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."
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
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!
Just follow the money...
Does that count as solicited or unsolicited?
Did you ask him to send you an email? Nope? Then its unsolicited.
But he got the address off your web page, just like the spammers. So if that makes his solicited, then so are theirs.
The potential for abuse with this loony law is enormous.
Keep laws off the internet, use technology to fix technology.
A good admin can eliminate most spam. A lawyer cant.
I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 ?
The law is against unsolicited commercial email. Specifically e-mail that is offering a service, product, etc.
The problem with spam, is that a technical solution can be bypassed. The only way to eliminate spam is to bankrupt all the spammers so they cannot afford a 80286 to send spam from.
Fight Spammers!
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 ?
Ordinarily, I'd agree with you; the fewer poorly drafted laws, the better. However, in this case, the problem (mostly) isn't technological, it's sociological.
There are a surprising number of very broken people out there who live their day-to-day lives with the maxim, "If it's not expressly illegal, it's perfectly okay." This idea is, of course, hogwash, since it completely ignores unwritten social custom, which often varies regionally.
On the local region known as The Internet, it is the custom that it is impermissible to send unsolicited bulk email, particularly when it is commercial in nature. However, it is not, per se, illegal. So these sociopaths clog the network because, hey, it must be perfectly okay.
Normally, the counterbalancing force to such aberrant behavior is social ostracism or, in extreme cases, pillorying (or equivalent). Spammers are aware of this, and go to great lengths to conceal their identities and escape accountability.
While technical measures can thwart these people, such as widespread deployment of SMTP AUTH, it does nothing to fix the underlying sociopathy. Spammers are already deploying viruses and worms to create a network of open SMTP relays. Who here honestly believes they won't escalate into stealing SMTP AUTH passwords? Hence, spam is mostly a social problem, needing a mostly social solution.
Schwab
Editor, A1-AAA AmeriCaptions
To paraphrase Dave Barry, this is like saying that laws inacted against muggers infringe on their ability to earn a living.
Your logic and your argument are tragically flawed.
- Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
Keep laws off the internet, use technology to fix technology.
Technology isn't the problem. Please explain what the problematic technology is.
The problem is that people are willing to make money off the misery and suffering of others. To combat this you need to hit these people where it hurts and that would be the pocket book. Unless you harm their bottom line they will not care what you do. You could introduce a myriad of new technologies to stop them but there will always be an innovator who finds a way around the technology.
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
I'd use the 80/20 rule here. If 80% of the spam is sent by 20% of the people, and we kill--err- i mean, sue, those 20%, then the problem is much reduced. I'd be fine with getting a *few* spam messages a week, but not 100+ a day. I say let the lawyers deal with the spammers, technology can handle the rest.
Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
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.
Not only free drivers licenses for illegals, with no background check -- but it's been made MORE difficult for *U.S. Citizens* coming from another state to get a drivers licence: CA DMV is now *enforcing* the requirement that you present an original birth certificate as proof of age. Which of course an illegal, born in some backwater province with no centralized record-keeping, won't have and won't need to produce to get a license.
~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
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
"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
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?
It should not be legal to make money with somebody elses resources without their permission. It's that simple, folks.
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.)
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."