Caifornia bans all spam on Jan 1, 2004!

[ibe98765]

California to Enact Tough Anti-Spam LawSep 23, 11:41 PM (ET)By TOM CHORNEAU SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - California will prohibit Internet advertisers from sending unsolicited e-mails known as spam, providing for fines up to $1 million under legislation Gov. Gray Davis said he would sign Tuesday.The legislation targets not only firms that package and send unwanted e-mails, but also the companies whose products and services are being advertised. The measure covers all unsolicited commercial e-mail sent or received in California, with the possible $1 million fine to be imposed per incident."There are no loopholes, no way of getting around it," said the bill's author, Democratic state Sen. Kevin Murray.Washington state passed an anti-spam measure in 1998, but it didn't go as far. That law provides civil penalties of $500 per message for bulk or commercial e-mail with misleading information in the subject line, invalid reply addresses or disguised paths of transmission."California is sending a clear message to Internet spammers: We will not allow you to litter the information superhighway with e-mail trash," Davis said in a statement.The bill, which would become law Jan. 1, allows the state attorney general to target spam operations anywhere in the United States and offshore.Murray noted past attempts to regulate e-mail ads have failed because many spam operations are located outside the country. But the California law empowers state officials to go after bank accounts and other financial holdings of foreign companies convicted of illegally sending unwanted e-mail into the state.

[Freddy]

I see a few loopholes right off the bat: File for bankrupcy and re-incorporate. Spammers can originate their messages from out-of-state servers. I love when politicians try to take on technology and make bold claims like this.

[Prelude76]

another news flash just in: "California now also will ban all murders and general theft on Jan 1, 2004. Also, they will ban MP3 pirating, and speeding"

[Stonegiant]

And just how will they prevent spam from, say, China?

[Ragnar Paulson]

The legislation targets not only firms that package and send unwanted e-mails, but also the companies whose products and services are being advertised.

I like this one. I already have a competitors list in mind .... Ragnar

[GolfProRM]

It does say all incoming spam is counted too... So no matter where it comes from, if it ends up in CA, it's illegal. I somehow have my doubts about this though.

[Freddy]

I recall something recently, on tv no less, where 'honorable' companies that do not want to be associated with spam are themselves spamming, sort of.It seems these companies contract with advertising outfits with instructions not to spam, who subcontract to web advertisers, who subcontract with emailer advertiser, who would outsource _all_ their mailings to a mailing outfit, who, well you can see where this is going. It got to a point where the company didn't know who was sending mailing on their behalf.Now this wouldn't alleviate their responsibilities, but it would be interesting to see the CA DA take on the likes of Coke and other biggies.PS. How is a company supposed to know the physical address associated with an email address? Makes it impossible to comply with the law.

[ibe98765]

I recall something recently, on tv no less, where 'honorable' companies that do not want to be associated with spam are themselves spamming, sort of.It seems these companies contract with advertising outfits with instructions not to spam, who subcontract to web advertisers, who subcontract with emailer advertiser, who would outsource _all_ their mailings to a mailing outfit, who, well  you can see where this is going.  It got to a point where the company didn't know who was sending mailing on their behalf.Now this wouldn't alleviate their responsibilities, but it would be interesting to see the CA DA take on the likes of Coke and other biggies.PS. How is a company supposed to know the physical address associated with an email address?  Makes it impossible to comply with the law.

I think the part about being able to sue the ADVERTISER is the most important. If this sticks, then it puts the responsibility where it belongs, on the company that will benefit most from the spam. As you note, companies often use misdirection and "wink, wink, slap on the back" agreements to circumvent laws or just common decency. I used to run into situations like this when I would try and report spam to ISP's. Sometimes, someone would put their real web address in the spam mail (go here to buy my product). I might not be able to trace the sender of the spam but with a web address, I could tell who the spammer was working for. So I'g go tot he host of that website and say here is an example of your guy spamming. But few would accept the complaint, saying that I had to report the spam to the ISP for whomever was SENDING the spam, not the client who brought the spam service. They didn't want to lose a hosting customer so they denied responsibility. Anyway, you ask how companies will know that someone resides in CA? They won't! Therefore, they will have to stop all NON_OPT_IN spam to everybody or risk big fines when traced down and sued by CA residents or authorities . You see, CA has YOUR best interests at heart also. Aren't we great? Spammers provide a service to sell products for someone. If you can go all the way back to who they are working for, then companies may just stop hiring spammers to do their dirty work. It doesn't matter where the product advertiser resides in the world. If they have assets in reach of the USA, then CA can chase after those assets (if the advertisers lose a spamming lawsuit) and try to attach them. Maybe this will help spam levels go down.

