Louisiana Tries Anti-Spam Law 226
chompyZ writes "The legislative battle against SPAMMING heats-up as a new law became effective yesterday in Louisiana. According to KPLC, the new law requires senders of sexually explicit e-mail to include a note in the subject line, "adv-adult," to let unsuspecting internet users know ahead of time. The Olympian reports that Louisiana officials actually think this will be effective... leaves you wondering if "officials" have any clue how SPAMMERS operate..."
Great (Score:5, Funny)
adv-adult: Enlarge your penis
Way to go, I just don't know if this way leads somewhere:)
Re:Great (Score:4, Funny)
But if they had expanded it beyond only adv-adult it would have been so much better.
Then I could have deleted my scam-419 mail together with the adv-adult mail.
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
Spam ruins the online experience in the same way that mass-marketed commercialism does, and I hate to see the Internet become a thing of money and corporate power and not of freedom and individual power, but imposing restrictions doesn't seem to address the issue. However, maybe the problem will always be impossible to solve, because with freedom comes greed, and with freedom comes abuse...
But don't forget to try our new Suction Pump!!! Garanteed results!!! An inch every week!!! Girls will beg for you!!! Order from our website!!!
Re:Great (Score:5, Insightful)
This is true of any society. This is not anything new, as society changed from small family groups to tribes to cities to city states to nations, more laws and force had to be applied to keep things moving smoothly.
The challenge isn't keeping a state of "quasi-anarchy" at all costs, and whining about your rights. The challenge is taking responsibility and tutoring your elected officials on how law, technology and society intersect. Personally, I think there should be some regulation on unsolicited commercial email. Back in the good ole days I could actually use my email, now I get 20-25 spams a day vs about 1 or 2 actual useful e-mails. Personally, I find that a great restriction on my behavior and a burden to my resources.
Re:Great (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
(But, I am rather surprised to see how everyday-normal slashdotters are... there seem to be almost no anarchists, extremi
The Courts vs. Legislative branches (Score:2)
Well, this is exactly why the process of making laws is so difficult. It'd be nice if we didn't need any laws, and people would just act nice! The reality is that people don't act nice, and powerful people beat up on or take advantage of less powerful people. In theory, laws are written to protect us from the violent or dishonest. But, it's impossible to write laws that always ap
Re:Great (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Great (Score:2)
We can solve these problems with technology instead of legislation. I am certain that automated filters + sender-side storage + encryption can solve all of the current problems with email. The *only* challenge is uprooting the established SMTP protocol. I believe that's infeasible. We just have to introduce a n
Re:Great (Score:2)
You're right. Which is surprising since you are so completely off base. The law in question DOES NOT effect what you can say in email. The law simply requires that certain types of messages (specifically, adult-oriented advertising) be accurately described in the subject. This DOES NOT limit your freedom of sp
Re:Great (Score:2)
Do you insure that when you speak to someone in person, that your conversation's headers accurately reflect the content of that conversation?
Spam laws do affect freedom of speech, in the same manner as "Fire" vs. "Theater". But as spam does not have the same direct impact on public safety as does shouting "Fire" in the class
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
Making laws against spam is not censorship. Stop acting like it.
Re:Great (Score:3, Insightful)
But on the restriction/behavior controll vs. freedom subject, and without going too much into the commercialism debate; I do belive that this could have a _limited_ effect within LA. (without knowing much about LA)
But what I don't understand is why they allow spam (as in unsolicted advertising via smtp) anyway.
I have yet to see any good arguments why they can not ban sending out *thousands* of emails.
I don't really beli
Correction to my post (Score:2)
I guess the correct word is snailmail not "sendmail"...
