Slashdot Mirror
New Michigan Law Means Kids Can Opt Out of Spam
tekiegreg writes "Thanks to a new Michigan Law, parents can now opt their kids out of Spam. One wonders whether or not such severe penalty will make Spammers think twice ($30,000 fine and 3 yrs/jail)." I wonder how much legislation will actually help keep kids from being spammed, but if it works, I'm happy to say I'm under age 13 if it means I get less spam.
Interesting that it's for 'protecting the children'. Why not just let all Michigan residents opt-out of spam?
It's almost as if the legislators are making a compromise...
"A week in the lab saves an hour in the library"
Why only kids?
If you claim to be under 13, does that prevent you from seeing porn, online banking, and one day, online voting?
I already ACT under 13. Does that get me out of spam?
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
filtered spam for tweens, no tobacco just junk food spam
Why haven't vigilante hacker-types taken the bad guys off the net yet?
So if I'm somewhere else, say orbiting in the space station, do I have to now lookup every country, every state and province, to see whom I can email or not?
Hey. I love protecting the kids. Perhaps we should all get a law. I'd also like to grow hair and be taller. But until leglislators can change the fabric of reality, these things are not going to happen. Makes for nice press. Little else.
Just How Many Stooges were in the Three Stooges?
All the spammers in Russia and China are shaking in their boots worried about a Michigan law.
oh the oppression!
Because if so, I'll gladly become a kid from Michigan.
Send Email to Utah, Go to Jail
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.)
Uh huh. So a huge list is compiled of all the underage kids. Yeesh. I'm sure the spammers will love that list. I can't even fathom the sheer volume of spam they will get once they aren't underage anymore.
If the sender of each illegal message in my inbox actually got prosecuted according to existing laws - there could me millions of dollars in fines. Nothing is consistently enforced though - so its pretty much as if the existing laws don't really exist. I don't see why this one will be any different.
Just remove Zonk, timothy, CowboyNeal and CmdrTaco from your editor list.
Some Internet safety experts have said anti-spam laws have been difficult to enforce...
Some??? Who's this so called expert that claimed they are easy the enforce?
When they start using children as an excuse for bad laws, we all end up suffering. The spam haters are so steamed they would eagerly allow the government to register anyone who would send or receive email. When our internet of freedom and personal responsibility is gone and we have an internet in total control by central governments, I hope we remember who asked to let the wolves into our chicken coop.
I didn't especially mind spam, but I sure wished I could opt out of pickled beets.
People ask, "Why just kids?" Spammers want to collect money for doing almost nothing and taking no responsibility for what they do. When they send porn to kids, it makes people angry... very angry.
So when someone is finally taken to trial for sending spam to kids, they won't escape from a jury saying "sorry, I didn't know..."
Show me a porn site that will let you in if you are below 13?
While no one will admit to liking it, unsolicited commercial e-mail obviously works. True, companies use it because it is as close to free as you can get in the marketing world, but serious marketers would willingly pay a marginal toll to cover the burden of delivering e-mail to unsuspecting recipients. Few businesses or individuals have stood up in defense of spam, for obvious reasons. But there are times when it makes sense. Let's say a Web surfer registers at a site in order to gain access to some premium content. The resulting e-mail offering monthly access or additional services might not have been requested, but it is hardly out of left field. That business has good reason to hope that such a consumer might be interested in further contact. Reputable companies already follow the guidelines. Get an e-mail from Amazon and the opt-out link is prominently displayed. Government's job is not to protect its citizens from every potential inconvenience. Big brother, please -- I'd rather do it myself.
Another great piece of legislation created to deal with an internet issue. Soon enough we'll need legal consultants just to go online.
Spoken like a true spammer. I'm surprised that you didn't say that blocking spam is limiting your "free speach (spammer spelling)"
If you send ads, it's up to you to MAKE SURE those ads go to people that want them. Sending XXX "college amature cam" porn to 10 year olds is not targeting your market, is it?
STFU and get a real job.
--
BMO
Can somebody explain how the registry can be encrypted, and STILL be available to spammers so they know who 'not' to spam?
Spammer> I don't want to get suid... can you tell me who not to spam.
Govt> Sorry, that's classified.
Group with the list of kids does this:
1. Make hashes of every kid email address using SHA-512 or whatever.
2. Makes list of hashes queryable via some service.
Bulk-Mail Advertisers (spammers) do this:
1. Send a query of every email address they want to test to the list. If it's a kid email address, they get some sort of message telling them so.
So, basically, you can't just browse the list for email addresses to send to. You have to at least have the email address (or guess it) first.
The spammers can only safely spam the people they know are old enough to spam. Not that I'm claiming this will work or anything.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
While I do think it's a good start, I question the other ways kids are NOT protected ... namely in the educational institutions.
We allow advertising for Snickers, M&Ms, Coke & Pepsi all over our high and junior high schools, and allow Universities (like the former U of Minnesota - now a research facility instead of a school) to sell students personal information to any bank or credit card company we choose.
Spam is hardly a threat compared to corporate "education".
"The large print giveth, and the small print taketh away" -- "Step Right Up", Tom Waits
This is something false that people think is true because it keeps getting repeated over and over by people on sites like slashdot. The US have the most spammers in the world. Here are the top ten spammers:
United States: 42.11 per cent
South Korea: 13.43 per cent
China (including Hong Kong): 8.44 per cent
Canada: 5.71 per cent
Brazil: 3.34 per cent
Japan: 2.57 per cent
France: 1.37 per cent
Spain: 1.18 per cent
United Kingdom: 1.13 per cent
Germany: 1.03 per cent
Within the US, IIRC, the number one spamming state is Florida.
One reason this falsety spread though is that Chinese server admins used to have very lax attitudes to open relays, which meant that the (mostly American) spammers often used Chinese servers to send their spam. Russia comes in because Russian mafia hacker groups are known to set up botnets - armies of infected zombie XP machines connected to the Net - and they then sell the use of the botnets for doing things like sending spam to (mostly American) spam groups.
IMO blaming the Chinese and Russians in these cases for spam is like blaming the manufacturer of a gun used in a murder, instead of the person who decided to pull the trigger. You don't fix a problem by blocking the symptoms - you go to the source of the problem.
Considering that most spammers are in the US, perhaps it might actually help after all.
I have a job! I have never sent spam or worked for a spammer. I do software for ERP. I hope you will remember this day when we look back on an internet that is totally controlled by the government. This new government internet will surely have spam, but it won't have freedom. Go join the drug warriors and smut warriors and moral crusaders and jump in a hole. You socialists will agree to give away all our freedoms and we will get NOTHING in return. 1000 years from now we will have drugs, and porno, and spam, but we won't have freedom. Fuck you!
What about sicos LOOKING for kids online to do God only knows what to...now they have one centeral clearinghouse - No more spending weeks trolling in "kids" chatrooms any more, this is why I was also against the .kids top level domain thing that came about a couple of years ago.
*Starts shutting down his spam email servers*
Living in Michigan sucks =(
... Spam opts out of YOU!
... since it is overruled by the federal CAN-SPAM act.
I can't believe no one has mentioned this yet. This law really does abridge freedom of speech - if you send an email with a link to a site with credit card advertisments to an email on this list, you could concievably be thrown in *jail*.
I D=3023
http://www.marketingsherpa.com/sample.cfm?content
I love an ideological person, and even more so, an ideological politician. People that think they truly can change the world. However, the line between ideological and naive is a fine one, and one that was certainly crossed here:
"From my perspective as a parent, I'm horrified by what comes in" to her three children's e-mail accounts, Gov. Jennifer Granholm said during a news conference Thursday. "This will put an end, we hope, to inappropriate e-mail getting to our children."
It will not put an end to it. I guarantee that. Spam is not like a do-not-call list. Fly by night Chinese penis enlargement spam companies don't care what lists various states in the US have to opt out of, not to mention many spammers in the US.
Yes, this will open up a large DB of childrens e-mails, which won't be targetted by hackers. They will be targetted by pedophiles posing as children themselves. Worse, even by just knowing the state, pedophiles in Michigan know their victims will be local. One would hope that the state is smart enough to at the very least post some dummy honeypot e-mails up in order to catch such predators.
