Stopping Spam (Californians READ THIS!!!) Re. SB 12 - Page 2

elvey · 28 Mar 2003, 05:33 AM

Here's some info on SB 186:

a) SB 186 (Murray) prohibits an advertiser located in California from using unsolicited commercial e-mail
ads. This measure would also prohibit an advertiser not located in California from using unsolicited
commercial e-mail ads sent to a California e-mail address if the advertiser knows or should reasonably
know that it is a California e-mail address. SB 186 would require the Department of Consumer Affairs to
enforce the prohibition. It would also authorize the recipient of a commercial e-mail ad transmitted in
violation of these prohibitions or the Attorney General to bring an action to recover $1,000 per
individual violation. As introduced, SB 186 dealt with video and biometric surveillance systems. It was
recently amended to include provisions similar to those being considered today in SB 12.
-from The Senate Bill Analysis

anj · 28 Mar 2003, 06:30 AM

Well, I glimsped this thread a few times without writing the email...but it is refreshing to see some optimism about the democratic process so I'll do my part. Actually, I don't get any spam at my personal address. Mostly I just wanted to be able to say hi, I'm a Californian too!

robert@fm · 28 Mar 2003, 11:44 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by elvey
So if you hire someone to spam for you, you're liable.

That's the way it should be — and UK law re. fly-posting already takes a similar stand; firms have tried to wriggle out of responsibility by claiming that (e.g.) as a London-based firm they can't be held responsible for what illegal bill-stickers do in Derbyshire (150 miles away), but sensible judges reject that kind of tack as the rubbish that it is.

FromLine · 29 Mar 2003, 04:28 AM

I agree, the product in the body of the email message should be held liable.

It's no accident that their product is being promoted in the email and they are just as guilty, if not more guilty, of spamming.

Anyone that receives these emails should be able to sue the company, even if the ISP spammer's IP is outside of the U.S.

anj · 29 Mar 2003, 05:42 AM

Well, all these technicalities are too much for my addled brain at the moment, but I will add that one of the reasons (aside from elvey's enthusiasm) that I decided to write a thoughtful letter to my senator on this one is because of the education dimension. Email is a great resource for language education in particular, but there is no reliable free service which blocks spam. Yet teachers don't want and cannot allow students to be exposed to the kind of filth and ads that come in spam. It makes it very problematic to use email in the classroom.

I wrote all that and more to my senator, but he has already voted against SB-12 at one point, and no response on his reasons yet. PM me if someone is interested in having a copy of the message.

btn · 29 Mar 2003, 06:37 AM

Once we get spam laws passed, how will we actually stop spam?

anj · 29 Mar 2003, 07:30 AM

The good ol' American way... lawsuits.
This is surely a case where they are deserved at present. School districts who want to use technology responsibily have to spend a lot of time &/= money on blocking and filtering this stuff. I can definitely see potential for large organizations or class action to make use of such laws. Hopefully, the threat would be sufficient to cut down on the majority of it.

btn · 1 Apr 2003, 08:57 AM

How do you serve a spammer that keeps changing service providers or hijacks other computers to carry out their nefarious deeds?

FromLine · 1 Apr 2003, 09:03 AM

Simple, hold the advertiser/product liable.

btn · 1 Apr 2003, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by FromLine
Simple, hold the advertiser/product liable.

That's harder to do than hunt down a spammer itself.

When a legitimate product is spamvertised, the company that manufactures the product cannot be connected to the spammer, and usually has no idea that such activity is being conducted in the first place since they most likely never authorized it.

Then there's all the spam that are fly-by-night operations or flat out fraud...

FromLine · 1 Apr 2003, 10:31 AM

Then why would a spammer advertise that sole product in a single email?

Call this number:

Go to this web site:

Purchase this product:

It's simply another source - if traceable - that can be vulnerable to a lawsuit.

btn · 1 Apr 2003, 11:40 AM

If you're lucky enough to receive spam with legitimate contact information, litigation can still run into a dead end. Here are a few scenarios:

1. A spammer was participating in an advertiser's affiliate program that expressly prohibits spam as a method of advertising, and requires that all of its publishers register with some form of identification such as a SSN or tax ID. The shocked and appalled advertiser demonstrates that they immediately terminated the publisher once they learned that they were a spammer.

2. A spammer buys a company's products. Under general product liability law, the manufacturer of the product isn't liable since the product is now out of their hands. They had no idea that the spammer was going to spam, and probably never sold direct to the spammer in the first place.

3. A spammer has a vendetta against a company or person. The spammer sends out spam purely with slanderous intent.

4. A spammer promotes a number or website that works for an hour which is long enough to make a dollar and then slip away to spam another day.