[Freddy]

I'm also sceptical of the sucess with opt-in address proposals, even NY Sen. Chuck Shumer's.

[Stonegiant]

You see, CA has YOUR best interests at heart also. Aren't we great?

Well, it seems that Oklahoma doesn't see it from the same standpoint as CA. <sigh> Just makes me proud to live in Oklahoma City... (dripping sarcasm)

[ibe98765]

I'm also sceptical of the sucess with opt-in address proposals, even NY Sen. Chuck Shumer's.

Agreed about opt-in. The beauty of CA's approach is that it lets you sue the PRODUCT ADVERTISER! If this stands up in the anticipated court challenges, it will make it impossible for spam to exist. No manufacture/advertiser will risk hiring independent email delivery companies (aka "spam contractors") to deliver email for their products, inside or outside the USA, because the source will be liable for spamming, regardless of how it arrives in your email box.

[Ragnar Paulson]

The beauty of CA's approach is that it lets you sue the PRODUCT ADVERTISER! If this stands up in the anticipated court challenges, it will make it impossible for spam to exist. No manufacture/advertiser will risk hiring independent email delivery companies (aka "spam contractors") to deliver email for their products, inside or outside the USA, because the source will be liable for spamming, regardless of how it arrives in your email box.

Actually that's the insanity of the approach. I can't imagine it'll hold up in court. Every manufacturer/advertisers WILL risk hiring independent untraceable email delivery companies to advertise their competitor's products ... until such time as the fines put the competitor out of business.Ragnar

[Jeber]

Good point, Ragnar...and we read it here first. So the first time a company tries to do that, we'll support you in your law suit over their theft of your intellectual property.

[ibe98765]

The beauty of CA's approach is that it lets you sue the PRODUCT ADVERTISER! If this stands up in the anticipated court challenges, it will make it impossible for spam to exist. No manufacture/advertiser will risk hiring independent email delivery companies (aka "spam contractors") to deliver email for their products, inside or outside the USA, because the source will be liable for spamming, regardless of how it arrives in your email box.

Actually that's the insanity of the approach. I can't imagine it'll hold up in court. Every manufacturer/advertisers WILL risk hiring independent untraceable email delivery companies to advertise their competitor's products ... until such time as the fines put the competitor out of business.Ragnar

Ha! That's bizzaro. And anyway, if you advertise your competitors products, you are still the one liable, not the competitor.

[Ragnar Paulson]

Isn't the whole point of going after the products being advertised because the advertiser is unknown or offshore? So when you're mailbox is flooded with advertisements for Coke, of undetermined origin. Will you fine Coke? Unilateraly? When their defence will be "we didn't do it and don't know who did?".And if that defence is not good enough ... why won't pepsi or some other upstart cause grief that way? Perhaps we should just fine all companies in the same field just to be sure we caught the culprit then?Fining the manufacturer of the product advertised without a provable trail from them to the advertisement is just not going to work.

[ibe98765]

Isn't the whole point of going after the products being advertised because the advertiser is unknown or offshore? So when you're mailbox is flooded with advertisements for Coke, of undetermined origin.  Will you fine Coke?  Unilateraly?  When their defence will be "we didn't do it and don't know who did?".And if that defence is not good enough ... why won't pepsi or some other upstart cause grief that way?  Perhaps we should just fine all companies in the same field just to be sure we caught the culprit then?Fining the manufacturer of the product advertised without a provable trail from them to the advertisement is just not going to work.

When was the last time you received spam to buy Coke or Pepsi? I've never seen any. Admittedly, chasing down spam senders is a difficult task at best. I think the assumption though is that someone hires these people to send the emails for a specific product. If you can't find the spammer, maybe you can find the product manufacturer who hired him/her. Right now, the souce of the product is untouchable. With this law, they MIGHT be reachable, again, if you can find them. Given enough time and resources, most anybody can be found. If the bounty reward is high enough, people will spend time trying to find the source. If this law holds up in the expected court challenges and serves to cut the spam amount by even 1/3, then it will be well worth it.

