if the number is not recognizable, we immediatly look at the area code or country code. same can be done with email clients.
today, almost every mail client has got facility to organize the mails coming from "known people" (those who are in your address book) and the rest. some new things can be added to it by tracing the location (country code)of the IP which sent the mail. by using the APNIC and other IP databases. yes I know one has to fetch the changes of IP lists a few times in a day. (and put it on the net as a service).
It would solve my problems if I have a column in my mail client which says the originating country of each mail received from "unknown people". I don't have to look at any mail coming from south korea, or china.
...the obvious Simpsons quote was missed:
"Mmmmm, Burger"
Umm... wouldn't internet headers play into this some? You get a bunch of spam from SCO but the internet header says comcast.net. Now if it was from sco.com in the header, and the IP address was correct, that would be a tricky spoof. Otherwise it would be easy for SCO to prove they couldn't send that spam from their system.
The truth shall set you free!
If I send Gray Davis an email to ask him to repeal this new law will I incur a $1000 fine?
I have recieved spam with my own name used as the sender. Spammers do this to keep you from designating them as junk in your mail client. Does this mean I will owe California a grand when some spammer alters a mail header.
I would rather deal with spam than incompetent government regulation.
The state cannot arbitrairily ban all unsolicited commercial email. However kneejerk popular these spam laws are, that doesnt make them right. Please dont bother citing Rowan v. Post office because that case concerned the sending of unsolicited obscene PORN through the mail not all junk mail. If you want such a draconian law, then dont you dare whine about DECSS codes on tshirts, professors threatened for publishing about encryption or any other first amendment cause you care about because otherwise you are a hypocrite. The first amendment is not to protect the popular but instead the unpopular.
However the government can intervene in a more selective manner. However it is not the role of the states to regulate commercial email. It is the role of the federal government under the interstate commerce clause.
What should a model Spam law do.
a)Establish a national do not email list (that way it is the receivers choice and not the governments choice.
b) Prohibit fake unreplyable email names in commercial email. Consider it an act of fraud to do so.
c) require the sender to remove a recipients name upon request
d) require the use of ADV: in bulk email advertisements
e) make it a felony under US law to send those "african letters". That may not stop them but the people who send them wont be able to leave their country.
Sigh. Okay, I'm detecting a common mistake in several people's arguments at this point.
If solicitors had a right to come onto private property to solicit, this would mean that they could defend this right against attempts by government to prevent them from doing so. E.g. they could sue the police, if the police came to get them to leave the property, since they had a right to be there.
The mere fact that someone does not have a right to come onto private property to solicit does NOT mean that they do not have the _ability_ to lawfully come onto private property to solicit.
And generally, we make a rebuttable presumption (i.e. we presume unless shown otherwise) that people permit solicitation. So even though it would qualify as trespassing for the Fuller Brush man to go from the sidewalk to your door to try to get you to buy brushes, we assume you permitted him to do so, because our society is generally permissive of communication.
If he tried at an unusual hour, or by sneaking around the back, that probably wouldn't work for him. The implicit permission is fuzzy but nevertheless limited.
And if you want to rebut it, this can be accomplished by providing actual notice to the solicitor to go away, or by providing constructive notice that a reasonable solicitor ought to have become aware of even if a particular solicitor is not (though they likely will be) such as a properly placed sign.
The FTC Do Not Call List is more or less a sign for people's phones, though perhaps it's still susceptable to arguments of government infringement. I think it's probably okay though.
At any rate, the government really cannot bar solicitation generally -- at most in this case they can but back up a property owner's request to not be solicited to. After all, some people might want to be solicited to though they didn't opt in, and at any rate, would you even know to opt in if the solicitor couldn't communicate with you?
Incidentally, your mailbox is private property, but it's of the type with a strong presumption that it's okay to receive more or less anything there. People don't have a right to force others to receive mail, but unless you do something to prevent it, in practice you're going to.
I think the best that can be hoped for is for government to provide a cause of action against:
* Spam that's fraudulent in some way (e.g. false claims within, false header, false return address for opt out, doesn't actually opt out, etc.)
* Spam sent despite an actual or constructive opt out
* Spam that constitutes harassment (e.g. hundreds of roughly identical spams from the same source)
Which ought to cover a lot, though there is a problem of spam originating outside the US and unrelated to the US in any way other than that that's where the recipient lives.
But I don't see a reason for government to ban spam that is entirely truthful, that isn't sent so much as to harass (small amounts are not harassing -- annoying, but not harassing), and where the spammer respects people's opting out. At least, not given that private people could cope with _that_ sort of spam easily on their own _by_ opting out. Plus it's just not that common at the moment.