To take a step back, the overlying theme from the people that have made suggestions so far is that there needs to be some sort of accountability for email sent which translates to some way to authenticate the sender. I wonder what the best way to do this is, or if there are any other ideas such as imposing some sort of postage. There are surefire ways such as greenlists and permission based solutions, but these are not feasible. The most seamless solution is going to require cooperation from industry and/or government. Privacy advocates are probably not going to be happy with the end result.

BTW, apologies if I'm rambling off topic.

hadaso · 1 Apr 2003, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by btn
1. A spammer was participating in an advertiser's affiliate program that expressly prohibits spam as a method of advertising, and requires that all of its publishers register with some form of identification such as a SSN or tax ID. The shocked and appalled advertiser demonstrates that they immediately terminated the publisher once they learned that they were a spammer.

In this case the advertiser cooperates, and produces the evidence showing who the spammer is. If they cannot produce documents that show that an agreement was signed that states that no UCE will be used, then they're still liable! A law that makes the advertiser liable will make advertisers require written contracts that no UCE is used, and perhaps even assurances, so they can be compensated in case they are sued for spamming.

Quote:

Originally posted by btn
2. A spammer buys a company's products. Under general product liability law, the manufacturer of the product isn't liable since the product is now out of their hands. They had no idea that the spammer was going to spam, and probably never sold direct to the spammer in the first place.

In this case the spammers are trying to sell merchandise that's in stock with them. To make the sale they would have to give some contact info of themselves.

Quote:

Originally posted by btn
3. A spammer has a vendetta against a company or person. The spammer sends out spam purely with slanderous intent.

Framing people is not new, and happens with other "crimes" as well. You are not going to abolish all laws just because people can be framed. If you get spam from roger@rabbit.com and Roger claims it's not him then Roger can file a complaint with the police! Even without any anti-spam law Roger can do that, because fraud is a crime. And then it's the job of the detectives to find out who framed Roger Rabbit!

Quote:

Originally posted by btn
4. A spammer promotes a number or website that works for an hour which is long enough to make a dollar and then slip away to spam another day.

Then there still is contact info that can be traced to find out who was behind that website at that particular time. If money can be obtained from suing spammers, then there would be businesses who find the spammer for you for a fee.

The most important consequence of making the advertisers liable for spamming is that in effect it will make advertisers much more cautious when consider email advertising: they will want real assurances that they don't end up losing a lot of money in the court, so they'll check much more carefully who is working for them, and require assurances. If they want to insure themselves against liability the insurance company will certainly put limits on what they are covering, and the advertiserts will have to remain within these limits, or risk money.

Any law cannot prevent spam completely, or even make sure that you are always compensated. After all, stealing is illegal, but it still happens, even though you put all the locks and protection your insurance policy requires. And when it happens, you can be quite sure that the thieves will not be found, nor the stolen proprty, and no one is going to compensate you for the deductible! Life ain't perfect!

Edit: changed rogerATrabbit.com to roger@rabbit.com, for a good reason! ;

elvey · 24 Apr 2003, 05:23 AM

Emailed Jennie at Senator Bowen's office with some of the feedback from this thread and for an update. It unfortunately has strayed off topic so I hesitate to point 'em here...

Strong anti-spam laws work. The proof is that in the US, people don't receive many junk faxes. Junk email is trackable too. People still rob banks. Should we not have laws against that?

There is recent legal precedent establishing that spammers can be sued wherever the harm occurs and spammers can be presumed to be on notice of ISPs AUPs, and spam beneficiaries are liable for spam sent on their behalf.

admiralu · 29 Apr 2003, 12:55 PM

People in the US DO receive junk faxes and they have been regulated. A California business did sue over the matter. I can't remember the name, but the gentleman owned a home business and his fax was tied up with tons of junk faxes, he sued and won. CA does have laws against this! There is a growing call to have Congress step in on the spam issue. If you go to Contact your Congress person you can email them your request and someone will get back to you. I have a wonderful editorial that appeared in the LA Times, but was not reprinted on the website for copyright issues. I do have the article myself.

1 Apr 2003, 08:57 AM	#23
btn Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: San Jose, CA, US Posts: 688 Representative of: Everyone.net	Re: The good ol' American way... lawsuits. How do you serve a spammer that keeps changing service providers or hijacks other computers to carry out their nefarious deeds?

