Preemption of State Spam Laws by the Federal Can-Spam Act

Unsolicited bulk commercial email is an increasing problem, and though many states have passed laws aimed at curbing its use and abuse, for several years the federal government took no action. In 2003 that changed when Congress passed the CAN-SPAM Act. Though the law contains many different restrictions on spam messages, including some restriction of nearly every type that states had adopted, the Act was widely criticized as weak. Many of the CAN-SPAM Act\u27s provisions are weaker than corresponding provisions of state law, and the Act preempts most state spam laws that would go farther, including two state laws that would have banned all spam. Despite these weaknesses, this Comment argues that when properly interpreted the CAN-SPAM Act leaves key state law provisions in force, and accordingly is stronger than many spam opponents first thought. First, the law explicitly preserves state laws to the extent that they prohibit falsity or deception in any portion of a commercial electronic mail message or information attached thereto. Though Congress was primarily concerned with saving state consumer protection laws, this language can be applied much more broadly. Second, the law is silent on the question of state law enforcement methods. State enforcement can be, and frequently is, substantially stronger than federal enforcement, which is largely limited to actions by the federal government, internet service providers, and state agencies. The Comment concludes by arguing that this narrow interpretation of its preemption clause is most consistent with the CAN-SPAM Act\u27s twin policy goals. By limiting the substantive provisions states may adopt, the Act prevents states from enacting inconsistent laws and enforces a uniform national spam policy. At the same time, narrowly interpreting the preemption clause permits states to experiment within the limits of that policy, in hopes of finding the most effective set of spam regulations

Spam

With the advent of the electronic mail system in the 1970s, a new opportunity for direct marketing using unsolicited electronic mail became apparent. In 1978, Gary Thuerk compiled a list of those on the Arpanet and then sent out a huge mailing publicising Digital Equipment Corporation (DEC—now Compaq) systems. The reaction from the Defense Communications Agency (DCA), who ran Arpanet, was very negative, and it was this negative reaction that ensured that it was a long time before unsolicited e-mail was used again (Templeton, 2003). As long as the U.S. government controlled a major part of the backbone, most forms of commercial activity were forbidden (Hayes, 2003). However, in 1993, the Internet Network Information Center was privatized, and with no central government controls, spam, as it is now called, came into wider use. The term spam was taken from the Monty Python Flying Circus (a UK comedy group) and their comedy skit that featured the ironic spam song sung in praise of spam (luncheon meat)—“spam, spam, spam, lovely spam”—and it came to mean mail that was unsolicited. Conversely, the term ham came to mean e-mail that was wanted. Brad Templeton, a UseNet pioneer and chair of the Electronic Frontier Foundation, has traced the first usage of the term spam back to MUDs (Multi User Dungeons), or real-time multi-person shared environment, and the MUD community. These groups introduced the term spam to the early chat rooms (Internet Relay Chats). The first major UseNet (the world’s largest online conferencing system) spam sent in January 1994 and was a religious posting: “Global alert for all: Jesus is coming soon.” The term spam was more broadly popularised in April 1994, when two lawyers, Canter and Siegel from Arizona, posted a message that advertized their information and legal services for immigrants applying for the U.S. Green Card scheme. The message was posted to every newsgroup on UseNet, and after this incident, the term spam became synonymous with junk or unsolicited e-mail. Spam spread quickly among the UseNet groups who were easy targets for spammers simply because the e-mail addresses of members were widely available (Templeton, 2003)

Greenhouse gas benefits of fighting obesity

Obesity has become a serious public health problem in both industrialized and rapidly industrializing countries. It increases greenhouse gas emissions through higher fuel needs for transportation of heavier people, lifecycle emissions from additional food production and methane emissions from higher amounts of organic waste. A reduction of average weight by 5 kg could reduce OECD transport CO2 emissions by more than 10 million t, while a reduction of consumption of energy-rich food to 1990 levels would lead to life-cycle emissions savings of more than 100 million t CO2 equivalent and by more than 2 million t through reduction of associated food waste. Due to the intimate behavioural nature of the obesity problem, policies to reduce obesity such as food taxation, subsidization of human-powered transport, incentives to reduce sedentary leisure and regulation of fat in foodstuffs have not yet been implemented to any extent. The emissions benefits of fiscal and regulatory measures to reduce obesity could accelerate the tipping point where a majority of voters feels that the problem warrants policy action. --public health,food production,transport,waste management,greenhouse gas emissions

Spartan Daily, February 27, 2001

Volume 116, Issue 23https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/9659/thumbnail.jp

Spartan Daily, March 7, 2005

Volume 124, Issue 27https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/10099/thumbnail.jp

A Survival Guide for the Creativity Economy, review of The Dark Side of Creativity, edited by David H. Cropley, Arthur J. Cropley, James C. Kaufman, and Mark A. Runco

Reviews the book, The dark side of creativity by David H. Cropley, Arthur J. Cropley, James C. Kaufman, and Mark A. Runco (see record 2010-16278-000). Theory and research on creativity clearly address how breakthrough ideas are formed and what happens to them next, but the present state of creativity research needs a few breakthrough ideas of its own. The Dark Side of Creativity , edited by David Cropley, Arthur Cropley, James Kaufman, and mark Runco, has hit that target. It also resonates with contemporary concerns about creativity and technology. There is a long-standing ethic in engineering that a technology itself is neither good nor bad; it is what one does with technology that can go either way. Coeditor Mark Runco takes this position in Chapter 2, maintaining that creativity itself has no dark side; it is the product of that creativity that can be light or dark. Product in this context is the actual implementation of the ideas produced by the creative processes that preceded it. Part of the delay in recognizing the presence of the dark side can be traced to a societal bias toward regarding “good” things as “creative” and treating things that people find morally objectionable as “not creative.” The Dark Side of Creativity is a refreshing book with original insights. I found it easy to go beyond its boundaries and connect to other related ideas about creativity that have been circulating lately. I would recommend the book to anyone interested in creativity. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved

Who Controls Your Message?

As we move further into the electronic age, several agents of control are muscling their way into the business of communicating. Specifically, technology, fashion, and a one-way mind-set are fighting for control over message development and delivery. This article advises land-grant university communicators on how they can recognize - and beat - these control agents, and how communicators can help land-grant universities overcome reputation deficit

Spartan Daily, April 9, 2003

Volume 120, Issue 46https://scholarworks.sjsu.edu/spartandaily/9842/thumbnail.jp