Weird Anti-Spam Law Proposed In Georgia
from the success-breeds-legal-trouble dept
While CAN SPAM supposedly supersedes all state level anti-spam laws, states keep coming up with anti-spam laws anyway. Considering how weak CAN SPAM is, this is probably a good thing. However, the latest proposed anti-spam law in Georgia appears to have some strange provisions. It counts forging headers, misleading subject lines or falsely claiming an email was requested as the defining characteristics of spam. That "misleading subject line" could be twisted in a bad way. From there, though, the crime will be considered a felony if the spammer sent more than 10,000 messages in a 24 hour period, generated more than $1,000 in revenue from a single spam message or $50,000 from all spam sent or if the spammer "knowingly uses a minor to assist in the transmission of spam." Those last two provisions are what caught my attention. Should the amount of money made by the spammer impact what level of crime they're charged with? The crime isn't in selling a product, but the manner in which they are bombarding servers and users. Why should it matter how successful the particular spam is? If anything, this opens things up to a counter claim from the spammer that if they're making this much money off a single spam, then it's clear that people wanted the emails -- and thus, it's not spam. Also, it's not clear why the "use of a minor" in sending spam should make it any worse. I didn't realize spammers have been using child laborers to help them out. Shouldn't that just fall under child labor laws?
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
plausible
The kids example makes sense too: if spamming is illegal then you don't want people encouraging minors (who are considered by the law to be malleable and have inferior judgement to adults) to break the law.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No Subject Given
[ link to this | view in chronology ]