1 Apr 2003, 11:40 AM	#27
btn Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: San Jose, CA, US Posts: 688 Representative of: Everyone.net	Re: Then why would a spammer advertise that sole product in a single email? If you're lucky enough to receive spam with legitimate contact information, litigation can still run into a dead end. Here are a few scenarios: 1. A spammer was participating in an advertiser's affiliate program that expressly prohibits spam as a method of advertising, and requires that all of its publishers register with some form of identification such as a SSN or tax ID. The shocked and appalled advertiser demonstrates that they immediately terminated the publisher once they learned that they were a spammer. 2. A spammer buys a company's products. Under general product liability law, the manufacturer of the product isn't liable since the product is now out of their hands. They had no idea that the spammer was going to spam, and probably never sold direct to the spammer in the first place. 3. A spammer has a vendetta against a company or person. The spammer sends out spam purely with slanderous intent. 4. A spammer promotes a number or website that works for an hour which is long enough to make a dollar and then slip away to spam another day. To take a step back, the overlying theme from the people that have made suggestions so far is that there needs to be some sort of accountability for email sent which translates to some way to authenticate the sender. I wonder what the best way to do this is, or if there are any other ideas such as imposing some sort of postage. There are surefire ways such as greenlists and permission based solutions, but these are not feasible. The most seamless solution is going to require cooperation from industry and/or government. Privacy advocates are probably not going to be happy with the end result. BTW, apologies if I'm rambling off topic.

29 Apr 2003, 12:55 PM	#30
admiralu Essential Contributor Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Camarillo, CA Posts: 442	I beg to differ People in the US DO receive junk faxes and they have been regulated. A California business did sue over the matter. I can't remember the name, but the gentleman owned a home business and his fax was tied up with tons of junk faxes, he sued and won. CA does have laws against this! There is a growing call to have Congress step in on the spam issue. If you go to Contact your Congress person you can email them your request and someone will get back to you. I have a wonderful editorial that appeared in the LA Times, but was not reprinted on the website for copyright issues. I do have the article myself.

28 Mar 2003, 05:33 AM	#16
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	Here's some info on SB 186: a) SB 186 (Murray) prohibits an advertiser located in California from using unsolicited commercial e-mail ads. This measure would also prohibit an advertiser not located in California from using unsolicited commercial e-mail ads sent to a California e-mail address if the advertiser knows or should reasonably know that it is a California e-mail address. SB 186 would require the Department of Consumer Affairs to enforce the prohibition. It would also authorize the recipient of a commercial e-mail ad transmitted in violation of these prohibitions or the Attorney General to bring an action to recover $1,000 per individual violation. As introduced, SB 186 dealt with video and biometric surveillance systems. It was recently amended to include provisions similar to those being considered today in SB 12. -from The Senate Bill Analysis

28 Mar 2003, 06:30 AM	#17
anj Master of the @ Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: California Posts: 1,148	Well, I glimsped this thread a few times without writing the email...but it is refreshing to see some optimism about the democratic process so I'll do my part. Actually, I don't get any spam at my personal address. Mostly I just wanted to be able to say hi, I'm a Californian too!

29 Mar 2003, 04:28 AM	#19
FromLine The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,619	I agree, the product in the body of the email message should be held liable. It's no accident that their product is being promoted in the email and they are just as guilty, if not more guilty, of spamming. Anyone that receives these emails should be able to sue the company, even if the ISP spammer's IP is outside of the U.S.

29 Mar 2003, 05:42 AM	#20
anj Master of the @ Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: California Posts: 1,148	Well, all these technicalities are too much for my addled brain at the moment, but I will add that one of the reasons (aside from elvey's enthusiasm) that I decided to write a thoughtful letter to my senator on this one is because of the education dimension. Email is a great resource for language education in particular, but there is no reliable free service which blocks spam. Yet teachers don't want and cannot allow students to be exposed to the kind of filth and ads that come in spam. It makes it very problematic to use email in the classroom. I wrote all that and more to my senator, but he has already voted against SB-12 at one point, and no response on his reasons yet. PM me if someone is interested in having a copy of the message.

29 Mar 2003, 06:37 AM	#21
btn Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: San Jose, CA, US Posts: 688 Representative of: Everyone.net	Once we get spam laws passed, how will we actually stop spam?

29 Mar 2003, 07:30 AM	#22
anj Master of the @ Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: California Posts: 1,148	The good ol' American way... lawsuits. This is surely a case where they are deserved at present. School districts who want to use technology responsibily have to spend a lot of time &/= money on blocking and filtering this stuff. I can definitely see potential for large organizations or class action to make use of such laws. Hopefully, the threat would be sufficient to cut down on the majority of it.

1 Apr 2003, 09:03 AM	#24
FromLine The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,619	Simple, hold the advertiser/product liable.

1 Apr 2003, 10:31 AM	#26
FromLine The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 2,619	Then why would a spammer advertise that sole product in a single email? Call this number: Go to this web site: Purchase this product: It's simply another source - if traceable - that can be vulnerable to a lawsuit.

24 Apr 2003, 05:23 AM	#29
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	Emailed Jennie at Senator Bowen's office with some of the feedback from this thread and for an update. It unfortunately has strayed off topic so I hesitate to point 'em here... Strong anti-spam laws work. The proof is that in the US, people don't receive many junk faxes. Junk email is trackable too. People still rob banks. Should we not have laws against that? There is recent legal precedent establishing that spammers can be sued wherever the harm occurs and spammers can be presumed to be on notice of ISPs AUPs, and spam beneficiaries are liable for spam sent on their behalf.