Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Utah Anti-Kids-Spam Registry "a Flop"

Posted by kdawson on from the show-me-the-money dept.

Eric Goldman writes "A couple of years ago Utah enacted a 'Child Protection Registry.' The idea was to allow parents to register kids' email addresses and then to require certain email senders to filter their lists against that database before sending their emails. According to the Salt Lake Tribune, the Utah registry has been a 'financial flop.' Initially projected to generate $3-6 million in revenues for Utah, it has instead produced total revenues of less than $200,000. 80% of this has gone to Unspam, the for-profit registry operator; Utah's share of the registry's revenues has been a paltry $37,445. Worse, Utah has spent $100,000 (so far) to defend the private company from legal challenges by free-speech, advertising, and porn interests."

117 comments

  1. Let me get this straight by fatduck · · Score: 4, Insightful
    From TFA:

    The Utah law requires companies that sell adult-oriented products and services to submit their e-mail lists to Unspam to be "scrubbed" of addresses to which minors have access. The cost is half a cent for every address they submit, and Unspam gets 80 percent of the money. So they passed a law requiring mass email-senders to pay for a service from a specific private corporation? Brilliant.
    --
    Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
    1. Re:Let me get this straight by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have an idea. Let's tinker and fine-tune the law to say "Politicians of any race, creed, party, or ideology shall not be allowed to use, be near, or think about any piece of technology more advanced than the ballpoint pen. Nor shall any legislation based on said technology ever be even mentioned."

      I don't think I've ever read anything good come out of any proposal made by a politician about the Internet. Senators, Representatives.... Please, go home (walking in the snow, uphill both ways, of course) back to your world where the only "net" you know anything about is for fishing. Leave the Internet and its policies to people who aren't you.

    2. Re:Let me get this straight by Kenrod · · Score: 3, Insightful

      It is common for state regulations to be enforced by private sub-contractors which charge fees. This means less cost for the government.

      In this case, because there is a free speech issue with the regulation, both the state and sub-contractor are getting sued instead instead collecting fees. So the regulation is costing money instead of making it.

      My advice for the people of Utah is that if they believe the regulation is a good one, why should it matter if it turns a profit? If protecting kids is their goal, they should fight this to the bitter end.

      --
      Good heavens Miss Sakamoto - you're beautiful!
    3. Re:Let me get this straight by WarlockD · · Score: 4, Informative
      I think the lawmaker who thought this up just didn't know how these things worked. Hell, look at this nugget.

      According to audio recordings of legislative proceedings, not a single legislator openly questioned the legitimacy, constitutionality or cost of the innocuous-sounding bill, despite written warnings from legislative analysts that it faced a "high probability" of being overturned in court.
      From TFA. They didn't even include the financial estmates on how much the lawsuits would cost:P Its not even just THIS pile of joy. Look at the other "trademark" bill. Why the hell would a company want to pay $250 to trademark itself in Utah for just the internet? Why the hell trademark your stuff in just Utah when the FEDERAL copyright office gives you the same rights? I don't remember where, but didn't the supreme court affirm trademarks work on the internet? Does Utah think they have a "Utah Internet"?

      I always thought Utah was a bit religious, but freaking naive?
    4. Re:Let me get this straight by IP_Troll · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Title should read: SCO Group's Anti-kids-spam registry "a Flop"

      Brent Hatch is involved in SCO's crusade against linux. Many other similar players like Ralph Yarro and his CP80 crusade.

      http://sconewsroundup.blogspot.com/ Has more info, and cites TFA.

    5. Re:Let me get this straight by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      So they passed a law requiring mass email-senders to pay for a service from a specific private corporation? Pork Barrel.

      Fixed that for you.

      --
      We are all just people.
    6. Re:Let me get this straight by maxume · · Score: 1

      The internet was initially funded by the US government. Go figure.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    7. Re:Let me get this straight by Joebert · · Score: 1

      Remember, this is a state with shirts that read "Utah, but I'm taller.".

      --
      Wanna fight ? Bend over, stick your head up your ass, and fight for air.
    8. Re:Let me get this straight by PopeRatzo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I always thought Utah was a bit religious, but freaking naive?

      Have you ever been to Utah? I think it has something to do with a critical number of residents wearing magical underwear. Some boundary condition is met and insanity ensues.

      I can't wait until some hacker gets his hands on this "children's registry". You haven't seen a marketing feeding frenzy until you've seen advertisers who think they've got a direct pipeline to the eyes and ears of "tweeners".

      I remember how transfixed I used to get as a kid when the commercials for Duncan Yo-Yos or Slinkys came on TV. There was not going to be anything preventing me from getting a Yo-Yo and a Slinky. Today, it's a few levels of magnitude more intense. The marketing starts at age Zero. No kidding. You can't imagine the lengths a company will go to in order to create a lifelong customer. It's called "cradle to grave" marketing for a reason.
      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    9. Re:Let me get this straight by BakaHoushi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is true. But, IIRC, wasn't its initial purpose something along the lines of military communication in the event of an emergency? I seem to recall something like that, and I'd like to see what senators/reps. and such were involved.

      Regardless, it feels almost like the Internet was an accident in that way. A great accident, IMHO, but an accident nonetheless. And I can't help but feel the vast majority of lawmakers have no clue as to the Internet or how it works. To be fair, I'll admit my knowledge of the infrastructure of the net is rather limited, but on the other hand, that would be why I don't submit proposals for new laws on it. I just can't help but get this feeling like we're trying to explain a combustion engine to 4th century British peasants.

      Reading about the idea here, I can't help but think, "What the hell were they thinking?" I mean, how many spammers are "legit" anyway? How many would listen to such a list? How would this generate a profit when it would obviously require extensive maintenance and, of course, the buttload of lawsuits that would happen (let's face it, what DOESN'T end in a lawsuit these days?)?

