Get Paid Forum - Get Paid Discussion > To all POs: New laws re emails to minors?

Positive_thougths

Jul 10 2005, 01:05 AM

Well to me the following question arises:

IF prohibiting these two states from signing up is not enough, what about the other states where one has to be at least let's say 13, and one signs up who is 12 then you could also be sued, right? So in other words, doesn't this apply for each and every state or any other country in the world where there is a minimum age?

Pos

WAGP

Jul 10 2005, 01:49 AM

Does anyone have a complete list of everything they consider unsuitable for minors to buy and/or see ?

Olivier

edskers

Jul 10 2005, 07:02 AM

Never mind lol ,already said

edskers

Jul 10 2005, 07:34 AM

Well ,If their only problem is , from those email addresses not receiving emails from those 2 states.. Just set all members from those 2 states to inbox only..

Once a month go do a search of any members from those 2 states and set them to inbox..

Unless the member can prove ,they are not a child. Than I dont see any other option..

Verified Paypals , thats only good , if as long as they don't use their parents Paypal account.

Most sites , however are being really careful about not sending those types of emails anyway , due to Paypal restrictions.. So , I think we should all be okay...

I , myself , as a parent , just do not see me , going through all that , My kids arent even allowed on the interent, unless i am standing right over their heads or at school..

I , myself , only have 20 members from those 2 states , so I guess I will have to contact them..

You know , its time for the government and states , let Parents RAISE their own children..

I am sorry , but this is a JOKE .. If they want companies to comply , UMMM , make the list free .. My ? is why do kids need an email address in the first place ,isn't that what the phone is for ????

Also , what about other countries , or Mailers out of the state , I mean , how are these people even going to know , such a law exsists..

Also , I have been watching the news daily for days. And these stupid New stations , talk about 2-3 things to death over and over , and nothing even mentioned on this..

Pretty soon , if will become , illegal , to sit in your house , with nothing on.. Cause your kids might walk in and see you. MIND YOU I DONT , but my mom used to..

Makes you glad , you live in the land of the free , don't it.?

Now granted, I don't want my kids seeing , Porn , but why not go after the Porn companies , intead of the innocent.. I mean , if i send a link to say a search engine , and they click a link and another and end up at one. Does that mean , i get fined , cause i sent an innocent ad , that happend to go to something not innocent..

Wouldn't they have to prove , my intent was to send them to a porn site , no i suppose it would me left to me , to show my intent wouldn't be, i suppose.

Again , what a joke ,, UGG..
Tammy

ptrhost

Jul 10 2005, 07:43 AM

I'm not quite sure how we would go about validating ages without involving some serious costs to the ptr programs.

I would hope that having in TOS only allowed to join if 18 or older would save us from prosecution.

I mean where is the countability on the parents or the childs side when they lie to sign up for these programs?

I would say we could add a birth date box and possibly catch a few that are underage...........by possibly having it a locked one time deal where they put the date in and then have it disappear so that we could send out verification emails where they have to input the data..........and if it didn't match what they signed up with............byebye.............

But, then we are left with those who don't want to put that information in.

Personally, there are places online that will pull up your personal statistics regardless of how careful one is not to give out that info.

At least for those in the states..........

I imagine this is just the beginning of some of the things we are going to see from the government here in the states to try and legitamitize all types of websites.

Just as with paypal, I think the squeeze has begun. And the only way we can protect ourselves would be to try to comply as best we can to the rules coming out.

Essperanza

Jul 10 2005, 10:20 AM

QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 10 2005, 09:49 AM)

Does anyone have a complete list of everything they consider unsuitable for minors to buy and/or see ?

Olivier
[right][snapback]3703767[/snapback][/right]

A complete list? From which part of the world? Or country? Or state/province? I could do a survey in the street I live and you would get different answers from every family...

Essperanza

Jul 10 2005, 10:27 AM

QUOTE(ptrhost @ Jul 10 2005, 03:43 PM)

I imagine this is just the beginning of some of the things we are going to see from the government here in the states to try and legitamitize all types of websites.

