Slashdot Mirror


Maryland Declares Anti-Spam Law Unconstitutional

acidradio writes "The Maryland Supreme Court has ruled that fining a spam mailer in New York is unconstitutional as it tries to control commerce outside Maryland's borders."

13 comments

  1. Well, they're right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It is a state law, not a federal one. This is the problem with state anti-spam laws, they're only really good when dealing with in-state spam.

    I'm in Maryland, but my server is in New Jersey, and the spam could be from anywhere.

    1. Re:Well, they're right by bandrzej · · Score: 1
      Interstate commerce law (since spam is a form of commerical email communication) would kick in if you consider it a form of harassment. Then you would be playing in the federal court circuit, not state.

      I am also in Maryland, but if the server that is sending spam is in New Jersey, Maryland law can't touch it. You would need to get New Jersey law officals involved.

      Sadly, I know all this crap due to someone harassing me on the Net and carrying it across into real life that was both across state lines.

      --

      LainTheWired = isgod( int Lain, int denial, float truth)

  2. Great. Just great. by lunarscape · · Score: 3, Informative
    I live in Maryland, work in Maryland, and I went to college in Maryland. It was while I attended college that I started to use this law to sue unsolicited commercial e-mailers. The basis for my claims were quite simple: The junk e-mailer sent their e-mails to my address which ends in my university's .edu address. Simply visiting that .edu website would be enough to determine that this university is located in Maryland. Virtually all of the people I filed suit against were quick to settle.

    However, I was very careful to not take on high-profile companies or do anything that might get me noticed because I knew that something like this might happen and the law would be thrown out. Thank you, person who doesn't even live in Maryland, for ruining it for the rest of us.

    1. Re:Great. Just great. by Geoffreyerffoeg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      However, I was very careful to not take on high-profile companies or do anything that might get me noticed because I knew that something like this might happen and the law would be thrown out. Thank you, person who doesn't even live in Maryland, for ruining it for the rest of us.

      You're on very precarious legitimacy grounds here. You shouldn't be using a law that you know is challengeable for lack of authority, and trying to continue using it hoping that it'll be insignificant. That's like stealing a credit card number and using it for small purchases; it's equally illegal, with respect to legitimacy. Interstate "commerce" (heh, commercial e-mail counts as commerce) is not Maryland's domain, and they don't have the right to legislate acts across state lines (see the Supreme Court cases in the late 1800s, which effectively said that populists and farmers in Western states' governments could not influence interstate policy). This law would be legal if Maryland were its own nation. But part of the deal in the Union is that you give some authority to the federal government, so you don't have 50 conflicting laws that effectively make it illegal to send any commercial e-mail (meaning business e-mail, not necessarily advertising) because you don't know where it might be routed.

      Frankly, even lawyers worth less than the amount of money you sued them for should've been able to pull Interstate Commerce on you. I'm surprised you -- and others -- were able to use this law this long.

  3. laws... by St.+Arbirix · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So when are the federal laws going to show up and be functional? I know the CAN-SPAM act is in place but I'm still getting tons of spoofed reply-to headers. What are the chances that federal anti-spam law will be passed without including 500 addendums like the formation of an internet policing bureau with mandatory unions (a la Patriot Act) or some sort of internet tax in order to fund the effort. Ever since what's-his-face said the internet is a "wild west that will eventually have to come under government supervision" I've been waiting for some laws to show to get them deeper into the net.

    I think that these spam laws are a little silly. We're getting closer and closer to a technical solution to the problem but people want a law to stop it "now!" It's the internet. Do you really want it governed like that? There are rules for the transmission of information. There are rules for flow control, protocols with RFCs, and a basic set of standards. Worms don't infect us, we let them in. Spam is and will be a problem up until the authentication services are in place to filter out the cruft, and those are already being put in place. Laws may help alleviate it all, but they're unnatural and don't do anything to fix the vulnerabilities. The net is still primitive and survival of the fittest. Laws come much later.

    --
    Direct away from face when opening.
    1. Re:laws... by vandon · · Score: 1

      It's probably going to be a while before federal laws come into play. It's going to take massive public outcry before congress does anything.