    10. Re:Let me get this straight by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 1

      wasn't its initial purpose something along the lines of military communication in the event of an emergency?
      There were actually a few purposes, one of which is mentioned here (note the Background of Arpanet section). Basically, apart from communications, it was also meant to make new software readily available. One other purpose not really mentioned in the Wikipedia article is that one would not need to always upgrade a multi-million dollar (in those days) computer just to run computations faster. One could simply send the problem to the fastest computer and have it run the problem. This also had potential (now realized) for parallel processing since one only needs to pass the computed data back and forth between processors.
      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
    11. Re:Let me get this straight by iminplaya · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I always thought Utah was a bit religious...

      There's a reason for everything.

      --
      What?
    12. Re:Let me get this straight by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      I wonder who the owner of that company is, and who he's buddies with in the legislature?

      There have to be better ways to do this. In fact, I don't remember getting adult spam in a long time, with exception to spam promoting ED pills.

    13. Re:Let me get this straight by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

      My advice for the people of Utah is that if they believe the regulation is a good one, why should it matter if it turns a profit? If protecting kids is their goal, they should fight this to the bitter end.


      Before the people of Utah waste tax payer dollars on a regulation they believe to be a "good one" perhaps there should be some clarification as to whether it is effective and whether it is constitutional. There is a group of people in Utah who see a way to scam tax payers out of their hard earned dollars by tricking them into believing that if they don't agree to these illegal scams they are somehow on the side of harming children with pornography.

      It will be a bitter end because it is a lost cause when you foolishly write laws which demand the entire universe bend to your will because they wont.
    14. Re:Let me get this straight by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      As much as I know not to feed AC trolls...

      The analogy was simply a statement to say that politicians in office today are too old-fashioned (read: out of date) to possibly understand modern technology. Similarly, a combustion engine is probably a bit beyond a random farmer from the Middle Ages. Technological advancements seem to go hand in hand with educational advancements.

      And I object to being called a fat American fucktard. I'm a rather skinny and pasty American fucktard, thank you very much, and I am part French, so I'm well aware of their culture and language.

    15. Re:Let me get this straight by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

      Brent Hatch is involved in SCO's crusade against linux. Many other similar players like Ralph Yarro and his CP80 crusade.


      Heavily involved. Hatch lobbied for the current law that is now costing tax payers and, lo and behold, Hatch was hired to defend the law at 3 to 4 times what state attorneys are paid.

      Ralph Yarro is also CEO of Think Atomic, the company that will be making money off the laws that he claims are needed to enable CP80. These people are using the religious right's unfounded fear of pornography to fleece law makers and tax payers for their own personal financial gain. They appear to be a bunch of hoodwinking grifters.
    16. Re:Let me get this straight by burnin1965 · · Score: 4, Informative

      This means less cost for the government.


      Is this why Brent Hatch, who lobbied to have this idiotic bill passed, was hired for 3 to 4 times what state attorneys are paid to now defend this idiotic legistation?

      Looks more and more like a scam where local cons are skimming tax dollars.
    17. Re:Let me get this straight by VGPowerlord · · Score: 1

      ...when the FEDERAL (U.S.) Patent and Trademark office...

      --
      GLaDOS for President 2016! "Well here we are again. It's always such a pleasure." -- GLaDOS, 2011
    18. Re:Let me get this straight by Grimbleton · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Since when does the French populace have culture?

    19. Re:Let me get this straight by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      *Sigh* I should know better, but...

      The Louvre, the Eiffel Tower, Versailles, vineyards, cuisine, literature...

      What the fuck is wrong with you people and the mockery of France? Has the country made some stupid decisions? Yes. As have all countries. (America's made plenty. More than I care to list.) But France has massive amounts of culture. In Paris alone... it's staggering. To say the French have no culture is like saying that Rome has no history. You only make yourself out to be an ignorant dumbass.

    20. Re:Let me get this straight by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      It was a big accident because it was pretty much completely developed into it's current form before any business interests or politicians even knew what it was. Because of this, it was able to evolve into something that was open and free (as in speech) for all it's users. Had it's entire development been overseen by the government and corporations, I think it would have ended up being a huge flop.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    21. Re:Let me get this straight by CastrTroy · · Score: 1

      Which can be really great depending on the problem. If you look at folding at home, the ratio of data : computation is quite low, so you get a good deal. Pass a little bit of data, and have the computers run the process, and send back a little bit of data. However, if you're doing something like parallelized video compression, you need a fairly fast network over which the data is travelling, because of a very high data : computation ratio. Stuff like this can be parallelized over a home network, but doing so over the internet isn't worth most people's times because a single computer can do the computation before it could even be distributed between the other computer(s).

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    22. Re:Let me get this straight by Kreigaffe · · Score: 1

      Culture can also mean they're growing bacteria colonies, mind you. Or some sort of fungus.

      --
      ... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about. :|
    23. Re:Let me get this straight by rtb61 · · Score: 1
      The concept that the people paying a private contractor who then generates a profit saves the government money, wtf, the people are the government. Whether they pay for it in private profit generating 'taxes' or they are taxed on their income and a part of that tax pays for those services, the cost to them is nearly the same, apart from of course the profit that gets milked off at the taxpayers expense.

      Well at least a part of the profit comes back, to pay to get those politicians who support those scams re-elected. So all you have here is a private company whose profit is funded by the government as a result of reduced operating costs, or what is better known as corporate welfare.

      So to the people of any state, what does it matter how much it costs the state as long as a favoured corporation makes a profit, well, it matters a whole bloody lot. Lets track down all the personal ties, election funding, private contributions, family associations, and see what is really going on here.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    24. Re:Let me get this straight by elanghe · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Where do you get the idea that Brent Hatch lobbied for this? At least provide the back ground to backup what you are saying.

