First Lawsuits Filed under Missouri's No-Spam Law 156
darksoulz writes "The St. Louis Business Journal is reporting that Jay Nixon, Missouri's attorney general, has filed the first lawsuits under the new no-spam law against two Florida spammers. The law doesn't totally prohibit spam, it just requires that the subject line be tagged to let consumers know that it is an advertisement. One of the lawsuit recipients even managed to spam an address maintained by the attorney general's office."
Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
Can someone explain how this is working? Just curious...
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1, Insightful)
Telemarketers can tell what state they are calling by the area code. But,in most cases spammers can't tell what state their Spammees are in.
The only way a spammer can be sure they never send spam to Missery is to never send spam anyplace. The law will be overturned.
If this law and Asscroft are typical of the legal system in Missery, they are in a world of hurt.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1)
To get it overturned, they'll have to fight it in federal court. This will cost spammers money. So even if the law is overturned, the outcome is good.
BTW, busting on a state is really lame.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
And how exactly do you think these spammers are going to try to balance their budget?
(A small hint: I think it will have something to do with e-mail...)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
That's simply not true. If they don't have a good idea who they are spamming, they shouldn't be spamming them. If they don't know their target, then they should not spam until they have a list of email addresses with locations attached. After all, if they don't know where people live, then chances are, they are committing other crimes, like spamming little Johnny about porn and drugs.
Not exactly a hard position to defend.
Email Address vs. Physical Address (Score:2)
Geographically-specific domain names are a separa
Re:Email Address vs. Physical Address (Score:2)
You might go back and read what I said and then read what you said and then think for a moment. I'm fairly sure you'll go, "doh!", shortly after.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
As for the 'voting for a dead man', technically it's true, but everyone was working on the basis that his wife was going to be appointed in his place. And even if they were going to prop the corpse up in the Senate, it would have been better than having Ashcroft there. Of course, for some reason everyone turned around two years later and voted Talent in....
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1)
I'm sure the Missouri highway patrol writes traffic tickets to long-haul truck drivers all the time. That's interstate commerce. Why shouldn't Missouri be able to go after spammers? Remember, they're breaking Missouri state law.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1, Insightful)
The MO no-call and spam laws violate the Constitution interstate commerce clause by reaching far beyond the boundaries of the state and into other states.
Also, it is not clear where exactly a recipient could be at the time of spam arrival. If I were a Misso
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
And we'll be happy to change the law, right after the spamming bastards fight it all the way to the Supreme Court and. What? They don't have the money to fight? What a damn shame. Maybe they can ask the EFF? Or set up a PayPal defense fund :).
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:4, Informative)
Anyway, jurisdictional disputes are complicated. Your "does not and cannot" assertion is pretty thin.
C//
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
Why you WANT this to be Unconstitutional (Score:2)
But you REALLY want this to be UnConstitutional, because otherwise, you'd be subject to every law in every state that your email goes to, and possibly every state where people can read your web pages or Usenet postings. You'd possibly even be subject to laws i
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1)
I don't think this is true. If you operate in one state and the effect of your operation is in another you exopose yourself to their laws. And yeah, interstate commerce may not be controlled by the states, but the letter of anti-spam laws may not be based on commerce regulation, rather interference with electronic communications.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1)
The internet is not a place.... actually, there is this website with these awesome chicks on it... God, please let that be a real place.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1)
What commerce? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1)
A state law can apply to any person or business who conducts business within the state in question. This individual or company is definitely doing business in Missouri by soliciting Missouri citizens via e-mail which puts the spammer under Missouri Jurisdiction. Simply because the Internet was used doesn't remove the business's obligation to ensure that they are adhering to state laws. In this case, it is up to the spammer to know which state the person they are spamming is from and what state and local l
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1)
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:3, Informative)
The "commerce clause" says that Congress has the power to "regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes". But that's not an exclusive power. State regulation of commerce can clearly impact interstate commerce. State jurisdiction can thus overlap federal jurisdiction.
The way this works, after two centuries of dealing with grey areas, is that the states have power to act in an area where the states and the Federal Government share control
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:1)
The Floridians are out of the jurisdiction of the Missouri courts, but not because of restrictions on regulation of interstate commerce.
