California Spam Law - GoFuckYourself.com

LA Mike · 12-29-2003, 01:37 PM

Can someone post a link to the new California SPAM law that is suppost to take effect on the 1st?

thanks

[Brian] · 12-29-2003, 01:41 PM

http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html

howard · 12-29-2003, 01:49 PM

Hey Mikey--here ya go.. Yes it does go in effect 1/1/ 2004

September 24, 2003
Calif. Enacts Tough Anti-Spam Law
By Matt Villano

Amid one of the biggest political crises in state history, California Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill this week designed to prohibit spam and penalizes advertisers and others who send unsolicited e-mail messages hawking sexual hankers, prescriptions, and other products.

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, empowers California residents, the state attorney general and Internet providers to seek civil damages against spammers amounting to $1,000 per e-mail and $1 million per incident.

"This is the toughest bill of its kind in the nation, and will hopefully be a model," said Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Los Angeles, who introduced the bill. "There are no loopholes, no way of getting around it."

The legislation, dubbed SB 186 in committee, builds on current California anti-spam laws that requires commercial e-mail to carry "ADV" or "ADV:ADLT" in the subject line. The new law outlaws unwanted e-mails sent from or to someone in California or through a server in the state. It also prohibits the collecting of e-mail addresses on the Internet in California for the purpose of advertising.

According to the language of the new law, customers would have to opt-in to any commercial e-mail, meaning they specifically agree to receive it. Individuals will be able to receive e-mail from companies they have done business with, but even those companies will be required to give customers the ability to opt-out of future solicitations.

Murray and other supporters said they hope the bill helps smaller businesses who rely on e-mail for orders but are losing money due to screen clutter. A recent study by San Francisco-based marketing firm Ferris Research estimated that unwanted e-mails cost U.S. companies nearly $9 billion in lost productivity, consumption of communication bandwidth and drain of technical support.

"California is sending a clear message to Internet spammers," Davis said in a statement that referred to the Ferris study. "We will not allow you to litter the information superhighway with e-mail trash."

Still, reactions to the legislation were mixed. At the popular Web site craigslist.org, founder Craig Newmark said the law will provide him with legal recourse against spammers who seek addresses on his site. At the Aberdeen Group in Boston, however, Kent Allen, research director for the Internet Advertising division, said the bill is too weak to wield any significant impact.

Allen explained that the legislation is problematic because it does not define spam explicitly, and does not provide a definition for what constitutes an "unsolicited" message. "Spam is a major annoyance, but legislation is not the answer," he told internetnews.com. "Often, what you cannot define, you cannot defend against effectively."

Still others said that while the bill is explicit enough, it will be difficult to stop unwanted mail without new technologies that can target the messages objectively. "This bill will create a lot of nusance for legitimate marketers and not reduce by one e-mail the amount of spam," Ken Hirschman, general counsel of e-mail marketing firm Digital Impact told the San Francisco Chronicle. "It will lead to frivolous lawsuits against legitimate marketers."

However the situation plays out, the new law is not the first piece of California legislation designed to fight unwanted electronic information. Last year, Davis signed what he called "Leave Us Alone" consumer protection legislation designed to put the kibosh on unsolicited faxes and cell phone text messages. Today, 35 other states have anti-spam measures on the books, and Congress is debating a number of spam bills this fall.

Ic3m4nZ · 12-29-2003, 01:50 PM

Spam does pay fuck the laws

kmanrox · 12-29-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ic3m4nZ
Spam does pay fuck the laws

Wait... I'm sorry... I almost got scared... My USA citizen-living in SE Asia with bank accounts in 3 countries under someones name that is NOT MINE with 3 corporations, a gang of nominee directors, in 3 totally seperate countries had me scared for a minute...

I'm adding [email protected] to my mailing list ASAP

SUCKADICK MOTHA FUCKAS!!!!!

TheJimmy · 12-29-2003, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kmanrox

Wait... I'm sorry... I almost got scared... My USA citizen-living in SE Asia with bank accounts in 3 countries under someones name that is NOT MINE with 3 corporations, a gang of nominee directors, in 3 totally seperate countries had me scared for a minute...

I'm adding [email protected] to my mailing list ASAP

SUCKADICK MOTHA FUCKAS!!!!!

ElvisManson · 12-29-2003, 02:22 PM

Doesn't the Can-Spam law supercede any State laws?

NBDesign · 12-29-2003, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisManson
Doesn't the Can-Spam law supercede any State laws?

I was wondering the same thing.

ryph · 12-29-2003, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ElvisManson
Doesn't the Can-Spam law supercede any State laws?

yep, as far as I know

atomic2500 · 12-29-2003, 02:37 PM

It should since it is a federal law.

But..........

