Washington Spam Law Upheld 203
An anonymous submitter sent in news that the Washington state Supreme Court upheld Washington's anti-spam law today. The law requires truthful information on all commercial emails sent from Washington state or to a Washington resident - commercial emailers may not disguise the origin of their messages (but aren't prohibited from sending UCE if they don't try to disguise themselves). It is a civil law, not a criminal one. Since this affects residents of other states who email into Washington, a spammer sued under the law by the state of Washington claimed that this was interfering with interstate commerce - regulating interstate commerce is a power reserved to the Federal government, not states. The trial court agreed. Washington appealed. The Washington Supreme Court held that requiring accurate identification information actually facilitates interstate commerce rather than burdening it. The decision is interesting, because several state internet censorship laws have been struck down due to their effects on residents of other states - it's worth reading for anyone interested in internet legal issues.
Your right to speak, doesn't demand I listen. (Score:1)
Your right to speak ends when you hold my property hostage, unduly burden my right to avoid you, or take things from me. Nothing in the constitution says I MUST provide you an audience, or offer any technological means of letting you hold my attention, my equipment/bandwidth hostage, or fund your speech in any way.
Spam, and telemarketing, can't be ignored. I have constitutional rights that say I can't have things that are mine taken from me without due process (like my time, CPU cycles, etc.) So spam mail and telemarketing IS NOT, HAS NOT, CANNOT EVER BE, a constitutional right IN ANY CONTEXT.
Feel free to offer flyers to passer by, but forcing them into their pockets will get you arrested.
So let's look closer at Spam...
I have to subsidize spam by paying for Internet bandwidth, in a proportion excess to those sending it. Not to mention outright theft of the last mile for which I pay directly. You've violated my constitutional right to due process.
I can't avoid it, you're stuffing it into my electronic pocket. You've violated my constitutional right to be secure in my person and possessions.
Spam is nothing more than an Electronic Mugging.
Re:Your right to speak, doesn't demand I listen. (Score:1)
access with a lump sum monthly payment.
Your arguement that Spam should be prohibited
because you don't want to bear the cost of it
could be interpreted another way. Let's say that
not everybody downloads their Operating System
over the 'net. Why should they subsidize your
downloading of the Linux kernel source by paying
the same lump sum monthy fee for internet access
that you do, when they only look at a few pages a
month and read and send small email letters? Why
should they pay the same amount as people who
subscribe to a bunch of Open Source developer's
mailing lists???
Be careful how much you want to argue nickel and
dime issues with regard to bandwidth. Freely
available ('too cheap to meter') bandwidth
enables a lot of Free Software development, and
if we start paying a bit tax it'd quickly become
too expensive to operating the mailing lists.
Re:How long will it last? (Score:1)
The law was just upheld by the state supreme court - the highest court in the state of Washington. The federal government can certainly interfere, but I don't think they have the authority to directly change or overturn the law.
--
Re:Wouldn't it be cool.. (Score:1)
Nope, sorry, this is a Washington state law. The US Supreme Court can't create a law that applies to the whole country - they can only uphold and strike down this one, which only applies to WA.
--
Re:What about email to servers in Washington? (Score:1)
--
Re:Here's a thought (Score:1)
--
Re:Law bans most speech (Score:1)
Just give a valid email address and a header that is true and you're good to go!
Not true. It doesn't allow anything. If you don't forge your headers, you're not affected by this law. Any other laws that used to apply, still do.
2. It creates an incredible burden on the spammers who were just sanctioned
According to the court in the ruling, the reason why the spammers addresses, which he gave, were not valid were because they were canceled.
I'm all for placing an incredible burdon on spammers, personally. If the reason your return e-mail address was cancelled is because you knowingly violated your e-mail provider's terms of service, well, too bad, you're an idiot.
The court argues that real info makes buisness easier, but if spammers give their real info out, their accounts are canceled.
If you can find an ISP that ALLOWS you to send spam, great! They won't cancel your account for it! If your ISP doesn't allow it, then you shouldn't be doing it. The law may not be perfect, but I have no complaints.
In effect, the Washington law reads as a ban on spam (You have to use your real info, and if your account goes away, your problem!).
This is NOT a ban on spam. This law explicitly states that it is still legal to send unsolicited commercial e-mail. You just can't hide behind forged headers. And again, if your ISP doesn't allow you to send spam, and that's what you want to do, choose a different ISP that will allow you to send spam and not cancel your account.
I would much rather see a better more thought-out law.
Just have the law say "spam is banned." It's bad that they have different more confusing words with the same effect.
You just contradicted yourself.
--
Federal courts? (Score:2)
Nope, sorry. (Score:1)
Spam email/voice mail/IM/Whatever are not constitutionally protected. 'Hot XXX girls and boys" is not speech, it's advertising and solicitation, both of which it's perfectly legal to block at the mail level and at the phone level. I have unsolicited caller block on my phone, am I infringing on the Right of Speech? No I am not.
Gun ownership is one thing, but no where in the Constitution and Bill of Rights do I see anything about Congress not infringing on one's right to advertise.
Forget the spammer... (Score:1)
"Charging $39.95 for the booklet, Heckel made 30 to 50 sales per month."
Who is buying this crap?
Spammers already have it covered (Score:5)
This message is sent in compliance of the proposed bill
SECTION 301. per Section 301, Paragraph (a)(2)(C) of S.
1618. This message is not intended for residents in the
State of Washington, screening of addresses has been done to
the best of our technical ability.
See...not only does it follow a proposed (and struck down if I recall) house bill, but gosh darnit - they've done the best they can to make sure they know who they are spamming.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to reply to this guy because I am interest in making easy $$$ at home that involves increasing my penis size with the help of hot willing 18 year old girls.
Of course the other spam I got, I will simply reply and I'll never need to worry about getting spam from them again.