Re:Struck down by the Appeals Court (Score:2)
I could say "Its about time", but at least he is doing something about it. I have not been impressed with some of his politicing in the past, but might actully vote for him next time around if is does/can run again.
He's been our best AG since, dare I say the name around here, Ashcroft.
this won't stop much (Score:2, Insightful)
What it means... (Score:1)
Now the spam I get originating from the US is 99.8% of the total.
Follow the money (Score:1)
Just follow the money.
It won't stop out of state spammers, but anyone in Missouri (my home state) would be a damn fool to not follow the law.
Re:Follow the money (Score:2, Interesting)
I expect a lot of these penis enlargement things do not even exist. It is just used to check which mails bounce and which are actually read. Using an embeded image with a special URL.
They can make more money selling your email address to someone else than they can from selling you a product or service.
Re:this won't stop much (Score:2)
Using a hijacked or spoofed IP to send advertising, using forged or deceptive headers, etc, are not within said "reasonable rules".
Let me guess... (Score:2)
Re:Let me guess... (Score:2)
From the article:
The first suit was filed against Phillip Nixon of Palm Beach, Fla.
Nixon sues Nixon?
One of them has got to be a crook!
And only one of them will be able to go to China.
(1337 script-kiddies who are victims of America's "educational" system: you download an explanation of these allusions from KaZaa)
Re:Let me guess... (Score:1)
One of them has got to be a crook!"
Yeah, it's too bad Nixon isn't still in the White House so he could grant a pardon to Nixon (or Nixon).
Re:Let me guess... (Score:1)
It's about time... (Score:4, Insightful)
Sending millions of emails is extremely inexpensive and like the old adage "ask a million girls for a date and no matter how ugly you are, you'll probably get a few takers"
If it becomes expensive to spam, then the spam will stop and email advertising will become what it's good for, telling potential customers about products that they ARE interested in.
I can't wait for the California law to take effect. It's way more restrictive. I pity the spammers.
M
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
like the old adage "ask a million girls for a date and no matter how ugly you are, you'll probably get a few takers"
This is an old adage? Where have I been all this time???? Not busy enough, I'd guess!
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to design a highly-parallizable distributed date-asking beowulf cluster algorithm to statistically guarantee me the bottom feeders I would otherwise have missed!
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
Wasn't that adage disproved by Slashdotters?
Not even 1 girl in a million likes the smell of three-week old Dorito dusk on a man whose idea of a hot date is IM'ing each other over his home-built LAN in his mom's basement.
And Mr. Darwin days, "That's good!"
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
So does this line of reasoning work well as a line a singles' bars?
"Baby, you're number 619,342 on my list. Are you one of my 146 women?"
"Lemme explain, see, according to the Census Bureau --hey, hey, where you goin' babe? Babe?"
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
I don't.
Re:It's about time... (Score:1)
After all, we all sign our messages when we write a letter, so why not insist the same for e-mails?
Alternately, if each SMTP server admininstrator agreed to
Re:It's about time... (Score:2)
However, the 'delay' idea won't work--consider any large legitimate mailng ilst.
Re:It's about time... (Score:1)
Well that was tough (Score:1)
Maybe they should charge them with stupidity while they're at it.
Re:Well that was tough (Score:1)
Weak legislation (Score:2, Insightful)
Legislation mandating (as is the case here) that senders preface spam by adding "ADV: in the first four characters in the subject line or ADV: ADLT if it contains adult material" miss the point. The user has already pa
Re:Weak legislation (Score:1)
Recognizing spam at low cost is the first step.
Re:Weak legislation (Score:1)
Re:Weak legislation (Score:1)
Re:Weak legislation (Score:2)
Re:Weak legislation (Score:3, Informative)
The SMTP protocol does not allow this; once a mail server has agreed to accept a message, it MUST accept the ENTIRE message. The Subject header, like all other headers, is part of the same block of text as the message body. The receiving server can only reject the connection based on 1) the sender's IP address, 2) the HELO string, 3
Re:Weak legislation (Score:1)
Just throw a "resource unavailable". After all, the nospam policy makes the resource unavailable.
Re:Weak legislation (Score:2)
In that case, how can an SMTP server refuse large attachments like many of them do?
