Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on April 1, 2003, require the Department of Consumer and Industry Services to establish a "do not spam" list. Senders of unsolicited commercial e-mail would be required to register and pay a fee. People could place their e-mail address on the list for three years, and spammers would be prohibited from e-mailing to those addresses. The list would be paid for with revenue from fees, fines, and penalties imposed on spammers. Senders would be required to include in the e-mail a subject line containing “ADV:” as the first four characters, contact information, and a valid method for recipients to opt out of receiving future e-mails. Penalties of up to a $10,000 fine and one year in jail are provided. The Attorney General, recipients of spam, or Internet service providers could sue for actual damages, $500 per unsolicited message, or $250,000 for each day a violation occurs, plus legal costs. See also House Bill 4519

The vote was 37 in favor, 0 opposed and 1 not voting

(Senate Roll Call 283 at Senate Journal 62)

Click here to view bill details.

if sent to minor.

The currently posted version of SB 357 has serious problems. (See my comments on HR 4519.) Fortunately, there is a new revision of 357 that is not yet posted on the Michigan Legislature Web site. The new version proposes a single "do-not-SPAM" list that would permit a recipient to "opt-out" of all E-Mail covered by the legislation with a single action.

The new version isn't perfect though and still has significant problems. While our legislators should certainly support anti-SPAM legislation, they should be careful to craft it in a way that places the entire burdon of responsibility and cost on the SPAM'ers themselves and protects existing and on-going efforts by service providers to limit a broad range of E-Mail abuses.

Senator Cassis' statement is as follows:

Senate Bill No 357, commonly referred to as an anti-SPAM bill, represents an even larger issue here than just SPAM--some food for thought.

I thought the main principle of our country behind the Bill of Rights is the rights of the individual. That is, his or her ability--responsibility, I believe--is to determine what is good or conversely bad for himself or herself.

The issue deals with individual rights versus. group rights. This bill reinstates the right of the individual to privacy, to regulate what comes in to the most private of domains--one's home.

This is excellent public policy dealing with ever-changing technology and should be a model for other states to follow.

Why not outlaw regular junk mail?

The cost of pursuing anonymous online users (of which many spammers are) and an "anti-spam" list could be in the multi-millions.

Compare that with the cost of free-market alternatives, such as privacy software, and the cost is much more effective. Particularly since the cost is paid by the individual and not the rest of society (even those that choose not to operate computers).