Just as with paypal, I think the squeeze has begun. And the only way we can protect ourselves would be to try to comply as best we can to the rules coming out.
[right][snapback]3704298[/snapback][/right]

Personally I wouldn't mind some regulation at all - especially if some of it would keep the spam out of my mail accounts - but just comply to silly rules that have the ulterior motive of generating additional income for a legislator's son in law who thought up a legal internet scam isn't really the way to go. Imho.

priestes

Jul 10 2005, 10:34 AM

QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 10 2005, 12:49 AM)

Does anyone have a complete list of everything they consider unsuitable for minors to buy and/or see ?

Olivier
[right][snapback]3703767[/snapback][/right]

The links in the first page and the ones wagdoll posted had the info on this but here is the list of what they had on it.

The covered categories of messages include, but are not necessarily limited to:

Under the law, "a person shall not send, cause to be sent, or conspire with a third party to send a message to a contact point that has been registered for more than 30 calendar days with the department if the primary purpose of the message is to, directly or indirectly, advertise or otherwise link to a message that advertises a product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing, viewing, possessing, participating in, or otherwise receiving."

Alcohol (MCL 436.1701)
Tobacco (MCL 722.641)
Pornography or Obscene Material (MCL 722.673-722.677, MCL 750.142-750.143, 47 USC 231(e)(6))
Gambling (MCL 432.218)
Lotteries (MCL 432.29)
Illegal Drugs (MCL 333.7401)
Vehicle Sales (MCL 750.421c)
Fireworks (MCL 750.243a, MCL 750.243b)
Firearms (MCL 750.223,MCL 28.422)

https://www.protectmichild.com/compliance.h...e358vea4da2ic12

Link above has links to more info and more lists. But one of the things mentioned was credit card offers, dating sites and a few other things in a couple of the news articles.

(j) "Prohibited message" means any message, whether direct or indirect,
with the primary purpose of advertising or presenting, or otherwise linking
to a message that advertises or presents, a product or service that a minor
is prohibited by law from purchasing, viewing, possessing, participating in,
or otherwise receiving. This includes, but is not limited to, sexually
explicit materials, tobacco products, illegal drugs, gambling opportunities,
and alcoholic beverages.
http://www.state.mi.us/orr/emi/admincode.a...Dpt=LG&RngHigh=

priestes

Jul 10 2005, 10:43 AM

You know I already conform to this due to paypal didnt have it before as I don't like this kind of stuff on my sites, but the big kicker if you read their stuff is they can make you responsibile and fine you or give you jail time if you send a link out that anywhere on their website they have a banner or third party. How far do they go?

It just seems to me that government and parents who push for some of this are not doing their job. When did it become my responsibility to raise someone elses children ? I just have a real problem of how they are not only stating what they do but that if we have a thier party link or a site has it anywhere on their site they can make up responsible.

This won't affect those outside the US but I betcha anything they will go after who they can.

Now my question is how are they going to enforce a law that is only for their states when other states have other rulings. How is it going to hold up say if they go after me in Oregon?

Altari

Jul 10 2005, 12:24 PM

QUOTE(priestes @ Jul 10 2005, 10:43 AM)

Now my question is how are they going to enforce a law that is only for their states when other states have other rulings. How is it going to hold up say if they go after me in Oregon?
[right][snapback]3704627[/snapback][/right]

You would be accused of breaking interstate commerce laws. Illegally 'importing' material that is innappropriate for children. Since it's an 'item' that's being sent around, the person sending it is responsible for complying with state laws.

davidbugs

Jul 10 2005, 12:55 PM

come on People will lied their age!!!

It would not make any difference if you limit to Age 13

People can created fake id for internet access

Positive_thougths

Jul 10 2005, 04:00 PM

What I don't understand is that everybody seems to forgot that in (all) the other states one can also be sued, perhaps with another age (the child can be younger before charges are made).

So let say in the State New York children if they are 16 can see alcoholic ads and tobacco (actually I presume the age is higher than 16 I have no idea to be honest) but just for the case let's assume the child has to be 16, now how many that are younger have signed up.... and does not the same rule apply then as in Michigan and Utah? Or are this totally different laws and not the only difference is age?

Now if it is the same law just with different age from state to state, is it only me who sees that minors (whatever that age might be in that particular state) who sign up are our responsibility according the law so they can sue already if some child from the state NY of 15 signed up and sees a tobacco ad? (assuming the age is 16 in NY).

So recap:

A Are this different laws in each state concerning this very subject in the USA?