    25. Re:Let me get this straight by Evilest+Doer · · Score: 1

      Which can be really great depending on the problem. If you look at folding at home, the ratio of data : computation is quite low, so you get a good deal. Pass a little bit of data, and have the computers run the process, and send back a little bit of data. However, if you're doing something like parallelized video compression, you need a fairly fast network over which the data is travelling, because of a very high data : computation ratio. Stuff like this can be parallelized over a home network, but doing so over the internet isn't worth most people's times because a single computer can do the computation before it could even be distributed between the other computer(s).
      Oh, very true. The best type of problem to solve by doing parallel processing this way, or even just sending the problem to a faster computer to process, is when both the code that needs to be compiled, the data to be run, and the data to return (or, if the code is resident on the computer, just the data to be run and the data to return) are all fairly small. An example of this is complex finite element analysis. The code, input data, and output data aren't generally very big (especially if you have modelled your problem efficiently), but the amount of computation required to obtain a result is enormous by comparison. This is the sort of problem that Arpanet was originally designed to handle by relaying data between computers - simply defined but computationally intensive physics/engineering problems.
      --
      I feel like death on a soda cracker.
    26. Re:Let me get this straight by bmarklein · · Score: 1

      I think the lawmaker who thought this up just didn't know how these things worked. This wasn't thought up by a lawmaker, it was proposed by... Unspam, the company that stood to benefit from it. They wrote the legislation. This kind of thing happens all the time.
    27. Re:Let me get this straight by yuna49 · · Score: 1

      I heard a former executive at Nickelodeon speak at Anime Boston recently about ratings for kids programming. Whereas before advertisers wanted to know how shows were doing in the 6-11 year-old demographic, some advertisers are now asking about how popular shows are with two-year-olds!

    28. Re:Let me get this straight by burnin1965 · · Score: 1

      Where do you get the idea that Brent Hatch lobbied for this?


      I thought I read an article that was critical of CPR and Unspam which talked about the individuals who persuaded the legislature to pass the law and Hatch's name came up, however, after perusing several articles found through google I did not find the statement.

      Perhaps the impression that Brent was supporting CPR came from his support of CP80, involvement with Raph Yarro, and his father's (Orrin Hatch) public support of CP80 and other anti-pornography efforts which abridge freedom of speech rights in the name of saving children and of course setting up a little business venture on the side.
    29. Re:Let me get this straight by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

      To make things worse, it's only the spammers who market things explicitly to adults who are supposed to screen the email addresses of minors out. Any money Unspam doesn't make blocking spammers for "adult" material from minors' email addresses, it can make selling those addresses to people who want to spam minors...

      --
      There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    30. Re:Let me get this straight by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      I should know better as well. To think someone at Slashdot could have a sense of humor! What a fool I was!

  2. Just as well by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This would never have made money for Utah.
    Imagine: a database of genuine e-mail addresses belonging to minors. If there wasn't adequate enforcement, we'd get a large-scale equivalent of those "unsubscribe" links that don't.
    Of course, enforcing a do-not-spam list for minors would cost something even if there weren't lawsuits against the existence of the list...

    --
    There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
    1. Re:Just as well by hazem · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Imagine: a database of genuine e-mail addresses belonging to minors.

      Yeah, I'll bet pedophiles and the fundamentalist Mormons (the ones who like to force 14 year old girls into marriage with their relatives) would love such a database.

  3. I'm afraid of the meta-analogy police but.. by AllanVanHulst · · Score: 1

    The original idea was as stupid as forcing slashdot posters to check their analogies in a dictionary.

    1. Re:I'm afraid of the meta-analogy police but.. by niceone · · Score: 5, Funny

      The original idea was as stupid as forcing slashdot posters to check their analogies in a dictionary.
      Eh? That makes no sense. Checking analogies in a dictionary would be like having a car with automatic toenail clippers.
      --
      ccalam - acoustic versions of new songs.
    2. Re:I'm afraid of the meta-analogy police but.. by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Funny

      a car with automatic toenail clippers.

      Cool! I could use one of those. Mine has the old manual kind, and it is kinda dangerous to use while I'm driving while trying to keep the cell phone balanced on my shoulder and reading the paper and shaving.

      --
      What?
    3. Re:I'm afraid of the meta-analogy police but.. by mstahl · · Score: 1

      like

      Isn't that a simile?

    4. Re:I'm afraid of the meta-analogy police but.. by Grimbleton · · Score: 1

      Metaphorically speaking.

  4. With this type of success by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...who WOULDN'T want to be on board with the porn-free port 80 proposal?

  5. Utahed Wrong! by dotslashdot · · Score: 5, Funny

    Just when Utahed they were doing it to protect the kids.

    1. Re:Utahed Wrong! by db32 · · Score: 1

      I hope someone kills you for that joke. Seriously...

      --
      The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
    2. Re:Utahed Wrong! by PlatyPaul · · Score: 1

      That joke was Utahed-ed.

      Yes, yes, I'm going to Hell.

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
  6. More stupidity by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Yet another attempt to regulate the Internet. Apparently, governments need help to understand that there is no way to line their pockets by regulating the internet, and no matter what they make into law, it will never apply to people in other countries.

    They need to spend money on educating users, and supporting people that will help users protect themselves from the threats that will continue to happen. Just as MS or antivirus software vendors: as soon as they plug one hole another appears. Spam is even worse. They were never able to stop people from sending junk mail to your mail box, they can't stop people from stealing ID information, and they will never be able to control the bits on the Internet to stop emails from getting to your inbox with laws.

    Parents need to protect their own children, and admittedly, they could use some sound solid advice. Why don't government groups spend time with that problem?

    --
    Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    1. Re:More stupidity by Original+Replica · · Score: 1

      "and no matter what they make into law, it will never apply to people in other countries."

      Do you mean that people inside Utah can recieve spam that originated from outside Utah, perhaps outside the USA??? This internet is a confusing and dangerous thing....

      "Parents need to protect their own children, and admittedly, they could use some sound solid advice. Why don't government groups spend time with that problem?"

      And just who, in our wonderfully technology savvy government, would you have giving this sound solid advice? The politicians obvious haven't clue #1 about the tubes, as illustrated by my first quote from your post.

      --
      We are all just people.
    2. Re:More stupidity by zappepcs · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I personally would vote for subsidies to small businesses (VARs) that provide free or low cost training to home user's with kids on how to secure their home networks or PCs in order to protect themselves and kids from unwanted spam, and malicious websites. That means everything from mandating user friendly books on how to install and maintain software tools etc. to subsidies for Linux distributors who put up web pages that explain how to protect themselves. It wouldn't take much effort to get this going in a way that it becomes common knowledge. The money most needed is for public awareness campaigns. Everyone knows how expensive that sort of advertising is and I think that the government could well sponsor that with subsidies so as to avoid promoting one product over another. Its always political, but any news of it all would increase awareness of how to use tools and equipment that would help protect users from malicious entities on the Internet.

      Remember what was done when conmen were conning old people out of their savings? This isn't much different in its roots. Prey on the naive to take their money or resources. (warning MS bash coming) MS and others have done the worst thing that they can possibly do; they proclaim their product to be the safest OS yet, or safest way to surf etc. This is false and misleading, and leads to bewilderment by users. They can't trust anyone it seems and they don't know where to look or who to ask on how to protect themselves. Many blindly think that having a 6 month old copy of Symantec means they will be safe. Many think that Vista will be better, and that reloading the OS will clean out any virii that are on their machine. Many believe that there is no way to stop malicious software or protect against it.

      The government could do several things to sponsor awareness, promote it... alas sadly, that will never get them any money so it is difficult to get them to see what needs to be done. Businesses only want to do such things in as much as it will further increase their revenues. I think that the F/OSS community at large has the most to gain by an awareness program.

      --
      Support NYCountryLawyer RIAA vs People
    3. Re:More stupidity by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "there is no way to line their pockets by regulating the internet,"

      This is not true, unforutnately. However, they need to realize that one cannot regularte the source of information on the internet, only the end users in your jurisdiction. Want to tax your citizens who are people buying used cars over the internet? Ok add a tax as they bring the car in for registration. Want to tax the sender of an MP3 of a local band in Batswana? Not going to happen.

      This particular piece of legislation was doomed to fail, as Utah legislators did't realize that most spam comes from groups in Russia with lists of millions of e-mail addresses all around the world. They have no way of knowing if maryjane420@aol.com is in Utah or not, and even if they did they wouldn't care.

      1/2 cent? You can find e-mail lists with 1 billion addresses on them or more. You're asking someone outside of your jurisdiction to pay you 5 million dollars to go to the trouble of vetting their addresses of your citizens? You'd be luck to convince them to agree if you did that for free (which it really should be). Quite frankly, this makes no sense. You're strongly disincentivizing a behavior which has a negative effect on someone's business and no positive one. Personally, I feel like the legislators, not the state, should be forced to pay for the legal fees in the particular case due to simple gross negligence on their part.

      --
      The ______ Agenda
    4. Re:More stupidity by bogidu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Hey! Did Jerry Taylor get a new job and no one told me?!

  7. Welcome to by iminplaya · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Utah

    --
    What?
    1. Re:Welcome to by bogidu · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Brought to you by the same group that ignores/denounces the mountain meadows massacre, pretends underaged, incestuous, polygamous, relationships did not exist and that polygamy is STILL not a part of their core doctrines, denies any connection between the masonic rituals and their own devinely inspired ceremonies, etc, etc, etc.

      Utah's dominate religion gives power to a group of individuals in government that are PROUD of the skewed perspective they have on various aspects of daily life. Most people outside of the religion are unaware of the extreme points of view that are contained within the mormon belief structure and that it is supported by a large silent majority of individuals who have been indoctrinated from birth to not see any other point of view as having validity. This point cannot be proven any more completely than through the religion's own persecution of what they term 'intellectuals'.

      The lawmakers were able to push through this crappy piece of legislation primarily due to the cultural environment that exists in Utah and the lack of a constituency that has the ability to apply unbiased critical thought processes to any subject linked to their core values.

      Hitler had a silent majority, they were an effective ally in his war against the Jews.

    2. Re:Welcome to by swillden · · Score: 1

      You're trolling, but this is important enough that I'll respond anyway.

      Brought to you by the same group that ignores/denounces the mountain meadows massacre,

      The LDS Church doesn't ignore the massacre. They do denounce it. What else would they do about such a tragedy?

      BTW, if you'd like to discuss the details, please continue. I've studied most of the literature about the massacre. I got interested because one of my ancestors was involved. I don't know exactly what his involvement was, but I suspect he may have participated directly, mostly from the complete lack of any reference to the incident in his diary (early Mormons were inveterate diarists), and vague references in other family members' diaries to the frequent and deep "melancholies" that he suffered the rest of his life. My dad says that according to family oral history he only provided horses and equipment to the group that did the massacre, but I don't think that accords with what I read between the lines in the written histories.

      pretends underaged, incestuous, polygamous, relationships did not exist

      First, "underaged": In the early American West, as in many societies in harsh living conditions, people that we now consider children were routinely married and started families. Documentary evidence shows that the Mormons were unusually conservative in this respect -- marriages before age 16 were rare.

      Second, "incestuous": Have a citation for any officially-sanctioned incestuous marriages? I'm not going to say it didn't happen, but it was certainly not approved of.