Re:Great (Score:2)
Go work technical support at an ISP, if you've never done so already. Now imagine having to explain to customers that their grandmother's mail is probably getting rejected because "our mail system ha
Re:Great (Score:2)
Yeah, OK, so why can't we break into spammers' systems? It's not a matter of "greed". Them being "greedy" is like Larry Flynt being "obscene", it's just a matter of opinion. However, if there are such things as rules, let them be equal for everybody. If spammers have loopholes by which they can break the rules, then I want loopholes, too! If spammers can abduct email relays, I want to be legally allowed to break
Vigilante justice (Score:3, Funny)
Fine. Earlier today I caught some asshole trying to run his spam through my mail server. The headers also showed him forging email addresses in my own domain name.
My "own code of ethics" is to pound this guy into a bloody pulp, then pound him some more. I doubt that you'll find many people in this situation who disagree with this attitude - this jerk is trying to profit by abusing my good name! He doesn't care that his
Re:Vigilante justice (Score:2)
On second thought, no.
On first thought, yes.
In the heat of the moment, you do what seems best at the time. Law must be more deliberate and must take the time to cool down.
If the net is unsafe for spammers, that's fine by me. I suspect that a bit of vigilanteism will be more effective than legislation. Retribution as it's happening is methinks rather less susceptible to forging and spoofing.
my server, my rules. (Score:2)
Re:Great (Score:4, Insightful)
Oh, come on. Does the requirement to honestly label the content of a -commercial- message really affect your freedom that much? Businesses -do not- deserve the same rights that private individuals do. As an individual, I believe I have a right to control what mail arrives in my mailbox. That right trumps your right to send me whatever spam you may wish to.
I think it's high time that more first-ammendment acivists (and I consider myself almost a first-ammendment radical) realize that along with freedom-of-speech comes an equally important right to "freedom not to be forced to listen to someone elses freedom of speech". Historically, there was no need for such a law, since you could always go elsewhere if someone was saying something you didn't chjose to listen to. As media becomes more & more closely intertwined with our lives, however, it's becoming impossible to ignore content that you want to. It's important to remember that the proposed law does not prevent you from sending me as much junk mail as you want, it just allows me to easily filter out any messages that I don't want to recieve before they reach my inbox. Laebling laws such as this one (along with adequately severe penalties to ensure compliance) are the ideal way of deailing with the problem. It allows your freedom-of-speech, and me my freedom-to-ignore.
Re:Great (Score:2)
Hippie.
I AM a LA resident... (Score:2)
Re:I AM a LA resident... (Score:5, Funny)
Predefined filter in newer mailers:
move all mssages where subjects contain adv-adult
to folder Personal Folders/Scientific matters against world extinction
and next advertising will be something like protect your self against mom raiding your computer. Use
Re:Great (Score:2)
Then again, I'm sure that there is someone who will sue because of his 2-inch penis.
At least it is a try... (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:At least it is a try... (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not a step in the right direction at all. It's a step toward what the spammers want - a legal backdrop to claim that what they're doing is ok. A step in the right direction would be to stop spamming, not to label their spam so they can then claim it's legal for them to steal.
Re:At least it is a try... (Score:3, Insightful)
One of the things it also may provide is a basis for prosecution. Most spammers will not comply because they know its easy to filter it out, and non-compliance is a reason to prosecute. Even though the prosecution may not be s
eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
"Great offer at Wal-Mart, 2 for 1 Washing powder"
more acceptable than
"Great offer at Sex-Mart, 2 for 1 Vibrators"
?
Re:eh? (Score:2)
"Great offer at Wal-Mart, 2 for 1 Washing powder"
more acceptable than
"Great offer at Sex-Mart, 2 for 1 Vibrators"
?
Taking what I said in full context (although I dont see the insight) I have no problem with Sexmart sending emails under the same circumstances:
1. You are a current customer that has not opted out.
2. You are not a customer, but you opted in to THAT company specificially (hense, a genuine optin, not a purchased optin from a list)
3. You are an ex customer of sexmart, and someone hack
Re:eh? (Score:3, Insightful)
No, what's acceptable is very clearly defined and has been for decades. The spammers try to pretend otherwise and enlist net-illiterate dupes to spread their obfuscations, and it's really sad.
It's ok to send commercial email. It's ok to send unsolicitied email. It's ok to send bulk email.
It's not ok to send email which is both bulk and unsolicited. It's as simple as that. All mass mailing lists must have proper procedures in place to make sure that they include only addresses that have explicitly asked
Re:eh? (Score:2)
It is not that simple, there is no federal law with enough teeth that defines it clearly enough. (which is why STATES are creating laws) IMHO, we need stronger legislation that ALLOWS commercial email, th
Re:eh? (Score:2)
What you don't understand is that there is no need for a legal definition of spam, it can be and is defined in terms of contracts and custom already. And the US federal government doesn't have jurisdiction over the internet, neither do the states. It's a worldwide extraterritorial phenomenon.
Now I would personally have no problem with a simple amendment to the US junk fax law making it clear that it does indeed apply to spam. I would have no problem with such a law in any country. But you and I and anyon
Re:At least it is a try... (Score:2)
No, it's exactly the right way to handle things. This law gives you an easy way to filter spam accurately, at your ISP, while not creating a slippery-slope for freedom-of-speech issues. Because this makes filtering spam at the ISP level easy & accurate, you can prevent spammers from stealing from you by just blocking there email. Severe non-compliance penalties help ensure that the process works.
The on
Re:At least it is a try... (Score:2)
No, you're wrong on both counts. There is no 'freedom of speech issue' with spam, and filtering doesn't prevent the theft.
This law is idiotic, and very much a step in the wrong direction. If you want a legal solution, ask your congressman to propose an amendment to the junk spam act making it explicit that it applies to email.
Amen. (Score:2)
Right on. Some people are whining about "free speech" problems of other methods and slippery slopes. Others see a "thinning out" of advertisers and easy filtering in some kind of utopian administration of laws like this. All o
Re:At least it is a try... (Score:3, Insightful)
Spammers don't make any attempt to obey the rules we already have, why do you think a bunch of confused legislation would change that?
The people backing the idea of legislation on spam include the really big spammers, and this is the danger. Any national legislation is going to have nice big holes for 'legitimate' corporate spammers to continue to spam, while attempting to put their more entrepeneurial, less established competitors out of business. This is not acceptable at all.
Re:At least it is a try... (Score:2)
Of the thousands of spam I've received today, not one has it. The law is completely useless, and not worth what it cost me to have it printed, debated and passed.
Re:At least it is a try... (Score:2)
The problem with this law is that for it to be effective, it really needs to be national. In my opinion, it is the best possible way to prevent spam, but for it to work, it needs sever
IANA US resident (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:IANA US resident (Score:2)
Then we'd see... (Score:5, Funny)
Body:
Fr33 g0at pr0n c!ick h3re!
donotspam.gov??? (Score:5, Funny)
Re:donotspam.gov??? (Score:5, Funny)
What about offshore spammers (Score:5, Insightful)
Hmm, just got a new porn email, from Pythonvideo, up in Canada. Hope those guys have a large travel budget.
Re:What about offshore spammers (Score:3, Interesting)
Unless the spam you get is actually in Chinese (etc.), in most cases these are actually American spammers buying offshore "bullet-proof" hosting at premium prices in an attempt to prevent being tracked down and to prevent their sites from being shut down. Offshore hosting does not make one immune from prosecution.
Tracking them down is actually
Of course spammers won't comply.... (Score:2, Interesting)
yeah (Score:5, Interesting)
That would be really helpful if I not only didn't have a spam filter, but took the time to read every spam that didn't have a pornographic title.
Of course, this only applies to louisianans who send non-anonymous pornographic spam to other louisianans.
New Laws? (Score:5, Insightful)
Perhaps they need to also make it a crime for an individual in the state to purchase a product or service from a spammer...
How about this? (Score:2)
The state should be allowed to report publicly on those who purchase products from spammers. How would you feel if your driver's license picture was printed in a billboard with the information "this guy bought penis elargement pills and viagra online... he has a microsoft in his pants!"
