Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam

WA Wins First Case Against Deceptive Spammer 265

Posted by CowboyNeal from the using-the-law-to-filter-your-inbox dept.
GPFCharlie writes "The Seattle Post-Intelligencer is running this article about the first victory by a US state against a spammer. Apparently the judge ruled that a civil trial was not even necessary, since the state had already proven their case. The law was upheld by the WA Supreme Court and an appeal was turned down by the US Supreme Court. Next phase: penalties. How about 5 million hand-written apology letters?"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

WA Wins First Case Against Deceptive Spammer More

WA Wins First Case Against Deceptive Spammer

Comments Filter:

  • I don't remember... (Score:5, Funny)

    by dokutake ( 587467 ) <<moc.ertneccipe> <ta> <retep>> on Saturday September 14, 2002 @10:05AM (#4256721)
    ...being put on your apology letter mailing list!

  • Crandall follies (Score:5, Insightful)

    by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @10:10AM (#4256741) Journal

    "Right now it's a bunch of states making their own laws about how people in other states can do business," Crandall, his attorney, said. "It's a profoundly interesting case about whether the government can regulate business on the Internet, or at least regulate equally."

    No, it's Washington state saying how you have to do business in Washington state. It's not like they don't already do this, in every other area of business. If you want to sell something in Washington state, you have to abide by their laws. This isn't new. If you don't like their laws, don't sell there.

    And I don't think you're going to get much sympathy by whining "but how do I know what state you're in, if I'm indiscriminately spamming you"? ;)

    • yeah, they will call call-centers to make sure that their hold times are within a certain time-constraint (I don't know what the time is). People call up complaining and they call in. When I worked as a CSR I would get several calls a month in which this was the case.

      "Just calling in from the State of Washington to check your hold times, we heard they were long, it took me less than 45 seconds to reach you, everything seems ok, thank you for your time."

      Who the fuck is the State of WA to determine what the hold times are. Bah.

      • Who the fuck is the State of WA to determine what the hold times are. Bah.

        The difference between that and this spam case is simple.

        The spammer is sending an email to you, in WA. With a call center, someone in WA is chosing to phone the call center in another state.

        I would agree with you about the call center (though if the call is tech support for something sold in a WA store, I suppose you could argue that it is part of the sale ...)

    • Re:Crandall follies (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ajp ( 192328 )
      And I don't think you're going to get much sympathy by whining "but how do I know what state you're in, if I'm indiscriminately spamming you"?

      Considering > 95% comes from my University of Washington account (owned by the State of Washington) that argument doesn't garner a lot of sympathy. I get a significant number of e-mails telling me that it has not been sent to a resident of Washington. Oh, wait...they might be confusing it with Washington University in St. Louis.

      Go, Christine Gregoire! You have my votes for the next thousand general elections!

    • What if you do business via the mail with companies in Washington State? You may be operating out of Oregon, but you're still selling to Washington companies.

      How about the anti-fax spam laws that are in place -- are those federal only, or do the laws of the state that you're faxing to apply to you as well?
      • What if you do business via the mail with companies in Washington State? You may be operating out of Oregon, but you're still selling to Washington companies.

        If you do business by mail, you're required to obey relevant laws in the state the customer's in -- check out, for instance, contest fine print, which has different laws on how you get game pieces w/o purchase: if you're in certain states, you don't have to include return postage.

        How about the anti-fax spam laws that are in place -- are those federal only, or do the laws of the state that you're faxing to apply to you as well?

        The anti-fax laws are federal telecom legislation.

        -- q

    • but isn't this what we all complain about? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Trepidity ( 597 ) <delirium-slashdotNO@SPAMhackish.org> on Saturday September 14, 2002 @12:26PM (#4257185)
      This seems a lot like what we all complain about when it deal with other sorts of laws -- "but you can't do that, what he did was legal in Russia!"

      What if a U.S. state passes a law regulating what sort of material it is permissible to transmit to their citizens. Assuming the law were not struck down as unconstitutional, should everyone in the U.S. now have to follow this state law, to make sure that they don't accidentally transmit banned material to residents of that state (for example, by placing it on a website where a resident of that state could access it)? This would end up with the result that everyone must follow the union of all state laws (thus the most restrictive in each category). Which is already happening with spam laws, which I don't see as a good precedent.

      • Re:but isn't this what we all complain about? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by cascadingstylesheet ( 140919 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @12:48PM (#4257246) Journal

        should everyone in the U.S. now have to follow this state law, to make sure that they don't accidentally transmit banned material to residents of that state (for example, by placing it on a website where a resident of that state could access it)?

        website != email

        If I go to a website, I chose to do so. If you spam me, you chose to do so.

        Anyway, I'm still waiting for someone to give a real example of how this law could cause harm, not a silly hypothetical. No, a jury is not going to convict your uncle because his subject line said "funny joke" but the body wasn't funny.