But, no, I think they are too naive even for that. If you don't want your kid getting spam, give them a GMail account. I get the most horrible spam of anyone I know, almost 200 a day, and none of them cutsey ones. I forward through GMail as my filter. In this entire year, about 5 made it through. Government can't solve all the problems. Spam is a special problem that I really don't think any single government could solve, and if they could solve it collaboratively, the risk to civil liberties would, in my mind, probably outweigh any benefit.
The answer to technological problems is a technological solution. You can't legislate away the flaws in the current e-mail system... but you can always program a better solution. This law would be similar to Michigan making it illegal to use someone else's password, and doing so by making a giant list of the passwords everyone uses.
So the Gov. knows how to basically use e-mail. Now she thinks she's an expert on Internet security and privacy? When will politicians realize that, for the most part, they are tech amatures, and really need to call in the experts for solid advise?
I8-D
They just can't understand anyone who values freedom and personal responsibility over government regulation. They accuse you of being down with the evil corporations. And they want the village to raise THEIR children! They want all the adults to jump through hoops so they can continue their parentage with minimal responsibility.
I think we should have a new moderation that mods down people who seek karma through pandering to /. groupthink rather than sticking to the issue.
The issue is they are sending porn to underage kids. Are you saying you would you rather have kids be exposed to hardcore pornographic imagery than harmless corporate imagery?
Now please take your corporate hating tree-hugging moonmaiden self to an appropriate thread.
It's not a law, and it doesn't ban spam.
i on-registry-law.php
8 9--,00.html
It bans some email. It doesn't tell you which email; you have to guess. Lots of spam is ok under the statute. It's not limited to bulk email, one is enough. Have you verified everyone on your contacts list isn't actually a michigan minor? How exactly did you verify that? It's not limited to commercial email.
http://www.isipp.com/michigan-email-child-protect
There's the text, which was missing from the main post. Do you understand it? Does your lawyer understand it? Are you in compliance?
The statute is not a law. One of the basic rules of american law established by Marbury v Madison is that an unconstitutional statute is not law.
This statute appears to be unconstitutional for the reasons discussed in Cyberspace v Engler, which stuck down Michigan's previous attempt at banning the internet because of the kiddies.
http://www.cyberspace.org/lawsuit/
Some of the fun provisions in the act:
they can make you come to michigan with all your business records to answer questions.
They can seize your computers.
If they were serious about protecting kids, they wouldn't be charging a fee to check the list.
Oh and it's not just parents who can add names - government officials can add kids' names, probably without telling them.
For fun, check the linking policy.
http://www.michigan.gov/som/0,1607,7-192-26915-20
It's a shakedown.
It's not constitutional.
It doesn't protect against spam.
It bans some email but not others.
Spam is a real problem. This isn't a real solution.
Personally, getting on the federal and state do not call lists has been great for me.
This isn't like that.
Don't be a dupe.
This is what we fought Reno v ACLU for - to keep the government from shutting down the internet.
Less Spam, more Snack Pack!
For he today that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother.
An European directive (Oct 2003) makes it illegal to send "unsolicited e-mails illegal across member states". http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/3005757.stm
Why not make this something global and not only to protect children..?
Although this would not realy solve the problem. ISPs should take more action to prevent that unsolicited e-mails are being send on their subnet anyway.
Mod parent up! This guy has a good point!
Georgia
By targetting the under 13 crowd, it is easier to pass legislature that people feel good about, it may also be far easier to enforce, giving them a foot in the door.
I also think that the bill is more of an anti-pedophile bill in reality, since it does not limit itself to commercial e-mails and is under-13 not under-18.
The police are a lot more interested in keeping pron folks away from under-13 than teens. It should be easier to put teeth onto this.
Opting out of spam? Hahahahahahahaha. Thats a good one.
Isn't it illegal to release info online if you're under 13? Also, teenagers (like me) should be able to manage spam themselves and learn to protect their emails.
This is american tax payers money at work :) you pay millions to ppl to make laws which are useless...
Taking this money and spending it on technological solutions to the spam probelm...
Even requiring isps/computer manufactures to preinstall basic antivirus would work better by removing all the machines that are used as proxies to send spam and other bs...
