California Tries Spam Ban 556
Schlemphfer writes "Spammers have likely received their biggest setback yet, when California governor Gray Davis today signed a bill outlawing all unsolicited email sent to and from the state. Two things about this new law stand out: first, it puts the burden on senders to prove that they are sending solicited email. Second, it bans the entire practice of spamming, with no loopholes at all like allowing messages with ADV: in the subject. Keep in mind California has the world's fifth largest economy, and they are planning to enforce the law with fines amounting to $1000 per each piece of spam. This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st."
Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a huge issue with the volume of spam potentially involved. In the case of "fraudulent spam", who's going to investigate it, since the burden is on the sender?
Not that I'm defending spammers, I think the law is a good idea, but if the execution is flawed, it could be short-lived.
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:4, Insightful)
Good move, CA.
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Funny)
How about we compromise and just have:
"a zealous group of vigilantes, killing spammers."?
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Interesting)
the punishment for annoyance is death? hm.
i submit that the gross overractions to what is, essentially, a minor irritation is going to have some serious backlashes. viz:
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Interesting)
In addition to being an annoyance, spam is also theft to the tune of billions of dollars per year [hollandsentinel.com].
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Spam is worse than most other crimes. For example, murder is a particularly bad crime, but if it isn't you or anyone you know who's being murdered, it doesn't really affect you. Spam, on the other hand, is happening to you.
Theft vs. Distraction - be honest (Score:3, Insightful)
It *is* a serious problem for email service provider
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill would instead prohibit a person or entity located in California from initiating or advertising in unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisements.
So:
1. Not commercial. Flame away in private.
2. The "spoofs" would need to include some commercial message or invitation to buy a product. If that spoof doesn't include a commercial offer, case closed. If it does include a commercial offer, it would be rather easy to show whether or not a business relationship exists between the acutal sender and the commercial entity on whose behalf the email was (allegedly) sent or spoofed (i.e. compensation was exchanged or not). In short: cuo bono (who profits?).
3. Commerical endeavors have always suffered more restrictions than non-commercial ones. This does not jeapordize that clear line in any way, shape, or form. Witness the anti-telemarketing Do Not Call registries that apply to commercial interests but not non-profits or politicians. There is no slippery slope here, please move along.
Oh, and kindly bite my minorly-irritated shiny metal ass
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Insightful)
I am not the parent poster but I read the law and I believe it is narrow-minded and broadly written.
It is fine for gov't to try to regulate spam in the short term before it gets totally out of hand and before a more long-term technical solution is widely adopted. Where this bill lacks in inside understanding is how it defines spam. The bill prohibits anyone in CA (or anyone sending an e-mail to anyone in CA) to send an "Unsolicited commercial e-mail advertisement
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Informative)
Good. As a small ISP owner, I purchase things like Co-location services, computer equipment and occasionally software and use it to produce websites and applications. I get calls and emails *constantly* from businesses that take the time to find out my name and contact information and try to sell me things. ISP Services, software, etc. I tell these people nearly instantly that I'm not interested in buying their services (in my experience, anyone that needs to advertise their services like this is only interested in ripping people off) and I tell them to remove me from their lists. Others keep calling. 3 or 4 of them every single day. The email is worse. I would love to be able to slap these people with fines when they try to peddle their crap to me and waste my time.
Roughly 90% of my snail mail box is junk mail. Yet I don't see any politicians jumping on bills like these that would outlaw sending bulk or individual "commercial" letters.
Again, I wish they would.
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, there is of course a California constitution. I'm not very familiar with the constitutional law of California, but it's certainly possible that Art. I, Sec. 2 might be applicable -- mere unsolicited email may not mean abuse.
As for the somewhat more important federal constitution, it affords protection to very nearly all speech. Obscenity, fraud, libel, and slander are the traditional ar
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Funny)
I kinda liked the "hunting down" part too.
I think there is potential here for a popular new sport. Rather than "Hunting for Bambi" [snopes.com] we could have "Hunting for Spambi".
I know quite a few people who would be willing to fork over for some quality time with a gun and Mr. Enlarge-Your-Breasts/Schlong.