Re:Weak legislation (Score:2)
Re:Weak legislation (Score:2)
Every scheme I've seen to make the sending process "cost" something seems to correspondingly decrease the usefulness and convenience of email (though I do like
Re:Weak legislation (Score:2, Interesting)
For one or two emails, yes. Your answer is only referring to your personal experience with spam as a single email user. Now look at the bigger picture. You have never run an ISP though have you? Multipy the 'negligble cost' by tens of thousands of emails and it certainly DOES add up, no matter HOW little you are paying for bandwidth.
Consider that spammers may send your domain even millions of random emails e.g. aaa@yourdomain, aab@yourdomain etc. just to see which ones ge
Re:Weak legislation (Score:2)
Re:Weak legislation (Score:2)
Yes, the bandwidth is negligible. (Score:2)
The ba
Re:Weak legislation (Score:1)
Wrong. The real cost to the user is having messages bounced from your primary e-mail/webmail account because your mailbox is filled spam, including the various 140KB worms.
The real cost is also the fact that CyberSitter blocks access to your entire mailbox, just because it contains the word "<censored>". (Why wouldn't it? It's from the same company that blocks random sites s
Re:Weak legislation (Score:2)
This is a START. And it's a good start. They have limited resources. It's a good way to make it EASY for the state to prosecute violators. If ALL spam contained ADV: in the subject line, the situation would be better than it is now, even if there was twice as much of it. Once that's taken care of, THEN we can
Re:Weak legislation (Score:1)
If a spam wastes a minute of someone's time and that person considers their time to be worth $20/hour (less than many I'm guessing,) then it's about 30c of time. An email would cost nowhere near that much in bandwidth, and SpamAssassin could bump the score on these emails +10 straight away, removing most of the cost.
Do Not Email lists Do Not Work (Score:2)
There are ways to improve the process - instead of a list of raw email addresses, store the list as a set of hashes of email addresses, so you can check whether someuser@example.com is on the list, but the only way to extract lots of names from it is by dictionary-search. That's still not perfect, because it tends to break the username+tag@domain.com syntax, and doesn't easily allow wildcarding, and espe
Kansas (Score:2)
That's a bright one... (Score:1)
Nothing like telling the farmer you are gonna sleep with his daughter.
Re:That's a bright one... (Score:2)
I hope this worked. (Score:2)
I'm really glad to see that the AGO is attempting to shut them down. This is a HUGE success! I was very worried that they wouldn't have the enforcement power to even attempt to put a stop to this.
Here's the MO AGO information (Score:2)
It's too bad California is being so specific. (Score:5, Informative)
"1. You are the recipient of the spam and you are a resident of California.
2. The spam was delivered via servers located in California (sender's, recipient's or intermediary server will suffice).
3. There is some indication that the spammer is operating in California, such as a California telephone number or address for orders. If you can identify the spammer and have information from other sources showing that the spammer is in California, that will also work.
4. The spam fails to comply with the statutory restrictions. To comply, the unsolicited advertising emails' subject line must begin with "ADV:", the first text in the message must offer a toll-free number or functioning email address for removal of the recipient from further unsolicited emails, and that statement must be in a type size as large as most of the other text.
1,2 and 4 are pretty easy. Proving 3 can be a real PITA, and means if I really want to work this hard I have to do a lot of legwork. Granted, the end result may be worth it, but...
ref: http://caag.state.ca.us/spam/index.htm [state.ca.us]
Re:It's too bad California is being so specific. (Score:2)
--SNIP--
1,2 and 4 are pretty easy. Proving 3 can be a real PITA, and means if I really want to work this hard I have to do a lot of legwork. Granted, the end result may be worth it, but...
3 can be obtained by a simple whois. Reverse track th
Re:It's too bad California is being so specific. (Score:3, Funny)
Ah, do I hear the wheels of progress already working on the next Mozilla extension [texturizer.net]? Imagine gleefully watching the California ones carefully plucked out of your Junk folder, optionally with PDF files of the necessary court papers ready to print and file.
Be careful in your zest to zap spammers (Score:2)
They could come back to zap you.
A bad law is still bad law, even if it at some time accomplishes something you desire.
Let's be careful and try to get it right.