OR

B Are it only different ages in each state concerning this particular subject in the USA?

If it is B the problem has always exist according to me, I guess most of recall the polls here in which age "rank" you belong, isn't 30% very very young? Younger than 16?

Anyone who can tell me if it is A or B please, thank you.

Pos

Altari

Jul 10 2005, 04:23 PM

Pos, it's current somewhat closer to 'A'. The FCC mandated that someone marketing 'adult' products (such as alcohol, tobacco, fire arms, adult images, etc) cannot advertise 'to children.' This does not mean that children may not view the advertisements, just that the advertisement in question may not be targetted to children (so Joe Camel had to go).

Most states don't actually have a law about it. They leave it up to the marketers to be FCC compliant. I know that California, for instance, has an age requirement to enter stores that sell tobacco paraphenalia. Even still, it's fairly lax on how it is enforced; stores are only required to ID if someone appears to be under age. So if a very adult looking 16 year old walks into a liquor shop and the parents get up in arms, most likely the store will get off cleanly by saying the person appeared to be of age and they cannot card every person who enters.

Basically, it had been a 50/50 split in responsibility. Those offering these materials online must make every effort to ensure that they are not advertising to children. But, if the person lies, they cannot be held accountable.

This law is completely different in that is it effectively controlling what can be 'imported' into the state via the internet. It is similar as state's restrictions on animal and liquor importation, but is only effective for minors. Now, rather than expecting sites to take reasonable measures, Mich and Utah have placed the entire burden on the site and taken it all away from the child.

Positive_thougths

Jul 10 2005, 04:40 PM

Thank you so much for explaining.

Well in that case if I had a site, I think that (what I understand) I would just, I know it's not nice to people from Michigan and Utah that are older, but I would just say they can't sign up for my program.

IF possible I might even just say, (which I guess according the law can't) the Dutch law applies, since I am from the Netherlands, however it might mean that I would have to have a host that is located in the Netherlands as well, would have to look into that, but I think it doesn't apply that way (that you can say, since I am Dutch Dutch rules apply or perhaps European rules apply, like at Paypal, these have to different rules one for USA CA and I don't know? and one for Europe (located in the UK). So perhaps it can be done.

Would be a lot easier I do know the Dutch law a whole lot better than that from any other country in the world lol.

Pos

priestes

Jul 10 2005, 04:57 PM

Altari in Oregon now if a minor buys alcohol or ciggerettes and the store clerk said they looked old enough they would be fined. Big Time, but store which sell beer and wine and ciggerettes are in our regular grocery store, and the hard liquor is controlled by the state.

Stores here were cracked down on due to selling alchohol and smokes to minors. Bars are now responsible if someone leaves their bar and drives drunk and can be fined.

So much for America the free....

My concern is how do we handle this situation. I do believe possibly a disclamier on the site and a regular sweep for those with ip or info for michigan and setting to inbox only as we are not sending emails then and we have a disclaimer in regards to these two states. But here is another dilemna I have on my site you must be 16 years old cause in Oregon that is legal age to work. But now since this ruling for these two states they say 18 years of age. how does one handle this since many countries one can drink or drive or buy smokes under 18?

Sigh....

wagdoll

Jul 10 2005, 05:25 PM

QUOTE

My concern is how do we handle this situation. I do believe possibly a disclamier on the site and a regular sweep for those with ip or info for michigan and setting to inbox only as we are not sending emails then and we have a disclaimer in regards to these two states. But here is another dilemna I have on my site you must be 16 years old cause in Oregon that is legal age to work. But now since this ruling for these two states they say 18 years of age. how does one handle this since many countries one can drink or drive or buy smokes under 18?

Here it would be similar for what you say for Oregon, in that an under 16 yr old could enter a store selling alcohol or tobacco but the owner would not be prosecuted if they actually sold it to them without asking for id even if they appear to be over 16.

