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.
Sounds like a good way to avoid being SPAMMED...
Humor from a Genetically Molested Mind
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
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?
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.
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
For only $250 a month, you can stay out of prison.
Brought to you by ISIPP.
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)
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.
(5) The sending of a message described in subsection (1) is prohibited
only if it is otherwise a crime for the minor to purchase, view,
possess, participate in, or otherwise receive the product or service.
Does that mean that it disallows sending of adult e-mail only, while allowing everything else, or am I misunderstanding?
Why are there only 12 stripes in it? The flag has 13. Slashdot needs to fix this. It's very disrespectful to the flag and the people who died for it.
Nah, it's just a tribute to the wealth of accurate information available on Slashdot.
Help me take back Slashdot. When did 'News for Nerds' become 'FUD and Conspiracy Theories for Extremist Nutjobs'?
Taiwan is NOT a part of People's Republic of China , despite of what PRoC government propaganda wants the rest of the planet to believe. Please make a note of it in the future.
But indeed, there still isn't a way to enforce any anti-spam law(s) across varies national borders. Frankly, considering that the existing laws could not even be enforced in the spamhole known as state of Florida (that is a part of the United States,) what chance is there that they're enforced anywhere else outside of United States?
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
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.
I wonder if we could get 1) the Utah kid crowd interested in some Linux distros and organize them on a scale sufficient to attract the attention of SCO, which would want to spa^H^H^H email them about their 699$ registration fee...
2) ???
3) Jailarity!
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
You insensitive clod...
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
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.
> 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.
My name is Prince omar en caver ensanado and i am in desperate need of help. My heard of unicorns are kiled by very bad men who have taken over my country of narnia. We need helps to buy food and supplies to keep alive the unicorns.
I know that you are a good child, and will be willing to help. I am also able to pay great money for the help. If you can email your momy or dadys bank account and social secutrity number, I put lots of money in the account. They be very happy and thank you for long time for making them so much money. In return we just need to spend some of it on food and some fun army stuff.
If you me help reply please. The poor little unicorns are dying. To deposit the money in you parents account and make them very happy, I need you to buy some stuff and leave in wardrobe at place I tell you later. you can buy with credit cards. We give you gillions of dollars as soon as we get the stuff.
Please help! You want to make parent happy and be good child, yes. you don't want to be bad child? Pleas reply and I tell you what you must buy. All this ok, i promise, cross my hert!
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
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.
FTFA:
In order to avoid running afoul of these new laws, email marketers have two choices:
1. They can ensure that they never send any email containing unpermitted materials, links to unpermitted materials, or even links to sites which have information about the unpermitted materials; or
2. They can match their mailing lists against the email registries maintained by Michigan and Utah, on a monthly basis. There is a fee associated with this list matching. Email lists are provided to the state in an encrypted fashion, and the email address registry is also encrypted.
Now, I would not mind filtering any commercial email list I might maintain against their "do not email" list: What I definitely DO mind is being CHARGED for the privilege!! It makes zero sense to reward the businesses who use Unsolicited Commercial Email within all apllicable laws and regulations with FEES charged in order to ensure that they *continue* to operate within the regs. The sad part is, even if your list is double opt-in, if one of the member addresses on that list is also on Utah's or Michigan's "Do not" list, *you*, as the provider of email, are the one punished. The double-opted in subscriber in question, in all likelihood an enforcement official involved in entrapment, faces no penalty whatsoever.
I try, I really do try, to keep my language within bounds of decency, but sometimes one just simply must say !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take the 90-Day Challenge! http://rwmurker.bodybyvi.com/
they keep electing Orrin Hatch. That alone speaks volumes. Among other things, he's the proud author of the DMCA, the INDUCE act, the PIRATE act (Porno Is Really Awesome To Endorse, apparently), he advocated the destruction of PCs belonging to software pirates with some vaporware virus, and then was caught red handed using pirated software. He claimed that was a mistake made by his staff. When he was caught with stolen Democratic party memos, he claimed that (you guessed it) it was a mistake made by his staff. At best, he's a clueless old grandpa that has no business writing copyright legislation.
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"?
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
Well, that's certainly a better way of implementing it, but still, you shouldn't have to pay money to send someone an email. I guess if you frame it that way it's not unconstitutional, but it would violate the federal moratorium on internet taxation.
