Opt-In Junk Fax Law Survives Court Challenge 131
An anonymous reader writes "From Privacy.org: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit has upheld (PDF) the Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) of 1991 against a First Amendment challenge. In the case, Missouri v. American Blast Fax, junk fax company Fax.com and Wal-Mart argued that the law violated the First Amendment because it imposes fines upon companies that send fax advertisements without the consent of the recipient. The case is the latest court victory for opt-in privacy laws." I hope the same logic is applied to spam.
Has anyone actually tried to collect? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Has anyone actually tried to collect? (Score:2)
~Philly
Re:Has anyone actually tried to collect? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Has anyone actually tried to collect? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Has anyone actually tried to collect? (Score:1)
Re:Has anyone actually tried to collect? (Score:2)
Only if you want to get your ass hauled into court; a lot of older fax machines' print heads rely on low black coverage to give the print head time to cool down, so a continuous loop of black can burn out the fax machine's print head. Doing this deliberately could leave you chargeable with something like malicious mischief or worse.
I've gotten $1800 in 9 months due to TCPA (Score:5, Interesting)
My junk fax case was dismissed due to a ruling 'made in error I might add' by a local circuit judge, however arguments concerning its appeal was heard last month.
Anyone folks, do some research. It will take a weeks worth of solid, full day, research, but you can file your own suits and collect from these scum. There is a minimum $500 statutory damage for each violation that can be trebled if you can show the violator 'knowingly or willfully' violated the law. It doesn't matter that they did not know the law or not. If they knowingly sent the fax, and that fax was against the law, then they are subject to those treble damages, so then each violation is $1500. I have several cases just waiting to be filed this summer when I have a bit more free time.
I have.... and here's a list of a bunch of others (Score:1, Informative)
IBM should patent Spam. (Score:3, Funny)
Re:IBM should patent Spam. (Score:5, Interesting)
If you had read this months Tech Review you would know that IBM policy is to allow open licensing of its patents. As a result they earned $10 billion on their patent portfolio last year. Universities file patents at the same rate (3,500 a year) but generally license them on sole license terms, netting only $1 billion.
So what you should hope is that MIT, or better yet Harvard had invented SPAM and patented it. History demonstrates that they have been much better at keeping technology off the market.
Re:IBM should patent Spam. (Score:3, Funny)
It's constitutional to limit spam (Score:4, Informative)
Sort of. (Score:5, Informative)
This is different from saying, you can't send SPAM prior to permission being given.
Re:Sort of. lol! (Score:2)
I think you and other refer to another case, which upheld Washington State's antispam law, Heckel v. State [wa.gov].
I looked up material [eff.org] regarding what I think is this case and see you're right that it is a commerce clause case, but there are first amendment overtones [eff.org] that perhaps was not argued or the court overlooked. I'm not especially familar with this case, but do wonder about the possibility of 1st A. arguments.
In any event,
Re:Sort of. lol! (Score:1)
Re:Sort of. lol! (Score:2)
Yes, they did. The case is now back at the trial court level. That case has chewed up huge legal resources.
Friendfinder is still spamming, too. Got one today.
Re:It's constitutional to limit spam (Score:5, Interesting)
Yes but the first court that heard the Nixon case had a judge who was a complete idiot and rulled that the junk fax laws were unconstitutional. The judgement basically said that the judge thought he knew better than Congress. He basically dismissed all the evidence that junk faxes cause the victims unnecessary expense on flimsy grounds and then claimed that there was nothing to support the law.
I did not expect the original Nixon judgement to stand. Fortunately it was completely unreasonable and the reasoning plain stupid. However there is an argument that the judge made (not the defending council, the judge, which kinda shows what an idological twit he was), that may well stand. That is that the junk fax law is overbroad since an opt-out list like there is now for junk marketting calls could meet the same requirement without restricting free speech.
I have been pushing for the spam laws to include a one-way encrypted opt out list provision for this very reason. I think that ultimately the Nixon argument might hold in the case of spam, especially since the cost per spam is less.
