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."
It says "to or from", so I'm guessing the recipient mailbox (where the user retrieved the mail) or the originator must be in California.
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.
I thought small claims limited you to $100? Hmm, maybe you could sue once you've downloaded just the header.
_________
The world doesn't just disappear when you close your eyes, does it?
"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.
The spam eventually has to track back to a sender or company paying for the spam. Indeed, there are means already in place to track down spammers, and in fact most high volume spammers are already known and their identities are posted on the Internet. So, if an agency wants to go to the trouble to track the spammer down for any spams received after this law goes into effect, this law provides the legal means with which to go after them.
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
Mozillas junk mail filter is the best solution I've found.
It wouldn't be too difficult for Company B to mount a pretty solid reasonable doubt campaign in court. Besides, when was the last time you received Viagra spam from a large company that would be missed if fined out of existence?
According to this legislation: ...
"Unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement" means a commercial e-mail advertisement sent to a recipient who meets both of the following criteria:
(1) The recipient has not provided direct consent to receive advertisements from the advertiser.
(2) The recipient does not have a preexisting or current business relationship
and
"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.
You don't have a preexisting business relationship. I don't know if his email message had commercial content. I don't know what you web page that listed you email address had written on it.
However if his email had commercial content, even if it's your product and you didn't express written terms that he could write you back; then I quess it could be considered "Unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement"
IANAL
Try this clicky for California Small Claims info.
The number is based on it's GDP (Gross Domestic Product)
If California is counted seperately, The US still retains it's 1st ranking, but California takes 5th ahead of France.
I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
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.
Resident however there is more. That law says: "California electronic mail address" or "California e-mail address" means any of the following: (1) An e-mail address furnished by an electronic mail service provider that sends bills for furnishing and maintaining that e-mail address to a mailing address in this state. (2) An e-mail address ordinarily accessed from a computer located in this state. (3) An e-mail address furnished to a resident of this state. So you can either be a resident, or have a computer located in california access the email and then forward it to another machine;-> or set up someone to get your email bill in california and either forward the bill to you or have them pay for it for you.
From the bill:
" (b) "California electronic mail address" or "California e-mail
address" means any of the following:
(1) An e-mail address furnished by an electronic mail service
provider that sends bills for furnishing and maintaining that e-mail
address to a mailing address in this state.
(2) An e-mail address ordinarily accessed from a computer located
in this state.
(3) An e-mail address furnished to a resident of this state."
Note especially (2). How hard would it be for me to ordinarily access my email from a computer located in CA? In fact, how hard would it be for comcast (my provider) to set things up so that my POP is in CA? (Yeah, I know that an obvious reading of the law doesn't make it clear....)
Big Brother Bush is doubleplus ungood.
The WA state law is worthless. Basically, mail is only considered spam if it contains false information in the headers. Therefore, if the headers are legitimate, I can track them down, but it's not considered spam. If the headers are false, the originating IP is usually in some foreign country, which means I can't track them down anyway.
99.9% of the spammers fall into one of the above two categories. There are very few spammers who fake headers AND have a real name/address attached to their business.
Courtesy the California Legislature web site.
I receive very little spam after my filters get through with it.
I'm glad your filters work for you, for the most part, but I submit that filtering at the client end does little to address the cost of spamming. Every host between you and the spammer has to have the capacity to accommodate both legitimate mail and the spam.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
(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:
Chris Brush
For example, if you are a business owner producing widget A, and, while searching the web you find a company that buys A widgets to make B widgets, you proceed to look up their contact information, introduce yourself, and request someone get back to you if they are interested - this whole scenario is now illegal.
Good. As a small ISP owner, I purchase things like Co-location services, computer equipment and occasionally software and use it to produce websites and applications. I get calls and emails *constantly* from businesses that take the time to find out my name and contact information and try to sell me things. ISP Services, software, etc. I tell these people nearly instantly that I'm not interested in buying their services (in my experience, anyone that needs to advertise their services like this is only interested in ripping people off) and I tell them to remove me from their lists. Others keep calling. 3 or 4 of them every single day. The email is worse. I would love to be able to slap these people with fines when they try to peddle their crap to me and waste my time.
Roughly 90% of my snail mail box is junk mail. Yet I don't see any politicians jumping on bills like these that would outlaw sending bulk or individual "commercial" letters.
Again, I wish they would.