Visit my site @ http://www.madtorrent.com
Why not make it illegal to sell stuff over unsolicited e-mails. It must be several times easier to track sellers than to try to track spammers. This, of course, would not stop phishing e-mails but it would reduce the overall spam traffic.
I would like to see a new moderation for people who try to claim some sort of righteous indignation becuase someone said something that upsets their modernist view of how society should be structured and what values should be held.
I think he is saying that he would rather not have his kids to the mindless consumer culture associated with modern capitalism.
Corporations and public schools have always been a little too close. They handed out commemoriative bottles of Coca-Cola with our high school diploma that said "Congratulations". Interestingly enough, the contract Coca-Cola had with our school district forbids students or faculty from brining in non Coca-Cola soft drinks on campus (though this was never really enforced).
Comparing what spam does to society with what values our society has embraced and are represented by corporations, I would tend to agree with the grandparent poster. A little pornography is harmless and can be dealt with by education. Mindless obedience to commercials, MTV, Britney Spears, fast food, and the other corporate symbols are much harder to deal with or avoid.
I think its pretty sad that there is this tendency to make knee-jerk reactions anytime you criticize modern consumer culture. It has little to do with militant environmentalism.
Look, Spam is bad, k? Understand that, accept that, think spammers should be forced to pay ($$) for the real damage they cause. (no, not pay /you/, your own personal annoyance has no monetary value)
And Fraud is a real and serious problem, and is already illegal, and has jail time attached.
However: Jailtime for the act of sending email itself?
Fuck that, okay?
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
Wrong. Try some history on for size.
Mindless obedience to commercials, MTV, Britney Spears, fast food, and the other corporate symbols are much harder to deal with or avoid.
A little commercialism is harmless and can be dealt with by education.
This really isn't all that different from the mail order industry. You can't sell guns, cigars, and booze to a kid and then claim that you didn't realize what the laws were in that state. If you do business in a state, you are subject to that state's laws. Just because the medium of communication is the Internets doesn't change this.
I've always felt that *surety* of punishment was more of a deterrent than *severity* of punishment. Stiff penalties indeed, but how adroitly will Michigan law enforcement catch and prosecute?
I don't if I would put gun manufacturers in the same boat as ignorant users. If anything, gun manufacturers are the ones creating the botnets. The shooters are the ones using them to send spam. Noone would be setting up botnets if there was no money in it. Same with guns. Ignorant users don't make a dime here. I guess you could say botnets are your fully automatic weapon. the former not needed for just sending email, the latter not needed for duck hunting.
Woah, slow down cowboy.
I didn't say we should delibertly expose kids to pornography. Frankly, I don't want our society to turn into a pornographic, lustful one myself, but in our current state of things, pornography is hardly the problem with society.
If you teach kids to have mindless, meaningless promiscusous sex, then thats just as bad as what our society currently embraces.
"A little commercialism is harmless".. oh really? I guess being a nation of obese is great. I guess the fact that we waste energy and drive overpowered SUVs while others starve is good too. I'm sure the history books will look down upon Britney Spears and put her in the ranks of Beethoven and Mozart.
Give me a break. I'm not anti-corporation. I'm anti corporate values. When our childhoods are filled with messages of consumerism and teaching kids corporate obedience, I think there is a problem. When our children are being exposed to this propaganda in our social institutions of learning, I think thats even worse.
By the way, I'm neither a liberal or a tree hugger. I want to return to the idea of where our culture was not dictated by corporations and our value system doesn't embrace wastefulness or human degregation.
Sure, this might have a "chilling effect" on "legitimate" commercial email, but so what? Is legitimate commercial email really all that fantastic? Who needs it?
If I were in charge of the lawmaking process I would create a new protocol for commercial email (bills, recipts, some advertizing) that had strict requirements like digital signatures that let people chose what organizations they wanted to get.
Then I would ban commercial, automated email entirely. (You could still individualy email clients, or have programs send out automated emails for certan things, but not both at the same time, you'd need to use the commercial protocol).
Anyway, that would be my legal/technical solution.
The only technical solution that works these days is to change your email address once it gets on 'the lists'.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
At a previous Computers, Freedom and Privacy conference, I asked this question of the chairman of the FTC, who was speaking about children's privacy on the net. As you might expect, I got no good answer.
