I beg to differ. In my opinion, anytime the federal government gets involved in states' affairs it's bound to screw things up one way or another. There's a reason why we have the 10th amendment.
And enforceability isn't really the issue here either. For instance, WA state law did allow for state residents to take on out-of-state spammers. Alright, you can't take them to small claims court but you can still sue them in state court (cf. the Heckel case). I know it works because I've personally seen it work.
True, collection of damages can be a bitch in cases like this but this is becoming increasingly true for all cases these days. That's why WA state law wisely also allows the Attorney General to go after spammers, at least in some cases.
Ultimatively, there won't be a legal solution to the spam problem - at least not as long as we're sticking to our current email protocols. Spammers will, similiar to telemarketers, just rent services overseas and thereby almost always avoid criminal prosection, as well as civil trial.
Slashdot Mirror
And enforceability isn't really the issue here either. For instance, WA state law did allow for state residents to take on out-of-state spammers.
Alright, you can't take them to small claims court but you can still sue them in state court (cf. the Heckel case). I know it works because I've personally seen it work.
True, collection of damages can be a bitch in cases like this but this is becoming increasingly true for all cases these days. That's why WA state law wisely also allows the Attorney General to go after spammers, at least in some cases.
Ultimatively, there won't be a legal solution to the spam problem - at least not as long as we're sticking to our current email protocols. Spammers will, similiar to telemarketers, just rent services overseas and thereby almost always avoid criminal prosection, as well as civil trial.