      • Re:but isn't this what we all complain about? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Galvatron ( 115029 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @12:52PM (#4257256)
        I think the difference is, a website isn't a push technology. If you put something on a website that's illegal in another city, state, country, whatever, and someone in that region accesses it, then they're the ones at fault. Sort of like if an American flew to Amsterdam, picked up a bag of pot, and flew back home again to smoke it, they'd be importing an illegal substance.

        Spam, on the other hand, is delivered to you whether you want it or not. This would be more like if someone in Amsterdam were indiscriminantly mailing out free samples of pot to people in the US.

        What Dmitry did was legal in Russia (writing software that violates the DMCA), but what his company did (offer it for sale to citizens of the USA) was illegal, and they knew it. I'm opposed to the DMCA on general priciple, so I hope they don't end up getting in trouble for it, but let's not kid ourselves, the company (though again, probably not the individual) was breaking the law.

      • What if a U.S. state passes a law regulating what sort of material it is permissible to transmit to their citizens. Assuming the law were not struck down as unconstitutional, should everyone in the U.S. now have to follow this state law, to make sure that they don't accidentally transmit banned material to residents of that state (for example, by placing it on a website where a resident of that state could access it)? This would end up with the result that everyone must follow the union of all state laws (thus the most restrictive in each category). Which is already happening with spam laws, which I don't see as a good precedent.

        This is true, and actually the precedent was already set in the Amateur Action BBS case nearly a decade ago, when BBS owners in California were jailed for three years for violating obscenity laws in Tennessee after a Memphis-based postal inspector downloaded images over a modem connection.

        • BBS owners in California were jailed for three years for violating obscenity laws in Tennessee after a Memphis-based postal inspector downloaded images over a modem connection.

          The postal inspector did not download the images for free. He paid a membership fee to join the BBS, then used a credit card to order obscene videos. Once the Thomases had taken the money and delivered the goods (whether by allowing access to a privileged downloads area, or through delivery via the US mail makes no matter) business transactions were completed which were governed by the laws of the recipient state. This was no different than your garden variety mail order business, except that the catalog was perused online rather than in the privacy of your bathroom.

          The WA anti-spam laws do little more than declare that when conducting business in the state of Washington one is not exempt from truth-in-advertising simply because one solicits via a non-traditional medium. If your product is honest and your UCEs non-deceptive, you have nothing to worry about from the Pacific northwest.

          Lee Kai Wen, Taiwan, ROC

  • ...5 million hand-delivered cans of SPAM?

  • Time for harsher punishments (Score:3, Funny)

    by euroderf ( 47 ) <a@b.c> on Saturday September 14, 2002 @10:25AM (#4256786) Journal
    I can't be the only fellow to wonder at the mere slap on the wrist spammers currently recieve.

    I think society should be run on purely utilitarian grounds. In other words, we should run the state, and by extension our society, by the principle of what gives the greatest good to the greatest number. This allows us to throw out Judaeo-Christian notions of morality entirely, to be replaced by an inherently scientific notion of justice. We simply give the highest punishments for those crimes that cause the greatest unhappiness.

    Under this simple and fair scheme the death penalty would be used less on murderers, rapists etc (who, really, only cause harm to one or two people at a time) but would be used a lot on spammers (who cause a small amount of unhappiness to many millions of people). By simply adding the small amounts of happiness caused to these millions up, we see that the *total* amount of unhappiness caused by spammers is far greater than that caused by the typical murder, rapist or arsonist.

    This would allow us to institute the death penalty for spammers and put an end to this terrible scourge. Next time I see an email urging me to visit animalporn.com, I want the full recourse of the law to hunt down these terrible spreaders of unhappiness, the biggest scourge of our times, and electrocute them to death in a chair in Nebraska.

    It is just and it is right, Utilitarianism points the way forward.

    • A troll (or I sure as hell hope you are), but I'll bite.

      I hate spam as much you do, however, I would cheerfully delete an email about penis enlargement if it meant, somewhere, a rape victim received the justice that they deserve. If you're not a troll, you really should read up on debate and logically constucting an arguement. Statements such as this tend to scuttle your point before you even complete it.

      • Logic is on MY side (Score:3, Interesting)

        by euroderf ( 47 )
        Don't you understand? Who causes the greatest unhappiness, a spammer, or a rapist?


        Answer: the spammer. He causes small amounts of unhappiness to VAST numbers of people.


        If the Spammer causes 100 rapists worth of total unhappiness, who should recieve the greater punishment? Why the spammer should, of course.


        It is people with attitudes like yours, holding to some spurious "moral standard" that depends on belief that allow a culture of unhappiness to prevail. let us attack those who cause unhappiness and society will improve and become a better place to live. Who knows, by applying these zero tolerance policies on spammers the greatly increased happiness in society in general may reduce the numbers of desperate rapists. Everything is connected. and we should act on what works best, you know?

        • Re:Logic is on MY side (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Naikrovek ( 667 )
          we understand.

          Logic is not on your side. Punishments are not based on the amount of "unhappiness" the criminals cause, but the severity of their crimes. And this is how it should be.

          If you vote, you're already controlling the state anyway.

