Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Spam

California Bans Mobile Phone Spam 119

Posted by michael from the you-don't-have-mail dept.
Argyle writes "News.com is reporting that California has banned the spamming of pagers and mobile phones with unwanted text messages."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

California Bans Mobile Phone Spam More

California Bans Mobile Phone Spam

Comments Filter:

  • Not just text messages... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by therealmoose ( 558253 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @03:02PM (#4304030)
    The article also says that he signed bills to fight junk fax and expidiate do not call lists. Sounds like a great step forward for privacy and anti-stupidity laws!

    • Re:Not just text messages... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by srw ( 38421 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @03:03PM (#4304035) Homepage
      I wonder how it deals with cross-border spam. That still seems to me to be the biggest problem to deal with.

      • IANAL but i think it would make it illegal to spam from another state but from another country might be difficult to enforce.
      • This problem is much bigger than just a spam. We beging to live in the world of global technologies and global markets. Global here means international. How are you going to enforce anything internationally when the powerest country in the world ignores International Crime Court?

        All such laws will fail until we'll have a *WORKING* and international legal system. Better spend resource on it, rather than on local-wide legal "patches".

    • please, please dont use the term anti-stupidity laws, every day more and more common sense is being replaced by laws, and if theres one thing most people need more of, its common sense, people will asume if theres no law against it, it must not be bad or bad for them, my big example is the guy whos suing the fast food chains becuase he got fat, this guy deserves to have a massive cornary episode and be taken out of the gene pool if hes so stupid as to think eating burgers and fries every day and sitting on his ass isn't gonna make him fat, c'mon, do we really need a law requiring the food industry to tell us if we eat a lot of their products and dont excersice were gonna get even fatter, we need to use our heads, not the lawbooks

      /end_rant

      • There are two sides to this

        a) I do stupid things then sue the provides for my inability to control myself

        b) Taking advantage of the lack of laws to exploit unwilling others.

        So suing tabacco [while funny and overall product] falls under the former while sending out mass amounts of spam because its not illegal is the latter.

        Tom

  • Known Hosts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by messiertom ( 590151 ) <tom@crystae.homeip.nELIOTet minus poet> on Saturday September 21, 2002 @03:04PM (#4304038) Homepage Journal

    Why not make messages only be accepted from known "hosts" (phone numbers)? Rather like /etc/hosts.allow, but for mobile phones.

    Does such a system exist?

    • Try explaining the concept to the end users. Your idea would only open a nightmare of support issues and generate many more calls to the help desk/customer support.

      • Re:Known Hosts (Score:2, Interesting)

        by messiertom ( 590151 )
        Simple, it's only a few steps:

        1) Go to your menu
        2) Go to "Instant Messaging" (or whatever it's called)
        3) Scroll down to "Allow List"
        4) Scroll to "Add"
        5) Add the phone number of the cell-phone you wish to have call you.

        You could even just have it accept messages from all users, and have this "allow list" be an "advanced user" feature. It would of course, all be documented somewhere.
    • Barring some major architectural changes, I'm strongly suspecting that eventually email is going to be an opt-in service, where each user has a whitelist of people allowed to email him, just as some messaging clients do today.
      • you're absolutely right. some of us implement this with procmail and various other filters already. it works 100% of the time. it is the future. now i'm going to spoil it. we'll all spend more time on keeping the white lists current than deleting spam.
        • We'll have easy to manage stuff. How long do you spend managing your IM client's whitelist? Manually writing procmail scripts takes much longer...

          And I could see a web of trust, if not as peer-based as PGP, at least a hierarchical one.
    • T-Mobile customers can set up filters for their text messages on the company's web site (click on "My T-Mobile"). You can have messages blocked, forwarded to an email address, or accepted on your handset.
    • it would be really nice to have an option to only recieve messages from phone numbers stored in your phone's phone book.

      My Samsung SCH-3500 allows for different rings based on whether the caler has CallerID or not. I would like to be able to change the ring type (OR VOLUME) based on whether it is in the phone book (the phone already looks the number up to see if it has a listing for that number).

      Seems trivial to implement.

  • Everyone! (Score:3, Funny)

    by $0 31337 ( 225572 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @03:05PM (#4304047) Homepage
    I just wanted to invite everyone to use my brand new web site www.spamcalifornianscellphones.com to send out any ads for your compan... wait... awwwww shit.

  • State-law system. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Fantanicity ( 583135 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @03:06PM (#4304049) Journal

    So what does this ban?

    Californians in California spamming other Californians in California?
    Californians in California spamming other Californians anywhere?
    Californians in California spamming anyone in California?
    Californians in California spamming anyone anywhere?
    Californians anywhere spamming other Californians in California?
    Californians anywhere spamming anyone in California?
    Anyone in California spamming Californians in California?
    Anyone anywhere spamming Californians in California?
    Anyone in California spamming anyone in California?
    Anyone in California spamming anyone anywhere?

