Originally published November 3 2003
California Law Was A Better Anti-Spam Law
by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger, NaturalNews Editor
In the aftermath of federal anti-spam legislation, California's law becomes largely irrelevant. But on technical terms, it was a far more effective law for stopping spam than the current federal law. Why? Because it was an opt-in law, not an opt-out law.
Let me explain: The current federal law allows spammers to keep on spamming you until you opt out of the list. There's no requirement that you opt in at all. Given that every individual, business and organization in the country has the right to spam you under federal law, this adds up to tens of thousands of sources who can legitimately email you even though you never asked to be emailed. You would have to say "no thanks" to each one.
An opt-in law like California's, however, had a much tighter standard: recipients must opt-in to receiving email or, at least, have a relationship with the organization sending them the email.
This is a much higher standard. In fact, it's the permission marketing standard, which requires that marketers only email people with their permission.
In the minds of most people, when they say they don't want to be spammed, what they mean is that they want organizations to adopt permission email marketing standards. But what got from Washington was quite different: they got a law that allows any organization to keep spamming them until they say, "Stop!"
This is hardly a permission marketing stance, but the federal law was passed precisely because the California opt-in law scared the DMA and other marketing special interest groups so much that they lobbied for the passage of the easier, opt-out law.
By passing the opt-out law, legislators in Washington were able to claim that they were doing something to fight spam while, in fact, accomplishing practically nothing at all. The lawmakers are happy, the DMA is happy, and spammers are especially happy, for now they can email people under the protection of U.S. federal law.
The only people getting the shaft with this deal are, of course, all the Internet users who demanded real action on the issue in the first place.
In case you haven't heard, California's new spam law prohibits the
sending of unsolicited email advertisements starting January 1, 2004.
These bills take an opt-out approach---giving the marketer the right
to make first contact through email but then placing the burden on the
consumer to opt out if they no longer want a spammer's spew, or the
marketer's email.
It won't stop spam, but it WILL help clean up the gray area where
corporate America has been dabbling for far too long.
And it has the potential to advance email marketing to a more creative
level than just purchasing lists and firing away.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml