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."
For purposes of spam, on January 1st my address will change to Redmond, California.
Someone you trust is one of us.
Governor Davis is planning a "Vote No To Recall" spam campaign.
...our penises, credit ratings, and mortgages are all in tip-top shape as is!
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!
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?
But he can't possibly compete against Marey Carey's not-so-different tactic of giving out free porn.
Turkeyphant
How about we compromise and just have:
"a zealous group of vigilantes, killing spammers."?
You know what?
What's to stop the dishonest from forging e-mail headers and the rest, to fine a company or individual out of existance?
Yes, what is to stop a group of people from getting, oh, say, SCO fined out of existence? Surely, I do not know. That would be a bad thing, though. Faking spam from SCO and getting them fined out of existence. Yes, a bad, naughty thing. Naughty, naughty.
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?
Mother-Son Sex?
That's disgusting.
Unless the mom is really really hot, of course.
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
I kinda liked the "hunting down" part too.
"a zealous group of vigilantes, hunting down and killing spammers"
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.
"a zealous group of vigilantes, hunting down and killing spammers"
I kinda liked the "hunting down" part too.
I think there is potential here for a popular new sport. Rather than "Hunting for Bambi" we could have "Hunting for Spambi".
I know quite a few people who would be willing to fork over for some quality time with a gun and Mr. Enlarge-Your-Breasts/Schlong.
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. -=-=-=-=-
Oh cool, so I will still get those e-mails from 'sexykitten69', telling me how she put hew new pics up on the web, but isn't sure if she got my e-mail address right.
...not that I mind. :-D
...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.
a zealous group of vigilantes, killing spammers.
the punishment for annoyance is death? hm.
But but but but but..... Please????? Can't we just kill the spammers a little?
How about bumper stickers: Visualize Dead Spammers
This signature used to contain a cute kitty virus with ansii art. Please set the slashdot editors on fire. Thank you
Vigilantes can always do damage, that's why they are generally not well tolerated by law enforcement. However, in this case ... perhaps an exception is in order. Before you accuse me of being an anti-establishment anarchist, please allow me to explain.
... no problem. Just give us your email address and we'll PayPal you the money. Don't have Internet? No problem: we'll get you the money. My research indicates that, if my plan were to be implemented on a sufficiently wide scale, we could expect to see the end of Spam by next Friday.
I've heard suggestions that perhaps American ISPs should charge a penny a message to simply make spam too expensive. Unfortunately, that won't work because of the sheer volume of spam that arrives from overseas, and U.S-based spammers that make use of foreign relays, and for that matter I don't see why I should have to pay any more for my service. I do believe that the idea is valid, though: make spamming too costly for those that engage in this reprehensible practice. Given the nature and scope of this problem I recommend the following course of action:
Offer a reward of, say, $50,000 for every bona-fide spammer brought in alive, and double that if he has already assumed room temperature. The beauty of my scheme is that it, like the Internet itself, knows no borders. If someone successfully manages to capture or whack outright a spammer in, say, Nigeria
Now, fifty to one hundred thousand dollars per spammer may seem excessive, particularly as these people are already intrinsically worthless. However, if you look at the numbers, the worldwide savings that will accrue from not having to accommodate spam will be dramatic, and will far outweigh the actual disposal costs. Furthermore, I am sure that once the ball is rolling, we can count on additional help from our friends and allies around the world.
Of course, some of our {ahem} less-enlightened neighbors might object to our putting out what might appear, at first glance, to be a "hit", or contract, on their nationals. But as soon as senior bureaucrats, heads-of-state, industry leaders and their secretaries begin to notice the comparative emptiness of their in-boxes, I firmly believe that they will quickly come 'round to our way of thinking.
-- ScrewMaster
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.