Incidentally, I got a piece of info from the Microsoft lawyers on the reason they are taking the line they are on the Washington state spam law. The piece that has not made the public yet is that the scheme the DMA is currently up to is to pass a law in DC that guts all the state spam laws and replaces them with a law that says that ISPs MUST deliver all spam from DMA members. The plan of the DMA is to bribe enough members of Congress to pass an 'anti-spam' law that is in fact a 'pro-spam' law.
Re:It's constitutional to limit spam (Score:3, Informative)
Old news, but so was Washington's [wa.gov], and the US Supreme Court [supremecourtus.gov] let it stand. [usatoday.com]
OT, but the Microsoft-sponsored gutting [slashdot.org] of Washington's antispam law is all but dead. [wa.gov]
Fax Spam (Score:1, Redundant)
At the very least it's a step in the right direction.
not as hard to opt-out (Score:5, Interesting)
The people I'm working with have been receiving these faxes for YEARS, but no one ever thought to call the company to get them to stop.
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:5, Interesting)
Can we infer that receiving a spam does not cost money? In order to build the case against spam, we have to show that it does cost money. In our case, server upgrades, electricity and hours worked.
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:1)
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:2)
The fax machines are switched on only when the sender calls up the receiver so the problem of junk spam is totally eliminated.
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:4, Insightful)
The only thing the company you call will do is sell your phone number (for more money!) to more companies and the amount of fax-span you get will INCREASE. It's sad but true.
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:3, Funny)
When the spammer knows that theres a real person at the receiving end they INCREASE the amount of spam they send you, and tell all of they're spamming friends
Somewhere an english teacher is crying and doesn't know why.
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:2)
C code with no indenting is pretty useless to any human reader.
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:2)
Uhm.. When a fax is sucessfully sent, the fax machine reports the success to the sender. I
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, because they know they got caught. Its illegal to spam fax and they're more than happy to stop. They much prefer that than going to the authorities or starting a civil law suit. I'm sure they were VERY polite.
"Oh sorry about that, we must have accidentally put you on our list."
Bullshit.
Re:not as hard to opt-out (Score:2, Informative)
Also, spammers tend not to like spamming actual government offices; such spam carries with it the risk that you spam some important person who begins calling for IRS audits of the spammer and so forth. Since the types of scumbags who spam tend to play fast and loose with their taxes, they really don't want to get audited...
You're kidding, right? (Score:3, Informative)
Aside from the fact that no one should have to make a call to stop being stolen from, it just doesn't work.
Re:You're kidding, right? (Score:2)
Just Imagine... (Score:1)
Re:Just Imagine... (Score:3, Funny)
Just for laughs (Score:1)
I'll check back in about 6 months and let you folks know how much that has changed.
Incidently, because of having next to no choice in ISP's where I live, I'm considering going with wal-mart starting next month. It'll be interesting to see full my 'inbox' is, how quickly it it's filled and what it's filled with.
Re:Just for laughs (Score:2)
Re:Just for laughs (Score:1)
Reminds me of all the fax.com stories (Score:5, Interesting)
Then, the FCC in August fined fax.com for doing what it was doing. [slashdot.org]
You'd think that was a lot of money? Next, later in August, Alert newsreporter Slashdot reported that Fax.com was being sued for 2.2 TRILLION dollars [slashdot.org]
Hillarity ensued! [slashdot.org]
So now, Fax.com owes 5.4 million + 2.2 Trillion (actually 2.2 billion) which is still 2.2 Billion USD.
However, since Fax.com is a business, all assets will just be seized of the business and the owners will lose nothing except the business.
Har har!
Re:Reminds me of all the fax.com stories (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Reminds me of all the fax.com stories (Score:1)
Just in case anybody wants to send the judge a junk fax the info can be found at:
http://www.moed.uscourts.gov/Judge/chambers.asp
Please note, the actual link does not have a space between the u and d in the second instance of the word judge. The space shows up in the preview window but definitely is not in the Mozilla dialog for posting. Anybody know how to get rid of it?