Just a hook (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Just a hook (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Just a hook (Score:3, Informative)
It might not work...but... (Score:5, Funny)
How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s)? (Score:5, Interesting)
-no more execution of the mentally retarded (already mandated by the Supreme Court)
-allows telemarketers to call you if you "are referred to them by someone you know"
-increase penalties against drunk drivers who kill or seriously injure people while driving with over a 0.2 blood alcohol level (as if attempted/ murder is not serious enough to get life in prison anyway)
-no credit card company can give out anything of value to students unless they also get a brochure
Some of the new laws make sense, but again there are enough of weird and nonsensical laws that I wonder if such would make it to the legislative table, much less get passed, if not for the election coming up in about a year's time. Until then I await the first case of a spammer getting tried under this law if he/she/it/they are operating from another state or country.
Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s (Score:2)
Interesting. From email spammers, this is not news of course, but for telemarketers (something we don't have a problem with in my country, thank heavens) that means that they still must make quite a lot of money if they can afford tons of international calls. Maybe it is really cheap to call Canada-
Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s (Score:4, Informative)
Re:How do they plan on enforcing this stupid law(s (Score:2)
For me (Score:2)
Good spam defence... no way to be correct (Score:4, Interesting)
Not that any of this will be effective... but if they have to legislate something...
Re:Good spam defence... no way to be correct (Score:2, Funny)
One law in place already I'm surprised people haven't used to sue their way to rich & fame is false advertising. If I ordered from each and every one of the penis enlargement spams I should be 1/4 mile or more now in length "guaranteed"! Hey...it didn't say "not cumulative with other enlargement products".
Re:Good spam defence... no way to be correct (Score:3, Interesting)
Not true.
Nobody is saying that "you must satisfy all constraints for all users" - they're saying that "for state X, you must use contstraint X, and for state Y, you must use constraint Y, etc.", which is not impossible at all.
The spammer just has to be car
Re:Good spam defence... no way to be correct (Score:2)
And at a stroke, you have either prohibited legitimate bulk mailings (such as genuine opt-in mailing lists) or you have mandated the collection and retention of residential data that are affirmatively associated with a given email address.
The first one would be overturned by a big restraint of trade action.
The second, ironically, would probably be welcomed
Re:Good spam defence... no way to be correct (Score:2)
adv-adult (Score:5, Funny)
You can't mod me down! I had adv-adult in the subject line!
Re:adv-adult (Score:2, Funny)
The problem (Score:2, Insightful)
If it did work, it would make filtering "adult" spam very easy. And I would find it gratifying merely to see a few spammers behind bars, or at least fined o
what problem? (Score:3, Interesting)
What? Why not everyone? Speed in LA, get a ticket. Thumb you nose at that ticket, go to jail. I don't see how spammers sending email to LA that breaks this law would be any different than violating a local speed limit. Spam me, get fined. Scofflaw the fine, go to jail. Seems easy enough, even if the vast majority of spammers get away wit
Effectiveness... (Score:2)
The more laws a spammer breaks, the more time he will spend in jail... Hopefully, else the spammer will have to pay a bigger sum, which is good too.
White list (Score:5, Funny)
This sounds about right (Score:3, Interesting)
how i blocked USA spam (Score:5, Interesting)
as 99.9% of spam i recieve is usa based and iam not a USA resident or have any buisness there i managed to block it all simply by filtering the $ sign, works great and hasnt created a false positive in 2years of using this method
Re:how i blocked USA spam (Score:2)
I AM a Louisiana resident (Score:2, Interesting)
What? (Score:2)
And in the meantime, non-explicet Spam continues to pile up.
Good job Louisiana.
Yep. (Score:2, Funny)
Re:What? (Score:2)
Qui bono? Find & fine THEM! (Score:3, Interesting)
That'll make the clients go away and kill the spam industry. Let'em use another means of advertising because spamming will cost them tens of tousands of dollars a copy.
Re:Qui bono? Find & fine THEM! (Score:3, Insightful)
Now, I just need to sit back until my competition is fined out of existence. You didn't email it? Oh, well, you're the beneficiary, so we don't believe you.