          Spammers should be fined in most cases, and have their right to use computers removed, in extreme cases, but not *killed*. However, if one of my children ever recieve a porn spam and I am able to prove who the sender is, that person should be legally viable for every single fucking law we can throw at them, for this is inexcusable.

          Also, about the death penalty; Far too many innocent people are put to death with today's justice system. until that number drops to zero, i don't see how anyone can be pro-death. You would quickly understand if you were the innocent man that was found guilty.

          And the obligatory LotR quote on the subject, courtesy of Gandalf: "Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgment. For even the wise cannot see all ends."
          • Logic is certainly on his side. Severity of crime is a matter of society thought not necessarily logic. It may be perfectly acceptable (read: not severe) for me to kill my sister if she dishonours the family. Its up to society to decide that. And in some societies it is perfectly acceptable (or at least they wouldn't do anything about it). In ours, it isn't.

            If we were to put it on an unhappiness as a way of deming punishment it is less in the society arena as it is in the logical. If somebody affects a lot of people then it logically would be more severe than if it affected only 1 person.
          • i don't see how anyone can be pro-death

            I can see how: primitive emotions rule in many people. We're not that far removed from the jungle.

            Myself, I'd rather let 1000 fuckups live (poorly) than put 1 innocent man to death. In the same way, I'd rather see 3000 Americans DIE FREE than to become an ineffectual police state because of a few lucky factory rejects (that we help manufacture).

            --

          • > Logic is not on your side. Punishments are not based on the amount
            > of "unhappiness" the criminals cause, but the severity of their
            > crimes. And this is how it should be.

            You are taking the wrong approach, repeating your own argument
            that didn't convince him before. The utilitarian can only be
            defeated by a more consistent application of his _own_ argument.

            To wit, if sending a hillion jillion spams is worse than killing
            one person, because it causes more unhappiness (albeit in small
            increments), then capital punition (killing one person) is an
            inadequate retribution. To properly compensate society, the
            offender must be subjected to the same amount of unhappiness
            he caused. This is why the hand-written apology letters are
            a suitable punishment: the severity of the penalty is directly
            proportional to the extent of the crime of which the offender
            is convicted. A penalty of death won't do, because being a
            _constant_ penalty it does not fit the magnitude of the crime.
            The spammer who sends a hillion jillion spams (and thus causes
            a hillion jillion units of unhappiness) must hand-write a
            hillion jillion apologies (and thus incur a hillion jillion
            units of unhappiness, and transmit to the victims a hillion
            jillion satisfactions, one per offense). This is very just,
            even if it is also somewhat cruel. _And_ it puts happiness
            back into society: I for one would be very pleased to receive
            a hand-written apology from a convicted spammer.

    • Fatal flaw (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Safety Cap ( 253500 )
      we should run the state, and by extension our society, by the principle of what gives the greatest good to the greatest number
      Define "good." Do you mean something like, we should give everyone a car so they can get to work and school? But what about all the pollution, crime, and accidents caused by those cars? Which one is the "greater good"?

      Is removing barriers to commerce a good thing? If so, why is spam "bad," since it is enabling commerce?

      For murder, why is it that WTC caused so much panic, whereas traffic accidents, personal handguns, and AIDS cause nary a stir? The number of people who died in WTC was (for the sake of argument) 3,000. The number of people who died of in auto wrecks (41,730 [ntsb.gov] for 2001) caused nary a stir, yet much more "harm."

      By your reasoning, we need to forget this 9/11, "we'll never forget," patriotism, and Saddam and concentrate on increasing auto safety...

      • Utilitarianism is concerned not with "good" so much as "happiness". Happiness is considered to be the same as good. The total happiness of a society and how certain actions and people affect it can be readily measured by the sophisticated polling techniques of the modern age - just ask Mori.


        And you are quite right, the WTC thing is a completely joke, the War on Terror is a sham, and we should indeed be concentrating on auto accidents.

        • Amen to your last sentence. The 3000 people are nothing compared to families and friends suffering because someone they knew died in the last year from a car accident, drugs, heart attacks, smoking... Instead of the War on Terror, it ought to be the Campaign for Kindness. Send food and books to middle east countries. Open schools that aren't devoted to religion. Drill wells so people can spend time improving their lives instead of walking to get water. Send drip-irrigation systems to grow healthier crops. Send condoms so families which can't afford another child might not have one.
      • For murder, why is it that WTC caused so much panic, whereas traffic accidents, personal handguns, and AIDS cause nary a stir?

        Because people don't respond to pain unless it's concentrated. Simple as that.

        20,000 [cdc.gov] americans die from the flu each year, but the death is spread out over 365 days. The 3,000+ deaths and destruction on 9-11 was FOCUSED like a the point of a needle. It was a highly televised event for which millions could empathize. And because the pain was inflicted by a human vector (rather than disease/natural/accidental/etc), vengence enters the mind (vs. futility).

        --

        • The 3,000+ deaths and destruction on 9-11 was FOCUSED like a the point of a needle
          What are the odds that one will die due to terrorist action? Could you say they're zero, since it is a non-repeating event?

          Can you call Lockerbie, Okla. Federal Building, and WTC a repeating event?

      • By your reasoning, we need to forget this 9/11, "we'll never forget," patriotism, and Saddam and concentrate on increasing auto safety...
        Would that really be such a bad idea?
    • Does anybody else find it sad that only the trolls managed to figure out that this was a joke? This causes me great unhappiness. I believe that euroderf should be put to death.
      • Denying Utilitarianism doesn't make it not exist. Some people belive in it the way some belive there is a god. Regardless of if this is a troll, the viewpoint is valid to me. I haven't read any convincing arguments from the crime-based-on-severity proponents that don't come back to the severity being based on personal belief and opinion which varies around the world.
    • By simply adding the small amounts of happiness caused to these millions up, we see that the *total* amount of unhappiness caused by spammers is far greater than that caused by the typical murder, rapist or arsonist.

      Have you developed an SI unit for scientifically quantifying unhappiness? Like

      1 rape = -1000 IHU (International Happiness Unit)
      1 spam = -0.1 IHU,
      1 segfault = -1 IHU
      1 the execution of one spammer = 5342 IHU

      I'm confident that a system like this can be worked out, as it is quite simple to convert qualitatively sized packets of subjective emotion to discrete quantities of (once again subjective) societal harm.

      Oh, a sarcasm detecter! That's a REAL useful invention! - Comic Book Guy
      • Modern opinion pollsters show the way. it is eminently possible to quanticise happiness, all that matters is people's subjective feelings, that's all unhappiness and happiness is, so all you need to do is ask them! A goovernment department tracking happiness units for all sorts of crimes using opinion pollster techniques would track both changing social attitudes and be flexible and just. There's nothing particularly difficult about it.
      • Have you developed an SI unit for scientifically quantifying unhappiness?

        Forget about quantifying happiness, I'm still waiting for a viable means of defining it. As you've already pointed out, we can hardly "scientifically quantify" a thing until we can precisely define what it is.

        The problem with hedonism/utilitarianism (or is that hedonistic utilitarianism?) is that it always comes back to a subjective definition of happiness: no one can decide for me what makes me happy. If it so happens that I derive the greatest happiness precisely from others' pain, what's a utilitarian to do?

        If we're going to start weighing the unhappiness generated by 5 million copies of that "Hot Teen Virgins Await!" UCE, let's not forget to add in the happiness I just finished deriving from it in the privacy of my bathroom.

        Lee Kai Wen, Taiwan, ROC

    • Under this simple and fair scheme the death penalty would be used less on murderers, rapists etc (who, really, only cause harm to one or two people at a time) but would be used a lot on spammers (who cause a small amount of unhappiness to many millions of people).

      I can't believe you are serious in the above, but in case you are, perhaps you should be brutally raped and see how your views change. I have a friend who cannot have children, and who has problems playing the violiin now because she was raped, both her arms broken, and had to have an emergency hysterectomy.

      Spam, no matter how annoying, to no matter how many people, is not anywhere near the same scale as a SINGLE rape or murder.

      • Well considering that one in three women and one in ten (or was it 15) men will be sexually victimized in some serious way over the course of their lifetimes, there ought to be plenty of people to poll and get their opinion from.

        In case you're in denial of the concept of Utilitarianism: Suppose every single day EVERY LAST PERSON ON THIS EARTH was hit in the left shoulder with a 10Kg ball of iron traveling at 8Km/ph. AT SOME POINT the world-wide suffering would surpass the immense pain your friend has undergone.

        You don't belive spamming can possibly be on the same scale as rape, I think its possible when 1,000,000,000 people (give or take 500,000,000) get spam every single day of the year. That's spam as a whole. If the spammers are individually punished for their portion of the total, than I doubt they deserve death like quite a few others have said.

  • And the apology letters will say ... (Score:5, Funny)

    by BabyDave ( 575083 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @10:27AM (#4256793)
    "I'm sorry. If you can find it in your heart to forgive me, send one dollar to Sorry Dude, 742 Evergreen Terrace, Springfield. You have the power."
  • Spam stopped being a problem for me and all my clients after we setup a SpamAssassin mail server - even if you run Outlook on Windows, you can still run the local version:

    A Spam Filter that Works. Problem Solved.
    • Every single time there's an article about spam we get the same old "I use spamassasin, so I'm alright Jack". Don't you see you're just hiding the problem.

      You're actually doing the scum a favour by running spam blocking software - your users are oblivious to the problem and the spammer's ISP recieves less complaints. It's like just closing the curtains when some scumbag is throwing eggs at your windows - it won't go away until you actively DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT!

      And YES I do...
      • I agree, go to the source of the problem, companies that violate your trust by giving or selling your email address, use something like Sneakemail [sneakemail.com] so they can be caught in the act. The blame can be shifted away from the untouchable offshore spammers and the tedious open relay wack-a-mole and shame those who secretly put the process in motion.
      • What you are suggesting is the equivalent of not running the air conditioner in my car so I can be more aware of the global warming problem.