See, spammers are nice friendly people.
Re:Make Money Fast in Washington (Score:1)
When was the last time you could describe the process of pressing a lawsuit and collecting the proceeds as fast?
Re:My usual comment on spam-related posts (Score:1)
This is actually a bit of anti-spammer humor. The spelling 'free speach' is actually not uncommon among spammers, so anti-spammers tend to use it in mockery of the spammers.
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:3)
(Ob. disclaimer: IANAL)
I don't buy this. The argument against spam is NOT content based, or speaker based. It's recipient based. To my mind, spamming incorporates a sense of personal trespass or invasion of privacy. It seems that an anti-spam law falls in the same category of laws which deal with harassment, stalking, etc. Moreover, we already permit some sensible limitations on free speech -- notably libel and slander laws. While it is important to avoid slippery slopes which would eliminate free speech, we must also sometimes hack the social contract to patch bugs. 8-)
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
Sure as heck I'd toss a ten-spot into the kitty to have a spammer scrubbed off. Only have to remove a few of those scum, and the rest would suddenly find that there's less risky business to be done in this world.
--
Re:Uhh... (Score:2)
Wrong. If you send a business offer through the mail to someone in another state, you can damn well be held accountable by that state or sued in that state.
Re:Law bans most speech (Score:2)
Your problem #1 can't be gotten rid of without changing the Constitution. There are free speech rights. Lawmakers have the power to forbid fraud; they don't have the power to forbid someone from speaking, or writing, or e-mailing for the purpose of communicating some idea.
Your problem #2 is bogus -- the defendant made the claim that the email addresses were valid until cancelled, but he also used fake addresses and he definitely used fake subject lines.
Also, the reason the person's account went away was because he violated the contract with his ISP. The ISP forbade spam, and he spammed. When he lost the first address he'd get another, knowing full well he'd lose the second and third accounts. Fraud again.
Re:Wouldn't it be cool.. (Score:2)
No, not unless the Feds passed a similar law. Also, the Feds could pass a conflicting law and the Federal law would take precedence.
Re:Unfortunate side effects (Score:1)
You might be OK in two cases: either your mail wasn't commercial in nature, or else if you labeled it as requested by the law. In practice your emails wouldn't really be anonymous political speech anyway, unless you used a chain of anonymizing remailers. And I imagine most of those have strict controls over the quantity of spam you can send specifically to ward off spammers.
Caution: contents may be quarrelsome and meticulous!
Make (how much) Money (how) Fast: economic insight (Score:2)
Heckel developed a 46-page on-line booklet entitled 'How to Profit from the Internet....' Heckel marketed the booklet by sending between 100,000 and 1,000,000 UCE messages per week.... Charging $39.95 for the booklet, Heckel made 30 to 50 sales per month.
So, for those of you who were curious, he made $1,200 to $2,000 per month, probably a little under $20,000 per year; not enough to "fire your boss," but not chicken feed. He also had a success rate of between 0.01% and 0.001%
OTOH, when the original court ruling went against Washington State:
On March 10, 2000, the trial court entered an order granting Heckel's motion and denying the State's cross motion. The court found that the Act violated the Commerce Clause (U.S. Const. art. I, sec. 8, cl. 3) and was 'unduly restrictive and burdensome....' The order permitted Heckel to 'present a cost bill for recovery of his costs and statutory attorneys fees....' Heckel then moved the court for a fee award of $49,897.50. Denying Heckel's request for fees under RCW 19.86.080 of the CPA, the court limited Heckel's award to statutory costs under RCW 4.84.030.
He tried to use the case against him to Make Money Fast from Washington State!-)
Troubling aspects about this ruling (Score:2)
But read what the appeals court complained about:
First, the State alleged that Heckel had violated RCW 19.190.020(1)(b) and, in turn, the CPA, by using false or misleading information in the subject line of his UCE messages. Heckel used one of two subject lines to introduce his solicitations: 'Did I get the right e-mail address?' and 'For your review--HANDS OFF!'
I think that misleading Subject: lines are rude, crude, socially unacceptable
As its second cause of action, the State alleged that Heckel had violated RCW 19.190.020(1)(a), and thus the CPA, by misrepresenting information defining the transmission paths of his UCE messages. Heckel routed his spam through at least a dozen different domain names without receiving permission to do so from the registered owners of those names. For example, of the 20 complaints the Attorney General's Office received concerning Heckel's spam, 9 of the messages showed '13.com' as the initial ISP to transmit his spam.... The 13.com domain name, however, was registered as early as November 1995 to another individual, from whom Heckel had not sought or received permission to use the registered name. In fact, because the owner of 13.com had not yet even activated that domain name, no messages could have been sent or received through 13.com.
There's two issues here:
I'm worried the court confused these two.
Finally:
Sounds good so far; but it immediately continues:
When Heckel created his spam
This may mean that the From: address, and/or the "to be removed please reply to" address, were real Juno addresses, at least when the messages were sent.
None of the Juno e-mail accounts was readily identifiable as belonging to Heckel; the user names that he registered generally consisted of a name or a name plus a number (e.g., 'marlin1374,' 'cindyt5667,' 'howardwesley13,' 'johnjacobson1374,' and 'sjtowns')....
This supports the concern that anonymity is forbidden. It's not quite that bad, but it's not good.
During August and September 1998, Heckel's Juno addresses were canceled within two days of his sending out a bulk e-mail message on the account. According to Heckel, when Juno canceled one e-mail account, he would simply open a new one and send out another bulk mailing. Because Heckel's accounts were canceled so rapidly, recipients who attempted to reply were unsuccessful. The State thus contended that Heckel's practice of cycling through e-mail addresses ensured that those addresses were useless to the recipients of his UCE messages. During the months that Heckel was sending out bulk e-mail solicitations on the Juno accounts, he maintained a personal e-mail account from which he sent no spam, but that e-mail address was not included in any of his spam messages. The State asserted that Heckel's use of such ephemeral e-mail addresses in his UCE amounted to a deceptive practice in violation of RCW 19.86.020.
