(Yes, you) CAN-SPAM ACT (now before email becomes completely useless)
Fred the Red Shirt
"McWebber" <mcwe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:<wLydnRGrrq9...@comcast.com>...
> "Joe Moore" <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote in message
> news:lnqurv430nqlskcjp...@4ax.com...
> > Is there actually anyone in congress who really
> > believes that the public doesn't see through their
> > complete sellout to special interests represented
> > by their spam legalization efforts.
> >
>
> Exactly as I predicted back when there was such a push from some people for
> anti-spam legislation.
> And now, since the FTC doesn't have the staff to prosecute existing
> spam/fraud email, they'll now be tasked to do more wrist slapping and send
> out nonsensical warnings to companies for alleged violations of this useless
> law and ignore more already-criminal frauds online. This law most certainly
> will make the spam problem worse.
Hmm, suppose I'm a prosecutor and I try to prosecute someone attempting
or comitting fraud via email under my state's fraud statutes. Will
the Federal 'They Can Spam" act be usable as a defense since it
'pre-empts' state laws?
Note Cross-Posting.
--
FF
Arthur L. Rubin
> Hmm, suppose I'm a prosecutor and I try to prosecute someone attempting
> or comitting fraud via email under my state's fraud statutes. Will
> the Federal 'They Can Spam" act be usable as a defense since it
> 'pre-empts' state laws?
I haven't read the law, but I HAVE read that it specifically allows
states to prosecute under laws which don't mention the means of
transmission of the message. So fraud should be OK.
(I mean state fraud prosecution should be OK.)
--
This account is subject to a persistent MS Blaster and SWEN attack.
I think I've got the problem resolved, but, if you E-mail me
and it bounces, a second try might work.
However, please reply in newsgroup.
Fred the Red Shirt
If, as they say, I had a string on that article I'd pull it back.
It was my bad for not READing the act and relying instead on
reports.
fredf...@spamcop.net (Fred the Red Shirt) wrote in message
news:<8sm2sv8hbcbmq6qk5...@4ax.com>...
> Note cross-posting
>
> "McWebber" <mcwe...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> news:<wLydnRGrrq9...@comcast.com>...
> > "Joe Moore" <mun...@bad.example.com> wrote in message
> > news:lnqurv430nqlskcjp...@4ax.com...
> > > Is there actually anyone in congress who really
> > > believes that the public doesn't see through their
> > > complete sellout to special interests represented
> > > by their spam legalization efforts.
> > >
> >
> > Exactly as I predicted back when there was such a push from some people for
> > anti-spam legislation.
> > And now, since the FTC doesn't have the staff to prosecute existing
> > spam/fraud email, ...
>
> Hmm, suppose I'm a prosecutor and I try to prosecute someone attempting
> or comitting fraud via email under my state's fraud statutes. Will
> the Federal 'They Can Spam" act be usable as a defense since it
> 'pre-empts' state laws?
>
The (They) CAN SPAM (You) act expressly does not preempt state laws
OTHER than email laws, nor does it preempt state laws that address
falsity in email such as 'forged' headers:
Sec. 8 EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS
...
(b) State Law
(1)[Exempts from preemption state laws that probhibit
falsity or deception in email]
(2)[Exempts from preemtion state laws not specific to email]
See: http://word-to-the-wise.com/canspam.pdf
It appears that the Maryland commercial email law which only
addresses issues of falsity (and on it's face, in ALL commercial
email, not just spam) would be unaffected. Few states have any
laws that go beyond prohibiting in email, that which arguably
is already illegal. I say this inasmuch as the use of
deception (like header forgery) to obtain a service (like delivery
of the email) seems to me to satisfy the elements of fraud.
This provision and the effective date of the act DO seem to be
especially targetted at the new CA law, one of th efew which
actually would prohibit spam per se.
Sorry about going off half cocked, but I simply will not buy those
pills from those spammers.
Note Cross-Posting.
--
FF
McWebber
news:r0c7svshv9ookjnmv...@4ax.com...
> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>
> > Hmm, suppose I'm a prosecutor and I try to prosecute someone attempting
> > or comitting fraud via email under my state's fraud statutes. Will
> > the Federal 'They Can Spam" act be usable as a defense since it
> > 'pre-empts' state laws?
>
> I haven't read the law, but I HAVE read that it specifically allows
> states to prosecute under laws which don't mention the means of
> transmission of the message. So fraud should be OK.
>
I read that and figured CA could just rewrite the law to say something like
"electronic message transmission" instead of email.
--
McWebber
No email replies read
If someone tells you to forward an email to all your friends
please forget that I'm your friend.
Otis Wengatz
news:8ikcsvstprvr6em4g...@4ax.com:
> "Arthur L. Rubin" <ronni...@sprintmail.com> wrote in message
> news:r0c7svshv9ookjnmv...@4ax.com...
>> Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
>>
>> > Hmm, suppose I'm a prosecutor and I try to prosecute someone
>> > attempting or comitting fraud via email under my state's fraud
>> > statutes. Will the Federal 'They Can Spam" act be usable as a
>> > defense since it 'pre-empts' state laws?
>>
>> I haven't read the law, but I HAVE read that it specifically allows
>> states to prosecute under laws which don't mention the means of
>> transmission of the message. So fraud should be OK.
>>
>
> I read that and figured CA could just rewrite the law to say something
> like "electronic message transmission" instead of email.
How are television advertisments (bulk, commercial, unsolicited) delivered
if not electronically?
--
Uncle StoatWarbler
>> I read that and figured CA could just rewrite the law to say something
>> like "electronic message transmission" instead of email.
>
> How are television advertisments (bulk, commercial, unsolicited) delivered
> if not electronically?
"Unwanted, cost-transferred electronic message transmission" will deal with it.
Arthur L. Rubin
I don't think so. If you paid for the VCR tape it's recorded on....
Norman Diamond
news:l6gnsvc832cf301oq...@4ax.com...
"Unwanted, cost-transferred action of any kind" will deal with it better.
The offensive, damaging characteristic of spam is that it is theft.
Electronics make it easy for spammers to commit the thefts, but electronics
are not relevant to the fact that theft is theft.
In the early days of post offices, it was common practice for recipients to
pay the fee for delivery. This had the advantage of not letting the post
office steal the fee and the letter without delivering the letter. But it
had the disadvantage that antisocial people could and did send garbage at
the expense of recipients. In those days it was hard for antisocial people
to commit bulk spams because they would need to send large numbers of
physical objects, but if they had been capable of it then you can be sure
they would have done so.
In most countries of the world, recipients have to pay telephone connect
charges even for local calls, when downloading spams and when doing any
other communications. If a spam hits 200,000,000 victims 10 times each, and
if an average occurrence costs 1 yen (for connection time somewhere around
20 seconds down to 1 second depending on the kind of call), then the spammer
is stealing around 2 billion yen, around 20 million US dollars.
There are only around four countries or so where local phone calls are not
charged. On the other hand, even in some of those exceptional countries,
people with cell phones have to pay fees to receive cell calls. And in all
countries, people with physical fax machines have to pay for physical
materials such as paper and toner. Guess why some of those countries outlaw
cost-transfered fax and cell spams? The damage is the cost transfer, not
the electronics.
Existing laws against theft should already be adequate. We need to get the
laws enforced.