On May 10, 2003, I read with interest a story about AB 567, an anti-spam bill for California that would create an opportunity to fine spammers for the load they put on companies and consumers. I wrote the following letter to the single opposing voter, Assemblyman Haynes:
Sir, I disagree with your stance on AB 567. I am glad that you do not represent my district, but I hope you reconsider your stance on this issue in the future. The problem with unsolicited commercial email is that unlike every other method of advertisement, it puts the burden and cost of delivery on the receiver. Many people still pay hourly or per-kilobyte rates to retrieve data from the internet. Spammers are forcing them to pay to receive the unwanted mail, and understand, you MUST receive the mail before you can delete it. If, on the other hand, you also support businesses sending physical advertisements to citizens with postage due, then perhaps your opposition is in character, but I am certain that if you understood the issue better, you would reconsider. I wish you luck with your future endeavors and that you will take another look at this issue. Your constituents will thank you. Best regards, Ben Hallert Culver City, CAOn July 22, 2003, I received this response:
From: Assemblymember HaynesI understand his stance but continue to disagree. I post this response for anyone who is researching the subject. Ben Hallert 7/22/03[ Save address ] To: "'ben@vipmail.com'" Subject: RE: Republican Website - Concern Form 90230 Date: Mon, 21 Jul 2003 13:37:48 -0700 Thank you for your recent email opposing spam. I certainly understand your frustration, and your grasping at any straw that looks like it might promise relief. You want AB 567 passed because you believe that will stop the problem. We have a number of anti-spam laws on the books already, but they haven't stopped spam. If AB 567 would actually solve the problem that would be a different issue and I would not have voted against it. AB 567 allows individuals to sue the SENDER for up to $1,000 for each unsolicited ad. It also allows service providers to recover $100 worth of damages for each piece of unsolicited mail that goes through their facilities. Which would be great if it would work, but it won't. It will give lawyers another avenue to make money, but it won't stop the emails. Spammers are adept at hiding, and it is nearly impossible to hunt them down, so how do you locate them to sue them? The majority of the SPAM is generated outside California, and in most cases outside the United States. If the spammer is not located in California it is not subject to California laws, so a suit is worthless. How do you sue someone in another country over a piece of email, when that country doesn't have any regulations regarding this issue? This bill also puts the entire burden of discovering the spammer completely on your back as a recipient. All the penalties in the world won't change anything if the spammer is outside the jurisdiction of the law. But there is a simple solution. There is a great deal of spam-ware out there that will prevent you from receiving stuff you don't want. A $25 to $50 investment in software sounds like a better bet than passing a law that allows a California attorney to collect thousands of dollars from his clients to try to stop a spammer outside the US. Assemblyman Ray Haynes