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.)
This sounds freakishly like the old Do Not Call list. As in, it's a really stupid idea. Why don't we create a list of all the e-mails of people who won't want to be e-mailed? 'Cause, you know, that's smart...no one will ever think of stealing the list and e-mailing all of the people...which would be a great irony, now that I think about it.
I remember how easy it was to get the DNC list from donotcall.gov for five different area codes, for free (if you lied a couple times about your tax information or something like that).
What's going to be in place for this to be stopped in this case?
Simple answer to that,They can do absolutely nothing.Which is about all they can do for about 99.999% of the spam out their , they may get lucky and catch a few spammers in Michigan , but not even if a country has an extradition treaty with the USA they will not extradite someone for spamming
The only things certain in war are Propaganda and Death. You can never be sure which is which though
For only $250 a month, you can stay out of prison.
Brought to you by ISIPP.
I have to ask what Utah is really like. I'm from Britain, so I've never been there. But all I hear about is that they're a very backwards state, in basically every way possible. I've even heard some people go so far as to say that Utah is resonsible for a lot of the decay in the United States today. Are those claims true, or are they just overgeneralizations based on the actions of a select few individuals?
Cyric Zndovzny at your service.
Will this apply to e-mail addresses Created in Utah? Stored? If I am a resident of that state, create an e-mail address for that list and move to a different state can I use their law against someone else?
It will be impossible to enforce.
RTFA again for the best results.
Forget China, what happens if the spammer is in South Dakota?
Does Utah have any jurisdiction over what happens? I sorta doubt it, though I'm not exactly up on my communication law.
(As a related point, does it work the same as if someone in a state that allows people to record telephone calls w/o the other party's knowledge or consent records a call to a two-party state? I don't know how that works either, but I would think it's the same.)
If you look at that pic in like 16x or so, you can see two red spots, aligned with the waves, where the first (top down) red stripe should be. The blue square containing the stars looks more rectangluar than it should be as well. This leads me to the conclusion that it wasn't left out, intentionally, or by mistake, but rather is the result of poor rendering.
Do what I say, cuz I said it.
-Meatwad
Let's put a few big-time spammers to death, just to use them as an example and scare away some of the others.
Regulating email spam to the degree of imprisonment and fines is a bit extreme, don't you agree? How well advertised or published will the new regulations be? Is there a grace period when companies and individuals can claim they weren't familiar with the law and be exempt from prosecution? Attempting to regulate something as vast as the World Wide Web is ludicrous. The internet can not be controlled from the top down like T.V. and radio because it isn't organized like the other mediums. The beauty of the web is the free flow of new ideas, innovative products and peer-to-peer relationships. To what degree will political campaigns fall under the new legislation? What would happen if someone registers as a Democrat on one website and three months later their information is passed on to a liberal candidate. Suppose for instance that the candidate is a strong pro-choice advocate and sends the person some literature intended to mobilize the voter, but actually offends her? Who is liable?
the American flag, in its purist and original form, stand for the freedoms of its people
But only an idiot throws out the freedoms in favor of the symbol. The recent actions by the US House of Representatives makes me think they (and you) just don't get it. I'd much rather live in a country where it's legal (if not acceptable) to wipe your ass with the flag _then_ burn it than in a country where it's not.
Years ago I wrote to my senator asking that she oppose a flag burning amendment. She wrote back that she couldn't because the flag was too important as a symbol for our country. WTF? The _actual_ freedoms are much more important to me than any _symbol_ of them.
Awesome furniture, accessories and cabinetry in Santa Rosa, CA: http://humanity-home.com/
Bounty hunters, organ harvesting.
utah is currently being sued over its current "ban the internet - think of the kiddies" statute.
michigan already lost such a case, cyberspace v engler. aclu.org under cyberliberties.
usually, but not always, these sorts of statutes are struck down as violations of interstate commerce rights. ala v pataki. if someone tries to enforce such a statute against you, you can sue them, 42 usc 1983, and ask the fbi to put them in jail, 17 usc 241. won't happen, but you can ask.
these sorts of bills are feelgood legislation; those passing them (in violation of their oath of office) usually understand they are unenforcable.
(i am a lawyer, just not a very good one.)
If I read the summary on the linked site correctly, the law allows for civil suits. Surely there are enough zealots out there that would love to heckle the email marketers. If by marketers Utah means the people that are pushing the products, gathering information about customers and tailoring the pitches, then it may be possible to hunt them down. A friendly postal inspector or a subpoena to FedEx and some pressure should cough up the address of the PenisPill vendor. It might just be a front, but that's at least a little clue. It might be worth having a few children just to be able to financially castrate Scott Richter and friends.
