Subject: Re: [Asrg] 6. Proposals - Legal - Subject labeling

From: Matthew Elvey <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 12:36:51 -0800

On 12/1/2003 11:04 AM, Eric S. Raymond sent forth electrons to convey:

>I have a draft RFC for labeling; I haven't seen any arguments with the
>content of the draft, it's all metadiscussion of whether we should
>have a labeling standard or do something else.  But there is no reason
>for that to be an exclusive-or -- we need to have a labeling standard
>ready to hand the FTC in case CAN-SPAM passes.
>  
>
I suggested some things that should be in the standard - in the email 
I'm quoted from below.
I guess my wording was too unclear (it was convoluted - sorry), you 
missed 'em or rejected 'em, Eric.
e.g. "The IETF ...[should] ... create such a standard, one that 
self-identifies UCE could be useful."

In terms of law that is frea speach challenge-proof, and may keep the 
EFF ostensibly happy, while doing something about spam, the rules that 
prohibit just false advertising, including misleading header content are 
better than laws requiring labeling, though yes they could work together. 

On 12/1/2003 9:57 AM, Hallam-Baker, Phillip sent forth electrons to convey:

> Eric is completely right about this. If you look into the legal issues 
> it is
>
>very easy to see why the bill has a labelling requirement. 
>
>Labelling makes no sense in the context of technical enforcement. It makes a
>great deal of sense if you are dealling with first ammendment issues and
>enforcement.
>  
>
I don't think frea speach spammer defenders see forced speech as any 
better than censored speech.
I don't know of any legal precedent that sees them as different either.
Thus I don't see labels as terribly helpful, 1st amendment and law 
enforcement-wise.

>>Matthew:
>>    
>>
>>>  1. This was tried already in California, and failed abysmally. It
>>>     won't be enforced or effective.
>>>      
>>>
>>California ain't the Feds.
>>    
>>
>The California bill has only been signed a few months. It is far too soon to
>know what effect it will have. At the FTC workshop the lawyers for the
>states mostly stated that they were acting in order to spur federal action.
>  
>
Uh, no, labeling law has been on the books for years.
I'm talking about the current California law, not the law that SB 186 
will make law and S.877 will render powerless 1/1/04.
See <http://law.spamcon.org/us-laws/states/ca/lawindex.shtml> 
Abstract excerpt: Requires senders of Unsolicited Commercial E-mail to 
(a) include the text "ADV:ADLT" at the beginning of the subject line for 
"adult" UCE, (b) include the text "ADV:" at the beginning of the subject 
line of all other UCE...
Clearly, it failed abysmally!  And it's better than S877's labeling 
feature because at least it's UCE, not all CE (Commercial Email) that 
must be labeled.
(I don't want the purchase confirmation when I buy a plane ticket 
labeled ADV:!  The label should only be required on spam!!!)
Eric, if your draft continues to offer a labeling scheme for CE instead 
of UCE, I'm going to create a competing draft.

_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg