New California Spam Law is Bullshit

[Tim May <tcmay@got.net>]

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.