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Insightful)
We should organize representatives in many countries around the world to help track down these spammers that are out of the US. Then find a way to take them to court in their country by their violation of US law. If they are sending for someone in the US, they should be able to turn over theeir manes and an affadavit stating thay were spamming in proxy for a US company. Then go after the US company and run them up the flagpole. The representative who worked to resolve the problem would get a
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Funny)
I've heard suggestions that perhaps American ISPs should charge a penny a message to simply make spam too expensive. Unfortunately, that won't work because of the sheer volume of spam that arrives from overseas, and U.S-based spammers that make use of fo
Unemployed Dot-Commers and Lawyers (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are so wrong. My home email which I manage myself is mostly spam free - I see maybe one piece of spam a week. My work email is full of internal communications, mail from marketing, mail from customers, status reports, and so on. I cannot filter that mail aggresively and see 10 to 20 pieces of spam a day.
I know exactly how to deal with spam, but because of the use and exposure of that email address those options are unavailable.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:2)
I guess if you've been attacked by return-address hell, you could prove you didn't send the emails from your server logs (or the logs from your ISP).
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Interesting)
Follow the money! (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:2)
That said it is a step in the right direction as it will reduce the amount of spam by the number of spammers that do not want to live in Cambodia etc.
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Funny)
What's to stop the dishonest from forging e-mail headers and the rest, to fine a company or individual out of existance?
Yes, what is to stop a group of people from getting, oh, say, SCO fined out of existence? Surely, I do not know. That would be a bad thing, though. Faking spam from SCO and getting them fined out of existence. Yes, a bad, naughty thing. Naughty, naughty.
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Informative)
Who can enforce this? The Geeks know... (Score:3, Insightful)
"Step 3: Geeks Profit!
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Informative)
Mozillas junk mail filter is the best solution I've found.
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Informative)
99.9% of the spammers fall into one of the above two categories. There are very few spammers who fake headers AND have a real name/address attached to their business.
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Interesting)
Or this example of someone who has spent $10,000 so far going after a spammer, and has yet to receive anything more than a court settlement but he's still out 10 grand. http://archives.seattletimes.nwsource.com/c [nwsource.com]
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:2)
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:5, Interesting)
OT: Jury Duty (Score:3, Insightful)
Speaking as a former member of several juries, and as the foreman of one of those... Some of us are smart enough to get out of it if we want to, but realize that it's our civic duty.
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Interesting)
One common way is that when the person clicks on the link to buy, it buys with a special signature.
Okay, so I forward the spam to the District Attorney, saying "it's spam". His office waits until it has 100 copies of the spam, and collects all the copies it can. Then it goes ahead and "buys" the item, tracking the IP Addres, codes, and everything.
Then they subpoena the records
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:3, Interesting)
I believe it would be -really- hard to prove in court that your mail server was hacked if said hacking was done by somebody competent...
It's easy (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Can we really enforce this? (Score:2, Interesting)
Woohoo! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Woohoo! (Score:2)
Re:Woohoo! (Score:3, Insightful)
Your logic and your argument are tragically flawed.
State Resident? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:State Resident? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:State Resident? (Score:2)
Re:State Resident? (Score:3, Informative)
" (b) "California electronic mail address" or "California e-mail
address" means any of the following:
(1) An e-mail address furnished by an electronic mail service
provider that sends bills for furnishing and maintaining that e-mail
address to a mailing address in this state.
(2) An e-mail address ordinarily accessed from a computer located
in this state.
(3) An e-mail address furnished to a resident of this state."
Note especially (2). How hard would it be for me to ordinarily access
Well.... (Score:2, Interesting)
However, prior to January 1st (Score:5, Funny)
Us Californians Don't Need Spam Anyway... (Score:5, Funny)
Miscarriage of Justice (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Miscarriage of Justice == NOT (Score:3, Interesting)
ALL unsolicited mail? (Score:2)
But seriously, Davis is trying to go out with a bang.
Email spam over. (Score:5, Funny)
The Spam companies are going to be RUINED!
Re:Email spam over. (Score:2)
Popup software? I use Mozilla.
Spyware? Adaware.
Netsend? Firewalled with a linux machine.