        Or not running anti-virus software because what I REALLY should be doing is hunting down those dang evil virus programmers.

        Spam filter that works. End of problem.
      • What's wrong with using Spam Assassin? I don't seek out & destroy porn film makers, i just block their movies' entry into my home.

        Its called Freedom of speech. Perhaps you've heard of it. If you don't believe in it, then you belong in another country. For better or for worse, I'm going to fight for person X's right to say whatever they want, even if i don't agree with what they're saying. And this includes spammers. Placing laws that curtail spammers take away our freedom.

        Blocking is the correct thing to do here. Eventually enough people will block that most spammers will realize that they are simply not being effective.

        Teach your children well & morally bankrupt the practices you disagree with. Tell your children that spam is bad, and they won't grow up to be spammers. simple.

        There is no quick way to beat spammers, so bankrupt them by educating other people. Set up spamassassin for them, set up a bayesspam filter for them. Do any one of a million things, just do not take my freedom away, you asshole.
        • you asshole.
          Well it seems you're incapable of holding any sort of debate without resorting to schoolboy insults, but I'll bite anyway...

          I'm not interesting in taking away your freedom of speech - if you live in the US your government is already doing that anyway - I'm saying that blotting out the problem by sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "La la la, can't hear you" is doing nothing to stop the scumbags.

          The spammers don't know, or care if the mail is read - they just post X million a day and hope for the best. YOU and YOUR ISP are paying for them to shovel Pr0n, penis enlargement and breast implant garbage into your mailbox, do you not understand this?

          Just try to imagine that you had a partner, and eventually raised kids - do you want them to grow up trawling through 30,40 or 50 pR0n-filled emails a day that have mutated to beat filters? Freedom of speech has to stop somewhere, unless you'd think it's ok for someone to stand outside your trailer yelling "J.Johnson is a pedophille in my opinion" and littering your yard with child porn.

          You see, you're a shining example of the real problem - a hand-wringer, constantly turning the other cheek as scumbags walk all over you to make a few bucks.
        • Its called Freedom of speech. Perhaps you've heard of it.

          Yes, I have. It does not grant you the right to spray paint grafitti on my fence, to scratch grafitti on my windows, or to fill my computer's hard drive with unsolicited e-mail.
    • It is still a problem. You now have to have a server capable of running spamassassin (not a very small machine for a company that deals with thousands of users and emails a day!). Bandwidth for your legitimate users is being stolen by the traffic caused by the stuff as well.

      It's a great piece of software, I use it myself, but the fact that we can filter most stuff does not mean it is not a problem. I'd personally rather use my computer's CPU cycles for something more constructive.

  • I always thought that the thinking on anti-spam laws was that since it was the internet, the spammers would just move their spamming operations offshore or strengthen offshore spammers.

    Also, given that spammers generally are promoting products and services which are probably either illegal or fraudulent, why do we think they're going to follow some localized law about email delivery?

    I'm skeptical that laws to regulate spam specifically will ever accomplish anything. I think at best the law enforcement effort is best directed at the ultimate source of the spam, the person(s) with the products advertised.
  • ...that this guy was creating between 30 and 50 replies a month through spam. I have to wonder how anyone stupid enough to send $40 to an anonymous criminal and expect to "get rich quick" manages to operate a computer in the first place - or even remember to breathe for that matter!

    So long as there are plenty of thick-heads I guess there'll be plenty of vultures to prey on them...
    • People are greedy. Even pretty clueful people get greedy.

      And, in the long run, $40 probably isn't that much to risk for anybody who already has a computer, or access to one. In the same vein, it's unlikely that a $1 lottery ticket or slot machine token will give a net positive payoff, but from an individual's point of view the probable loss of $1 or $40 is probably OK so long as it's not too frequent.
  • I feel uneasy every time I hear the "free speech" phrase thrown about with respect to spam. I'm all for the right of free speech - even the freedom to lie your little deceptive head off if you feel the need - but to me, spam in my inbox is FORCING the carriage of that speech upon me.

    The difference between free speech and spam, to me, is a little like someone standing on a street corner spouting their philosophies/advertising/whatever - goodo for them there, compared to having someone fully in my face constantly shouting a message (often the same one) over and over again while I'm attempting to get something else done. The delete key is there, but in the same way I don't want to be constantly pushing someone out of my way who's proclaiming what they want me to hear.

    a grrl & her server [danamania.com]
  • Please, think carefully before invoking Big Brother to solve your problems! As convenient as it sounds, regulation of e-mail provides yet another disturbing precendent for government control of private communication. Our founding fathers viewed governments as a last resort for problems that cannot be solved locally.

    Think about it. Defining "spam" is about as easy as defining "offensive" content. Subjective decisions about which e-mail messages are deemed worthy to be delivered should NOT be made by politicians.

    There are very obvious technical solutions to the spam problem involving digital signatures. Consider the icon at the bottom of your browser, which informs you that an online merchant is "trustworthy" (i.e. their identity has been independently verified). It's not hard to see how this concept of "transitive trust" could be extended to e-mail, while preserving relative anonymity.