      Third, "polygamous": Yes, polygamy was common, though it generally required approval of local church leadership, and it was almost never allowed against the will of the existing wife or wives. Common practice was that the first wife got to choose a new wife. I had a great-great granduncle who ignored this rule and brought a new wife home from a business trip to Salt Lake. His first wife immediately took the kids and left him, and the church supported her decision and chastised my grandfather.

      and that polygamy is STILL not a part of their core doctrines

      The LDS Church makes no such claim. Polygamy clearly is part of the doctrine, as it's part of the doctrine of any faith that believes that the old testament prophets were righteous men who did the will of God in their own polygamous marriages. That said, the Church does not currently endorse or allow polygamous marriages. Polygamists are summarily excommunicated along with anyone knowingly solemnizing polygamist marriages. In areas of the world where polygamy is legal, polygamists cannot be baptized. The only form of polygamy the church practices is that a man or woman who has been sealed "for time and all eternity" in the temple is allowed to remarry in the temple when his or her spouse dies. Since both sealings are in force, the person in question is technically a polygamist (or a polyandrist, in the case of a woman).

      denies any connection between the masonic rituals and their own devinely inspired ceremonies,

      There is no denial of the similarities. In fact, it's well-known in the church that Joseph Smith achieved the rank of Master Mason in a single day, because he already much of the Masonic rituals. The church's position on this is that the Masons derive their rituals from information handed down from the ancient builders of Solomon's Temple and that it should therefore be no surprise that there are strong similarities between those and the revealed temple rituals given to Joseph Smith.

      etc, etc, etc.

      Most people outside of the religion are unaware of the extreme points of view that are contained within the mormon belief structure and that it is supported by a large silent majority of individuals who have been indoctrinated from birth to not see any other point of view as having validity.

      To what

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    3. Re:Welcome to by Deagol · · Score: 1

      The LDS Church doesn't ignore the massacre. They do denounce it. What else would they do about such a tragedy?

      They could open up the site for archaeological research, for one thing. Last I head, The Church owned it, had some monument set up, held a commemoration, the told researchers they couldn't do any further poking around the site.

      --
      Method of processing duck feet
    4. Re:Welcome to by zukakog · · Score: 1

      (or a polyandrist, in the case of a woman)
      To my knowledge, if a woman's husband dies, and she was sealed to him, if she choses to remarry, she will not be sealed to her new husband. Her second marriage will be of the "till death do we part" variety.
    5. Re:Welcome to by swillden · · Score: 1

      To my knowledge, if a woman's husband dies, and she was sealed to him, if she choses to remarry, she will not be sealed to her new husband. Her second marriage will be of the "till death do we part" variety.

      My understanding is that a woman who wishes to be sealed again must request permission to do so, but that permission is often (usually?) granted. It's also normal to seal deceased women to multiple husbands by proxy, though I think that's more a "seal 'em all and let it be sorted out in Heaven" idea.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    6. Re:Welcome to by swillden · · Score: 1

      The LDS Church doesn't ignore the massacre. They do denounce it. What else would they do about such a tragedy?

      They could open up the site for archaeological research, for one thing. Last I head, The Church owned it, had some monument set up, held a commemoration, the told researchers they couldn't do any further poking around the site.

      I hadn't heard that. I doubt there'd be anything to find, though. The settlers picked up all of the stuff from the wagon train and took it to Cedar City to sell it, so there wasn't a lot left even the day after, and the site was picked over for years afterward in the context of the various investigations, plus visits from curiosity seekers.

      On a personal note, my great great great grandfather's journal (note: not the same person I mentioned in my previous post) mentions that they were selling the stuff in Cedar City. It's the only reference to the event in his journal. He just says that the men were selling some things he needed but he didn't buy any because it didn't seem right. He didn't even say what the stuff was from; the only clues are the fact that the entry is dated a few days after the massacre and the unusual terseness and vagueness of the entry.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    7. Re:Welcome to by zukakog · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that a woman who wishes to be sealed again must request permission to do so, but that permission is often (usually?) granted.
      I've never heard of that, but then again, I've only known a few women who have been sealed, and wish to remarry.
  8. How is aggregating tons of email addresses by antifoidulus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    in a central locatio, esp. those belonging to children, a GOOD idea? I'm surprised the spammers weren't using them to harvest email addresses....

    --
    Monstar L
    1. Re:How is aggregating tons of email addresses by fatduck · · Score: 1

      That way the porn sites can use targeted advertising, as studies have shown kids aren't as willing to pay for adult porn and are frustrated with the difficulty of finding child porn.

      --
      Making you think you're crazy is a billion dollar industry.
    2. Re:How is aggregating tons of email addresses by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

      Most spammers wouldn't really have an interest in spamming children, so assuming the email addresses largely belong to children, it could have been effective. It'll fall to pieces when (inevitably), people start registering their own addresses as children's addresses.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  9. The private sector saves us again by sfjoe · · Score: 1, Insightful

    80% of this has gone to Unspam, the for-profit registry operator; Utah's share of the registry's revenues has been a paltry $37,445. Worse, Utah has spent $100,000 (so far) to defend the private company from legal challenges by free-speech, advertising, and porn interests."

    Conservatives would have us believe that privatization is the solution to all problems. It seems that it's really only a solution to the problem of falling profits.

    --
    It's simple: I demand prosecution for torture.
    1. Re:The private sector saves us again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slashdot: where offtopic, partisan attacks are insightful, but only if they're against 'conservatives'.

    2. Re:The private sector saves us again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What does the private sector have anything to do with this? The problem is the idea was bogus to begin with, regardless of who was involved.

    3. Re:The private sector saves us again by furball · · Score: 1

      You have that wrong. Conservatives would have you believe that competition is the solution to all problems. One of the ways that you achieve competition is through privatization since the government is terrible at competing with itself. However, privatization that results in one company doing the work on behalf of the state (as the case above), there is no competition. There is no performance difference in a single private organization doing work on behalf of the state and a public organization doing work on behalf of the state.

      But while we're addressing this particular case, you should do your math. If Unspam is sucking up 80% of the revenue and Utah is only getting $37k, there isn't enough revenue in the entire market to even meet $3-6 million. In other words, there is not a $3-6 million market in Utah for this business no matter how much revenue Unspam sucks up. Even if Unspam sucks up 0% of the revenue, Utah still isn't getting $3-6 million in revenue.

