Slashdot Mirror
Send Email to Utah, Go to Jail
Talaria writes "The Institute for Spam and Internet Public Policy is reporting that two new laws in Utah and Michigan are going into effect next week, creating 'do not email' registries for children's email addresses. According to ISIPP, 'Email marketers who send unpermitted messages to email addresses or domains on the child protection registries in Michigan and Utah face stiff penalties including prison and fines.'" (Note that ISIPP has a vested interest in publicizing these laws, since they offer a service intended to establish that senders are in fact within the law.)
If the spammer is living in China (i.e., mainland China, Taiwan, or Hong Kong) and if this spammer sends e-mail notes to the e-mail address of an American children, how do the authorities plan to enforce this law. There is no extradition treaty between China and the USA.
their laws no longer apply to me. ... with time, i won't have to dodge bullets either.
But seriously, what their email gets automatically subscribed, as most emails do. Or if you're in a different country or state? I don't know the law in that respect, but it brings up the point of how can Utah law have jurisdiction on the internet.
.. that doesn't beleive that heavy-handed government intervention is the solution to every problem? Especially when the solution involves censoring (for whatever reason) email communications?
Which is worse: ignorance or apathy? Who knows? Who cares?
After a while, when those on the "nospam" list turn into unprotected adults, those addresses become a spammer's dream of verified recipients. Especially to those pitching to the "young adult" market segment, which is probably the most popular for spammers after "midlife crisis men". I guess I know what to give my Utah cousins for their 18th birthdays: A new address.
--
make install -not war
Yet another WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!11!!oneone!!OMGWTFBBQ!!!!! pseudo-law...
George Carlin was right about the Pussification of America(TM).
...Rob
The American Dream isn't an SUV and a house in the suburbs; it's Don't Tread On Me.
Why not extend the bill to a giant no-unwated mail list? Why just for children?
:-)
Why not revise the bill to a tiny "wants spam" list? Would make it easier to maintain.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
As usual, the headline is misleading. There is little chance that Utah will attempt to extradite spammers from China / Russia / South America, and so on. While a few (yes, and really VERY FEW) local boys have been hooked by The Feds, most are too slick (slimy?) to fall for leaving readable tracks for law enforcement to follow. In summary, this law is token and nothing more.
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
Utah isn't going to be getting extradition for arrests of spammers in other states. Flat out not going to get it. The other jurisdictions don't even care to enforce their own junk fax laws, never mind anti-spam laws. Now Utah has an idea that they'll get other states to go along?
No, not really. But the public will think they are doing something and go back to watching Survivor or whatever until their next wave of "government must do X about Y" feelings comes over them.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
Does not the COPPA cover the dealings of youth on the Internet? Why did they introduce redundancy and possible conflicting legislaton like this?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Are those claims true, or are they just overgeneralizations based on the actions of a select few individuals?
Pretty much anything bad you hear about anything is an overgeneralization based on the actions of a select few individuals. Ignorance too. For example I picture you to be a skinny pale dude with bad teeth eating boiled meat and drinking a warm Guiness, but that's only cause that's what TV taught me.
Utah is just another state, more conserative than the average because of the high Mormon population. Children there have a bad habit of getting lost though.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
No one has died for a flag, you moron. They died for a country.
It's very disrespectful to the flag and the people who died for it.
<ot>
Lots of people died for the Nazi flag, too, so should it be held in respect as well? I say we should stand up for values, not for countries and their symbols.
</ot>
"Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious." --Oscar Wilde
What are you talking about? The national Do Not Call list works. The whole point is that it's publicly available. What's the problem with that? It's now easy to prosecute violators.
LOAD "SIG",8,1
The law has good intentions, but the lawmakers should of realized two things:
1.) That the technology and authentication needed to enforce these new regulations simply aren't present.
2.) The legal definition of spam still lies in limbo, even with the CAN-SPAM act.