Now I'm really nervous.
The state is arguing the Juno addresses were fraudulant because it was cancelled. Yes, in this case, the spammer probably expected them to be cancelled; but the law is an ass, and I worry about precedent. If I use a Hotmail account on eBay, and my Hotmail account gets cancelled, that's fraud? If I don't give out some other e-mail address, such as the one my employer provides, that's fraud?
No... not censorship. (Score:2)
This is about human action, no the internet. It's saying if you are going to send unsolicited electronic communications to people, they should not be misleading as to who they are from, or what they are about.
Re:Hotmail isn't in Washington you idiot. (Score:1)
What about email to servers in Washington? (Score:3)
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
That study excludes the number of people injured in yet not killed. Most self-defense related shooting (in fact, nearly 95% of all hand-gun related shootings do not result in death) only injure the attacker.
I'm not arguing to protect any of my constitutional rights, I don't live in the US and don't own a gun. I'm replying to refute bad statistics and unfounded assumptions.
> Can you honestly claim that the US justice system is wrong on gun-related issues 98.2% of the time?
I don't know about those cases. But, in cases of self-defense claims, I do think the courts (in general) are often way too harsh on people defending themselves. I don't necessarily think you should keep shooting an attacker once they're down, but if they did attack you, I do believe you have the right to defend yourself, regardless of the life of the attacker. They, imho, give up their right to safety (and perhaps life) the minute they intend to harm or kill someone else.
> He actually goes so far as to refer to statistics about how a child is 4 times more likely to drown than be killed with a gun (gee, that makes a perfect case for having guns, doesn't it?
If the chance of someone drowning is very small, then yes, it does make a case for it. People have decided that swimming pools are acceptable, despite that risk. And swimming pools are only for recreation, never for anything as potentially useful as self-defense.
> Meanwhile, I suggest we give everyone nuclear weapons since your odds of dying of heart disease are better than your odds of dying of thermonuclear war
If those relative statistics were based on everyone already having nuclear weapons, it'd be different. You're arguing one way, then the other...
People already have guns, and the risk is low compared to X.
People don't have nukes, yet the risk (with nobody having them) is low.
The first says that guns are, comparatively, low-risk, the second doesn't indicate anything about the safety of nukes, merely the availability.
This is another example of misused statistics.
Re:Jurisdiction laws scaring the tar out of me (Score:2)
If I send you a copy, I force you to look at it, thus it should be covered under the most restrictive of my laws and your laws.
UCE is sent out to people who don't want it, and tricks them into viewing it. It makes sense to me that those people should be able to use the obscenity/spam laws of their community.
Re:Im not a spammer (Score:2)
By spamming a washington resident you're sending your spam to washington where it is illegal.
This is different than making a webpage, which someone has to choose to view, because they commit the cross-border action.
If you're not a spammer, read that as a generic 'you'.
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
Wow, that must take skill. Because, as I said, I'm not a gun owner, nor an advocate of them. I feel, living outside of the US, that I have a fairly impartial view on guns. I've fired them, I understand their power, but am not afraid of them. I also have no desire to own one.
I think you need to go back over that, I *was* trying to be offensive, but only in response to your sexist remark, and I said as much.
To answer the last question next...
I see your mistakes with statistics to be how you use some of the statistics, without mentioning the rest. You say that 1.2% of shootings are found to be justified, but you base this only on the number of number of deaths, ignoring the number of non-fatalities.
While your FBI figures don't match with what I saw in a article on this, I'll accept yours, because as I say, it's not my country and I'm not big on collecting exact numbers about other people's murder rate.
Sure, I'll come back to your 98 out of 100 issue, if you wish. "Too harsh". That means that I feel they could have been right 97 times out of 100 or less, OR that I feel their punishments are too harsh for people they do convict.
If you go over it again, I said that I believe people have a fairly strong right to self-defense. I haven't seen the US courts (in my admittedly edited foreign view) be very willing to accept self-defense pleas.
I need no hard numbers to back that up, it's a feeling. I don't think all claims of self-defense are valid, the odds against that are astronomical, but ditto in the other direction.
The claim about the swimming pool goes to show people's illogical level of emotion in this area.
- Guns have a life-saving use, swimming pools don't.
- Children are more likely to die from drowning than gunshot.
Therefore, if "Save the children" is the reasoning used, people should be going after swimming pools. The fact that they aren't indicates that, like you, they are actively hostile toward guns and gun owners, not, as I see myself, neutral.
> Saying "something is worse than this, so it is ok to have this" isn't the slighest justification. Even the tiniest bit. That is a horrible way to base arguments.
Yes, but it's a reasonable way to judge people's priorities and motivations.
As for nukes, I'm not trying to say we should have them, I was pointing out that you were comparing dissimilar circumstances.
In the guns case people already have guns, so a current mortality rate from guns indicates how likely they are to kill someone, were they generally available.
Nukes are not generally available, so the current mortality rate is not indicative of the mortality rate if people were given nukes.
As such, it's likely that you uses nukes as a boogeyman, to stir up emotional knee-jerk support for your position.
> Please point out a real error that flips over the 50-fold murder/justifiable homicide distribution.
I don't need to, I'm not claiming nobody gets killed by guns. I'm claiming you used partial statistics in a misleading way.
As a side note, I mentioned my political views on self-defense, but I didn't make any claims.
> I know statistics quite well...
I don't doubt that. Doesn't change the fact that I think you're being misleading in your application. (In fact, you are quite strongly biased here...)