What happens when the state traces back a "spam" mail and finds out it was generated from a huge ISP like aol or earthlink, spamming for themselves to promote their products and services. Are they going to fine them also? I think not!

Arty · 12-29-2003, 02:41 PM

That's what I understand from that:

*If you are mailing to opt-in subscibers
*If you have "ADV:ADLT" in the subject line
*If you have opt-out option in e-mail

You are fine to spam as hell... Correct?

TheJimmy · 12-29-2003, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Arty
That's what I understand from that:

*If you are mailing to opt-in subscibers
*If you have "ADV:ADLT" in the subject line
*If you have opt-out option in e-mail

You are fine to spam as hell... Correct?

and...

* don't use proxies
* don't fake headers
* include physical address and
* include a real reply email address...

BradShaw · 12-29-2003, 02:46 PM

I could be wrong, but does the new FEDERAL SPAM LAW not supersede all state laws?

myneid · 12-29-2003, 02:52 PM

yes the CAN-SPAM law goes into effect on teh 1st of january and supercedes all state laws reguarding the matter.

they pushed the CAN-SPAM bill quickly so that it would overrule this stupid california law that was way too strict.

atomic2500 · 12-29-2003, 02:53 PM

California is going to have a really hard time trying to go after mailers.

I personally know mailers in California who are white listed with AOl and have no plans to stop with anything. If anything this new Can Ham law will make it easier for mailers. It will make using opt-in methods of bulk mailing a legitimate business. This will really piss off the antis when their law bites them in the ass

kmanrox · 12-29-2003, 02:54 PM

im here mother fuckers.... waiting for you.... . where the fuck you at po-po????

bitches

servforce · 12-30-2003, 02:00 PM

spam's bad, hmmkay?

Suckitbitch · 12-30-2003, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by kmanrox
Wait... I'm sorry... I almost got scared... My USA citizen-living in SE Asia with bank accounts in 3 countries under someones name that is NOT MINE with 3 corporations, a gang of nominee directors, in 3 totally seperate countries had me scared for a minute...

I'm sure anyone enforcing the law and doing investigations would be impressed by your pee-wee level offshore shell game.

TonyL · 12-30-2003, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by BradShaw
I could be wrong, but does the new FEDERAL SPAM LAW not supersede all state laws?

Yes.

CAHEK · 12-30-2003, 07:10 PM

we are fucked in the ass

- AFN - · 12-30-2003, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by myneid
yes the CAN-SPAM law goes into effect on teh 1st of january and supercedes all state laws reguarding the matter.

they pushed the CAN-SPAM bill quickly so that it would overrule this stupid california law that was way too strict.

Federal law is more forgiving... its an OPTOUT law as opposed to OPTIN but the labelling restrictions would fuck up legit bulkers and spammers, well they'll be eating at the Blue Room in New York in 2000 $ Zegna suits admiring the latest Vivaldi presentation at the Met.

12-29-2003, 01:37 PM	#1
LA Mike Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jul 2001 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 3,056	California Spam Law Can someone post a link to the new California SPAM law that is suppost to take effect on the 1st? thanks

12-29-2003, 01:41 PM	#2
[Brian] Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Orange County, CA Posts: 1,523	http://www.spamlaws.com/federal/108s877.html __________________ HerbalRevenue - Exciting new enhancement program ICQ: 391113064