[Freddy]

Although I get a decent amount of spam from real companies like BMG/Columbia and the insurance companies, a good amount is scam spam, promising something bigger longer faster or higher. Threatening them with fines wouldn't do much since what they are doing is illegal anyway.

[ibe98765]

Sue the Spammers California just outlawed unsolicited commercial e-mail. So should Congress. By Erick Schonfeld, September 26, 2003 Business 2.0The spam wars heated up in a big way this week. First California passed a tough anti-spam law. The very next day, spammers' telemarketing cousins won a temporary legal victory when a federal court barred the government from instituting a national do-not-call list, suggesting that a similar proposed do-not-spam registry could face its own legal challenges. Clearly, the battle over the right to be left alone is a long way from being decided.. The telemarketing industry, which employs millions, is probably too large and well-established to corral legislatively at this point, but this is not the case with the nascent e-mail spam industry. In reality, there is only one way to stop spam: make it expensive. That is what the California anti-spam legislation aims to do. Once it goes into effect on Jan. 1, it will be a crime to send unsolicited commercial e-mail from the state of California or to any of its residents. The law gets its teeth from a provision that will allow people to sue spammers for damages of up to $1,000 per unwanted e-mail or $1 million per e-mail campaign. Peddlers of herbal Viagra and other e-mail blast solicitations might have to rethink the financial sense of staying in business. Critics of the law say it will be ineffective because spammers will still be almost impossible to catch, or will simply move offshore. But that argument misses the point. Laws help define what is acceptable behavior and what is not. And spam certainly is not. Enforcement is a separate issue. Even if you can't catch a criminal, outlawing his actions serves a purpose. Defenders of spam and direct marketing also like to pull out the free-speech canard. Limiting spam, they say, is the same as prohibiting freedom of speech, and that's un-American. Please. Spammers can say whatever they want, just not in my inbox. You wouldn't tolerate someone with a bullhorn sticking his head through your living room window to offer you penis-enlargement pills, would you? You shouldn't have to tolerate it on your computer either. The potential effectiveness of legislation against unwanted e-mail is the bigger question. How can you stop criminals who can strike millions of victims simultaneously from anywhere in the world? Criminalizing spam does not make catching the spammers any easier. But even if California Governor Gray Davis signed the law only as a sop to an angry electorate considering his recall, it still might do some good. Outlawing an activity in and of itself can be a deterrent. Today, spamming is legal, and thus spammers don't necessarily think that they are doing anything wrong. How many would quit to avoid being branded a criminal? Surely the spamming ranks would thin somewhat as their members consider the costs of running afoul of the law. Of course, there will be those who persist and become more careful about covering their electronic tracks. That is why the provision allowing individuals to sue spammers is so crucial. It's a viral form of enforcement, giving the millions of spam victims a means and incentive to fight back. The reason spam is so ubiquitous is because it is so cheap. Increasing the chances of litigation is one way to make it more expensive. It would just take one $1 million judgment to cause spammers to rethink how attractive their business really is. In fact, the smart ones might even switch sides and sue their fellow spammers once they figure out that litigation can be more lucrative. The cockroaches will turn on one another. That is why Congress should follow California's lead. Congress is considering its own spate of anti-spamming legislation that, if passed, would supercede the California law. Unfortunately, all of the federal bills floating around right now are much more lenient. None goes as far as categorically barring all unsolicited commercial e-mail, nor do any allow spam recipients to sue for damages (although one proposes a clever bounty system in which people who report spammers will get a cut of any collected fines). Not that the California law is perfect. In its zealotry, it could open the floodgates of litigation too wide. For instance, it misguidedly allows people to sue not just spammers but any company whose products are advertised by spammers -- even without that company's consent or knowledge. By that logic, Sony (SNE) could be sued for spam sent out by any unauthorized Clié peddler trying to unload some excess inventory, which obviously would do nothing to stop the underlying problem. The California law, though, is a good start. With a few minor tweaks it should be the basis for a broader national law. Together with better spam-fighting technology, criminalizing spam might yet help us reclaim our inboxes.