> Though, of course, humans also tend to kill each other, accidentally or on purpose, far more frequently and accurately than even our closest relatives (chimpanzees [snip]
I do agree with your later arguments that they aren't great fighters, lacking tools, but that doesn't change the predilection to violence. I'm sure a chimp could use a gun if it was demonstrated, and would thus become somewhat more efficient at it.
And, that murder rate comparison you mention must neglect killing of infants, because in the program I saw on homicidal animals (inter-species killing that wasn't over a mate.) they mentioned that a significant number of chimpanzie young are killed by rival tribes, other mothers, etc.
I'm not trying to debate your point about gun control in the US, and second (?) ammendment rights. I'm trying to point out how you're using statistics (and unreasonable comparisons) to mislead.
Spam wrappers. (Score:1)
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:1)
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:1)
The Real Reason (Score:1)
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:3)
Actually, the spam law doesn't even go that far. You simply can't shoot into people's home's while wearing a mask-- to take your analogy to the next step...
Re:Law bans most speech (Score:1)
>Being an idiot is not a criminal offense.
Yes, it is. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it. Ask your local police officer.
Re:Good! (Score:1)
I would say the right to anonymity is necessary, but the right to say something while pretending to be someone else is not protected.
Hotmail isn't in Washington you idiot. (Score:1)
Just because M$ owns it doesn't mean it's based in Redmond!
Re:Hotmail isn't in Washington you idiot. (Score:1)
Re:At last! A victory! (Score:1)
Re:What about email to servers in Washington? (Score:3)
"Id. at 174. In contrast to the New York statute, which could reach all content posted on the Internet and therefore subject individuals to liability based on unintended access, the Act reaches only those deceptive UCE messages directed to a Washington resident or initiated from a computer located in Washington; in other words, the Act does not impose liability for messages that are merely routed through Washington or that are read by a Washington resident who was not the actual addressee."
Good! (Score:3)
In this context, commercial entities must not send unsolicited mail without providing some sort of identification of origin... but how bad could that be? I mean, how shady must a company be to provide a service without providing accurate reply-to information? Perhaps I do approve of anonymity in private communications, but certainly not in commercial ones... I like to be able to opt-out of spam. And I do receive newsletters and e-mails from businesses intentionally, so I'm not against the concept of commercial mail; this ruling only helps us out.
As for the people who now have to reveal themselves to their victims: oh boo-hoo. You had the opportunity to use a novel marketing mechanism, and your industry blew it by abusing the priviledge, and now we want to take it away from you because of that. Or, not even take it away, but give ourselves some way to avoid the inconvenience caused by some of you porn/penis enlargement/make money/win a trip to Portugal freaks.
I look forward to commercial e-mail that doesn't abuse my attention span or my inbox in the future.
And that's why... (Score:2)
Right now, I have about six of these accounts, and when I feel like it, I create others. I don't do this because I need them today - I don't. I do this in case I need them tommorow...
Worldcom [worldcom.com] - Generation Duh!
Censorship laws are orthogonal... (Score:3)
Whoa, a court exhibits clue! Not lying to your customers is a Good Thing!
> The decision is interesting, because several state internet censorship laws have been struck down due to their effects on residents of other states - it's worth reading for anyone interested in internet legal issues.
Interesting reading, yes, but I don't see the interstate commerce clause implications here as having any bearing on censorship cases.
IANAL, and courts have made some pretty illogical decisions in the past, but I don't see how requiring someone not to forge headers (which has been ruled as something that facilitates interstate commerce) strengthens the (IMHO insane) argument that a patchwork of mutually-conflicting decency standards (whether in law books or in RSACi-style webpage ratings) also facilitates interstate commerce. It's a total non-sequitur.
Re:You are all happy that.... (Score:5)
This ruling does no such thing.
Quoth the court:
If the headers weren't forged (i.e., if the spammer had sent them through yahoo.com, even if he used a pseudonymous account at Yahoo), recipients could reply to him and effectively opt-out. (Not that this would be a smart thing to do, but I digress.)
This is a precedent against forgery with intent to deceive, not anonymity.
If I mail you through an anonymous remailer, the headers are stripped and re-inserted to facilitate anonymity, not to deceive you about my identity. Indeed, I'm quite capable of sending a PGP block through an anon-remailer that proves to you who I am, while making it impossible for any other reader of the message to know who I am or read its contents.
The talk about the "Pike balancing test" is important here:
WA spam law:
Your supposed "you must always use your real identity when mailing anyone, anonymous remailers will be illegal" law:
The balance here could go either way, depending on the judge. But it's a much closer call to make. The cost-shifting imposed by spam is well-established, and has no public benefit; prohibiting it is (by definition) a Good Thing. Pseudonymous (and anonymous) speech, while they can be abused (the Government will trot out the usual Three Horsemen: terrorists, druggies, and pedophiles), also has a rich history in our country - and protecting pseudonymous and anonymous speech has a public benefit. It's far from clear that a law prohibiting all anon/pseudon speech has sufficient public benefit to justify any impact on commerce whatsoever.
Basically, it's even farther from clear that the Pike test would apply to your proposed law, because the First Amendment issues might trump Commerce Clause issues altogether.
(And to the obligatory spammer who says "but my spam is frea speach", I point out that non-commercial speech has consistenly been afforded greater First Amendment protection than commercial speech. Deal.)
Make Money Fast in Washington (Score:4)
Russell, meet Whitehead. Whitehead, Russell.
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:1)
Whereas some SPAM says "University Degrees!" a lot of it says "have you decided if you're going?" or "are you still mad at me?" or "information you requested". The first two are trying to make me thing the mail comes from a friend, the last is just a blatant lie. All are fraudulent.
Of course all hide their origin, except the ones that can't. I've never used dogdoo.com but I've felt like it, when I got one of those make.money.fast style SPAMs with addresses that were in the white pages.