As for that quote, you 'could' state that you must be of age to receive those ads in your own country or state, I don't know how 'legal' that is but that is what other sites do when there is a situation where the laws are different in different countries and they are open worldwide. This is a minefield for ptr's though as you can't say a member must be of age in their country, because it would be a case of of age for what? For the Uk, smoking 16, drinking 18, buying a car 17, adult ads/porn 18, credit cards 18 and so on.

tipsy

Jul 10 2005, 07:38 PM

QUOTE

but are not necessarily limited to:

I don't know if anyone's brought this up but i think this wording is also very vague. This could mean that if I send an ad for say a debt counseling service to the members of those states and happened to have a minor and the minor's parents filed a complaint I could still be held liable even though the ad that was sent was not on the list. which means they pretty much can choose any ad at anytime and not have to fore-warn us before hand. even something so simple as a debt counseling service.

as far as speaking bout alcohol laws I guess each state is very different. Here in my state if you are caught selling to a minor the store receives very stiff penalty. Pretty much if a person looks like they are under 40 it's a rule of thumb to ask for ID. I'm almost 30 and I got carded the other week for cigarettes (legal age here 18) although I didn't mind

made me feel young

lol They get kids that look old enough to try to buy alcohol and cigarettes to see if you will or will not sell and if you do not ask for ID the store gets it big time. In fact in liquor stores (the only place you can purchase liquor) you can't set one foot in the store unless you are 21. They are supposed to card you the minute you walk in if they feel you are underage or appear to look underage.

priestes

Jul 10 2005, 08:01 PM

You must be xx years of age or older to participate in this program. Our program is open to both US and International members and is void where prohibited by local governing laws.

This is on most cc sites standard. Insert age.. If it was modified at least a disclaimer would help. I don't know if it would stop a prosecution but I think wording is important to protect the sites.

ladylaughsalot

Jul 10 2005, 08:29 PM

Well, being a program owner and in Utah, I'll be watching this thread closely

. I "hope" that most owners, if they do anything regarding this, will go with what Tammy said, and set us to inbox only. I would really hate to lose my programs, or not be able to join others, because of this. Yet I can understand, absolutely, as a PO, the need to protect ourselves.
The inbox idea, to me, sounds like the best one, in my opinion. We as program owners are protected, but we (residents of those states), can also stay in this industry.
I suppose there are a few PO's that I would be willing to share my ID with, but to be honest, that thought isn't real appealing to me, and I doubt I would do it. I am 29 years old, so no problem there, but the thought of identity theft scares me to much, especially with the amount of scammers in this industry. Although I try to avoid them, sometimes you just never know who you are dealing with. I would have serious issues with handing out my ID to someone over the internet. I'm uncomfortable enough as it is sharing my home address.
Anyway, set to inbox gets my vote

Just my 2 cents

cybertongue

Jul 10 2005, 09:36 PM

QUOTE(MenaC @ Jul 9 2005, 05:14 PM)

One would think that the government in Utah would have bigger fish to fry than mail on the internet... like...oh dunno... maybe polygamy.
[right][snapback]3703204[/snapback][/right]

OMG, you stole the words right off of my keyboard with this sentiment... Utah DEFINITELY has better things to worry about.

cybertongue

Jul 10 2005, 09:51 PM

QUOTE(priestes @ Jul 10 2005, 09:43 AM)

You know I already conform to this due to paypal didnt have it before as I don't like this kind of stuff on my sites, but the big kicker if you read their stuff is they can make you responsibile and fine you or give you jail time if you send a link out that anywhere on their website they have a banner or third party. How far do they go?

It just seems to me that government and parents who push for some of this are not doing their job. When did it become my responsibility to raise someone elses children ? I just have a real problem of how they are not only stating what they do but that if we have a thier party link or a site has it anywhere on their site they can make up responsible.

This won't affect those outside the US but I betcha anything they will go after who they can.

Now my question is how are they going to enforce a law that is only for their states when other states have other rulings. How is it going to hold up say if they go after me in Oregon?
[right][snapback]3704627[/snapback][/right]

Good points. One question I have (and I'm not only asking you, just a general inquiry for anyone who has an idea) is if this ends up that they hold us as POs responsible for third party material, will they also hold responsible whoever directed the minor to our website in the first place (such as Google, a traffic exchange, whatever)? How far back are these jokers willing to pursue this before they trace the problem right back to the neglectful parents of these kids who should have never been online alone in the first place...

Altari

Jul 10 2005, 09:52 PM

Trying a second time...post was wiped before.

QUOTE(priestes @ Jul 10 2005, 04:57 PM)

Altari in Oregon now if a minor buys alcohol or ciggerettes and the store clerk said they looked old enough they would be fined. Big Time, but store which sell beer and wine and ciggerettes are in our regular grocery store, and the hard liquor is controlled by the state.
[right][snapback]3705385[/snapback][/right]

That's how it is basically anywhere. It seems, though, that what this law is doing to prosecuting the liquor department for letting someone presenting themselves as an adult just walk in. They might not buy anything, they might not even touch anything, but if they enter that department the store has commited a grievous sin. See what I mean? This isn't cracking down on sites actually selling to minors, just showing minors the opportunity or possibility of purchasing.

Re Pos :

I'm not sure if this would affect international WMs. Most state laws are only effective for other states. International offenses [generally] require a violation of an actual Federal law.

priestes

Jul 10 2005, 10:44 PM

QUOTE(cybertongue @ Jul 10 2005, 08:51 PM)

Good points. One question I have (and I'm not only asking you, just a general inquiry for anyone who has an idea) is if this ends up that they hold us as POs responsible for third party material, will they also hold responsible whoever directed the minor to our website in the first place (such as Google, a traffic exchange, whatever)? How far back are these jokers willing to pursue this before they trace the problem right back to the neglectful parents of these kids who should have never been online alone in the first place...
[right][snapback]3705841[/snapback][/right]

This was my concern in regards to sending say se ads out as every search engine has links on it for the things we are supposedly not to promote so not sure how we are suppose to decide what they will decide we are not suppose to link to or?

Positive_thougths

Jul 11 2005, 12:36 AM

QUOTE(Altari @ Jul 11 2005, 05:52 AM)

Trying a second time...post was wiped before.

That's how it is basically anywhere.

[right][snapback]3705844[/snapback][/right]

Not in the Netherlands but I guess you guessed that.

QUOTE(Altari @ Jul 11 2005, 05:52 AM)

Re Pos :

I'm not sure if this would affect international WMs. Most state laws are only effective for other states. International offenses [generally] require a violation of an actual Federal law.
[right][snapback]3705844[/snapback][/right]

Oh that is good if this is so.

Ofcourse still a huge problem for people whom have a program and live in the USA.

Pos

Altari

Jul 11 2005, 02:39 AM

QUOTE(Positive_thougths @ Jul 11 2005, 12:36 AM)

Not in the Netherlands but I guess you guessed that.

I meant in the US.

QUOTE

Oh that is good if this is so.

Ofcourse still a huge problem for people whom have a program and live in the USA.

Pos

[right][snapback]3706131[/snapback][/right]

I wouldn't quote me on that, but it is something international POs should look into. I'm just going on cases we've had in Illinois (the governor tried to go after Canadian pharmacies because they were violating our state law, and it didn't fly for that reason).

Gray Eminence

Jul 11 2005, 03:05 AM

QUOTE(edskers @ Jul 10 2005, 03:34 PM)

You know , its time for the government and states , let Parents RAISE their own children..

.
.
.
.
.

Pretty soon , if will become , illegal , to sit in your house , with nothing on.. Cause your kids might walk in and see you. MIND YOU I DONT , but my mom used to..

Makes you glad , you live in the land of the free , don't it.?

Now granted, I don't want my kids seeing , Porn , but why not go after the Porn companies , intead of the innocent.. I mean , if i send a link to say a search engine , and they click a link and another and end up at one. Does that mean , i get fined , cause i sent an innocent ad , that happend to go to something not innocent..

Wouldn't they have to prove , my intent was to send them to a porn site , no i suppose it would me left to me , to show my intent wouldn't be, i suppose.

Again , what a joke ,, UGG..
Tammy
[right][snapback]3704283[/snapback][/right]

Finally somebody wondering about the "why" and not about the "how to do"

Yes Tammy, It's a joke for all non US residents such law. But i think you're first sentence is wrong, because it's parents whom asked to Gov to control what their childs will see on the net.

Is it not parents to raise their childs? control what they see online? or on TV?

No, american parents seems to lazy, put childrens front of TV and ask to Gov to make laws to controls what their children cn view or not

The same for Internet, most if chldrens have interent acces with any controls from parents, to hard, no time, they are quiter so

I wonder if any of those parents never heard of Parents Control Software?
Even simplier, you can limit the access to some site for your child account in IE.

BUt of course it takes time and bring those parents to speak with their childrens, horror

Yes Tammy, it's parents roles but it seems that a lot of those don't understand it's their fault and reject that fault on Gov or others online actors

Cheers,
Gray Eminence

PS : congrats Altari, Mine will arrive around 74 days from today

WAGP

Jul 11 2005, 03:09 AM

QUOTE

One of the most common concerns we receive is that some people do not find their confirmation messages in their regular inbox. If you experience this problem, please check your "junk" or "spam" folder, to see if the message has been misclassified by your e-mail provider.

(from the contact form of that email registry thing, https://www.protectmichild.com/contact_us.html)

Hehee, gotta love the irony

Anyways...
I have sent an email through the contact from on https://www.protectmichild.com/ with info about PTRs and a few questions. When they reply (I hope it'll be a real person and not an automated response...), I will come here and post my email and the reply.

The way I see it, we have the following options:

1) Delete and ban all Michigan and Utah members (am not going to do that though)

2) Put all Michigan and Utah members on site inbox only (can take time, especially for large databases, and would have to be done regularely for any new members)

3) Stop advertising sites that have ANY objectionable content, including PTP (as we can't control what's in them, and most of them have search engines in 'em), search engines and any site that has a google ads or bidvertiser (or whatever) banner (unless it's our own site and we can control the ads in rotation)

4) Sit on the floor and cry...

Any other options?

Olivier

Gray Eminence

Jul 11 2005, 03:44 AM

QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 11 2005, 11:09 AM)

(from the contact form of that email registry thing, https://www.protectmichild.com/contact_us.html)

Hehee, gotta love the irony

Anyways...
I have sent an email through the contact from on https://www.protectmichild.com/ with info about PTRs and a few questions. When they reply (I hope it'll be a real person and not an automated response...), I will come here and post my email and the reply.

The way I see it, we have the following options:

1) Delete and ban all Michigan and Utah members (am not going to do that though)

2) Put all Michigan and Utah members on site inbox only (can take time, especially for large databases, and would have to be done regularely for any new members)

3) Stop advertising sites that have ANY objectionable content, including PTP (as we can't control what's in them, and most of them have search engines in 'em), search engines and any site that has a google ads or bidvertiser (or whatever) banner (unless it's our own site and we can control the ads in rotation)

4) Sit on the floor and cry...

Any other options?

Olivier
[right][snapback]3706375[/snapback][/right]

sell to those parents a ParentalControsl and acursus "How to raise myself my children instead of loosing time of my Represntatn at State Level" ?

More seriously (even If I personally was with previous one ;-) ) I think that option 2 would fit . 5starpromotions was mentionned earlier, I talk to Lia this morning about that issue and we didn't see that optin on fact, but she will probably see with lawyers if she is covered with InboxSiteEmail

Altari

Jul 11 2005, 04:21 AM

Gray,
Congrats! Pregnancy is sooo much fun. I'm already so big I can't sleep! A long 22 weeks ahead of me.

In either case, to the 'why' of the matter. This is not about protecting children in any way, shape or form. This is about creating a precedent for commoditizing the internet. As far as 'protecting kids' this tops the list of useless bills (right up there with the recent federal internet protection bill).

Are the sex toy, viagra, cialis, discount windows xp, enhancement or *Click Here! You're A Winner!* spammers going to suddenly have a change of heart and decide to purchase this list and check it? It's like stopping gun violence by outlawing guns. The people who are breaking the law with them will continue to use them (that's why they're criminals - they ignore the law). All this is doing is charging [read : taxing] legitimate companies who do business online, because there is no other way to do it!

Gray Eminence

Jul 11 2005, 04:44 AM

QUOTE(Altari @ Jul 11 2005, 12:21 PM)

Gray,
Congrats! Pregnancy is sooo much fun. I'm already so big I can't sleep! A long 22 weeks ahead of me.

Well, I don't see too much the fun part as I'm the other side as a father, still a lot unreal for me lol

QUOTE(Altari @ Jul 11 2005, 12:21 PM)

In either case, to the 'why' of the matter. This is not about protecting children in any way, shape or form. This is about creating a precedent for commoditizing the internet. As far as 'protecting kids' this tops the list of useless bills (right up there with the recent federal internet protection bill).