      Squeeze a rock all you want. There ain't no water.

    4. Re:The private sector saves us again by terraformer · · Score: 1

      You missed something. Without the law, the market for this was ZERO. Forget about 3-6 million.

      --
      Who are you? The new #2 Who is #1? You are #617565. I am not a number, I am a free man! Muhahaha.
    5. Re:The private sector saves us again by furball · · Score: 1

      You are incorrect. There are suckers born every minute. The market for anything is never zero as long as suckers are born.

  10. Willful ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's been known for years that e-mail opt-out lists are completely unworkable for controlling spam. None -- absolutely zero -- attempts have ever been successful.

    So Utah legislators decided that they -- and they alone -- would be the ones to implement the very first successful opt-out list.

    It takes willful ignorance to believe that you will succeed where thousands before you have failed. Utah legislators must have deliberately ignored all advice given to them by the technical experts.

    This is not ordinary hubris. This is a special kind of hubris that's infused with a stubborn, childish refusal to educate oneself.

    1. Re:Willful ignorance by Groggnrath · · Score: 1

      This is not ordinary hubris. This is a special kind of hubris that's infused with a stubborn, childish refusal to educate oneself.

      The phrase "unwavering obtuse" comes to mind. Also an old English word, which sounds like a very bad word, so I'll not utter it here.
    2. Re:Willful ignorance by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, after doing a bit of thinking between the lines, my initial guess was that protecting the minors had nothing to do with it, and that they really wanted to protect LDS members from porn and/or kick people out of LDS if they appeared on too many porn spam lists.

      But now that you mention willful ignorance as a root cause, I can see that too: the LDS virus does apparently cause an insatiable desire to get rich quick at the expense of all reason (think SCO).

    3. Re:Willful ignorance by IO+ERROR · · Score: 1

      Michigan has a similar law and a similar list, though I don't think Unspam runs it. I could be wrong about that.

      --
      How am I supposed to fit a pithy, relevant quote into 120 characters?
    4. Re:Willful ignorance by ShaunC · · Score: 1

      Utah legislators must have deliberately ignored all advice given to them by the technical experts.
      You're making the assumption that the legislature ever sought technical expertise to begin with. So often, the reason these stupid laws come about is that nobody ever bothers to "ask the experts."
      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    5. Re:Willful ignorance by KillerCow · · Score: 1

      It's been known for years that e-mail opt-out lists are completely unworkable for controlling spam. None -- absolutely zero -- attempts have ever been successful. So Utah legislators decided that they -- and they alone -- would be the ones to implement the very first successful opt-out list.


      As far as I know, they have all been voluntary. If it's legislated, it becomes compulsory. Compliance is no longer optional, and there are consequences for not complying. If the law is applied everywhere, and enforced, it might actually do something.

      It takes willful ignorance to believe that you will succeed where thousands before you have failed. Utah legislators must have deliberately ignored all advice given to them by the technical experts.


      I'm sure that technical experts in murder would tell the government that there's no technical way to stop people from killing each other. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have laws that make it illegal.

      This is not ordinary hubris. This is a special kind of hubris that's infused with a stubborn, childish refusal to educate oneself.


      So what's your idea? You say that there is no technical solution. I say that there is no social solution (since this has been going on for years and pissing off everyone, there's good evidence for that). The only one that I know that's left is legal.
  11. Two issues with that. by khasim · · Score: 1

    #1. Is it protecting the kids? Is anyone taking any before and after measurements to see whether it is doing anything more than just costing money? I couldn't find anything about that in the article.

    #2. How much money do we want to spend on "protecting the children"? Is a trillion dollars a month too much to spend to prevent one kid from seeing one naked picture?

    1. Re:Two issues with that. by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      Why, this handy dandy bill is fool-proof child molester repellent! ...What's that? Can I prove that? Do you see any child molesters around here?

  12. What About Me? by moehoward · · Score: 4, Funny


    Hey, now. I have "porn interests" and I haven't seen a dime. What gives?

    --
    "If you want to improve, be content to be thought foolish and stupid." - Epictetus
    1. Re:What About Me? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't worry, the slush is cuming right at you

  13. It just needs more.. by k1e0x · · Score: 2, Insightful

    YAY GOVERNMENT!

    Give this project more money THEN it will work. Go government go! Your the solution to every problem! Whoo!

    (Alright so I'm kinda jaded today with our suck ass government and there suck ass programs.)

    --
    Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
    1. Re:It just needs more.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why blame the concept of government when it is the fault of incompetent and corrupt people? Government in the hands of the bright and wise would be a refreshing experience.

    2. Re:It just needs more.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is more an example of what happens when the LESS GOVERNMENT types have control. After all, Utah is an extremely conservative state. The less government types are never for fewer actual laws (except for those regulating commerce)

      They are just for "privatization," of which this is a prime example. private armies, private prisons, private law enforcement. And they are upset not because this program hasn't stopped spam (though it indeed hasn't) but rather that it's not as profitable as they had hoped.

      THIS is what the "less government" privatization types get you.

    3. Re:It just needs more.. by k1e0x · · Score: 1

      I think in the idea of "less government" that would not include funding internet filters of any kind either government controlled or otherwise.

      Government funded "privatization" of social programs is not LESS GOVERNMENT. Less government would be no funding of any kind and no program.. its an individual choice if they want a filter or not and there are many out there, if people want one, they can go get on.. that is in the spirit of Liberty, not forcing people to pay for a crappy government system.

      --
      Bringing liberty to the masses. - http://freetalklive.com/
  14. I'm English, so forgive the stupid question... by WombatDeath · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ...but is there something a bit mental about Utah politicians? They seem to crop up in the headlines doing all sorts of demented crap. Do they put lead in the water supply down there?

    1. Re:I'm English, so forgive the stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Close. It's actually worse than lead.