KFG
Re:Be careful in your zest to zap spammers (Score:1)
In the overzealous quest to get even with those spammers who, it would seem, dissed their collective mother, the slashdot crowd is demanding that a very dangerous precident be set.
There's really no difference between this law and one that prevents a class of people from accessing any publicly accessable webpage.
Re:Be careful in your zest to zap spammers (Score:2)
That alone would get rid of 90% of the spam I see.
What ticks me off isn't spam per se, but when I get 50 copies a day of the SAME 50k-HTML-bloated spam. If they'd just send one or two a month, that would be a lot more reasonable!!
Whereas I don't mind the ones that only come once in a while, are plaintext, from a real server, and
Uhmmm.. (Score:2)
As a St Louis resident... (Score:1)
[pinky to lips] one meeeelllion dollarrs.
for my hotmail inbox this morning. Now all we need is a means to actually track spammers....
At least *one* part of the job is easy. (Score:3, Funny)
This is surprising, why, exactly? Like spammers think: "Oh, this address is a government office, better delete it from my list."
The AG has gotta love this... J. Random Prosecutor thinks: "Now, let's see, so many spammers, which ones should I prioritize most highly for investigation today? Just let me make a quick check of my in box....."
Re:At least *one* part of the job is easy. (Score:1)
moago... hehehe...
Lots of talk about requirements here... (Score:2, Interesting)
I have a thought about that... We are permitted to own vehicles which participate on various public transportation infrastructure facilities such as state roads, the interstate system, etc. We are required to ensure the road-worthiness of the vehicle we own. We are required (more or l
Re:Lots of talk about requirements here... (Score:1)
A computer can only do what its operator tells it to do. If a bad man on the internet takes control and uses it for a bad purpose, it's only because the operator has told it to allow him control.
What, you fear you have lousy software that will get you in trouble? You better start demanding a guarantee that the software won't hand control over to strangers.
And once companies are havin
Re:Lots of talk about requirements here... (Score:2)
Re:Lots of talk about requirements here... (Score:2)
Maybe not directly, and maybe not about a system hijacked soley for spam. But we saw numerous instances of the latest worms causing enough network congestion to cause problems at some power plants and railroads.
Missouri Regulates Interstate Commerce? (Score:2, Insightful)
While I am not a lawyer, this strikes me as an attempt by Missouri to regulate interstate commerce. This was one of the few things that the federal government was initially designed to do. [wikipedia.org] Missouri is not supposed to regulate commerce between residents of Missouri and residents of Florida.
I could live with this law being struck down only to see it replaced with a similar federal law. Spam is a global problem that deserves a global, not local, solution; for now, the best we can get is a national solution
OOPS Re:Missouri Regulates Interstate Commerce? (Score:1)
Please excuse me as I franticly search for way to delete the parent post or at least modify it and attach it to the above discussion about interstate commerce.
Sigh.
In The Meantime, the Spammers are FIGHTING BACK! (Score:1)
Give us laws that allow us to block spam (Score:2)
How about laws that protect anti-spam activities? Laws to protect places like spamcop and spamhaus from lawsuit threats? Eliminate those bogus threats to sue for infringing on a spammers free speech.
A person should have the right not to receive e-mails. A site operator should have the right to block spam and protect their systems or to netblock out whoever they choose (if customers don't like it, they can go to an ISP that do
Re: Spammers and the Constitution (Score:1)
Missouri slick law. (Score:1)
The Missouri law has an interesting twist. They force spammers to label the
Re:Fuck You Bitches (Score:1)
certain people in usenet would track down the email addresses of spammers and other unsavory people and post those email addresses in the groups so that spammers would in turn spam them.
fighting fire with fire.
Re:Fuck You Bitches (Score:1)
There wern't people launching the equivelent of dictionary attacks against mail servers to see what does not bounce, and hence keeping an email address private involved sharing only with those who were trusted.
Today if I see such an attack at work I block the ip and fire up nessus. Fight fire with fire.
Re:Fuck You Bitches (Score:1)
A variant of this worked for Hotmail in the days before their automatic spam filtering. Any email with a few guys' names either side of mine on the recipient list, delete.
Good analysis of the trolls (Score:1)
Do you have the original text somewhere?
Re:He also said... (Score:1)
god doesn't play dice.
in criticism of Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle