U.S. Spam Law to Take Effect Jan. 1 573
We lead with news that the U.S. 'anti'-spam law, written largely by the Direct Marketing Association, will enter into effect on January 1. The bill preempts existing state laws which are tougher (states' rights anyone?), so for many citizens, this is purely a pro-spam law. The FTC is thinking about bounty hunters to enforce the new law (which you can and probably should read for yourself).
Re:Direct Marketing Association... (Score:1, Informative)
More on bounties (Score:5, Informative)
It basically says that within 9 months of the enactment of the act, the commission is to set forth a system for rewarding those who supply information about violators; the first person who supplies the required information is to recieve a reward of not less than 20% of the total civil penalty collected.
I only scanned the file and I'm not sure how large the fines are expect to be; it does say that all property traceable to illegal spamming proceeds and all equipment used for such is forfiet.
Re:Preempt state law? (Score:3, Informative)
The marijuana issue you raise is a horse of a different color - and is, strictly speaking, an issue caused by being the subject of two sovereign powers, (so-called "dual sovereignty") the state and federal government. Technically speaking, the Feds can prosecute one for many crimes which are usually handled by the States, but simply don't. U.S. Attorneys save their resources for true "federal cases" or for areas in which they have exclusive jurisdiction (i.e., interstate trafficking of some kind (usually drugs, money, or kiddie porn), crimes committed on federal property, or crimes directed at a federal-regulated activity (like insider trading), and so forth.)
An example would be a hypothetical ex-nfl running back who is acquitted (or even convicted) of murder by a state jury who is then indicted and tried under an equivalent offense under the United States Code by the local U.S. Attorney. The first case is "State v. Running Back" the second case would be "United States v. Running Back." It's rather rare for both sovereigns to prosecute for the same crime, but it happens to the truly deserving, I believe most recently to one of the OKC bombing geniuses. More often, the decision between a State and Federal prosecution in a high-profile cases is based upon the availability of certain punishments, like the death penalty which is not available in all states, or may be available if the prosecution takes place under Federal, rather than State law.
Re:Opt-in for all email... (Score:1, Informative)
CAUCE's response (Score:5, Informative)
A copy of the final version of the law can be found here [cauce.org].
According to CAUCE, the law was passed without any public hearings. What a shame.
Re:Opt-in for all email... (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's not. Thinking of an immediate change is unfeasible. Thinking of a change over a period of time (new clients send using a new SMTP revision) is not at all difficult to imagine, somebody just has to start that ball rolling.
All it really requires to differentiate is a call and reply after the EHLO/HELO similar to:
SUPPORT2
Server supports SMTP 2.0
Continue with the old way for outdated mail servers (if you get an ERR), negotiate send more with a more secure email protocol for new ones.
Re:Read my lips, no more spam. (Score:2, Informative)
one of which is in "findings" , the other is here:
" 2) the Department of Justice should use all existing law enforcement tools to investigate and prosecute those who send bulk commercial e-mail to facilitate the commission of Federal crimes, including the tools contained in chapters 47 and 63 of title 18, United States Code (relating to fraud and false statements); chapter 71 of title 18, United States Code (relating to obscenity); chapter 110 of title 18, United States Code (relating to the sexual exploitation of children); and chapter 95 of title 18, United States Code (relating to racketeering), as appropriate. "
Also, the second point of number 1 you make isn't valid.. this law applies to non-solicited commercial email, defined as follows rather specifically:
"(A) IN GENERAL- The term `commercial electronic mail message' means any electronic mail message the primary purpose of which is the commercial advertisement or promotion of a commercial product or service (including content on an Internet website operated for a commercial purpose).
(B) TRANSACTIONAL OR RELATIONSHIP MESSAGES- The term `commercial electronic mail message' does not include a transactional or relationship message."
So your "any email could be spam" comment isn't really applicable. Any non solicited commerical email is spam, and I think that's pretty reasonable.
For your point on 2, I think the law is fair.... I mean spam is obnoxious, but how much actual physical damage could you really claim from one guy? I mean unless some guy bombs the inbox of something critical to public safety, then I think there should be reasonable limits set. I could imagine some pissed off jury setting a penalty of millions of dollars from some poor aoler trying to peddle fishing hooks or something.
And as for 3, at least those organizations are ostensibly trying to do something for the public good, and not trying to scam you or simply make a buck. Whether such organizations aren't actually just trying to make a buck is a subject of other debate, but I can see why they should deserve a different status.
Anyway, in summary from my interpretation I think the law is pretty reasonable, though being a Virginian I am a little annoyed about the supercession of state law.
"Protected Computers?" (Score:2, Informative)
Re:Opt-in for all email... (Score:2, Informative)
That means you'll get no spam, but any human can mail you.
Seems like a pretty damn good way to go to me.