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."

12 of 117 comments (clear)

  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 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!
    2. 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?
    3. 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.
  2. Utahed Wrong! by dotslashdot · · Score: 5, Funny

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

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

    Utah

    --
    What?
  4. 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
  5. 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.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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.