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