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:1)
What happens when a spammer gets killed? (Score:1)
Disclaimer: I'm not going to do this, it's just a thought.
Give me a break (Score:2)
Get real for a second will you. Just because the government passed this law doesn't mean it will be upheld. If it is that's when you have to worry. I do agree gov should have little control over the Internet since it does not reside in one country, however lets face some facts.
Laws here don't apply around the world
As long as there is an anonymous proxy there'll be spam
This will be on DumbLaws [dumblaws.com] in the future since no one entity can dictate what another country can or can't do.
You are all happy that.... (Score:1)
This is scary stuff.
Re:You are all happy that.... (Score:1)
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
1-Legislation againt anonymous emailers because they can be used for a crime.
2-companies like yahoo mail, and mail.com will have to get proof of identification so that there not helping break a law.
This is scary stuff. This only makes a quicker path for the government to track you.
Re:Interstate Commerce My A$$ (Score:1)
Re:Give me a break (Score:2)
Hahaha!
Since when does national sovereignty count for squat? Treaties? The EU? The US/Russians (mostly the US) invading the banana-republic-du-jour?
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
bullshit (Score:2)
Now, if they weren't in violation of their agreement with their ISP, then it's THEIR responsibility to sue their ISP for the damage caused to them.
Just because there are possible cases where the ISP could be at fault for the spammer not having a valid email address, does not free the spammer of the responsibility to have a valid email address.
THIS IS HOW ALL BUSINESS IS CONDUCTED IRL.
Re:Interstate Commerce My A$$ (Score:3)
Here's just a sample of the spam I got today...
Really, guy, switch to a decaf brew. Set up filters to delete the stuff that you do get. I can see ISPs grumbling about bandwidth costs, but your reaction is a wee bit overdone.
Jurisdiction laws scaring the tar out of me (Score:2)
Another thing to consider: I've seen in a number of the click-through licence agreements that you agree that all disputes will be tried in the state/town of the company who is selling the software. Now imagine if that happened somewhere where the company selling/publishing the software was in Virgina, or another state covered by the UCITA. Does this mean that you would be covered by the UCITA too?
I dunno about you guys, but I'm scared.
Interstate Commerce My A$$ ain't roadrage (Score:2)
~flame~
Why's that, because by volume the bandwidth these bastards steal from me isn't sufficient for your tastes?
~flameoff~
I may not exactly agree that spammers are monsters, but they certainly aren't engendering themselves to me by lieing as part of their sales pitch (which are most often also misleading!). I'm a reasonable guy normally and am willing to give commercial enterprise the right to send one single original email to me unsolicited - with few restrictions.
That Washington law sounds just about right; with the addition (or was it already there?) of the absolute requirement that upon request all my info (complete!) would be removed/deleted and made unavailable for any purpose..
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:3)
By passing a law that prevents the sending of some kinds of email, the government is limiting the free speech of both individuals and companies. Whether you agree with SPAM or not, it's a constitutionally protected right of the sender, just like gun ownership.
Well, no. The courts have recognized that different types of speech exist, and they are given different levels of protection. Most spam would be classified as commercial speech, similar to print/broadcast advertisements and product labeling, which does not have the fullest protection under the law. GM can't say that it's trucks get 80 miles/gallon if they don't, and the Cheerios people can't claim to make your acne go away if they can't.
The actual act of sendingspam might be a constitutional right (this is a different issue for a different discussion), but as commercial speech, the government gets some control over what you say.
That's the risk a spammer takes (Score:2)
Re:Your right to speak, doesn't demand I listen. (Score:2)
Also, I have yet to see and ISP who had to raise it's rates due to people downloading the latest kernel.
Re:That's the risk a spammer takes (Score:2)
True, but generating complaints due to spamming will tend to get your account canceled due to AUP violations.
Violating private contracts is not against the law.
But, violating a private contract will usually cause what ever service you were recieving to be terminated.
Spamming is not against the law.
But it is against the AUP that you agreed to when you signed up with your provider. Your provider is well within their rights to terminate your service if you violate the contract.
However, the disengenuous law says that if you spam, and have your account canceled, you violate the law.
The spammers need to read their contracts and AUPs then. Just because they spam people does not make them exempt from the AUP they agreed to.
How can you be responsible for actions other people take (your ISP.) That's not fair. If the law wants to say "No UCE" it should say it, not beat around the bush with judicial interpretation and private-party actions.
The spammers ARE responsible for what happens. If they send mass email to people who do not want it, they are violating their ISP's TOS and will lose theeir account. Spammers need to make sure that they are sending to people who want their ads. (well, they aren't spammers if they do that tho...) There are companies out there that send out ads to people via email that have no problems with this law, because they send to people who want the ads. If a spammer just randomly emails people, he is going to generate compliants and get booted off. Just cause the law does not say it is illegal, does not mean the ISP have to perit him to do it.
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:4)
The spammers can still email people; they just can't forge their headers. The spammers can also advertise via other mediums as well.
By passing a law that prevents the sending of some kinds of email, the government is limiting the free speech of both individuals and companies. Whether you agree with SPAM or not, it's a constitutionally protected right of the sender, just like gun ownership.
the Supreme Cout has found that companies don't have the same free speach rights as people. While you are right in the fact that people have the right to bear arms; they do not have the right to randomly fire those guns into people's homes. The same is with spammers; they can send out adverts, but not to people who do not want them.
The only thing that will truely solve the SPAM problem are market forces. When people decide that having to relay spam is costing them more money than it would to fight said abuse of their systems, we will see unsolicted commercial email disappear pretty darn quick. In the meantime, the government just gets in the way and trys to speed a process that really can't be controlled by any one entity.
Due to the spammers low start up costs, market forces are not going to do much to them. Spammers do what they do cause it is cheap and after a few sales, you have covered your costs. If there is a couple of $500 fines levied against you every spam run, you are not going to spam people for very long. That is the only thing that will stop a spammer (outside of death or prison) is when it costs more to spam that what they make of the spamming.