    And several other permutations?

  • Here is another example of well-meaning, yet relatively irrelevant laws being passed. California seems to be really good at that, although some of their "unusual" laws seem to work out quite nicely.

    Did I just say "relatively irrelevant"?

  • Note to self... (Score:5, Funny)

    by extagboy ( 60672 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @03:09PM (#4304061) Homepage
    Stop planned cell phone spamming campaign and instead walk up to people with bullhorn explaining how they can win free stuff and save thousands on their mortgage.
    • Will you be walking up to guys on the street with a bullhorn and asking: "Sir, I can tell you might be interested in having a larger penis. Or how about some cheap viagra ? Wanna see some naked teens ?"

    • Re:Note to self... (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Yeah- because thats just as cheap and scalable as spam.
  • this sounds like an excellent opportunity for me to sell legal services and products via cell phone messages to make sure this law works as it should, obviously I would have an opt-out number to call just in case you don't want to hear about these various services.

  • Is this really going to change anything? How many laws do we have either in creation or already existing vs email spam? Has the amount of spam lessened?

    How easy is it for a spammer (by any market) to just move their base of operations to another area, where there are no such laws? How are you going to enforce this?

    Really, I could declare a ban on any obnoxious thing in our world, and god knows there are plenty of such things. Enforcing most of them would be an absolute nightmare, assuming anyone even bothers to try.

    • Unlike spam, which uses easiyl forged e-mail headers making it near impossible to trace, text messenging goes through the phone system and CAN be traced back to the orginiator rather trivially. I'm assuming SMS can't be easily forged. This makes such a law much much easier to enforce, as the phone company can simply look to see where the messages are coming from, and make it easier to fine the appropriate people.
      • SMS can be traced ... until people start running open relays [oreillynet.com]
        • Then you just charge the owners of open relays. In all technicality if you relay spam then you are also sending spam.

          Its possible to setup redudant servers that are not completely open [in the sense anyone can send from it without a priori knowledge]

          Tom
      • OK, so if I send a message that goes through here [cingular.com] and I have passed through say here [anonymizer.com] how are you going to track the origin again??
      • Unlike spam, which uses easiyl forged e-mail headers making it near impossible to trace, text messenging goes through the phone system and CAN be traced back to the orginiator rather trivially.

        In order to send a text message to my pager or cell phone, you just need to send an email to 5555551234@text.myphonecompany.com and it comes through as a text message. So forged headers would work just as well here. I make sure that I don't give out that address to anyone, but it would not be hard to send a message out to all known cellular exchanges within my area code.

    • The spammers will just move to las vegas or some place just outside the califorian border. Here in the Vegas there are hundreds of companies that hack the phone system so those with caller id's can not track them. My girlfriend use to work at a catalog company and telemarketed. I do wonder how they do it. I have caller-id and can not track down spammers. Alot of states have numbers we can dial to block out the spammers but since they hire hackers to find work-arounds, they do not work. My guess is all the californian spam companies will just move across the border and continue to spam as normal.
  • Sure, it's a fine idea. I can't spam on the mobile, even though it's switched off most of the time.

    But how will they regulate this? How will they dentify the offenders?

    Nice idea, but probably unworkable unfortunately :-(

  • That's Just Special (Score:3)

    by zentec ( 204030 ) <zentec@NoSpAM.gmail.com> on Saturday September 21, 2002 @03:14PM (#4304082)

    The article did not state the penalties involved if you are guilty of spamming pagers and cell phones, but the sad fact is that I'm sure they are woefully inadequate.

    In Michigan, there's a law on the books concerning junk faxes. Yes, it's illegal to send unsolicited faxes of any sort in the state of Michigan. The penalty? $500 or the cost of the supplies used in receiving the fax *which ever is less*.

    C'mon, what a toothless law.

    Spam, junk faxes all fall into the "weather" category in as much as "everyone complains about the weather, but no one seems to do anything about it". Well fellow consumers, unlike the weather, you *can* do something about it.

    It's quite simple. Don't do business with companies that engage in such practices. Let them know, and vote with your wallet.

    Unfortunately, sheeple continue to tolerate practices that they readily acknowledge as annoying.

    Vote with your wallet.
    • Does the cost of supplies include the fax machine or computer that is receiving the fax? Or is it just the consumable supplies?
      • It'd be interesting if someone argued that receipt of a junk fax cost them over $500 (otherwise the law would be a little pointless with "whichever is less" - should be "whichever is more".