      In one party you have people that are being paid by corporations and marketing lobbies and are proud of it.
      In the other party you have people that say 'we hate big business' and 'we don't like rich people' while whispering to the same corporations and marketing lobbies 'slip the cash under the table in an unmarked envelope'

      And even if congress does get its act together, probably half the spam I get is from outside the U.S.
      Instead of hunting for Bin Laden and deposing Sadam, maybe they should put all the effort into hunting down spammers and forcing ISPs to cut off home users that are infected with worms, trojans, and viruses.

  4. adding to the sillyness... by Changa_MC · · Score: 1
    The Maryland law applies to e-mail sent to or from Maryland residents, but it leaves vague the actual location of the resident - potentially affecting companies who send e-mail to people who live in Maryland, but who might receive the transmission elsewhere via laptop.

    Menhart set up a corporation in Maryland to fight spam and pays Maryland taxes, but he lives in Washington.

    The judge concluded that the law unconstitutionally attempts to regulate commerce that may never enter Maryland.

    So if the suadi president issued a death-threat to America's president while he was visiting Saudi Arabia, that wouldn't be a crime? I mean, obviously American law couldn't apply in this case, because he wouldn't be in America!

    That law must be unconstitutional because the location of the president was left vague.

    --
    Changa hates change.
    1. Re:adding to the sillyness... by mooingyak · · Score: 1

      But whose punishment applies? If it happens in Canada, then the worst the offender can get is life in prison. If it happenes in the US, then it depends on the state whether or not the offender is executed. The US can't dictate punishment for what happens outside its borders (diplomacy and bullying aside), similar to how Maryland can't dictate punishment for things outside its borders.

      A Maryland law stating that all murders ANYWHERE are punishable by flogging would be just as unconstitutional. Only within its own borders can a state govern.

      --
      William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
    2. Re:adding to the sillyness... by CryptoJoe · · Score: 1

      What about someone standing in Delaware and shooting a gun that kills somebody across the state line in Maryland?

      --
      http://cryptojoe.blogspot.com
  5. Re:OT: Sig by mooingyak · · Score: 1

    When I made that my sig, they were doing construction on it, which pretty much doubled my commute. Hence the frustration. It's actually not so bad most mornings right now, I just haven't come up with anything wittier to make my new sig.

    FYI, people tend to call them "Cross Island", "Southern State", and "Belt". The part that people call Belt is actually labelled such on the signs. I have no idea why Southern gets called Southern State (same thing happens to Northern) when other state parkways (like Wantagh or Meadowbrook) in the area don't get "state" added to the end.

    Nobody really calls Laurelton anything special. It either gets lumped in with Cross Island or Belt.

    I often joke that when people around the country want to build new roads, they look at NYC & LI, and then they know what NOT to do.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.
  6. Re:OT: Sig by Joe+U · · Score: 1

    Originally, the Southern State and the Southern Parkway were two different parkways. The state parkways were the Southern State Parkway, Northern State Parkway, Meadowbrook State Parkway, Wantagh state parkway, Bethpage State Parkway, Heckscher State Parkway, Sagtikos State Parkway and Sunken Meadow State Parkway.

    People started dropping the 'state' name from the
    parkway names in the early 60's. The signs started changing in the 80's and 90's to reflect the new names, but on paper, they remain the State Parkways.

    The whole mess leads back to Robert Moses, who designed these parkways, again, just for park traffic. The original Meadowbrook and Wantagh didn't go past Sunrise highway. They were eventually extended to the Southern State and later the Northern State, to reduce traffic on local streets, but NEVER to the Long Island Expressway, as that would make the road a commuter road.

    Robert Moses was in some ways a genius, and in other ways a total maniac.

  7. Re:OT: Sig by mooingyak · · Score: 1

    I've often thought that as the Bayshore/Brightwaters/West Islip area gets more populated, the fact that Robert Moses Pkwy (or is it a causeway?) doesn't connect directly to Sagtikos will be a major source of traffic.

    That was helpfully informative. Thank you.

    I have to wonder though why we haven't extended Meadowbrook and/or Wantagh up to LIE now that Robert Moses is a goner. I guess there's too much property in between now.

    --
    William of Ockham had no beard. The most likely explanation is that it was chewed off by squirrels every morning.