No identity required (Score:2)
Just my $0.02 US.
No anonymity issue (Score:2)
Now someone needs to re-litigate the California law in light of this.
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
Never once does he actually take a look at overall statistics. "[In the United States in 1993] there were 24,526 people murdered, 13,980 with handguns, yet only 251 justifiable homicides by civilians using handguns." These are the FBI crime statistics - the "whole picture" for the United States. The "251 justifiable homicides" is the number of people who were charged and either had no sentence or a reduced sentence - it is not a matter of opinion. All of the rest were either never found or convicted. So, yes, if a hangun is used lethally, it isn't really an arguable point - odds are extremely high that the person who fires it is going to jail. Extremely high.
In addition to not looking at the basic statistics that shape the nation, I found his "statistics" to be incredibly misleading. For example, he tried to make the case that handguns are good because the rates of gun-related injuries are low. Handguns have the highest mortality rate of any weapon used commonly in violent crimes (14%) (knives are second), so of course this will be the case. And a claim that most of those injuries were non-justifiable (which is never directly made, though implied (falsely)), is not supported by statistics. In fact, he actually suggests - get this - that if hanguns were completely banned, people would turn to shotguns or rifles instead of knives. Yeah, that's going to happen. : P And I've got some swampland to sell you
As to the person who said "84% of those gun deaths were suicide", that is incorrect. These are the rates of gun-related murders - suicides are excluded from these figures.
Also, to the person who claimed that most cases where it was self defense were actually classed as non-justifiable homicide:
a) I challenge you to present any kind of valid evidence whatsoever that even suggests this is the case.
a) we're looking at 1.8% of handgun deaths determined by a court of law to, beyond a reasonable doubt, not be justifiable homicide to the extent of even *reducing* a person's sentance. Can you honestly claim that the US justice system is wrong on gun-related issues 98.2% of the time? And, for this to be the case, it would be suggestive that that percentage of people in the US are extremely anti-gun, to the extent that when shown that it was in self defense - with the testimony of the person on trial, witnesses, etc - to convict a person beyond a shadow of a doubt (a quick look at the NRA or the state of Texas will show you that people aren't balanced that way
- Karen
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
Secondly, your statistics on the fatality rate of handguns disagree with the FBI crime statistics from 1993 that I saw. Please, if there is a more recent statistical compilation that you have accesss to that shows only 5% instead of 12%, please, do share
As to "I think they're too harsh", lets not let you skip over this issue so lightly. 98.2%. Do you think the american justice system is wrong 98 times out of 100? Because, that is what it would take just to bring the number of self-defense shootings merely equal to the number of homicidal shootings. And that is only if they were never wrong in letting someone go when they actually weren't doing things in self defense.
Your next sentence about swimming pools is completely logically invalid (and, yet, it was you who claimed that I was misusing statistics?). First off, not only swimming pools kill people, but that isn't the point. The entire argument was based on whether it was more beneficial or detrimental to own a gun. There are obvious benefits to swimming pools. And, yet, so far we've only seen evidence that proves guns are detrimental most of the time. An analysis on swimming pool safety vs. gun safety is completely irrelevant without showing actual benefits for having guns (you could compare the toaster with a baby-mulching machine for safety concerns and show more children are electricuted than mulched, but without evidence for the usefulness of a baby mulching machine, that not only worthless information, but is pointless, if not insulting, to the reader).
As to the example with nuclear weapons, you completely missed the point
And, please. Show me one single location where I did an invalid statisical comparison. I have a complete sample size with a negligable amount of omissions (the only kind of omissions in FBI statistics that could make a better case for you would be if tens of thousands of people committed justifiable homicide and went into hiding, and noone committed unjustifiable homicide and went into hiding (or a similar situation). Such cases are quite unlikely). I merely compared the amount of handgun deaths to the amount of ones determined to be justifiable homicide - a completely valid statistical comparison. Please point out a real error that flips over the 50-fold murder/justifiable homicide distribution.
If you don't know what you're doing statistically, don't say someone else doesn't, to make yourself feel better. I know statistics quite well... I've worked on statistical problems since I was a child, and taken several courses on statistics. I solved the Monty Hall problem on my own, a problem which many math professors strongly resisted the solution for when it was currently posed. Humans tend to have a bad understanding of statistics (it wasn't until the 17th century that it was first documented that a roll of two dice is most likely to give a 7, and why). Though, of course, humans also tend to kill each other, accidentally or on purpose, far more frequently and accurately than even our closest relatives (chimpanzees - despite them having much higher rate of "violence" between groups. They're very inefficient killers, even using tools and simple weapons, and their bodies resist damage too well. We've made an art out of the act of killing each other, and are quite good at it (as a 14% death rate from something so common as handguns will show you)).
You're just being too human.
- Rei (Karen)
Unfortunate side effects (Score:2)
Guess what? I'd be in violation of the state anti-spam law. Given the hypothetical base of my employer, I'd almost certainly be a Washington resident, with a legitimate reason to not use my own name, engaging in overtly protected political speech. There is extensive precedent concerning the absolute protection accorded to anonymous political pamphleting in the US, whether on the street or through the mails. The law would expose me to financial risk on the basis of the mode I'd used to publicize my views.
That's censorship, pure and simple, and it is censorship of the worst kind: a direct attack on political speech. Obviously, that isn't the intent of the law, but as written, I'd say it was wildly overbroad.
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
Yeah, you can have my SPAM when you pry it out of my cold, dead hand!
More Good News: The SpamCon Foundation (Score:2)
This afternoon,I found a link to the SpamCon Foundation [spamcon.org], whose mission is "to protect email as a viable communication medium by reducing the amount of unwanted and unsolicited email, or "spam", that crosses private networks, while ensuring that wanted and requested email reaches its recipients."