        You could easily argue that while the cost of: paper and toner for one fax is trivial, the cost of replacing paper and toner, man hours reading the fax, electricity, man hours deciding the fax is spam, deleting it, reporting it to the authorities, going through the legal process thereafter, maintainence of fax machine and a thousand other tiny things (apart from the man-hours and wasted productivity thing which could be quite large) would add up to a hefty sum (at east $500) and then the law might have some bite.

  • This is a great first step. I hope the government has the balls to ban email spam, too.

    I want an email spam law that allows me to charge for equipment, storage, and my time used to stop the spam. Since I'm a DBA, that should come to roughly $1,000 per spam, give or take a couple hundred dollars.

  • I'VE GOT IT! (Score:2, Funny)

    by Have Blue ( 616 )
    I'll start my own business registering cell phones in California and selling them nationwide! Oh, and I've also patented this idea.
  • if it's as effective as the ban on junk faxes, then who cares?
    • Actually, it looks like they fixed the fax law in California, too. The fax law he signed basically undoes the CA fax law (which was awful), which replaces it with the Federal version (which is tougher).

      I wish I could find some details on the penalties for the phone spam law, though. I currently get about one phone spam a month (usually at 4am, of course).

      Interesting question: If they spam my phone's email address, can I get them for the anti-phone-message violation even though spam isn't prohibited? If so, it might be worth getting a throwaway phone just to go after the spammers...
  • In other news, congress passed a law which prohibits spam via email and faxes.
  • I get tons of shit in my inbox right now, and I can't trace most of it. BNCs, forged headers, anonymous proxies. It is basically impossible to determine where an email really came from if the sender is knowledgeable and doesn't want you to know. So, like the the laws in Virginia that make porn illegal if it passes through any pipe or computer in the state, these new laws are technically uunenforceable. So while it is a step in the right direction, it is still not really effective.
  • ...that you can't get spam on ur mobile phone from other states? if only all states enforced this it would actually make a difference.

  • Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Micah ( 278 ) on Saturday September 21, 2002 @03:42PM (#4304181) Homepage Journal
    I have a Nokia 8250 with AT&T, and I've only gotten one or two "spams" from AT&T itself. Doesn't seem like it's a huge problem at this point...
    • yes,
      but guess it depends on which network you're on and in which country you live in.

      know that vodafone here in the uk are SCARILY evil when it comes to sms-spam.
    • Maybe it's not a problem at this point...but "[Gov.] Davis said he endorsed the plan because he didn't want unsolicited messages on mobile phones to reach the same level of mayhem that spam e-mails have." The whole point is to nip it in the bud.
    • And that is why it should be banned now... you would rather wait until your phone is littered with hundreds of Spam messages to do something? Kinda like e-mail...

    • Re:Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam? (Score:1, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      On Cingular I get approx 2 a month.
    • I get around 10 a week. Almost all recordings. I live in spam capital las vegas where the laws are the weakest so perhaps that is the reason. It is out of control here.
    • I've only ever gotten one piece of spam on my phone in Australia.

      Telstra (an .au phone co.) got into some trouble when they sent a pre-recorded voice message to all their customers about some crap new network feature they added... it wouldn't have been too interesting, except they also *charge* you for using the voicemail service.

      So, about 800,000 people get a voicemail message, and spend 20c individually to get it , only to find out it's just spam from the damn phone company. 800,000 people grumbling, "f***ing sleazy ripoff telstra!", had quite an effect. Made it into the TV news a few days in a row, and Telstra got a smack and a fine from the ACCC (.au's consumer watchdog) and was forced to issue grovelling apologies and a refund.

      First and last case of Phone spam in Australia it seems.

      Yes , this is a little off-topic, and probably only applies if you get charged for receiving messages (CompuServe, anyone?) , but I thought I'd mention it anyway.
  • I am still waiting for them to share with the rest of the states their apparently endless knowledge of "substances known to the State of California to cause cancer."
  • I have an email forwarding setup so one can easily e-mail an address rather than knowing my phone number and provider. There is no way to know that its an SMS address. What kind of reward/compensation can i look forward to when i do start receiving spam? Is it even covered? I already get a newsletter from the email fwding provider that i don't want, and there is no way to have myself removed since the email gets cropped with the 160 char limit.
  • They could still send you messages. I live in New York state, and, with our new telemarketer "do-not-call list" (circa 2000), the spammers still have the option to call us to try and make appointments, rather than outright selling their product. Just because they can't call to solicite their wares, they can still call to set up appointments to do the same. Which is lame. Very, very lame. I know that the frequency and magnitude of each call from each company is still increasing, atleast to my house, even with being on said list.