Re:Reminds me of all the fax.com stories (Score:1)
<a href="http://www.moed.uscourts.gov/Judge/chambers. asp?Judge=Stephen%20N.%20Limbaugh">http://www.moed .uscourts.gov/Judge/chambers.asp?Judge=Stephen%20N .%20Limbaugh</a>
Interesting Argument (Score:3, Insightful)
Still it sets a good precedent that could be very useful in the future.
Re:Interesting Argument (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Interesting Argument (Score:4, Interesting)
Actually, when my mail client downloads mail it does it one at a time(admittedly it is a lot faster than a fax). It is not unusual to get up to 50 spam messages a day and assuming 10K each that is 1/2MB. If you can't get Cable or DSL that can take a few minutes, and I pitty the person on dial-up that goes on vacation only to come home and download Spam for a half-hour.
If it cost more than zero then it cost enough, (Score:2, Interesting)
In all other case of advertising, the cost are shifted on the sender. With spam it isn't. And as such, this is the same burden as fax law. You cannot/should not make the receiver pay for the burden of your own advertising.
Fax-Unsubscribe-Blasting? (Score:5, Interesting)
there is a big difference... (Score:3, Interesting)
Not as big as you think (Score:5, Insightful)
And not just bandwidth costs. How about billing costs? You're a $300/hr consultant who has to spend half an hour a day sorting through your email trying to figure out what's spam and what's not. That's not an "intangible" cost. That's $750 a week. Sure you could find better ways to block it or sort it more efficiently or whatever, but that's another thing imposed on you by those sending the emails.
When such a large percentage of email is sent every day, I don't believe you can say the monetary cost is insignificant.
Excellent proofreading skills (Score:1)
Re:Not as big as you think (Score:1)
if you will re-read my post, you will notice i did not state the monetary cost of spam is insignificant. i stated the costs of spam is intangible and difficult to calculate.
Re:Not as big as you think (Score:1)
Re:Not as big as you think (Score:1)
spam definitely costs money to the recipient. in most cases, however, the bandwidth the spam uses cannot be calculated. f
Re:Not as big as you think (Score:1)
Re:there is a big difference... (Score:2)
Basis of this whole spam/fax issue (Score:5, Interesting)
With spam, more of the burden falls on the ISPs: bandwidth costs money, and a spam broadcast promising bigger penises directed at fifteen thousand randomname@domain.com chews hell out of bandwidth. I"ve seen this firsthand, and it isn't pretty. Then there's the issue of tech resources being diverted to deal with the problem: buying software to block spam, dealing with irritated customers who either got the spam or had an email falsely flagged, tracking down spammers, etc.
The first amendment is limited in the US - you can't yell out "fire" in a crowded theater, and you can't block the entrance to a business in protest of a policy. I'd posit that spam is very similar to the latter case, only the argument is even weaker in that a protester is at least making a moral point, while the spammer is only trying to make a fast buck.
What I'd really like to see is some way to prosecute people who use open mail relays to broadcast spam. Many of these people operate from within the US with impunity. I fail to see the difference between what they are doing and cracking, forgery, and DOS attacks.
Worse yet. (Score:1)
Seriously, when companies advertise by buying air time, they're generally benefitting the viewers-that content would not exist were it not for its commercial viability. Sure, they give you "Who Wants to Marry This Guy For His Money," but they also give you everything you like (besides all that great stuff on Public TV), and someone out there must watch that other crap.
Fax spam is a different story. If ther
Spam will never die =/ (Score:5, Interesting)
The only argument I can think of is that faxes and e-mails are transmitted at a loss to the carrier or recipient. E-mails take up bandwidth that the sender doesn't pay for. Faxes take up ink and paper, and also tie up the phone line and thus choke out signal in favor of noise.
The fax problem is pretty insurmountable, so this is probably a good law. But I wonder about the e-mail. How long before Yahoo or Microsoft decide, in light of the anti-spam laws, to open their pipelines to spam companies for a cost. i.e. you may spam to Yahoo addresses for $500 a mailing, or whatever. Especially since consumers can opt out?