If you hate SPAM, and if you're reading this thread, you probably do, you may want to check it out.
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:5)
But you have the situation wrong. The law does not ban spam; the right of people to send spam is preserved. It makes it illegal to send spam if you:
IOW, it makes it illegal to send fraudulent spam. There is no constitutionally protected right to engage in fraud, so this is not an attack on free speech.
Maybe now... (Score:2)
Interstate Commerce My A$$ (Score:2)
- Hillary5tf4ed2 FREE PORN FOR LIFE!! (phaiboand1)
- Natash2wsdrf5 FREE FREE FREE (auxivakev1)
- pvpacman@wildemail.c... Refinancing? Save big! Find great low rates n...
- jw@accessone.com Grant Information
- gina_craving@yahoo.c... Diane Thought You Might Have Erectile Dysfunc...
- no_more_bills@yahoo.... WIPE OUT DEBT IN 3 MINUTES! *FREE DETAILS*
- FREE900nos@900.com Earn Big Money With Your Own FREE 900# !
- FREE900nos@900.com Earn Big Money With Your Own FREE 900# !
- edwards@aol.com Forbidden Internet Secrets Exposed 3gj3r
- online.approval@eart... YOUR DREAM HOME COME TRUE! *FREE DETAILS*
- toonaphish@fuse.net Fire The Creep You Call Your Boss!! 21423
- M15760@ballsy.net Make Money Working At Home
- ybhot@iol.it Missing You
- host@nyc.com This Program makes you an Web Detective!
- sarahmichelle@guzeli... Britney on Tour
- vegasjackpot@excite.... Congratulations You've Won
- hnwholesaler@371.net Best computer deals ever: 800MHz system 379$,...
- brokerage@4931.com MAKE $1 MILLION ANNUALLY AS A LOAN BROKER!
- no_more_bills@yahoo.... WIPE OUT DEBT IN 3 MINUTES! *FREE DETAILS*
- whteri74543@earthlin... Increase Business 30% To 100% Just By...
- FreeLapTop8@excite.c... MCSE 2000 & CCNA Laptop Included *$10.00 Mont...
- cabrahammassuttier@c... Make More Money! 25496
This is probably familiar to most of us. This is just a small sample of what I routinely get each week. Bastards. Spammers should be taken out back and shot. Washington's law might not be perfect but it's a good start.Its amazing what happens when... (Score:2)
I mean the easiest way to get a clue is to understand the issues by seeing them first hand. It would not surprise me if this is the start of a flood of laws to ban inappropriate email in various different jurisdictions. It doesn't take many court judgements to destroy the profitability of this and substantially moderate the frequency of junk emails. But there are always going to be some I suspect.
This is NOT a major money spinner on the internet; but there is money to be made right now. Regretably.
What about servers that aren't in Washington... (Score:2)
Or servers that say they aren't in Washington; but are? Make money fast that way!
(FYI there is a standard for identifying physical location for servers, but it isn't well implemented.)
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
Scared of guns? Good. Don't get one.
If you'd like to read a scholarly bit from the other camp, check out what Gary Kleck [guncite.com] has to say.
Re:You are all happy that.... (Score:2)
Quick easy good.
Ha.. "the best of their ability" my foot (Score:3)
I've gotten a couple of emails with this in it at my university account. How mind bendingly dumb would the filterer have to be to miss @u.WASHINGTON.edu addresses
Go Dawgs
common Sense (Score:4)
I wonder when someone will get a ruling against that.
Having seen some late night infomercials, I suspect that an awful lot of the money made in spam is made by the people who promote systems to advertise using spam, and that most small time operators do not get much out of it anyhow.
Check out the Vinny the Vampire [eplugz.com] comic strip
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:3)
Merriam-Webster [m-w.com] defines fraud as this--
Main Entry: fraud
Pronunciation: 'frod
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English fraude, from Middle French, from Latin fraud-, fraus Date: 14th century
1 a : DECEIT, TRICKERY; specifically : intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to part with something of value or to surrender a legal right b : an act of deceiving or misrepresenting : TRICK
2 a : a person who is not what he or she pretends to be : IMPOSTOR; also : one who defrauds : CHEAT b : one that is not what it seems or is represented to be
synonym see DECEPTION, IMPOSTURE
Now, reading the link in the story (the ruling), it appears this guy was putting false return addresses (this falls under the definition of "fraud"), listing false subject lines in his messages (also "fraud"), and when he DID list valid e-mail addresses, they were usually shut down within 1-2 days because the hoster realized it was a spam account.. he knew this happened, and he never checked the accounts or removed people from his listing (since I'm assuming he made some offer to remove people, that would be "fraud" too).
Maybe your version of "fraud" is different from mine, but I wouldn't say it's an awfully strong word for the situation.
Is SPAM speech? (Score:5)
Or is sending it an exercise of a First Amendment right? That's debatable...unless you view it as humor, the typical "Make $$$ fast while growing your dick six inches and seeing Britney Spears naked, and also lose fifty pounds in a week" email isn't an act of profound creative expression...and while you have a right to say what you like, do you have a right to force me to listen to it? Do I get a choice as to whether my server accepts the message and shows it to me? In most situations I don't - I'm even paying to have your "speech" inflicted on myself. Does your (and note here I'm using "you" as a generic pronoun, not referring to you the author of the above post personally) right to free speech include forcing your email on me, if only for the time it takes the server to apply my filters and send it to my Trash folder? Or is SPAM really just commercial junk, and thus subject to regulation like any other sort of commercial junk?
That said, you raise an interesting point about it being censorship (though I'm not sure I buy it), one not often considered, and I hope you get modded up for it...this needs to generate some discussion.