Let's put a few big-time spammers to death, just to use them as an example and scare away some of the others.
If you're not a big fan of trees and moisture in general, you may like it.
Yes, I'm a Mormon, but I'm originally from the south (North Florida... basically an extension of Georgia with an Alabama twang) and I'd never been to Utah at all until I was 19, and not for any appreciable amount of time until I was 21 and was going to college. I have no blood relatives from Utah.
Here's what I can't stand about Utah - climate. Hate it. I'm from Florida and I like my oxygen soaking and mosquito infested thank you very much. I'm tired of going through a tube of Chapstick every four days and I hate having to put lotion on my hands every day or watch them crack and bleed. My wife wants to stay in Salt Lake for my career... and her skin breaks out around humidity... don't know how we're going to arrange this one.
Some portions of culture - as noted, yes, I'm a Mormon, but I'd never been to Utah before I grew up. Some portions of the population are amazingly zealous (a small town or two in Utah actually has declared itself a "UN free zone", whatever that may mean), but so long as you stay out of the geographical fringes and don't go attacking people for whatever reason, you're pretty much OK. There's a lot more anti-Mormon activity here than there was in the South (and that's saying something), which I'm not a big fan of. I've never stood outside of someone else's building to pamphlet it, blare at those who enter it with megaphones, or break up other people's wedding parties, but there's a lot of folks there that seem to like to do it to the Mormons.
As far as the state being the "reddest" in the nation, that's true, but take a look at the political affiliation of the mayor of Utah's biggest city - yup, Salt Lake's mayor is a Democrat.
Take a look at the Senate minority leader, Harry Reid. He's a Mormon, too. It would appear the democrats don't have that much of a problem with Mormons after all.
Also, should it really surprise people that a bunch of conservative minded people should vote for a (here's a shocker) conservative party? Or that people should vote for others in their peer groups? Sure, lots of Mormons get elected but guess what - the majority of the people in Utah are MORMONS. You could even look at it as a matter of probability - if you were to randomly select something from a bag and 75% of the objects in the bag were one color, which would you be most likely to select? Apply the dynamics of winner-take-all voting on there and you're bound to get more Mormons in government. You may also note that blacks are very often elected by majority black areas and Jews in majority Jewish areas. Is it really that surprising that a place with a population up to 90% Mormon in some areas would vote for a Mormon and would allow their religious beliefs to maybe come into their voting?
As far as Utah bringing down American society as we know it, I hardly think Utah's four or five electoral votes could have that effect. And the people you're largely thinking of are evangelicals - and many of those are out there burning Books of Mormon and causing the Mormons a lot of trouble.
Paranoid political theories aside, Mormons don't (or most certainly don't) discuss politics from the pulpit. No non-profit group can without risking its non-profit status. Ironically, this has been used against a lot of Anti-Mormon groups that attack Mormon candidates based on religion.
I'm actually a BYU student in Provo, the most Republican city in the most Republican state in the Union. BYU does have a large Democrats club that actually WON last year's debate against the Republican club (whooped 'em big time), and the debate was scored by a firm, straight party-line Republican professor (I know because I've talked with him about these issues privately from time to time).
However, it shouldn't be assumed that all of the professors share his views. Of the professors I know who have expressed political views, Democrats are at least even with Republicans, and there's even
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/
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!
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?
If you like snow skiing, hiking, mountain biking, camping, fishing, rock climbing, or any number of other outdoor activities, Utah is a great place to live.
You forgot hunting. Great hunting here too. Why just about every kid over 12 has a rifle.
And allayou outta-staters thinkin' 'bout comin' here just might want ta think 'bout that. We got enuf people here and don' need no more.
Oh, and all the rest of that stuff he mentioned is overrated. And the bit about liquor is wrong, too -- if ya come here, ya better be plannin' ta dry out.
Get the picture?
(Psst... John... WTF you thinking, man? You want to ruin it for all of us?)
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
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.
"I just wish the spammers had a "not an idiot" list, so they could stop wasting their resources sending the stuff to me."
That would be wonderful, if it weren't for the fact that many idiots would get confused and put themselves on the list.
Exam 4/C again. Maybe I'll do better this time.
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.
-Eric
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.