Hello small claims court! (Score:3, Insightful)
I won't get greedy and just take my chances in small claims
Re:Hello small claims court! (Score:2, Informative)
Burden? (Score:4, Insightful)
On another note, how will the law apply to someone from another state visiting CA and checking their mail? What about a Californian visiting another state checking their mail? What about someone using an out of state ISP to check their mail?
One state banning spam is just going to create a paperwork nightmare. Call me when you have a real solution.
spam is ramping up (Score:5, Funny)
That one, though, was from someone I've never heard of before, asking questions about things discussed on my website. Does that count as solicited or unsolicited?
Re:spam is ramping up (Score:2)
Re:spam is ramping up (Score:3, Insightful)
Did you ask him to send you an email? Nope? Then its unsolicited.
But he got the address off your web page, just like the spammers. So if that makes his solicited, then so are theirs.
The potential for abuse with this loony law is enormous.
Keep laws off the internet, use technology to fix technology.
A good admin can eliminate most spam. A lawyer cant.
Re:spam is ramping up (Score:3, Insightful)
The law is against unsolicited commercial email. Specifically e-mail that is offering a service, product, etc.
The problem with spam, is that a technical solution can be bypassed. The only way to eliminate spam is to bankrupt all the spammers so they cannot afford a 80286 to send spam from.
Re:spam is ramping up (Score:5, Insightful)
Ordinarily, I'd agree with you; the fewer poorly drafted laws, the better. However, in this case, the problem (mostly) isn't technological, it's sociological.
There are a surprising number of very broken people out there who live their day-to-day lives with the maxim, "If it's not expressly illegal, it's perfectly okay." This idea is, of course, hogwash, since it completely ignores unwritten social custom, which often varies regionally.
On the local region known as The Internet, it is the custom that it is impermissible to send unsolicited bulk email, particularly when it is commercial in nature. However, it is not, per se, illegal. So these sociopaths clog the network because, hey, it must be perfectly okay.
Normally, the counterbalancing force to such aberrant behavior is social ostracism or, in extreme cases, pillorying (or equivalent). Spammers are aware of this, and go to great lengths to conceal their identities and escape accountability.
While technical measures can thwart these people, such as widespread deployment of SMTP AUTH, it does nothing to fix the underlying sociopathy. Spammers are already deploying viruses and worms to create a network of open SMTP relays. Who here honestly believes they won't escalate into stealing SMTP AUTH passwords? Hence, spam is mostly a social problem, needing a mostly social solution.
Schwab
Re:spam is ramping up (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:spam is ramping up (Score:2)
That depends -- was it an "electronic mail message initiated for the purpose of advertising or promoting the lease, sale, rental, gift offer, or other disposition of any property, goods, services, or extension of credit."?
Probably not.
Looks fun! (Score:2)
Full text of the article... bah nytimes! (Score:4, Informative)
By SAUL HANSELL
California is trying a deceptively simple approach to the problem of junk e-mail: It is about to ban spam.
Gov. Gray Davis of California signed a bill today that outlaws sending most commercial e-mail to or from the state that the recipient did not explicitly request. That is a far more wide-reaching law than any of the 35 other state laws meant to regulate spam or any of the proposed bills in Congress.
``We are saying that unsolicited e-mail cannot be sent and there are no loopholes,'' said Kevin Murray, the Democratic state senator from Los Angeles who sponsored the bill.
The law would fine spammers $1,000 for each unsolicited message sent up to $1 million for each campaign.
As the nation's most populous state and the home to many large Internet companies, the California bill could well have a significant effect on spam. The bill puts the burden on the sender to determine if the recipient resides in California.
The marketing industry vehemently opposes the law, saying that it will only restrict actions by legitimate marketers and not the rouges who send the most offensive spam.
The burden of complying with the state law, moreover, could well affect nearly all e-mail marketing.
``California represents up to 20 percent of the e-mail that is sent or received,'' said J. Trevor Hughes, the executive director, of the Network Advertising Initiative, a group of technology companies that send e-mail for marketers. ``Instead of trying to segregate the California e-mail addresses, many of our members are going to make the California standard the lowest common denominator.