In the end, that would be both a good and a bad thing, I suspect. On the bad side, it would pretty much permanantly entrench spam into the culture. But I suspect that's already happened. The good side would be that it would, assuming anyone ever figures out a way to enforce the laws, crack down on Nigerian money scandals, and at least promote spam offered by quasi-reputable companies.
Re:Spam will never die =/ (Score:5, Insightful)
In the case of postal mail, the sender pays. If a company wants to waste their money sending stuff that's their business. In the case of Faxes and Email, the receiver pays. It means those sending the information don't pay but waste the money of people receiving the stuff. The economic difference is why an email box is full of spam, but your postal box may only get 3 to 4 items a week.
Re:Spam will never die =/ (Score:3, Informative)
There is [usps.com], but it's opt-out.
Enjoy! Don't forget to send it to Wal-Mart for their bra advertisements!
Re:Spam will never die =/ (Score:1)
Re:Spam will never die =/ (Score:1)
How 'bout
They shit me to tears, waste my time, offend my senses, frustrate me, annoy me, ittitate me, a hundred other adjectives that describe unpleasantness.
I don't care if there is no rational economic reason why it should be allowed, I don't want it.
I don't care about the spammers freedom of speech or the implications of banning spam. I don't want it.
I don't want to discuss definitions of spam. I know it when I see it.
I don't care if millions of legit
Re:Spam will never die =/ (Score:1)
Shortly before Yahoo or Microsoft find that customers are deserting them in droves. People *will* change providers over the issue of getting too much spam, and if it's known the provider has a profit motive, and therefore no motive to stop the spam, people will leaves in droves.
"But we'll let them opt out!", y
the sender supports the system like TV (Score:1)
Lame corporate greed (Score:1)
It'd be especially bad if you've got you computer and fax on the same line, and you get booted offline in the middle of a big download to get some junk fax. There's plenty of other ways for companys to spew their junk out that are slightly less annoying.
Same reasoning might not apply to Spam (Score:5, Interesting)
Spammers could argue that neither of these apply to spam. The first is an issue because 80% of faxes automatically print, consuming paper and and ink. The argument having to do email is much more nebulous, requiring the court to consider the time consumed in deleting faxes as a resource. While it might be a reasonable argument to make, it's tricky when considered against a first amendment argument.
The second point is even harder to make against spam. While a fax machine is completely consumed while receiving a fax, a computer can do other things while receiving spam. The strongest argument that could be made is that the bandwidth of a dialup modem is consumed by the spam, which is still a weaker argument than is presented for fax machines.
So while both of the points are certainly arguable, it's not as easy an argument as it is with faxes. I do believe that antispam legislation is constitutional, I'm not sure that this particular decision does much to further that cause.
Re:Same reasoning might not apply to Spam (Score:2, Interesting)
eg. if the receiving fax machine is a computer, or has electronic store capability, then
- print cost is at the receiver's discretion
- connect charge is (almost always) totally paid by the sender
- there is a denial of service on the receiver's line
In the spam case:
- print cost is at the receiver's discretion
- typically no per-message (or at least, per-recipient) connect charge is paid by the sender
- connect charge is typically paid by the receiver, and may be expe
Re:Same reasoning might not apply to Spam (Score:2)
Re:Same reasoning might not apply to Spam (Score:2)
While in theory both fax messages and email messages are printed only at the discretion of the recipients, the fact is that 80% of all faxes received are automatically printed - read the court's opini
Re:Same reasoning not apply to Spam - Yes it does! (Score:1)
They cost the recipient substantial resources ($100/year)
They deny the recipient use of their own equipment
Spammers could argue that neither of these apply to spam.
Spam is a denial of service attack when it fills up your inbox before you can empty it and prevents you from receiving wanted messages. That alone should be more then enough.
Limiting spam... (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem here is that even if a law is passed how do you track down the people responsible. Given that headers are usually forged and the open relays are likely to stay open then this is going to be diffilcult. You could change SMTP so that everyone is tracked from end to end, but this brings up privacy issues.