-- 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.
...would be to pursue the business rather than the spammer. Assuming these sites actually do provide loans, viagra etc, they would be easier to track down than a spammer. If spamming is illegal, the business that pays the spammer to advertise them would be aiding and abetting the commission of an offence.
--Josh
I don't buy this "spammers will ignore the law" thing or "spammers will hide their identities". Ok at some point presumably the goal of spam is to get you to buy something. There has to be a phone number, a website, some contact point for you to give them money.
Get the spam.
Find out where/what they want you to buy.
Shut that down.
No sales, no spam.
Thank you for your keen insight.
I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
Actually, you'll find that quite a wide variety of commercial speech is regulated. Examples:
A product can only claim to be "new" and/or "improved" for something like one year after its formula has changed.
Any sort of "forward looking statement" from a public company regarding finances and business prospects has to be accompanied by a disclaimer (the so called "safe harbor statement").
All sorts of truth in advertsing regulations.
Equal access regulations regarding political advertising in broadcast media (funny about that, old media such as newspapers can be as biased and one sided as they want to be subject only to what the market will bear; new media however is heavily regulated).
My main point was that commercial speech is anything but "protected, free speech." It is highly regulated and restricted with lots of precedents for restricting what, when and how a commercial message can be said. Its a different debate as to whether this is right or not. The point is that the governement has a well established precedent for restricting all sorts of commercial speech, including telemarketing.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty.
Ben
States of the Union could work together to catch criminals (spammers) across state boarders with not too much problem, but what about other countries? Im sure Bush would love to kick some "terrorist" spammer's asses! here are some statistics i gathered from my own and a few of my friend's email accounts; with the help of a handy perl script it wrote: 2 from (ae) United Arab Emirates 2 from (ar) Argentina 2 from (at) Austria 6 from (au) Australia 1 from (be) Belgium 16 from (br) Brazil 9 from (ca) Canada 28 from (cn) China 1 from (co) Colombia 1 from (cz) Czech Republic 1 from (de) Germany 1 from (do) Dominican Republic 1 from (eg) Egypt 6 from (es) Spain 3 from (fi) Finland 2 from (fr) France 8 from (gb) Great Britain 2 from (hk) Hong Kong 1 from (hr) Croatia 1 from (id) Indonesia 5 from (in) India 4 from (it) Italy 2 from (jp) Japan 18 from (kr) South Korea 2 from (mx) Mexico 3 from (my) Malaysia 3 from (nl) Netherlands 1 from (nz) New Zealand 2 from (ph) Philippines 2 from (pl) Poland 1 from (ps) Palestinian Territories 1 from (ro) Romania 6 from (se) Sweden 1 from (th) Thailand 1 from (tr) Turkey 1 from (tw) Taiwan 98 from (us) United States 1 from (ve) Venezuela 1 from (za) South Africa These IP Addresses are from 39 different countries. US / Total = 98 / 247 = 0.396761133603239 For every one dirty spammer living in the US, 2.52040816326531 live outside.
Okay I need some legal help here; why can't we make this case: 1) Corporations ARE NOT citizens. Corporations are distinct legal entities created by an act of Congress with the explicit intent of protecting the conspirators behind the "corporate veil" from ever possibly being held accountable for their actions. 2) As corporations are seperate and distinct legal entities from their owners the civil rights granted to corporate owners do NOT inherently transfer to the corporation {aka corporations may not vote}. 3) As the rights granted to corporate owners do NOT inherently transfer to corporations, the constitutionally guaranteed right of free speech does NOT transfer from a corporate owner to its corporation. {aka the CEO may call me incessantly as an individual but the corporation, and all employees acting on behalf of the corporation, do NOT have the right to call me incessantly} 4) As corporations have been acting unconstitutionally all of this time they must cease and disist immedaiately AND they must pay us all compensation for the unwarranted abuse that we have suffered to date. So how come we can't make this case? --Richard
Umm... wouldn't internet headers play into this some? You get a bunch of spam from SCO but the internet header says comcast.net.
Spam almost always come from somewhere other than the network hosting the web server selling the product. Usually, it comes from open proxies, often located in countries like China.
The difference is that commercial interests that want to fill your snail-mail box with advertising are actually paying the total cost of delivery. Your cost is limited to whatever portion of your property tax is assigned to trash pickup. Conversely, the delivery cost of commerial email is relatively negligible and the recipient typically picks up at least half of that.
If your snail-mail box was full of advertising that was sent "postage due" then you would see politicians jumping on bills to make commerial snail-mail illegal.