Thirty-five states have already passed laws meant to regulate spam. But mostly these ban deceptive practices in commercial e-mail - like fake return addresses - and many require that spam be identified with the phrase ``ADV'' in the subject. But these laws do nothing to stop someone from sending advertising by e-mail, so long as it was properly labeled and not deceptive.
Delaware, also, banned sending unsolicited e-mail in 1999. But that law can only be enforced by the state attorney general, who has not taken any action under the statute.
Action under the California law, by contrast, can be brought by the state, by e-mail providers that have to handle spam and by the recipient. The bill's proponents say the right of individuals to file lawsuits should ensure that the bill is enforced, even if state prosecutors have other priorities. Indeed, a similar provision is credited with helping to insure compliance with the federal law against unsolicited faxes.
But at a news conference today, Kathleen Hamilton, the director of California Department of Consumer Affairs, promised that the state was ready to enforce the new law when it takes effect on Jan. 1.
``There will be a focus to make sure that once this law is in effect that advertisers abide by it so consumers and businesses are free from unsolicited spam,'' she said.
Sure Davis could ban penis enlargement spam... (Score:3, Funny)
Good! (Score:2)
pandering? (Score:2)
what ever happened to the philosophy that the government that governs least, is the government that governs best.
Re:pandering? (Score:2)
SCOTUS says (Score:5, Informative)
I mention this simply because spammers will say they have a first amendment right to annoy you because a form of 'speech' is involved, which is bullshit, kinda like how I don't have a first amendment right to stand on your lawn yelling advertisements with a loudspeaker 24/7, even though speech is involved. The first amendment doesn't mean anything is legal so long as some form of speech is in the mix. Spam is illegitimate, unprotected speech--much like kiddie porn and threats of violence.
Re:SCOTUS says (Score:5, Interesting)
To some extent the 'willing' comes from the right to assemble. If speech was not limited by the willingness of the recipient then you could use free speech rights to disrupt an attempt to assemble.
Regulation: How Not to grow your economy (Score:2)
The net effect is to drive tech employers out of his state (few though they are, but they seem to have lots of advertising cash), reducing the funds flowing into the state budget. This isn't a solution, this is realizing you're about to be recalled and screwing the next governor.
Economics (Score:2)
Can any economist explain how these things are measured? For instance, the top economies are often quoted as US, Japan, Germany, Britain, France - but sometimes China is inserted between the US and Japan. I guess that this is because a lot of China's economy goes on feeding their billion peasants, so it could be argued that it doesn't really count - is that what's going on?
Re:Economics (Score:5, Informative)
If California is counted seperately, The US still retains it's 1st ranking, but California takes 5th ahead of France.
On my way (Score:2)
soooooo (Score:3, Funny)
Will it stand up in court? Compare to Washington (Score:3, Interesting)
One judge tried to strike down the law, saying it created too high a burden on businesses to figure out whether an email address belonged to a Washingtonian.
The next judge up the appeals chain said in effect no, the law's just fine, the only "burden" is on companies who lie about their email address, unsubscribe policies and products, and while the law is supposed to facilitate legitimate commerce it doesn't have to cut slack for deception.
If judges in CA follow the same reasoning, the law may not survive challenges.
But is it the right jurisdiction? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:same sender: solicited and unsolcited (Score:3)
California definitely hates business (Score:3, Interesting)
OS flaws (Score:5, Insightful)
So what if someone's computer is hacked (we hear about all kinds of Windows flaws) and used as relaying server for spam (without their knowledge), is the burden on innocent to prove that their computer was hacked or used as mail relay without their knowledge ?
did not the supreme court (Score:4, Insightful)
Otherwise MORE POWER TO HIM..I HATE SPAM...
Full text, history of this bill (Score:5, Informative)
For all you trolls blaming Davis for the actions of the legislature, you can read the actual vote record [ca.gov], and see how the final votes went.
For all you armchair leigslators making guessing about how they define spam, read the bill itself, as enrolled [ca.gov].
OT: It's Now a Formal Term (Score:3, Funny)
The word "Spam" has been codified into law, and is now an official part of the legal lexicon.
Hormel are likely to be annoyed, and the Pythons are probably shaking their heads in utter bewilderment.
Schwab
Novel new approach to politics (Score:5, Insightful)
What's next?