This along with sample cases can easily show the ineffectiveness of this law. Take for instance this case: I often find that due to lax IT standards and efforts at my university, my e-mail is sometimes used to transfer spam or malicious viruses through no fault of my own. Am I to blame if an 'illegal' email reaches one of these addresses in the registry? I would like to think not, but the law is vague enough to permit such reprecusions. Granted, the law is likely intended to target larger marketing firms and not the individual user, but the fact that the possibility exists is the point.
Not true. Even conservatives like me dislike Utah. See, I am a real conservative. I don't believe that I should be telling people what they can do in their own home. I don't believe in making the State enforce my own sex rules. I don't believe in sicing dogs on black people. I don't believe in murdering gay people.
I am a true conservative and freaks like those from Utah give people like me a bad name.
> It's very disrespectful to the flag and the people who died for it.
In all honesty, fuck people who died for a flag, whichever version it might be (you do realise there isn't just one that people have died for).
My respect goes to people who died for the freedoms of people.
China's government has no direct control over what happens on the Island, but the KMT party which founded the Taiwan we know today is pro-unification, their ultimate goal is to merge with the PRC on their own terms. They used to claim to run the entire country, and sat on the UN, and even the UN security Counsole as "china". On the other hand, the other major party is seperatist, and wants to start a new country, called Taiwan.
Right now a lot of Taiwanese bussness men are taking advantage of the fact that they are "Chinese" in order to make money in the quickly growing chinese economy. Lots of Taiwanese companies have plants and whatnot in China.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
With all the hissy fit that's been going on about the possibilities for rapists to find children to abuse online, is it really a good idea to make it public information how to get a hold of children directly?
This law will only have the opposite effect. The email senders who will obey these laws are responsible corporate citizens, which are not likely those at whom the law was intended. The more nafarious senders of spam (drugs, porn, etc) will not make an effort to follow the law.
The law will likely cut down on the mild content spam and only increase the awful content spam to children. If the "do not spam" list is made available to anyone, how long until lawless spammers add those names to their target lists?
Answer: not very long.
This law will likely serve to filter out the mild content spam and only increase the amount of nasty spam.
The law is a nice idea, but won't do a bit of good in the real world.
Those who can do. Those who can't sue.
This list is custom-made for abuse, especially when you consider that many people use the same nickname in multiple places -- email, instant messanger, blogs, etc.
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
.. I don't normally get involved in topics of a political nature here on Slashdot, but the title of this article sticks out like a sore thumb. At best, it's misleading as all hell. It is not simply Send an email in Utah, go to jail.
It is: send spam to a minor in Utah or Michigan whose email address is on a do not email list, and face the possibility of charges being pressed against you if a parent chooses to do so.
It couldn't possibly be due to Slashdot's liberal editorial leanings and the fact that Utah is a conservative state, could it? After all, a liberal leaning state like Michigan passed the same sort of laws, yet it wasn't mentioned in the article title.
What's the next topic on the agenda? Drive a car in Georgia, go to jail, simply because the state has driving laws and you can be arrested for violating them?
There are lots of these bills. Too many /.ers saw the word "Utah" and instantly ignored the fact that Michigan introduced it too, or even ignored the rest of the post.
frob
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
So you (an outsider) without any inside experience at all, merely relying on your personal biases and beliefs about the people involved guarantee that your friends who are involved and insides are lying and that the LDS church routinely and coninuously push their political views upon the members from the position of church leader.
Cool.
Consequently, though I'm not one myself, and my friends tell me otherwise, I guarantee that because of their abject rejection of God, that it is almost a guarantee that Atheists are imoral people and encourage others continuously to be imoral.
You're a moron, can't find a nicer way to say it. As someone else said the Do Not Call List works, and comparing it to an email list only helps prove that you have no idea what you're talking about. E-mail is mostly untraceable, free and can come from anywhere. Phones are traceable (mostly), cost money and in reality can't come from anywhere due to their cost (phone spamming from China would be amusing). There are also difference of volume and time. Can people get around these things? Yes. Is it through legal means? Probably not. Do they bother? It seems not.
