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
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!
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.
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!
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 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.
"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.
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 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.
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 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.
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. -=-=-=-=-