    2. Re:I'm English, so forgive the stupid question... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think they do. I moved to Utah a couple years ago, and now I feel stupider.

    3. Re:I'm English, so forgive the stupid question... by ColdWetDog · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Nope, it's a combination of the heat and the underwear. You'd be batshit crazy too.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    4. Re:I'm English, so forgive the stupid question... by PlatyPaul · · Score: 1

      Well, Utah does have a bit of a bad reputation in the eyes of a number of the other states....

      --
      Misery loves company. Online misery loves unsuspecting random strangers.
  15. Nobody markets that any more by Animats · · Score: 1, Insightful

    I don't think much spam is aimed at kids any more. Most of the spam I get (after ordinary spam filtering) is either for 1) Viagra, or 2) penny stocks. Neither subject is likely to interest kids much.

    Looking at the last ten spams in the trash:

    1. "???? IS SET TO ROCK YOUR PORTFOLIO!"
    2. "Discount Pharmacy Online"
    3. "Thank you for your loan request, which we recieved (misspelling in original) yesterday."
    4. Repeat of #2.
    5. "???? have released very hot news. Check this out, info and call to your brocker (in original) right now!!"
    6. " Buy your drugs from the comfort of your home and save up to 20% on pharmaceutical products."
    7. "$49 Windows XP Pro w/SP2"
    8. Another #2.
    9. "Los mejores precios del mercado en Notebook, desde $357.000!" (from Santiago, Chili)
    10. "Great and Powerful, by Leonid Pisnoy" (in Russian; seems to be a political rant)

    None of these are "harmful to children". They're mostly aimed at adults with room-temperature IQs.

    1. Re:Nobody markets that any more by Pinckney · · Score: 1

      I don't think much spam is aimed at kids any more. Most of the spam I get (after ordinary spam filtering) is either for 1) Viagra, or 2) penny stocks. Neither subject is likely to interest kids much. I don't think the point was to stop spam from being aimed at kids, but to stop kids from seeing spam targeted at adults (particularly porn).
    2. Re:Nobody markets that any more by Animats · · Score: 1

      I'm not even seeing porn spam much any more. It's the same old stock pump and dump scams and that "discount pharmacy" guy, day in and day out, all with random headings. That may be because the upstream spam filters are dropping anything with a link to a known annoyance site, though.

    3. Re:Nobody markets that any more by melandy · · Score: 1

      None of these are "harmful to children". They're mostly aimed at adults with room-temperature IQs.

      Is that room-temp in Fahrenheit or Celsius? I assume from context that you're not talking about Kelvin.

  16. forgetaboutit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Valentine had more trouble remembering last summer's conversation about hiring Hatch. "I have no idea," he said. "I don't remember anything about this." House Speaker Greg Curtis also had difficulty recalling the meeting.

    It seems like there are a lot of forgetful minds in the U.S. government. Maybe there needs to be some kind of memorization test before anyone is allowed to work for or with the government. I don't know or recall if they already have one or not. I'm not sure. I don't remember.

  17. any spam registry is a flop by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    these types of registries are enacted by dumb politicians who don't know their ass from a hole in the wall when it comes to technology.

    most spammers operate out of foreign nations such as china. They don't give a crap about Utah's registry.

    most spammers don't give a crap about any registries.

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
    1. Re:any spam registry is a flop by dbIII · · Score: 1

      China sells it's domain names cheap but that is not where the servers are - sorry we can't really blame it on them, it just looks like it's leading to China. That said where I am in Australia is within an hours WALK of many of the top 100 named spammers (one famously bought an expensive block of land opposite a very expensive Mormon Temple just over a kilometre away from me) - they have done the same thing.

    2. Re:any spam registry is a flop by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Actually most spammers operate from Florida. Their botnets may be mostly in China, but that's just because that is where most of the internet connected home computers are.

  18. Profit! by Opportunist · · Score: 1

    1. Get parents to register the mail addresses of their kids (i.e. THE target group for any kind of marketing).
    2. Sell that list.
    3. Prof...

    What? Oh, can't be used by spammers from the US? Ok. As we all know, it's impossible to get spam from abroad, so it's safe. Damn.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Surely an entirely coincidental link to SCO by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    For the conspiracy theorists out there:

    SCO News Roundup
    Thursday, April 12 2007

    # More fodder for nutty IP trolls in Utah, this time in the guise of the state's new "Trademark Protection Act" More stories at SL Trib and WebProNews

    And unsurprisingly, the EFF opposes the new law.

    So who's behind this thing? Well, here's a "guest blog" post promoting the law on the Utah Senate's website. The byline on the article describes the author as "Matthew Prince, Adjunct Professor of Law, John Marshall Law School". But as the SL Trib article notes, that's not his current occupation:

            "The Trademark Protection Act is the creation of Unspam's Prince, father of the controversial child-protection registry. That law, which is being challenged in court by a pornography trade group, requires companies that sell adult-oriented products and services to submit their e-mail lists to Unspam to be "scrubbed" of e-mail addresses to which minors have access. The cost is half a cent for every address they submit."
            "Likewise, Prince has positioned himself to benefit from the new law. If the state decides to hire an outside company to manage the database of registered trademarks, and if the deal is financially attractive, Prince said he might create a company and bid on the contract."
            "The entrepreneur insisted that wasn't his primary motivation in pushing the bill. [yeah, right] The idea, he said, came out of a class he taught two years ago at The John Marshall Law School in Chicago."

    You remember UnSpam, right? They're the company behind Utah's "Child Protection Registry", and they made the news last October after failing to conceal kids' email addresses. Note that their high-powered attorney is Brent O. Hatch [son of Sen. Orin Hatch], who you may recognize from his work for SCO. Apparently the guy specializes in hopeless damage control jobs.