If you really, really, really hate Mormons (and I'd love to know why if you do, please say "intolerance on their part" so I can laugh at your intolerance), and you like to complain about obnoxious liquor laws, then it might not be the right place for you. The liquor lawas seem to be more of a problem for the tourists than for the locals, since the real problem is just understanding them. Anybody that wants to drink in Utah drinks whatever they want to.
Even if you have no desire to live there, it is really worth a visit while on holiday. There are a large number of national parks and some really spectacular scenery.
Lasers Controlled Games!
Went there last year as an "outsider". It was nice, and the people were friendly, but on their religious day (can't remember if it was Saturday or Sunday) it was a bit weird, everyone in their crisp pressed white shirts, even little tiny children, all dressed identical. Hard to describe.
My father rarely ever watched anything sci-fi, but he turned to me and said, "remember those old star trek episodes where they would beam down to a planet that was supposed to be this perfect place, and the locals would say, 'Hi Neighbour' (in this really creepy way)? Well, it kinda feels like that." In other words, it's nice, but it gives you the creeps.
If I had to compare it to star trek, it would be more like walking through a borg cube. Interesting, but you're just waiting for them all to "notice" you, and break out the assimilation tubes.
But honestly, we enjoyed our stay and it seemed like a very friendly modern city. Didn't seem very "metropolitain" though, and the religion apparently says something like, God created man, and then somewhere down the line he punished the people who sinned by turning them black.
Wouldn't want to live there.
"I have never let my schooling interfere with my education." - Mark Twain
You're new to /. arent you? I dont think you'll get much sympathy here.
How about you:
1) Dont send out unpermitted materials; or
2) Dont send out anything. We don't want your spam anyway.
Disclaimer: I'm 2 time zones away from Utah and the closest I've been to it is 6 miles over it.
At any rate, I wouldn't say Utah is "dragging down the nation" all that much, if at all. You can't really talk about Utah without talking about Mormons, but my experience is that, while they may be quirky and even a little annoying at times, they're nowhere near as vitriolic as Evangelicals in general and Baptists in particular.
Part of it has to do with history, I think: other than sending out missionaries on bicycles, Mormons have learned the hard way to keep to themselves. Baptists may be up in arms about a government conspiracy out to get them when they can't put the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, but I haven't seen the US Army shoot at them yet. They also haven't been forced to alter their religious teachings in order to be considered for statehood.
(I'm partly sympathetic, but I'm mostly just ashamed of my government w/r/t Mormons.)
Even on television they seem far more sedate in pushing their religion than your average group of Baptists. They don't start out with threats of damnation, they just want to start by mailing you a book.
Another poster mentioned Senator Hatch, but let's face it: it takes 51 senators to get a bad bill through, and Hatch is only one man. You can't blame all those bad votes on Utah or Mormons. However, Baptists have the entire Bible Belt to play with (with the help of some sympathetic Catholics in Louisiana).
At any rate, if you're looking for someone to blame, I'd look elsewhere for now. Another poster mentioned Washington, D. C.
Spam is trival to define. It's bulk, unsolicited, email.
Bulk means 'more than a few mostly identical'.
Unsolicited means 'You do not know these people, and they have not used some sort of automated process to okay email from you'.
Email is, duh, email.
It's not rocket science. The idea that spam is subjective is a spammer lie.
Saying spam is subjective is like saying 'carbon dioxide emissions' are subjectives, because there could be trucks driving around at the factory and people walking around, all emitting CO2, so how is the government going to enforce anything.
Or: The law says people shouldn't be able to hear your radio from 100 feet away, but some people have better ears that others.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
This "law" is really going to suck for Joe Job emails (you know, the ones where someone takes YOUR email address and uses it in their From: line to spam millions, so the bounces and rejection messages come back to YOUR mailbox).
If they're not properly parsing headers to find the REAL sender of the email (i.e. in the "From " line, not the "From:" line), they're going to likely investigate and piss off a LOT of innocent people who have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with the originating spam messages.
Time to start using those 16,384-byte gpg and crypto keys on all of my systems again. Sigh.