    Basically, various groups would establish public-key databases containing validated e-mail signatures, and databases could transitively incorporate other databases, similar to DNS. (Most likely, keys would be issued to servers rather than to individuals.) Mail servers could then be configured to reject any e-mail which is not signed with a recognized key. A user could report spam to the approriate *local* group, and they could respond by reprimanding the sender or revoking the key. The definition of "offensive" would then be relative to a particular group's interests. A similar scheme could be used for content regulation on web sites, etc. etc.

    E-mail has been LONG overdue for incorporation of basic technologies like PGP. This is partly because of the perceived cost of implementation, but mainly because of apathy on the part of sysadmins. So, if you sysadmins are finally ready to take action, please do something more proactive than simply deferring to Uncle Sam or some other imperial authority.

    Sending e-mail should not be a crime!
    Receiving e-mail should be optional!

    -Gonz

    • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

      by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @12:04PM (#4257114)
      Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • "Please, think carefully before invoking Big Brother to solve your problems! As convenient as it sounds, regulation of e-mail provides yet another disturbing precendent for government control of private communication."

      This isn't about speech, this is about both commerce and property. It's commerce because these are e-mail advertisements and it's property because I pay for my e-mail account and my e-mail server. If they're interested in sending me spam, they can reimburse me for the use of my property. Or would you mind if I came by your house with a can of spraypaint and exercise my "freedom of speech" on your front door? Keying my personal expressions on the hood of your car?

      Of course, if you still want to go with your knee-jerk Libertarian reaction and want to continue avoiding government intervention at all costs, I can always go buy a shotgun at Wal-Mart...

      "Our founding fathers viewed governments as a last resort for problems that cannot be solved locally."

      Making reference to "founding fathers" in political argument: +50 points on political crackpot scale.

      "Think about it. Defining "spam" is about as easy as defining "offensive" content."

      Is it a solicitation? (yes/no)
      Did I ask for it? (yes/no)

      It's that easy!

      "Subjective decisions about which e-mail messages are deemed worthy to be delivered should NOT be made by politicians."

      See, that's why we have these things called "courts" and "juries." They make these kinds of decisions.

      "There are very obvious technical solutions to the spam problem involving digital signatures."

      I refer back to the shotguns Wal-Mart is selling. It is a technological measure that has the habit of solving many problems permanently.

      "Consider the icon at the bottom of your browser, which informs you that an online merchant is "trustworthy" (i.e. their identity has been independently verified). It's not hard to see how this concept of "transitive trust" could be extended to e-mail, while preserving relative anonymity."

      I don't give a damn about trustworthiness! I don't even want the damned things in my e-mail account! If they want to flood my account, they can pay for it! But they don't, because people who think all too similarly to you think that the internet is some magical, mystical place, a paralell universe where the rules of the real world just don't apply! Just because you're not the one paying for it doesn't mean e-mail is free!

      "Basically, various groups would establish public-key databases containing validated e-mail signatures,"

      Not only do I not want these God-forsaken messages anywhere near my account (which I pay for), I don't want to sacrifice any of my processor cycles or my network bandwidth! What you are offering is not a solution, only adding to the problem!

      There only real solutions to the spam problem boil down to two camps:

      1.) Government intervention (laws, etc.)

      2.) Vigilantism (list of known-spammers, domain blocking, etc.)

      Of course, if we have to rely on vigilante activities to preserve our rights and property as citizens, what's the point of government to begin with?

      Of course, there's your argument right there, isn't it? I'm sorry, but personally I'd rather fine or jail spammers than shoot them.

      "Mail servers could then be configured to reject any e-mail which is not signed with a recognized key."

      My processor cycles! My hardware! My bandwidth!

      "A similar scheme could be used for content regulation on web sites, etc. etc."

      Apples and oranges. Websites require you to actively look for them, type in the URL, etc. ("pull") E-mail is exactly the opposite, where you have no control over what appears in your e-mail account ("push").

      "So, if you sysadmins are finally ready to take action, please do something more proactive than simply deferring to Uncle Sam or some other imperial authority."

      Why should sysadmins implement new technology at their own expense when they're not the ones who are responsible for producing the "need" for the new expense to begin with?

      You know, graffiti wouldn't be such a problem if the bulding owners were more proactive about repainting their walls every time some new "art" appears. What? They'd have to buy the paint and sacrifice their own time to redo their walls? Well, that's better than government intervention in your book, isn't it?
    • As convenient as it sounds, regulation of e-mail provides yet another disturbing precendent for government control of private communication. Our founding fathers viewed governments as a last resort for problems that cannot be solved locally.
      Spammers have used the law to stop block lists by suing them. They have been successful in a few cases, mostly by simply outspending someone. Sure, we would prefer to keep big government out of the internet, but the spammers have forced our hand.

  • Scary (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Kwantus ( 34951 )
    Is no one else bothered by this new US legal fashion of conviction without trial?
    • It's not new. If neither side can seriously contest the self-evident facts of the case, then there's no need for a trial.

    • Re:Scary (Score:2, Informative)

      by jhylkema ( 545853 )
      I'm assuming you're ignorant, a troll, or a knee-jerk America-hater. In any case, let me educate you.

      This is not a criminal case, this is a civil case. In a civil case, the government does not have the power to deprive a defendant of his freedom. It can, however, order him to make whole the person(s) he has injured with his conduct. And it is only necessary to prove liability by a preponderance of the evidence (i.e., more likely than not). And in a case where there is no triable issue of fact, the court can grant summary judgment to the side that is so entitled. Every common-law based legal system in the world has it.

      For this reason, there is no such thing as being "convicted" of spamming because it's not a crime to spam, it's a civil offense, or tort. May I suggest an "Introduction to Law and the Legal Process" course at your nearest junior college?

      And this got a Score: 2! Typical of the bilge you see on /. these days.
  • but they do grind. This Washington case is slowly grinding forward, and will probably result in a big civil judgement against the spammer that will cost him far, far more than he ever made spamming. The main California case (Ferguson vs. Friendfinder) went to the California Supreme Court on the constitutionality issue, the spammer lost, and it's back down at trial level.

    In the near future, we'll probably have two major verdicts against spammers. Then, once the legal machinery has been debugged, anti-spam suits will go into volume production, as the plantiff's bar (the "ambulance chasers" of the legal field) get into the business. Finally, we'll see bus posters: "Got spam? Call us to sue and win!"

  • Next phase: penalties. How about 5 million hand-written apology letters?"

    I can see the apology letter now...

    "We are very sorry we told you about our wonderfull offer to get rich while looking at hot girls at www.hotXXX.Financial.com. The State of Washington says that telling you about this great deal at www.hotXXX.Financial.com was wrong and so we are so sorry.

    Sincerely,

    PrizesAndOffers"

  • My experience with WA spam laws. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday September 14, 2002 @11:34AM (#4257024)
    I've sued nearly 20 spammers in WA Small Claims Court this year. To date I've won every case, or settled out of court. It's good to see this win at the higher court level, but it's not really news to me.

    Almost every spammer violates the law (RCW 19.190) because even if the return address is valid (e.g. optin@spammers.com) they are always forged return addresses because the actual mail comes from Korea or China or a dialup somewhere.

    Having said that, I do sometimes get spam from more 'legitimate' spammers (i.e. ones who actually have a website, usually mentioning keywords like CRM and direct advertising). They send mail with their own domain name, and they send it from their own servers. It's probably less than 1% of the total right now. Those emails don't fall under RCW 19.190.

    I rarely go after the actual spammers but instead the companies that hire them. The spammers themselves are service and/or judgment proof, whereas the companies that hire them are usually real companies registered to do business somewhere. Having said that, you would be surprised how many companies that spam go out of business shortly thereafter. It appears to be an act of desperation for many.

    I've collected over $5000 in settlements and I have $7000 in judgments outstanding. If they don't pay up, I sic Dun and Bradstreet debt collection on them so at least their D&B credit record will be ruined for all time (an unpaid court judgment is considered a Very Bad Thing on a businesses credit record). Total cost to me per case is less than $50 usually, so I can afford the unpaid judgments.

    I understand the free speech arguments, but RCW 19.190 is pretty specific. First, it must be unsolicited commercial email. Secondly, they must have a misleading subject or forge the addresses. I have got spam pitches from religious types and politicians, but neither falls under RCW 19.190. And thirdly, there is a registry for WA resident to enter their addresses (http://registry.waisp.org). If the spammers are really honest, they could listwash us all from their lists. Of course, they never do this because they are always buying the latest and greatest CD full of email addresses.

    It's the old rule of Garbage In Garbage Out. If you collect 20 million email addresses at random, don't complain to me about how hard it is to check them!

    • Total cost to me per case is less than $50 usually, so I can afford the unpaid judgments.

      Out of interest, how much of your time does it take?

    • $5K sounds like a lot, but I'd say you've earned it. Thing is, you live in a state with strong anti-spam laws. Before we can follow your lead, most of us are going to have to campaign to get similar laws enacted in our own states. In CA, where I live, that probably would mean a ballot initiative -- I can't see the legislature flouting the direct marketing industry. And getting an initiative on the ballot is expensive [afrd.org].

  • Victory in Spam Land (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ace905 ( 163071 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @11:40AM (#4257041) Homepage
    There are an increasing number of 'victories' in the war on spam by government ; but overall the number of Spam sent is increasing.

    While the government can fight blatent abuse of a person or companies communication rights ; they have not (and I believe they can not) come up with legislation that actually makes spam illegal while allowing all legitimate communications to be made unhindered.

    The solution to Spam and the new 'free marketing' medium of the Internet really is to use an Authentication system for all communications that are prone to abuse ; and that would work for telephones as well.