    Spam should remain where it belongs; in the can, and on the shelf. Not in my face.
  • The question is when will other states follow this? And what are the consequences of companies that do spam your cell phone with text messages? How will the average consumer be able to retaliate for the damages or money they have to pay for the text messages? Will it cost the average consumer too much money just to penalize companies for their transgressions when they do leave spamming text messages? In essence... is it really enforcable?
  • According to the article [sfgate.com] from the San Francisco Chronicle,
    "The measure banning unsolicited text messages to cell phones and pagers emerged after Assemblyman Tim Leslie, R-Tahoe City, read about the case of Rodney Joffe, who had been interrupted during a performance of "Riverdance" by a text message advertising new mortgage rates."
    So, while spam messages on cell phones are still fairly rare, they are happening, and it was only a matter of time before it would have gotten out of hand. Links to the text of the bills Gov. Davis signed are below. How the state actually plans on enforcing the part on spam emails is anybody's guess.

    SB 1560 [ca.gov] - This bill creates a statewide "Do Not Call" list to be maintained by the attorney general.
    AB 1769 [ca.gov] - Here is the bill making it a crime to send unsolicited text messages to cell phones or pagers.
    AB 2944 [ca.gov] - Here is the bill closing a loophole in CA's junk fax law, and decreeing that all spam emails include "ADV:" at the beginning of the subject line or "ADV:ADLT" in the case of adult material.

  • I feel odd about this, but California is making sense. First they rule that programmers don't have to flip burgers for a living once they leave a technology employer [slashdot.org], now this.

    I guess I should say kudos.
  • I suppose, that Operator can check IMEI and subscriber number on its SMS gateway, but this needs an integration of customer helpdesk (to report spam) and SMS gw staff (to ban it).

    The other way how to spam is to go thru e-mail2sms gateways - these could be easily checked by operator (ordb etc.) and via customer helpdesk centre.

    And here we have a problem no law can solve: my mobile operator spams me with ton of messages regarding any stupid marketing action (which I do not want to know of), but I've subscribed to interesting mail list (active police speed radar places via sms in realtime, nice) via email and this is filtered out as spam. And worse, any host used to forward these messages is banned from the network.

    - the result: Do NOT choose T-Mobile anywhere in Europe.

    I've made a change recently, but:

    Still I get a TON OF SPAM from my own mobile operator. Do You think, that this is the law, that will provide anyone from stoping mobile operator from spamming its customers?

    Have You read the "EULAs" (:-)? Something like: "...customer agrees to receive occasional messages pointing out new features of our glorious network?..." - can the law force operator not to send spam to the customer, who explicitly wants it?

    --
    paja
  • Seems that California tends to lead the way for many controversial tech/legal issues, for better or worse. It's nice to see that this round is a definitive win for the good guys. Hope they make the same decision up here in BC. I haven't gotten cellspam yet, but I'm expecting it to start soon. At 10c/message, they would be a lot worse than just spam email.
  • ... if they just passed some decent privacy legislation [slashdot.org]. Whoops!
  • First cigarettes, now spam.

    Sheesh.

    I'm awaiting the day when meat is banned in California. At that point, perhaps it's citizens will tire of dining on fruit & veggies, and demand that every restaurant serve big chunks of raw animal.

    In a smoking section.

    Until that day, I'll avoid California religiously, and continue praying for the day that Los Angeles slides into the deep, making Vegas that much closer to the beach.

  • What if I have email->SMS gateway (most cell
    phone carriers provide one). Is sending email to this address is governed under this law? What if I have another email address forwarded to this one?
  • I guess there are not alot of SMS (simple messaging system?) users that are posting to this story. Many carriers (like AT&T), do not charge you for incoming text messages. Not only that, but you can commonly send a text message to a phone via an email address, so its not necessarily the case that somebody is charged at all when a message is sent to a cell phone.

    I have my email forwarded to my cell phone via SMS, granted it cuts off after the first 150 characters, so I only really know who sent me the message, and its subject, then the first one or two sentences. But its free so I can't complain about it. The alternative is GRPS, which is a bit pricey right now.

    I'm sure you could hack procmail to break a message up into multiple text messages 150 characters, then you could read all your email on your phone for free, including SPAM.
  • Voicestream has recently begun the dubious practice of sending you "one time informational" voice mails. However, the catch is that you must listen to the entire message, otherwise THEY CHARGE YOU FOR THE AIRTIME OF LISTENING TO THEIR SPAM, as I understand it.

    I am going to terminate my Voicestream service, and I would urge anyone else not to sign up with them in the first place.

  • An idea is an eye given by God for the seeing of God. Some of these eyes
    we cannot bear to look out of, we blind them as quickly as possible.
    -- Russell Hoban, "Pilgermann"

    - this post brought to you by the Automated Last Post Generator...

Slashdot Top Deals

"An ounce of prevention is worth a ton of code." -- an anonymous programmer

Close