Amnisty for p2p traders?
Caps on insurance hikes?
Regulation of energy to keep costs down?
Actually following the letter and intent of the weed decrimilization law?
As a Californian who isn't too fond of Davis, I have to snicker a bit. So the threat of being kicked out actually does make law makers push to enact laws that the average person wants, instead of pandering to corperations.
Gosh, the next thing you know, Davis will be the champion of providing a quality education.
Meaningless (Score:5, Insightful)
1. Spammers will ignore the law. Which leads to the next point:
2. Laws are meaningless unless enforced. How will it be enforced? When I get hit with spam that violates this law, who do I complain to? Who will investigate my complaint and then pursue and punish the spammers?
3. Where will all the money and resources come from to enforce this law (see point #2 above) -- to actually enforce this law will take FAR more money and resources than anyone realizes or will admit.
And even if significant money and resources are allocated to enforce the law:
4. What about all the spam originating from servers outside the U.S.
Does the recipient have to reside in california? (Score:3, Interesting)
Keep in Mind (Score:3, Funny)
Also keep in mind that we in CA are upwards of $40 billion in the hole, and next year it will be even more. We have a compelling positive incentive to hunt spammers down, skin them alive, and take all their money.
To all the spammers of the world: Watch it fuckbrain, we're from California.
Tastes so nice (Score:5, Funny)
This law could be ruinous to spammers when it takes effect January 1st."
Ruinous to spammers. I love to savor those words. They tickle my tounge as the roll off it so smoothly. I want to say it over and over. Ruinous to spammers. Try it. Say it with me. "Ruinous to spammers". You like that, don't you.
Here's the actual bill (Score:3, Informative)
How innovative (Score:4, Insightful)
We already have a number of laws on the books that can be used to take action against spammers:
How about we get the government to enforce some of the laws listed above instead of passing more? How's that for an innovative idea?
Finally, the European solution (Score:3, Insightful)
It should not be legal to make money with somebody elses resources without their permission. It's that simple, folks.
Too bad they defined it by content not method (Score:3, Insightful)
To survive the courts, you want a definition that maximizes the damage of spam while minimizing any overlap between spam and free speech issues. This is why I like a definition of "bulk email from a stranger." Bulk is what fills inboxes and servers, bulk clogs up pipelines, bulk requires hijacked resources and stolen credit cards to send out. 'Stranger' = tens of millions of businesses = even 1 email per year from each of them would be too much to handle, let alone try to opt-out from. I think courts can see that the burden and damage from bulk email from strangers is extremely large.
In contrast, courts might not like a law that lets Bob sue Sue for sending a "Hi Bob, Fred said you're starting a Foo business. Do you need a consultant with 10 years Foo experience?" Certainly its unlikely that Bob would sue because of this commercial email from a stranger, but the law as written will allow it. As this particular message would be legal in other formats, the courts might not like banning it simply because it is email, absent any other damage. (And a related argument would apply to bulk emails from people/businesses to which you voluntarily gave an email address.)
Re:Give it up Gray! (Score:2)
Re:Give it up Gray! (Score:2)
Re:Give it up Gray! (Score:2)
What a lousy bastard...especially since i'll have to pay the $500 bill for next month, regardless.
Re:Please! (Score:2, Insightful)
Dude. Get a clue.
Re:Please! (Score:2, Insightful)
actually he didn't. the cali economy is ruined for one very specific reason: a few years ago, the electric industry tested how free enterprise would work in their industry. the test was done in cali. electric companies were allowed to charge whatever they wanted for power, and the result was disastrous. at one point, a company was charging $9999 for one unit of electricity (whatever a unit is) because they thought they only had 4 characters for the price (th
Re:any calif ISP's out there? (Score:3, Interesting)
(b) "California electronic mail address" or "California e-mail address" means any of the following:
(1) An e-mail address furnished by an electronic mail service provider that sends bills for furnishing and maintaining that e-mail address to a mailing address in this state.
(2) An e-mail address ordinarily accessed from a computer located in this state.
(3) An e-mail address furnished to a resident of this state
I'd say that based on the intent of the law, the answer t
Re:More idiocy from Gray Davis (Score:3, Insightful)