    The business model that SCO has adopted must be more popular in Utah than I would have thought. Seems like the state's whole legislature is trying to attract these shysters to set up shop in their state. /sarcasm
  20. Whew, what a relief... by flyingfsck · · Score: 1

    I would have been shocked if that idea worked. Making a central list of all children's email addresses must be a pervert's dream come true...

    --
    Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
    1. Re:Whew, what a relief... by dbIII · · Score: 1
      They just have to make sure it doesn't fall into the hands of someone that thinks fathering children with 13 year old girls is a God given right - just as well it's Utah.

      Bigoted flamebait I know and you get criminals of this sort in a lot of places - just Utah is currently infamous for it internationally. This list would be a bad idea anywhere.

    2. Re:Whew, what a relief... by 1u3hr · · Score: 1
      Making a central list of all children's email addresses must be a pervert's dream come true

      Yes, because reading a list of email addresses is so stimulating.

      Do you imagine a "pervert" would randomly send out solicitations? If he did, he'd be on the FBI's watch list within the hour, and arranging "meet ups" that would send him directly to jail.

  21. CAN-SPAM? by whoever57 · · Score: 1

    Didn't the CAN-SPAM law preempt state laws on SPAM, making this law unenforceable?

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  22. Re:CAN-SPAM? Apparently no preemption by whoever57 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Apparently, Judge Dale Kimball has already decided that the CAN-SPAM act does not preempt the Utah law.

    --
    The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
  23. Re:CAN-SPAM? Apparently no preemption by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

    The fine article in the summary is dated April 29.
    The fine article you cite is from May (this month).
    So this law has cleared the legal hurdles mentioned in the summary. It could, in theory, make money now that Judge Kimball has made this law legal!

    --
    There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
  24. SCO Connection by oasisbob · · Score: 1
    What is it about Utah's bad internet legislative efforts being associated with SCO people?

    From the article:

    In August, the Attorney General's Office quietly hired private attorney Brent Hatch, who had been defending Unspam Technologies and its money-making interests in Utah's Child Protection Registry. So far, Hatch has been paid $100,000 - half of what his contract allows, Attorney General Mark Shurtleff said.

    Does the name Brent Hatch ring a bell? It should, he's on the SCO legal team.

    And remember CP80, the effort to use all those unused channels on the internets? None other than Ralph Yarro.
  25. And in other news... by British · · Score: 3, Funny

    ...a kids registry of "do not kill" requiring child killers to filter out their murder via consulting a list, failed to work.

  26. Addendum by Anonymous+McCartneyf · · Score: 1

    Of course, who it makes money for is still open.

    --
    There is a fine line between recklessness and courage... -- Paul McCartney
  27. Connect the dots by someone1234 · · Score: 1

    SCO, Darl McBride, Brent Hatch, Orrin Hatch.

    --
    Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
  28. Perfect way to generate valid email by swchurchill · · Score: 0, Redundant

    Step 1: spammer submits list of emails to be "scrubbed" Step 2: All emails on the list (which are valid emails, one assumes) are removed. Step 3: Spammer receives "scrubbed" list back Step 4: Spammer checks against the original list to see what email addresses are gone. In other words, this would have the EXACT opposite effect - this is a way for spammers to GENERATE lists of valid email addresses for minors.

  29. Re: the same technical experts.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...advised them to pay $699 for a Linux "license".

  30. Too Little, Too Late by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 1

    "I always thought Utah was a bit religious"
    Too little.

    "but freaking naive?"
    Too late.

    --
    You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  31. Anti-kids? by ginbot462 · · Score: 1

    So, is that like abortion spam?

    --
    Atlas Shrugged : Thematic Story :: Battlefield Earth : Organized Religion
  32. Re:CAN-SPAM? Apparently no preemption by yuna49 · · Score: 1

    Actually the judge decided that there was not a sufficient basis to issue a preliminary injunction against enforcement of the registry. The case itself is headed to trial on the merits.

  33. UnSpam ,Honeypots + $1 BILLION plus by ITMagic · · Score: 1

    WTF is going on? I'd be very interested to know just exactly what is happening here.

    On the one hand we have a Gov't scheme funding a private company - not only to enforce the law, but also one passed specifically to give UnSpam the right to collect ongoing revenues. In my eyes, this is a government sponsored monopoly - ergo a BAD thing.

    Then again, the scheme has failed to give the Gov't the profits they had hoped for. As you shouldn't pass laws simply to generate revenue (unless you are at least honest and call it "Taxation"), I feel halfway between "Tough shit, guys", and "You should get your asses kicked out of office".

    HOWEVER, what _REALLY_ is peaking my interest is UnSpam Technologies, Inc. This, dear Readers, is the same outfit you read about 2 weeks ago on this illustrious rag, about the impending court action.

    So, the questions I pose are:

    1. Do we THANK Utah for funding our fight, even though it cost them tax-payers money?
    2. If UnSpam actially _WIN_ $1B+ from Honeypot, who gets the money? UnSpam, Utah, or Ourselves?
    3. or, do we condemn both UnSpam and the Utah politicians?
  34. Given the other Utah laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    With laws like the one supporting "CP80" (put all porn on its own port), their internet trademark registry (register your trademark *again* but in Utah only and pay us money!), etc., this whole thing is positively Utarded.

    Feel free to use that one; when the state is best known for crazy lawmakers like Orin Hatch and companies like SCO, I think it deserves its own insult, just like Masshole drivers, etc.

  35. This is profiteering... by German_Dupree · · Score: 1

    Initially projected to generate $3-6 million in revenues for Utah, it has instead produced total revenues of less than $200,000.

    Wait a minute, they want to "protect" kid's email addresses by compiling them into a registry and uploading them to a centralized location, where any "Mr. Spam", "Mr. Sex Offender", or "Mr. Homicidal Maniac" can view them (please note the sarcasm)? So they claim that they want to "protect" children, yet their ulterior motive is to generate $3-6 million dollars! This is NOT a "government service", it's cleverly-disguised profiteering!