Since most spam makes reference to a phone number or website then the people selling the product should be held accountable. Its not a perfect solution either, but it is the best thing I can think of. What should the punishment be? Not sure, though how about a fine, equivalent to the costs of bandwidth usage, in the same manner the MPAA calculates the 'loss' of sales.
Re:Limiting spam... (Score:2)
Personally, I loathe spam, but I don't see a way to get rid of it that is compatable with civil liberties. I just accept it as being a minor bother that is part and parcel of having a free society, and if some individual doesn't like it, they can always set up filters and such to get rid of it, or get their ISP to filter for them.
Re:Limiting spam... (Score:2)
Although reading spam can be time-consuming, it's fun to look it after SpamAssassin has added its tags. They're hillaroius; spams are so very predictable
Re:Limiting spam...Attack the Open Relays (Score:1)
So why aren't the techie people attacking the open relays and beating them into the ground? They can't be that hard to find, since the spamers find them, or attack. Send them messages that loop back into them until they are closed. By the time they've fought the loss of bandwidth and deluge of
First Amendment doesn't guarantee to be heard (Score:5, Insightful)
It only guarantees your right to say it.. nothing more..
Funny how the retailers demand it, but if its bad press against them, they use the DMCA to squelch speech.
of course it does (Score:2)
So you can't stop protestors in the street simply because you don't want to hear them or politic
Re:of course it does (Score:1, Insightful)
Oh please, you know exactly what that argument refers to. It's just saying, in as few words as possible, that if I don't want to hear you exercissing your right to free speach, I can do that. It's saying you don't have a right to force your speach on anyone, and you don't have a god given right to any forum you choose. The free speech argument is always trotted out on (private of course) bulletin boards and foru
You misunderstand the intent of the framers. (Score:4, Insightful)
What I said, in more simple terms: you have a right to speak, and I have a right *not* to listen.
The discussion specially was concerning me paying to hear you speak. ( via the resources it takes to receive electronic 'speech', its not free ) Again that is wrong. You ( a generic term here ) do not have the authority to charge me to listen to you speak. Nor do you have the right to force me to listen.
Thus the concept that the 'right to be heard' does not exist. Nor should it.
As a side note, I have the constitution and bill of rights on my wall above my desk, nowhere in there does it say I have to listen to you. It only states that you have a right to speak. Nothing more, thus no right to be heard.
Re:You misunderstand the text (Score:2)
One example might be the junk mail sent to businesses. It takes money to pay people to sort through it. Another more compelling one is a political march by an unpopular group, say people demonstrating against Jim Crow (OK, this is dated). They have a right
Re:First Amendment doesn't guarantee to be heard (Score:1)
The right to speak would be meaningless if people were unable to hear what was being said. Dare you propose that the framers were trying to protect a useless right? Of course not.
Now, you may choose not to listen, but that's incumbent upon YOU.
If you don't want spam or junk mail or junk faxes or door to door solicitors, just tell the senders not to intrude on your privacy and property.
BUT unless you take affirmative action, it seems perfectly safe to presume that having a phone line or
Fax is not spam (Score:5, Interesting)
The courts have mused over this issue a bit. The first rulings on the junk fax law were done when fax paper cost quite a chunk per fax, and people wondered as the cost came down if the cost-transfer test would still apply. The courts seem pretty clear that they don't think really miniscule cost tranfers would qualify as a compelling government interest, it's a question of amount here, not kind.
Re:Fax is not spam (Score:2, Insightful)
Hmmm, if this [slashdot.org] is correct, most of us are paying about $10 - $20 a month to receive spam. Companies would be paying in the $100 to $200 a month range.
That seems like enough to me.
Re:Fax is not spam (Score:3, Interesting)
Unfortunately you can't do that with an e-mail. You can only say, "the ISP got a million spams and they finally had to buy more bandwidth."
Which can't be used to make a law that bans single spams the way the junk fax law ba
Re:Fax is not spam (Score:2)
Re:Fax is not spam (Score:2)
Not that this matters a lot. The legal tools against junk phone calls and fax have not worked, nor have any of the approximately 25 state spam laws. Fighting hard for laws
Re:Fax is not spam (Score:2)
Additionally, I think that the current USA laws governing junk fax and junk phone calls have been quite effective. The amount of junk faxes that are sent is greatly decreased
Re:Fax is not spam (Score:2)
However, at least with faxes and junk calls they are usually domestic. Spam is much more international, unfortunately, putting it outside the realm of law for any blanket solution.