Uhh... (Score:2)
This is not even mentioning that since right now it is LEGAL for me to send spam to everyone on the planet while spoofing every piece of header info possible, Washington can do nothing about it even if I travel there.
Im not a spammer (Score:2)
This doesn't affect me.
Re:At last! A victory! (Score:2)
I Won A Lawsuit Against A Spammer [slashdot.org]
California Passes anti-spam Legislation [slashdot.org]
California ISP Sues Spammer and Wins [slashdot.org]
I enjoyed reading these back when they were posted and I'm sure you'll enjoy them now if you missed them then. There does seem to be a pattern emerging here... I might have to move to California
--CTH
This affects you because I live in WA (Score:2)
Which means I can sue your butt off in court if you spam me. It is illegal, as the ruling shows, for you to send me email with false or misleading subject or other header lines.
This does not stop you from sending me an email with your true From: line and a valid Subject: line (e.g. Subject: Buy my book of spam tips!) and full correct routing info and valid reply emails. You are also required to drop me from your list of email addresses when I reply to you saying do so, and never ever ever send me spam again or sell or give my email address to another enterprise.
It's called opt-out, deal with it.
The real truth about servers and ISPs in WA (Score:2)
you are subject to civil prosecution and all court costs and reasonable fees as detailed in the law.
The charge is per spam email sent. So, when someone spams my email lists, I can collect $400 from them for each spam. And eskimo.com can collect tens of thousands of dollars.
Plus court and collection costs.
Send me spam oh please oh please (Score:2)
Operators are standing by!
You may not think you're a spammer, but ... (Score:2)
Wrong. Just as a corporation based in Maryland can sue your butt off for pirating their software when you live in Florida, even if you bought it in Georgia and then moved to Florida, I can take you to small claims court and win a legal enforceable judgement against you and then attach your assets under common law.
It's illegal to send spam to Washington residents. Or Washington ISPs.
Deal with it.
Re:The real truth about servers and ISPs in WA (Score:2)
Which means I get eight judgements against the spamster who was trolling for valid email addresses.
I can't sue for all the list members. But I can pass on the instructions for how to sue to the ones who are Washington State residents, which, since they're email lists for the Pacific Northwest, is about three-fourths of the list members.
Yeah, that means you could be out tens of thousands of dollars from just spamming me eight times. Plus the ISP can get a judgement against you. Plus court costs for each of these.
Deal with it.
Local news on the spam bill (links) (Score:2)
The second story is here [nwsource.com], from the Seattle Post-Intelligencer.
Incorrect about side effects (Score:2)
None of these are problems, in that you're not trying to use it for commercial purposes. But you're still a lying cheat and should just photocopy it and post it on all the telephone polls - oh, wait, that's illegal in Seattle.
Anyway, you're exempted. But if you try to fundraise in the spam, you're guilty.
Spammer vs interstate commerce (Score:2)
The first ligitimate criticism I've seen yet (Score:2)
The fine line to tread will IMO hinge on the idea that individuals should have a right to privacy, but corporations shouldn't. Just as commercial speech is secondary to individual speech, commercial privacy -- in the form of anonymous solicitation -- should be secondary to individual privacy.
Unfortunately, I don't have a lot of faith in our current system recognizing so fine a distinction.
Re:How long will it last? (Score:3)
Re:The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
IMHO this is completely fair....
Law bans most speech (Score:3)
1. It justifies and allows spams.
Just give a valid email address and a header that is true and you're good to go!
2. It creates an incredible burden on the spammers who were just sanctioned
According to the court in the ruling, the reason why the spammers addresses, which he gave, were not valid were because they were canceled.
Sorry, but that's just stepping on both sides of the fence. The court argues that real info makes buisness easier, but if spammers give their real info out, their accounts are canceled. Now, I'm not saying that spammers should be allowed to spam, but it's wrong for the government to have laws and rulings that say one thing and do another.
In effect, the Washington law reads as a ban on spam (You have to use your real info, and if your account goes away, your problem!). But, that's not what the court argues, and it's not the intention of the lawmaker.
I would much rather see a better more thought-out law. Additionally, it makes it impossible for the spammers (however bad they are) to comply - if you spam, you lose your account, and if you spam without account you violate the law. It's great from a logical way to ban spammers, which I love, but it's wrong from the premise that our legal system should be honest.
Just have the law say "spam is banned." It's bad that they have different more confusing words with the same effect. Boo.
A quick legal query... (Score:2)
Does this mean that Washington residents that get those FREE PORN!!!!!!!! emails that always cost can now sue?
DocWatson
In Other News (Score:2)
"What could be more newsworthy than the law being enforced and protected?" said slashdot writer Rob Malda. "I mean, this sort of stuff is in the same league as proving evolution and releasing a new Kernel. The protection of the law doesn't happen every day, and that's why I put it on Slashdot.
When questioned about the court system and other legislative jurisdiction, Malda muttered some words under his breath and scurried away to a nearby terminal.
At last! A victory! (Score:2)
That said, this does bode very badly for individual states doing anti-social things within themselves and the Feds being powerless to stop it...aren't I just the optimist!
43rd Law of Computing:
The beginning of the end for free speech. (Score:2)
What's even more interesting is that this is, in some respects, an internet censorship law. I don't believe that the government should have a hand in regulating what passes over the internet, and this is just the beginning, folks. This law sets a precedent.
By passing a law that prevents the sending of some kinds of email, the government is limiting the free speech of both individuals and companies. Whether you agree with SPAM or not, it's a constitutionally protected right of the sender, just like gun ownership.
The only thing that will truely solve the SPAM problem are market forces. When people decide that having to relay spam is costing them more money than it would to fight said abuse of their systems, we will see unsolicted commercial email disappear pretty darn quick. In the meantime, the government just gets in the way and trys to speed a process that really can't be controlled by any one entity.