Are the sex toy, viagra, cialis, discount windows xp, enhancement or *Click Here! You're A Winner!* spammers going to suddenly have a change of heart and decide to purchase this list and check it? It's like stopping gun violence by outlawing guns. The people who are breaking the law with them will continue to use them (that's why they're criminals - they ignore the law). All this is doing is charging [read : taxing] legitimate companies who do business online, because there is no other way to do it!
[right][snapback]3706462[/snapback][/right]

The solution is maybe to stop sending emails? No more issue with risk of spamming due to a new law in a specific unknown state/country. No more issue with that new law. No more issue with spam filter. No more issue with emailclickingsoftwares. It creates a bigger traffic on the site itself, so more banners impressions showed, so more advertisers. As the members are there, probably more PTC too, more interaction with memebrs who only click emails.

That law can have some benefits for ptr's in fact

TLC

Jul 11 2005, 04:44 AM

QUOTE(idle @ Jul 9 2005, 03:20 PM)

Why is it always everyone elses responsibility to protect what children see and not the parents? children should not be left surfing the net unsupervised. parents need to take responsibility for what their kids do or see online. you cant expect the internet to be safe and it would be impossible to try and deal with every individual case that broke these rules
[right][snapback]3702830[/snapback][/right]

Exactly. I have three kids-- and you can bet that I know what they are viewing then they are online.

Besides... I can't even imagine that any of the three would even be interested in PTR.. They aren't gonna sit at the computer and look at search engines--- they'd rather be spending their time on a game site or an educational site where they can have fun. I don't think MY kids would consider PTR as "fun". JMO.

Gray Eminence

Jul 11 2005, 05:07 AM

QUOTE(TLC @ Jul 11 2005, 12:44 PM)

Exactly. I have three kids-- and you can bet that I know what they are viewing then they are online.

Besides... I can't even imagine that any of the three would even be interested in PTR.. They aren't gonna sit at the computer and look at search engines--- they'd rather be spending their time on a game site or an educational site where they can have fun. I don't think MY kids would consider PTR as "fun". JMO.
[right][snapback]3706502[/snapback][/right]

Because you educated them to see internet as a good source of information, education or fun, they don't just "eat" anything on the web as truth

But still sure they will not click in PTR when they will need their own money? ;-)

TLC

Jul 11 2005, 05:11 AM

QUOTE(Gray Eminence @ Jul 11 2005, 06:07 AM)

But still sure they will not click in PTR when they will need their own money? ;-)
[right][snapback]3706531[/snapback][/right]

If they need their own money---They get an "allowance" for clean rooms--- and help with laundry & dishes. There's a list of "extra chores" posted on the refrigerator. They can always wash my van--- or help with yard work--- for a fast $5 or so...

Besides--- the two oldest have heard their mother complain about so many PTR programs not paying--- I think they are permanently convinced that PTR is evil.

smonline2

Jul 11 2005, 07:49 AM

PTR gets even more complicated....seems all the odds are against it!

WAGP

Jul 11 2005, 08:09 AM

QUOTE

The solution is maybe to stop sending emails? No more issue with risk of spamming due to a new law in a specific unknown state/country. No more issue with that new law. No more issue with spam filter. No more issue with emailclickingsoftwares. It creates a bigger traffic on the site itself, so more banners impressions showed, so more advertisers. As the members are there, probably more PTC too, more interaction with memebrs who only click emails.

This could be a great idea, especially if other states (and who knows, maybe even other countries) follow with such laws.
It would indeed greatly increase traffic to our sites, resulting in a better reputation (if the members see our site more often, and what we do with it, they'll remember it and it's details more easily), ads rotating faster (so more ads to put in rotation), more clicks and impressions (so happy advertisers), more members tempted to do the other pt stuff (if they're already on the site and in their account, they will be tempted to do the ptc and traffic exchange too), and so on..

The only disadvantage of this (that I can think of) would be the admin emails. At the moment, if we have something important/urgent to tell the members (sheduled downtime, ad sales, ptr industry update,...) we just send an email and they get it pretty fast, and see it as soon as they check their email. But with inboxes, they would only see the admin emails when they log onto the site, which can be as slow as 5 or 10 days after it was sent (depending on the inactivity limit of the site).