As a Louisianan... (Score:5, Funny)
By "decrease", of course, I mean "exponentially increase unabated just as it has been doing for the last several years".
Why is this different than snail mail? (Score:4, Insightful)
Why are we shouting? y z chbawqhxebt (Score:2, Funny)
We don't HAVE TO BE JUST LIKE THE SPAMMERS (in only six months!)
Click to remove [signmeupformore.com] and never hear from this /. user again oulsscs tyhecfz gy pz
kephqfh jt qwuixcdkejmpki bk niomleh n
t u
Here's a novel idea (Score:4, Interesting)
Excuse me, I have a question... (Score:3, Funny)
It would seem to me that I have to do something like this:
Subject: ADV: enlarge your penis [adv-adult]
I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.
I wonder if it's still legal to send
Subject: ADV: adv-adultery webcams!
The 'adv' still looks nasty, but I can't think of any word that ends in 'adv'.
Re:Excuse me, I have a question... (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm sorry, a what?!?!?! . There really is no such thing.
how am I supposed to send both spam complying with the Louisiana law (including "adv-adult") and the Michigan law (containing "ADV:" as the first four characters?)
Simple - you find out in which state the recipient lives, and use the appropriate subject.
Can't do that? then maybe you shouldn't be spamming.
I hope no new state laws are introduced, these are making it really tough to stay profitable.
I think that's the po
heh. (Score:2)
I hope all 50 states adopt different laws so that your subject must contain 50 different spellings of advertisment in English, Spanish and French. Then I hope the Federal government simply outlaws the practice so that you have to go get a job.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
The internet and the Law (Score:4, Insightful)
Actually it leaves me wondering if you have any idea how the law operates. As silly as this legislation may at first appear, you have to realize that (mostly) nothing is illegal unless there is a LAW to make it so. Yes, spam is already illegal in many states, but creating a law where spammers must insert adv-adult in their subject line is another point where would-be prosecutors can trip spammers up with, thus increasing penalties and even prison time. Its like when a murder is really heinous, prosecutors dont just try someone for murder 1, they get them on just about every count thats feasible to the case.
Re:The internet and the Law (Score:2)
/dev/null (Score:4, Insightful)
So let's say you limit those in the US from sending you spam, what are you going to do when they start relaying from borked out servers abroad... Better yet what can you do. Waste taxpayer money tracking down spammers abroad... Let's see $5000 to track them, another $1000 to bring them down here to face the music, $100,000k miminum for some sort of farce trial for something you could have taken care of with spamassassin.
Boy oh boy I don't know who is dumber the politician who passed this law or the spammer I hit d on using mutt.
so what are we gonna do? (Score:3, Insightful)
There is no wondering here, we all know they don't have a clue in the world. But whats being done about that? I don't see any huge initiatives to educate our law makers into how these things really work. So what can Slashdot do to educate these people as to how spam really works?
Organ donors (Score:2)
This law worked so well in California... (Score:4, Funny)
In the first months after the law went into effect the percentage of spam attacks with "ADV" or ADV:Adult" in the subject line was a full 5% on average. This compared to the months before it became law, where only 1 out of 20 spam attacks contained these in the subject line.
This in the state with over 1/10th of the U.S.'s population.
Mozilla Thunderbird automatically filters spam (Score:2, Interesting)
I find it a little scary that small programs like Firebird and Thunderbird are infinitely more usable than MS products while costing infintely less. seems like some kind of conservation law is being violated.
Beware - tampered article. (Score:2, Informative)
* Require welfare recipients to immediately begin looking for work once they receive their ass cheeks and to learn how to write a resume or prepare for an interview for a minimum number of hours each week or risk losing their benefits.
(sorry for reposting but this one has links) (Score:2)
Re:(sorry for reposting but this one has links) (Score:2)
Re:This is a "good thing" (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Louisiana gets email? (Score:2)
Re:Why is "SPAM" in caps? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Why is "SPAM" in caps? (Score:3, Informative)