It seems to me that the essential quality of being a child that causes us to make special laws protecting them are:
Unfortunately, while those two qualities become less true for us in the physical world when we grow up--we learn how to protect ourselves from in-person assault, and how to avoid going places where we might be assaulted--it's far less true in the online world.
In a sense, we are a whole society of children, living day to day in a world of wonder where there are no parents to tell us wisdom that will keep us from getting into e-trouble for the rest of our e-lives. As such, even if the law does apply only to kids, it should apply to all of us kids, even those of us in real-world adulthood.
Kent M Pitman
Philosopher, Technologist, Writer
In other news, the government has authorised USPS spam, that would generally start at 18, to begin at 13. Tommy Farrier, local 13-year-old boy, is ecstatic about the 24.9 APR on his new VISA.
Look, Spam is bad, k? Understand that, accept that, think spammers should be forced to pay ($$) for the real damage they cause.
/you/, your own personal annoyance has no monetary value)
Why should spam have some special niche carved out for it in our legal system? Should vandalism be exempt from jail time as long as the vandals pay for the monetary damage that they cause? If someone steals your wife's purse, should they face no jail time as long as they reimburse her for the loss after they get caught? How about identity theft? Should there be no jail time as long as the thief pays back the dollar value of what they stole?
Jail time is there to discourage illegal acts. If the worst thing that you have to do is pay for your damage when you're caught, then it's not enough of a deterrent -- especially when catching the perpetrator is so difficult.
(no, not pay
Courts have consistently disagreed with that thought. If you repeatedly annoy your neighbor by disturbing his/her peace, then they can seek a civil judgement against you and win, just to show one example. A sexual harassment lawsuit, where the harasser is a coworker and not a supervisor, is another example where someone's personal annoyance has monetary value.
However: Jailtime for the act of sending email itself?
Fuck that, okay?
The jail time is not for just "sending email." It's for sending e-mail "related to such things as pornography, illegal or prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, firearms or fireworks" to a child's address *after* that address has been put into the Michigan registry of children's addresses which are not to receive such e-mail.
Hell yes, put the spammer in jail. In fact, I say put them all in jail -- whether they are spamming kids or adults. They are stealing bandwidth for their unwanted ads and costing individuals and businesses time and money -- as well as annoying most of the recipients.
I thought it was the 13 year old wana be hackers who send the spam to make money on the side.. I know some ex spammers who did this at that age?
-=Linsys=-
http://www.intrusionsec.com
The law will make spammers think long enough for the kids to turn 13, then start spamming them at their verified, market-segmented email addresses. New email addresses will become a traditional birthday present.
--
make install -not war
I find it also helps me get dates.
The others were laughing so hard at the question that they had to be marked as "unavailable for comment". :)
That should've been a clue that Michigan's "leaders" are clueless when it comes to technology and the costs involved. Now this. How in the hell does she plan on going after spammers? Will she end up attempting to convict someone who was a zombie spam host because she and the rest of Michigan's leadership are clueless?
Again, the intentions are good, but once again, not thought out at all.
Content Management System: A pretentious way of saying "text editor."
Why do kids only get to opt out? The last thing I want to see when I wake up in the morning, drag myself into work, and pop-up thunderbird is 131 emails relating to a 'huge telescopic demon penis'.
:
--
Check out the Uncyclopedia.org
The only wiki source for politically incorrect non-information about things like Kitten Huffing and Pong! the Movie !
Please allow me to hate the creator of the 120-character limit: *HATES*. Thank you.
Slashdot Repost Spam?
I'm happy to say I'm under age 13 if it means... I can score with some cute girls from Jr. High!
It's even bigger for unauthorized access to computer resources.
How much spam comes from computers that are compromised? 80% was the last number I heard. The law against it hasn't done squat.
Wow, this gives a whole new reason to claim to be a 13 year old girl on the internet.
--Nuintari
slashdot : where an opinion can be wrong.
Maybe no a 10 yo, but 13 and up? Oh yeh, who do you think Sublime's biggest customers are? 13 and 14 year old boys, that's who.
The jail time is not for just "sending email." It's for sending e-mail "related to such things as pornography, illegal or prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, firearms or fireworks" to a child's address *after* that address has been put into the Michigan registry of children's addresses which are not to receive such e-mail.
I don't see how this law can survive intrastate commerce and equal protection challenges.
I hate spam as much as the next guy, but I also hate power grabs more like this one. Michigan is trying to regulate the whole world... and it is totally destined to fail.
-- $G
Wait a year. Ask the attorney general how many violations of this law have been reported. Then ask how many successful prosecutions.
Extra credit for living in Michigan with a qualifying registered child's email and reporting every violation.
Bingo, right in one.
from cyberspace v engler permanent injunction:
A state's power to regulate commerce may be limited by the right of Congress to regulate interstate commerce. U.S. Const. Art. I, 8, cl. 3. Michigan's effort to regulate what information may be transmitted to Michigan's children, via the Internet, attempts to control Internet communications which might originate within Michigan, in other states, or in other countries. The Commerce Clause precludes the application of state statutes to commerce that commences or occurs outside of a state's borders. American Libraries Association v. Pataki, 969 F.Supp. 160, 175 (S.D. N.Y. 1997).
"[A] statute that directly controls commerce occurring wholly outside the boundaries of a State exceeds the inherent limits of the enacting State's authority and is invalid regardless of whether the statute's extraterritorial reach was intended by the legislature." Healy v. The Beer Institute, et al., 491 U.S. 324, 336 (1989). Thus, regardless of the legislature's intent to regulate solely within the State's own borders, the Act would, in effect, attempt to control communications occurring outside of the State of Michigan. Therefore, Michigan's 1999 Public Act 33 would violate the Dormant Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and may not be enforced.
possible examples:
"legalize medical marijuana in hawaii"
"don't drink and drive"
"tobacco kills"
Ok, how about another solution? Email provider that allows the parents to whitelist who can send mail to that child. All other mail is quarantined ahead of time, and the parent can inspect it and release it to the child.
Hey! What an idea! Having the parents be involved in what their children are doing online!
Too bad it's easier to get "for the children" legislation passed instead.
One wonders whether or not such severe penalty will make Spammers think twice ($30,000 fine and 3 yrs/jail).
No.
----
All of whose base are belong to the what-now?
For the porn, I mean. For some reason most of the spam I get is for mortgages and drugs. No porn unless you count drugs to enlarge my "pen1$".
So come on! I want porn! I'll even pretend to be a little kid from Michigan if it makes the spammers happy!
Instead, it should be a form on a website, where spammer must enter e-mail address for checking (and do it manually, so a simple "type the word from picture" check would be nice), and the system then answers, if this e-mail address is in fact in the database. That would protect data from stealing, IMHO.
Let's go over this:
The point of freedom of speech is so that everyone can voice their political opinion. The new law does not punish people who send e-mails with links to credit card advertisements. RTFA before screaming "Constitution!" The new law bans sending messages to children related to such things as pornography, illegal or prescription drugs, alcohol, tobacco, gambling, firearms, or fireworks. While the government cannot exercise prior restraint to prevent people from advertising illegal services such as these they are well within their right to punish people advertising illegal services, which they are doing when they advertise to minors.
Now if you can explain how the intent of the First Amendment is to prevent the state governments from punishing people who send unwanted and inappropriate e-mails I will gladly concede my point.
Not so fast. In American Libraries Association v. Pataki, the court wrote:
The current Michigan law provides a means for determining whether an addressee is a minor in Michigan (an online database). Furthermore, it does not regulate communications which are simply passing through Michigan. Therefore, the central Commerce Clause argument in the American Libraries Association v. Pataki does not apply to the Michigan statute being discussed.
"[A] statute that directly controls commerce occurring wholly outside the boundaries of a State
The commercial speech being regulated here does not occur "wholly outside the boundaries" of" Michigan. The only commercial speech being regulated by the Michigan law is that which would be transmitted to specific minors within the state of Michigan. It's analogous to the state laws making it illegal to ship air guns (pellet rifles) to California, Mississippi, New York, Virginia, and Wisconsin.
I live in Michigan and this is one of many ways that the State has been wasting money over the past few years.
So what if Michigan has:
- Some of the worse, if not the worst roads in the country
- Cities that are going broke and laying off police and fire department employees
- Schools that are a joke at best
- Cities that people *EXPECT* to find drug dealers and hookers on street corners
Oh yeah... This is an extremely useful law that was passed. No way to enforce it and no way to stop the spam. Just another politician trying to get their name in the news before they are up for re-election (I believe) next year.
At this point, the only thing I have to look forward to is that Governor Granmole will lose her job in the next election for governor. If she doesn't lose in the that election, at least term limits will get her out of office after that.
I want to commend you for actually reading Pataki, and you argue your point well.
Keep in mind the text you quoted isn't me, it's the federal judge who ruled in Cyberspace v Engler that Michigan can't impose its own rules on the internet.
We tend to point to Pataki as the case that established that point. It's been followed by at least 5 other courts, although there are a couple of cases that go the other way.
One problem with the Michigan law is say somebody claiming to be 52 and from Hawaii emails you asking for something - cigarette coupon, voting registration form, just anything that would be verboten to a michigan 9 year old. Do you check the email against the Michigan list, for a fee, before replying? Or run the risk of being jailed in Michigan? It burdens commerce that is wholly outside Michican. If Michigan can do it, can your city? My trailer park association? If 0.07 cents is ok, is 25 cents ok? $25? You might be a Michigan minor; I have no way of knowing for sure.
The general rule is only congress has jurisdiction over internet speech and commerce.
I'm guessing, and I could be wrong, that the general rule would apply if this act gets litigated.
There are some smart judges, Thomas among them, who don't even believe in the dormant commerce clause. But for now it's the law of the land and seems to fit here.
Also, I think there's some overlap between "overrated" and "i disagree". When something's rated 5 for insightful informatively interestingly wrong, an "overrated" mod might be appropriate.
I agree with your point that disagree does not equal troll or flamebait.
Cordially, an arbitrary aardvark.
Some new email laws put state residents at risk.
The purge lists in Utah and Michigan look like a great way for spammers to check for valid addresses in those states.
Breaking the privacy of the people they are trying to protect.
That legislation, like most anti-spam legislation is unworkable because the government doesn't understand enough about the subject.
Like the CAN-SPAM law, this could
- do nothing
- stop legal senders
- add to disclaimers on websites
- get legitimate senders into touble with the law
Email broadcasters unknowingly break the law
Daily News http://newsblaze.com
Thank you. I was impressed by what you wrote and only tried to do it justice in my reply.
Keep in mind the text you quoted isn't me, it's the federal judge who ruled in Cyberspace v Engler that Michigan can't impose its own rules on the internet.
I understand that and I believe that the federal judge in Cyberspace v Engler was overly broad in his language, not considering that, in the Pataki case, a primary concern was that the law attempted to regulate commerce in which neither party resided in NY. That does not appear to be the case with the Michigan law. The law even indemnifies those who simply move the message: A person does not violate this act because the person is an intermediary between the sender and recipient in the transmission of an electronic message that violates this act or unknowingly provides transmission of electronic messages over the person's computer network or facilities that violate this act.
One problem with the Michigan law is say somebody claiming to be 52 and from Hawaii emails you asking for something - cigarette coupon, voting registration form, just anything that would be verboten to a michigan 9 year old. Do you check the email against the Michigan list, for a fee, before replying? Or run the risk of being jailed in Michigan?
The Michigan law prohibits e-mails which advertise, directly or through links, products or services not legally accessible to Michigan minors. Answering an inquiry would not, to my mind, constitute advertising. From the Michigan law:
It burdens commerce that is wholly outside Michican. If Michigan can do it, can your city? My trailer park association? If 0.07 cents is ok, is 25 cents ok? $25? You might be a Michigan minor; I have no way of knowing for sure.
That't the argument which is most likely to take it down. The fee aspect of it is a problem and will probably be its downfall. Were the service available at little to no charge, then it might well withstand a court challenge.
Is it just me, or does 3 years of jail seem excessive for sending annoying emails??? I dunno about you, but I'm getting really concerned about excessive punishments being imposed for relatively minor offenses in the US. I mean we could eliminate double parking by armputating the left hand of anyone who gets caught doing it. . .but that's neither ethical nor justifiable.