And I do tell everybody to put me on the do not call list
Re:Fax is not spam (Score:2)
I too am interested in seeing how the national DNC list is going to impact this sort of thing.
I certainly agree with you that it is doubtfull that any similar anti-spam legislation in the USA like the anti-fax law will have even as great an effect that the anti-junk-fax law has had. However I have no concerns about the constitutionality and think
Re:Fax is not spam (Score:2)
Unfortunately you can't do that with an e-mail. You can only say, "the ISP got a million spams and they finally had to buy more bandwidth."
Which can't be used to make a law that bans single spams the way the junk fax law b
BREAKING NEWS (Score:5, Interesting)
Missouri's plan revolves around suing the spammers who trash resources of businesses with fax machines by sending commercial faxes, which Fax.com is alleged of doing.
"This business plan of this state leads others above and beyond any other similar proposed measure to restore dot com revenue in the declining economy," a slashdot poster said.
"Not that Missouri is a technologically important state. Heck, I don't even live there", he admitted. "However, I think it is an important lesson for other states to sue spammers as soon as possible to get as much money back as possible."
The reason for urgency is simple -- there is only so much money that an ex.com can be ripped for before it presses the Ch. 7 button on the TV remote, pointing at itself.
It was discovered shortly after the story broke that Fax.com had it's OWN business plan, too. We received the following from an anonymous source:
Fax.com BUSINESS PLAN
=======================
1) Violate junk fax law
2) Hope the law is invalidated when Missouri sues you; stay cool when the case goes for appeal. [slashdot.org]
3) Keep spamming for 5 more months to show your company's confidence in winning the appeal, too.
4) Get fined $5.4 million USD by the FCC for those 5 months of confidence and ignoring their requests [slashdot.org]
5) Get sued by a a businessman (within the month of #4) for $2.2 Trillion USD. [slashdot.org]
6) Learn that you lost the appeal and will probably lose every case against you. [slashdot.org]
Fortunately, a glimpse into a brighter future of the economy and privacy is not all that this latest announcement provides.
7) ??
8) Profit (?)
--
Unconfirmed reports say that this level of discredibility and the news of losing the appeals decision has FOXNEWS, part FOX Broadcasting Company, worried.
The AP wire reports that FOX.com is considering suing Fax.com also, but for a different reason.
A representative speaking on the condition of anonymity told us over the phone,
"We have always assumed that Fax.com was not a credible organization. Now, the court decision is proof that Fax.com is so untrustworthy or discredited that we fear people will confuse Fax.com with FOXNEWS.com."
A quote from a press release, added shortly to FOX's web site after the story broke, clears up why there could be confusion.
"It's NOT exactly because our domain names are similar that we are so upset. We just feel that this discredibility will have people confusing Fax.com with FOX.COM or FOXNEWS.COM due to the high level of discredibility that we here at the FOX BROADCASTING COMPANY NEWS DEPARTMENT strive to provide. We are seriously considering our own legal action. But it is true that we cannot have a competitor with a similar domain name trying to out do us."
The news of the court challenge means Fax.com will probably have to go bankrupt to debt. According to a Uranus Marketing survey, Fax.com is one of the last remaining of 14 profitable dot
Even with the sentimental value, many readers of slashdot regarded this news as unimportant, expressing their sentiments wholeheartedly.
"We can just wait to read this until the second or third time it's posted on slashdot, thank you very much."
--
Missouri's win shows that states can do a lot to improve their economy and fight spam, too. However, that's not where the story ends.
In fact, the REAL story here is that this is slashdot's fourth article in a series of content covering Fax.com and its money woes.
Surprisingly, no dupes have been reported and each slashdot report was a new update on the case.
-
CmdrTaco could not be reached for comment.
Free Speech (Score:2)
But when you are using MY resources(paper for faxes, Time on my servers routing mail to recipients) for said free speech it no longer becomes FREE to me therefore a cost should be incurred ie: FINES
Free speech is fine when you make the signs and show it to me and all it takes is my glance, but if i have to exert any effort to do anything then it no longer is Free to me
I realize that the FREE in Free speech isnt referring to cost, but when it incurs a
The rule is simple (Score:4, Insightful)
Like this is new... (Score:2)
Freedom of speech? (Score:2)
The first amendment states the GOVERNMENT cannot pass a law to shut you up. It says nothing about companies or private individuals.
The courts should fine the spammers/faxers/et al a stupidity fee.
Re:Freedom of speech? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm not criticizing your viewpoint, rather the idea that
Re: (Score:2)
Free speech, not free beer (or faxes) (Score:1)
Nothing stands in the way of a federal ban on spam (Score:4, Informative)
Directive 2002/58/EC [eu.int] (excerpt)
Unlike Europe, the U.S. of course do not even need to leave room for implementation, so with less Legalese than below, a hefty fine for spammers and punitive damages payable to the spammed can be defined right in the federal anti-spam statute. If it's balanced like the European solution (still permitting legitimate eMail within a narrowly defined business relationship, but outlawing all of the abusive practices that operate at the recipients' expense), it will easily pass constitutional muster, and help America get rid of junk mail once and for all (probably even within just a few weeks).
(40) Safeguards should be provided for subscribers against intrusion of their privacy by unsolicited communications for direct marketing purposes in particular by means of automated calling machines, telefaxes, and e-mails, including SMS messages. These forms of unsolicited commercial communications may on the one hand be relatively easy and cheap to send and on the other may impose a burden and/or cost on the recipient. Moreover, in some cases their volume may also cause difficulties for electronic communications networks and terminal equipment. For such forms of unsolicited communications for direct marketing, it is justified to require that prior explicit consent of the recipients is obtained before such communications are addressed to them. The single market requires a harmonised approach to ensure simple, Community-wide rules for businesses and users.
(41) Within the context of an existing customer relationship, it is reasonable to allow the use of electronic contact details for the offering of similar products or services, but only by the same company that has obtained the electronic contact details in accordance with Directive 95/46/EC [i.e. the General Data Protection Directive]. When electronic contact details are obtained, the customer should be informed about their further use for direct marketing in a clear and distinct manner, and be given the opportunity to refuse such usage. This opportunity should continue to be offered with each subsequent direct marketing message, free of charge, except for any costs for the transmission of this refusal.
(42) Other forms of direct marketing that are more costly for the sender and impose no financial costs on subscribers and users, such as person-to-person voice telephony calls, may justify the maintenance of a system giving subscribers or users the possibility to indicate that they do not want to receive such calls. Nevertheless, in order not to decrease existing levels of privacy protection, Member States should be entitled to uphold national systems, only allowing such calls to subscribers and users who have given their prior consent.
(43) To facilitate effective enforcement of Community rules on unsolicited messages for direct marketing, it is necessary to prohibit the use of false identities or false return addresses or numbers while sending unsolicited messages for direct marketing purposes.
(47) Where the rights of the users and subscribers are not respected, national legislation should provide for judicial remedies. Penalties should be imposed on any person, whether governed by private or public law, who fails to comply with the national measures taken under this Directive.
Article 13
Unsolicited communications
1. The use of automated calling systems without human intervention (automatic calling
US Code 47, spam, and the fax, ma'am (Score:4, Informative)
My cell phone got junk faxed. (Score:3, Interesting)
Also the First Amendment argument used by the business is weak. The First Amendment give you the right to say what you want. It does not grant you the right to force someone to listen to you nor does it obligate me to offer any support to you in exercising your free speech. These junk faxes force you to listen to their message. They can't be ignored as easily as the talking head on TV with whom you disagree. And they sure as hell require the recipient to assist the sender. My freedom to listen is also implicit in the first amendment. If I don't have the option to choose to listen to or ignore your speech your speech isn't free.
Companies are not people (Score:2)