1998-10-01 - Re: New California Spam Law is Bullshit

Header Data

From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Message Hash: 25402a7f5a3ee7ef8f0e2b594980ebd585e6e8eb6c16f2ca9b9a4127ba5f8d4e
Message ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.980930031959.5708C-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Reply To: <v03130301b238bcb67703@[209.133.20.6]>
UTC Datetime: 1998-10-01 14:44:39 UTC
Raw Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:44:39 +0800

Raw message

From: Rabid Wombat <wombat@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
Date: Thu, 1 Oct 1998 22:44:39 +0800
To: Tim May <tcmay@got.net>
Subject: Re: New California Spam Law is Bullshit
In-Reply-To: <v03130301b238bcb67703@[209.133.20.6]>
Message-ID: <Pine.BSF.3.91.980930031959.5708C-100000@mcfeely.bsfs.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain



Got an actual cite for this, or better yet a url to the actual statute?

On Wed, 30 Sep 1998, Tim May wrote:

> At 6:43 PM -0700 9/30/98, Max Inux wrote:
> >On Wed, 30 Sep 1998 2001files@usa.net wrote:
> >
> >Dear spammer,
> >
> >Nice threats are attached to this spam.  I love new ideas from the
> >spamming community. Please be aware by not  including a real human email
> >address (specifically stated) and a 1800 number to call to be removed,
> >you are in violation of California law.
> 
> Think twice before citing this new law....
> 
> Whatever one thinks about unsolicited e-mail, the provisions of this new
> California bill are frightening to any supporter of liberty.
> 
> * the requirement that mail have a "real" name attached to it runs afoul of
> the right to anonymous messages, supported in various cases (Talley, for
> example). A requirement that e-mail be identified is no different from a
> requirement that pamphlets and articles have "real" names on them. So much
> for the First Amendment.
> 
> (Oh, and the _commercial_ nature of UCE has nothing to do with the First
> Amendment issues, unless one thinks the canonical First case, Sullivan, is
> meaningless because the New York Times was "commercial speech.")
> 
> * think of the implications for anonymous messages, through remailers
> 
> * and where does the "must have a toll-free number" bullshit come from?
> Think about it. It may sound _nice_ to demand that people have toll-free
> numbers, but where is the constitutional support for such a taking?
> 
> And so on.
> 
> --Tim May
> 
> Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash.
> ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:----
> Timothy C. May              | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money,
> ComSec 3DES:   831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero
> W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA  | knowledge, reputations, information markets,
> Licensed Ontologist         | black markets, collapse of governments.
> 
> 
> 
> 





Thread