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
I'm a "gentile" who moved here to Salt Lake City at the beginning of the year to go back to grad school and this is pretty much how it's looked to me so far. About the only thing I have to add is that I've been told that many people aren't quite as wealthy as they seem at first glance here. The LDS tendency to mary young often leads to people overextending their credit trying to purchase a house too early.
And yeah, I have yet to really meet annoying pushy LDS folks like I have evangelicals. Polite protest of disinterest have worked just fine.
There also turn out to be some surprising advantages to the oddities in legislation here. For example, the recent SCOTUS Eminent Domain ruling has no effect here as the state government recently passed legislation banning eminent domain for redevelopment purposes (except, in a twisted joke, for the redevelopers own property.)
I should mention, however, that my views are somewhat coloured by a fairly centrists view of American politics and religion, so the politics and religion here don't really bother me as much as they might some. (Honestly, for the moment I find them a somewhat refreshing change from my old heavily blue state.)
more info on utah lawsuit - this is not about the bill this slashdot article is about - but it raises some of the same issues.
c =252
http://www.aclu.org/Privacy/Privacy.cfm?ID=18455&
The Utah Progressive Network and Andrew McCullough, who joined today's lawsuit, have Web sites that are hosted on shared Internet addresses with unrelated sites, some of which contain material likely harmful to minors. They fear that because of the new law, their sites and their constitutionally protected speech will be blocked.
"To comply with the law, Internet service providers are authorized to block access to certain content, and this would almost unavoidably lead to the blocking, and thus the censorship, of innocent websites," said co-counsel John Morris of the Center for Democracy and Technology. "Also troubling is the fact that the publishers of these sites may never realize they're being blocked."
The case, The King's English v. Shurtleff, challenges Utah Code 67-5-19, 76-10-1205 through 1206, and 76-10-1230 through 1233.
Clients in the lawsuit are The King's English, Inc.; Sam Weller's Zion Bookstore; Nathan Florence; W. Andrew McCullough; Computer Solutions International, Inc.; Mountain Wireless Utah, LLC; the Sexual Health Network, Inc.; Utah Progressive Network Education Fund, Inc.; the American Booksellers Foundation for Free Expression; the American Civil Liberties Union of Utah; the Association of American Publishers; the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund; the Freedom to Read Foundation; and the Publishers Marketing Association.
dear "ubergeek"
0 90025X/qid=1119876175/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl 14/002-8066150-7475236?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
as someone who has studied
please buy and read your origional book of mormon
you will find it to be very different from the origional.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/083
another funny thing to be noted is that the
It early masonic temple's all have symbolism in there architecture that by the majority of people would be considered satanic. these are symbols include (but not limited too) the reversed pentagram, and the five pointed star.
josef smith (the founder of mormonism) was a mason and well aware of the meaning of these symbols.
yet another thing to notice is that there isn't a single cross in those mormon temples. not one!
other doctrines include:
People living on the sun and moon:
"Nearly all the great discoveries of men in the last half century have, in one way or another... contributed to prove Joseph Smith to be a prophet. As far back as 1837, I know that he said the moon was inhabited by men and women the same as this earth, and that they lived to a greater age than we do, that they live generally to near the age of 1000 years. He described the men as averaging near six feet in height, and dressing quite uniformly in something near the Quaker style" (O. B. Huntington, Young Women's Journal, Vol. 3, p. 264, 1892). "Who can tell us of the inhabitants of this little planet that shines of an evening, called the moon?... So it is with regard to the inhabitants of the sun. Do you think it is inhabited? I rather think it is. Do you think there is any life there? No question of it" (B. Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, p. 271).
Joseph Smith will be Heaven's gatekeeper:
"No man or woman in this dispensation will ever enter into the celestial kingdom of God without the consent of Joseph Smith. From the day that the Priesthood was taken from the earth to the winding up scene of all things, every man and woman must have the certificate of Joseph Smith, junior, as a passport to their entrance into the mansion where God and Christ are" (Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 7, p. 289).
The dead can be saved:
"We are the only people that know how to save our progenitors, how to save ourselves, and how to save our posterity in the celestial kingdom of God; that we are the people God has chosen by whom to establish his kingdom and introduce correct principles into the world; and that we are in fact the saviours of the world..." (John Taylor [Prophet], Journal of Discourses, Vol. 6, p. 163).
It seems to me like a lot of windows users are completely fucked... think of how many zombie boxes will be targeted by this bill.