12-29-2003, 01:49 PM	#3
howard Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: phila Posts: 1,827	Hey Mikey--here ya go.. Yes it does go in effect 1/1/ 2004 September 24, 2003 Calif. Enacts Tough Anti-Spam Law By Matt Villano Amid one of the biggest political crises in state history, California Gov. Gray Davis signed a bill this week designed to prohibit spam and penalizes advertisers and others who send unsolicited e-mail messages hawking sexual hankers, prescriptions, and other products. The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, empowers California residents, the state attorney general and Internet providers to seek civil damages against spammers amounting to $1,000 per e-mail and $1 million per incident. "This is the toughest bill of its kind in the nation, and will hopefully be a model," said Sen. Kevin Murray, D-Los Angeles, who introduced the bill. "There are no loopholes, no way of getting around it." The legislation, dubbed SB 186 in committee, builds on current California anti-spam laws that requires commercial e-mail to carry "ADV" or "ADV:ADLT" in the subject line. The new law outlaws unwanted e-mails sent from or to someone in California or through a server in the state. It also prohibits the collecting of e-mail addresses on the Internet in California for the purpose of advertising. According to the language of the new law, customers would have to opt-in to any commercial e-mail, meaning they specifically agree to receive it. Individuals will be able to receive e-mail from companies they have done business with, but even those companies will be required to give customers the ability to opt-out of future solicitations. Murray and other supporters said they hope the bill helps smaller businesses who rely on e-mail for orders but are losing money due to screen clutter. A recent study by San Francisco-based marketing firm Ferris Research estimated that unwanted e-mails cost U.S. companies nearly $9 billion in lost productivity, consumption of communication bandwidth and drain of technical support. "California is sending a clear message to Internet spammers," Davis said in a statement that referred to the Ferris study. "We will not allow you to litter the information superhighway with e-mail trash." Still, reactions to the legislation were mixed. At the popular Web site craigslist.org, founder Craig Newmark said the law will provide him with legal recourse against spammers who seek addresses on his site. At the Aberdeen Group in Boston, however, Kent Allen, research director for the Internet Advertising division, said the bill is too weak to wield any significant impact. Allen explained that the legislation is problematic because it does not define spam explicitly, and does not provide a definition for what constitutes an "unsolicited" message. "Spam is a major annoyance, but legislation is not the answer," he told internetnews.com. "Often, what you cannot define, you cannot defend against effectively." Still others said that while the bill is explicit enough, it will be difficult to stop unwanted mail without new technologies that can target the messages objectively. "This bill will create a lot of nusance for legitimate marketers and not reduce by one e-mail the amount of spam," Ken Hirschman, general counsel of e-mail marketing firm Digital Impact told the San Francisco Chronicle. "It will lead to frivolous lawsuits against legitimate marketers." However the situation plays out, the new law is not the first piece of California legislation designed to fight unwanted electronic information. Last year, Davis signed what he called "Leave Us Alone" consumer protection legislation designed to put the kibosh on unsolicited faxes and cell phone text messages. Today, 35 other states have anti-spam measures on the books, and Congress is debating a number of spam bills this fall. __________________ perkissmedia.com [email protected] 318621803 perkymon993 Skype

12-29-2003, 02:46 PM	#13
BradShaw Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: KB's trailer Posts: 7,840	I could be wrong, but does the new FEDERAL SPAM LAW not supersede all state laws? __________________ Sig too big http://www.gofuckyourself.com/gfy_faqs.html Want to use a large banner in your sig??? Contact Eric about getting on as an advertiser - eric AT adult.com

12-29-2003, 02:52 PM	#14
myneid Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 736	yes the CAN-SPAM law goes into effect on teh 1st of january and supercedes all state laws reguarding the matter. they pushed the CAN-SPAM bill quickly so that it would overrule this stupid california law that was way too strict. __________________ Tanguy 0x7a69 inc. Programmer/President/CEO http://www.0x7a69.com A Leader in Programming since 1996 PHP, Ruby on Rails, MySQL, PCI DSS, and any Technical Consulting

12-29-2003, 01:50 PM	#4
Ic3m4nZ Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Montreal! Posts: 6,285	Spam does pay fuck the laws

12-29-2003, 02:22 PM	#7
ElvisManson Looking California Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Posts: 5,476	Doesn't the Can-Spam law supercede any State laws?

12-29-2003, 02:37 PM	#10
atomic2500 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: North Cuba Posts: 59	It should since it is a federal law. But.......... What happens when the state traces back a "spam" mail and finds out it was generated from a huge ISP like aol or earthlink, spamming for themselves to promote their products and services. Are they going to fine them also? I think not!

12-29-2003, 02:41 PM	#11
Arty Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 880	That's what I understand from that: If you are mailing to opt-in subscibers If you have "ADV:ADLT" in the subject line *If you have opt-out option in e-mail You are fine to spam as hell... Correct?

12-29-2003, 02:53 PM	#15
atomic2500 Registered User Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: North Cuba Posts: 59	California is going to have a really hard time trying to go after mailers. I personally know mailers in California who are white listed with AOl and have no plans to stop with anything. If anything this new Can Ham law will make it easier for mailers. It will make using opt-in methods of bulk mailing a legitimate business. This will really piss off the antis when their law bites them in the ass

12-29-2003, 02:54 PM	#16
kmanrox aka K-Man Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: The Gutter Posts: 29,290	im here mother fuckers.... waiting for you.... . where the fuck you at po-po???? bitches __________________ Crypto HODLr Crypto mining Angel investor

12-30-2003, 02:00 PM	#17
servforce Registered User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: San Francisco Bay Area Posts: 85	spam's bad, hmmkay? __________________ SIG TOO BIG! Maximum 120x60 button and no more than 3 text lines of DEFAULT SIZE and COLOR. Unless your sig is for a GFY top banner sponsor, then you may use a 624x80 instead of a 120x60.

12-30-2003, 07:10 PM	#20
CAHEK C.C.C.P. Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Novorossiya Posts: 6,908	we are fucked in the ass __________________ Pharma from True-Meds. High converting shop in Europe and USA, fast payouts via BTC !!!