    What we need is an Authentication System [si20.com] in the email protocol itself, and that is what my company - SolidBlue is working on over the next year or so. Interested researchers can email us and we'll see if we can get an RFC group started.
    • "While the government can fight blatent abuse of a person or companies communication rights ; they have not (and I believe they can not) come up with legislation that actually makes spam illegal while allowing all legitimate communications to be made unhindered."

      Once again, I gratuitously quote myself [iwancio2002.org]:
      The law Fax.com was found to be guilty of breaking is Section 227 of Title 47 of the United States Code. The relevant text follows:
      Restrictions on the use of automated telephone equipment:

      It shall be unlawful for any person in the United States (...) to use any to use any telephone facsimile machine, computer, or other device to send an unsolicited advertisement to a telephone facsimile machine(.)

      ...
      In my opinion the solution to this problem is very simple: expand 227 U. S. C. 47 to prohibit unsolicited e-mail advertisements in exactly the same way it prohibits unsolicited fax advertisements. Nothing more, and certainly nothing less.
  • Although this is certainly welcome news, it shouldn't be interpreted to mean that spam will dry up in the near future.

    Read the story. It took four years to get this far. At four-five years a pop per spammer, how long would you care it'll take to go after all of 'em?

    I still believe that the real solution is a combination of technical and social approaches, with litigation being used only for the worst offenders, like Heckel. It's been my experience that carefully-tuned mail filters are very succesful in blocking between 60-75% of the junk. If you don't mind an occasional false positive, you can get even better than that. Adding up what I find in /var/log/maillog, and my mailbox, my filters block about 95% of the crap that's flung my way.

    What's left over can be kept in check by agressively going after the network providers who are providing Internet connectivity to these spamming parasites. That's the social approach. If you've been complaining to large networks you've probably figured out for yourself that many large networks consider spam complaints to be nothing other than requests to shut down a paying customer. A paying customer who often generated lucrative "bulk-friendly" hosting fees.

    Agressive spam blacklists, like SPEWS [spews.org] have actually gotten some pretty good results in forcing these rogue networks to get their shit together, by massively blacklisting large portions of spam-hosting networks until such time that they decide to get rid of their spamming vermin. I think that the spam problem will finally get handled when more and more people will accept the notion that sometimes it is necessary to temporarily throw the baby out with the bathwater, and blackball an entire network until they no longer refuse to do anything about their spamming abusers.
  • One of the 5 suspected terrorists arrested in Buffalo was a telemarketer.

  • Anyone else using Cloudmark? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by John Miles ( 108215 ) on Saturday September 14, 2002 @12:27PM (#4257186) Homepage Journal
    These guys [zdnet.com] have built a really clean implementation of a peer-driven (as opposed to true P2P) spam filter. You install their MS Outlook extension on your desktop machine, and it filters incoming messages against a list of spam signatures reported by other Cloudmark users. You then have the opportunity to report any spam that makes it through the filter, which in turn reduces the probability that other users will be subjected to that particular spam message.

    They are running an open beta test at the moment. I've only used it for a few days, but it seems like a definite win. It's been flagging around 75% of the spam I've received since I installed the beta, with zero false positives so far.

    Not affiliated with Cloudmark, just a (so far) satisfied user...
  • "How about 5 million hand-written apology letters?"
    Wouldn't this count as more Spam? ;)
  • How about 5 million hand-written apology letters?

    Hello Mr. Donkey.

    This letter is not junk mail! You have received this because you have chosen to opt-in to receive special apologizes from this company.

    We sincerly apologize for sending you unsolicited e-mails informing you of exciting offers for new companies.

    By receiving this apology letter, you have been selected by our database to receive an unlimited amount of incredible offers by direct mail from super-value-offers direct.

    To discontinue receiving these apology letters, please point your browser to 192.168.0.4/unsubscribe
  • The laws against faking your return address are good ones, IMHO. Although it should already be covered by fraud laws, but I digress.

    Until everything is right in the world of Internet email again, I will just continue to use Spam Assassin [spamassassin.org] I am using it on my own mailing lists and myself here at home via procmail, and we just launched it into production at work using milter on our main external SMTP servers. The nice thing is, we don't delete the stuff, we just make it easier for our users to filter it themselves. No real legal issues that way.

  • My spam problem is unique. I opted into spam (free trial of an online game) but I gave them a forwarding address. Now I don't want the email anymore.

    The only way to (easily) unsubscribe is to reply to the email. However, since when I reply it's with a different email address than the one the email is sent to, it doesn't unsubscribe me.

    Maybe I should forge the header when I reply :)
  • This bit of the article has a rather interesting point -
    Then last year, the Washington State Supreme Court upheld the law, finding that the only burden the rule "places on spammers is the requirement of truthfulness."
    From the FTC [ftc.gov]
    What truth-in-advertising rules apply to advertisers?

    Under the Federal Trade Commission Act:

    * advertising must be truthful and non-deceptive;
    As SPAM is advertising, wouldn't invalid return addresses and bogus subjects fall under deception...

Slashdot Top Deals

If you steal from one author it's plagiarism; if you steal from many it's research. -- Wilson Mizner

Close