Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

New Michigan Law Means Kids Can Opt Out of Spam

Posted by CowboyNeal on from the less-pr0n-for-kids dept.

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.

12 of 183 comments (clear)

  1. But what about porn by bhmit1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you claim to be under 13, does that prevent you from seeing porn, online banking, and one day, online voting?

  2. The Internet is still the wild west by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Why haven't vigilante hacker-types taken the bad guys off the net yet?

  3. Easy to enforce? by bhmit1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

  4. The force of the jury by erroneus · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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..."

  5. Spammer... by bmo · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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

    1. Re:Spammer... by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I hate to say it but the AC is right - never, ever invite the government in because once they get their paws into the mix all they do is screw things up.

      If we as a community did the right thing and killed spammers (yes, we know who they are - all the way back to the two immigration lawyers that spammed usenet) - not 'took them off the net', not 'harassed them', not 'made them uncomfortable' - but killed them as in 'putting real bullets through their real bodies and made them stop being alive' dead - the spam issue would have been a non-issue.

      But we didn't. All we did was whine, and now we are living in a digital wasteland.

      Oh yea, I haven't had any caffeine yet.
      My perspective may change in a little while, but until then charge up the plasma weapons and proceed with operation Spam-Slayer.

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    2. Re:Spammer... by bmo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "I hate to say it but the AC is right - never, ever invite the government in because once they get their paws into the mix all they do is screw things up"

      It's been illegal for decades to send X-rated snail mail advertisements through the US Mail to minors.

      How is this any different? It's also not an automatic list - the email has to be submitted by the parent (or by a clueful minor who is sick of spam). Indeed, it's very limited in scope and I am sure that it will weather the inevitable court challenges.

      Leaving the industry to police itself has not worked. The buttload of spam is proof of that, and there is not an end in sight. Killing spammers in painful ways would be fun, but it is illegal and the Lumber Cartel's creed forbids sinking below the level of a spammer.

      Where's Bill Mattox's wooden mallet when you need it?

      --
      BMO

  6. Encrypted? by LordEd · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Some Internet safety experts have said anti-spam laws have been difficult to enforce and others worry the lists will give hackers a way to get access to a large database of children.
    Public Service Commission Chairman Peter Lark said safeguards, including encryption of e-mail addresses and other information, will keep the Michigan registry secure.

    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.

  7. Evil people by a_greer2005 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    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.

  8. Re:Oh Great by legirons · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "Uh huh. So a huge list is compiled of all the underage kids"

    You'd assume that the published list would be MD5s of the lowercase version of each email address, and that the full database would only be available to the michigan government, their contractors, credit agencies, anyone who cracks their website.

    At least, that's how everyone here would probably implement it. They don't need to release the email addresses, just provide a way to check whether they're on the list or not.

  9. On the net, we are all children by NetSettler · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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:

    • Kids are not as experienced, so they don't always know the consequences of what will happen to them well enough to protect themselves in advance.
    • Kids are not fully enabled to protect themselves directly.

    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

  10. Re:Kids only by Pete · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Okay, first... quick check of Luke-Jr's posting history to find out if he's just a boring slashdot stdtroll.

    *insert posting history analysis music*

    Hmm, no, he doesn't seem to be a troll (seems moderately clueful even). Standard homophobic bigot? Uncertain, but probably not. Has no gay friends and generally no comprehension of gay relationships? *DING DING DING* I think we have a weiner! :-)

    Luke-Jr: people do get married without any intent or expectation of having children. It may be a shock to you, but it's true. Really. And that's good wholesome hetero people too!

    And this might come as a shock to you too, but the capability of sexual union is not in fact a necessary condition for marriage. It might be a generally expected thing, but it's not necessary.

    Finally, even though it may be hard for you to comprehend, I'm reliably informed by persons of the homosexual persuasion that they are in fact capable of sexual union. If you'd like to verify that fact, I'm sure you can find an extensive array of video evidence sprawled around on the wonderful web *wry grin*.