But for all the advantages it could bring, I think we should actually consider this. Not just for michigan and utah, but for ALL members. That would be an "easy" way to get past this new law, without spending a cent.

And for the signup and confirmation emails, I suggest we do like someone said earlier (or in another thread, can't remember) and make a page with no header (so no google, no bidvertiser, no banners and no sidelinks) for those pages (signup, confirm, confirmation_email_sent (or whatever), and such).

Olivier

MenaC

Jul 11 2005, 08:14 AM

QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 11 2005, 10:09 AM)

This could be a great idea, especially if other states (and who knows, maybe even other countries) follow with such laws.
It would indeed greatly increase traffic to our sites, resulting in a better reputation (if the members see our site more often, and what we do with it, they'll remember it and it's details more easily), ads rotating faster (so more ads to put in rotation), more clicks and impressions (so happy advertisers), more members tempted to do the other pt stuff (if they're already on the site and in their account, they will be tempted to do the ptc and traffic exchange too), and so on..

The only disadvantage of this (that I can think of) would be the admin emails. At the moment, if we have something important/urgent to tell the members (sheduled downtime, ad sales, ptr industry update,...) we just send an email and they get it pretty fast, and see it as soon as they check their email. But with inboxes, they would only see the admin emails when they log onto the site, which can be as slow as 5 or 10 days after it was sent (depending on the inactivity limit of the site).

But for all the advantages it could bring, I think we should actually consider this. Not just for michigan and utah, but for ALL members. That would be an "easy" way to get past this new law, without spending a cent.

And for the signup and confirmation emails, I suggest we do like someone said earlier (or in another thread, can't remember) and make a page with no header (so no google, no bidvertiser, no banners and no sidelinks) for those pages (signup, confirm, confirmation_email_sent (or whatever), and such).

Olivier
[right][snapback]3706862[/snapback][/right]

I also see this as the safest solution and with the added benefits to boot.

For the admin emails, they can be sent just like the activation emails with no risk involved since nothing is advertised on them.

priestes

Jul 11 2005, 09:43 AM

QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 11 2005, 02:09 AM)

(from the contact form of that email registry thing, https://www.protectmichild.com/contact_us.html)

Hehee, gotta love the irony

Anyways...
I have sent an email through the contact from on https://www.protectmichild.com/ with info about PTRs and a few questions. When they reply (I hope it'll be a real person and not an automated response...), I will come here and post my email and the reply.

The way I see it, we have the following options:

1) Delete and ban all Michigan and Utah members (am not going to do that though)

2) Put all Michigan and Utah members on site inbox only (can take time, especially for large databases, and would have to be done regularely for any new members)

3) Stop advertising sites that have ANY objectionable content, including PTP (as we can't control what's in them, and most of them have search engines in 'em), search engines and any site that has a google ads or bidvertiser (or whatever) banner (unless it's our own site and we can control the ads in rotation)

4) Sit on the floor and cry...

Any other options?

Olivier
[right][snapback]3706375[/snapback][/right]

Good Luck on getting any more of a response then I did. Twice I was pointed to their website and told to contact an attorney and I had to scrub my lists if I was to comply. Well pppppppppppt they are not getting my money cause their states are in trouble.

I like you last option but think I would rather sit on floor and scream.

Spare-Dollars

Jul 11 2005, 10:57 AM

Response to my mail:

QUOTE

=============================================================

Under Michigan's Children's Protection Registry law, senders of e-mail messages whose primary purpose is to promote products or services children are not allowed to purchase or participate in under Michigan law must scrub their lists against the ProtectMIChild Registry at least once every 30 days to ensure compliance with the law. A list of the types of products that are covered is available at:

https://www.protectmichild.com/compliance.html

If the primary purpose of the e-mail messages you are sending is not to promote products or services children are not allowed to purchase or participate in under Michigan law then you are not required to scrub your list.You should consult with your legal counsel to see whether you meet the standard under the law.

Thank you for your interest in the Michigan Children's Protection Registry.

ProtectMIChild Customer Support

===============================
Protect MI Child Registry
Michigan Public Service Commission
P.O. Box 30221
Lansing, MI 48909-7721
https://www.ProtectMIChild.com/

As my friend from Michigan explained to me:

You are safe to send email's as long as they are NOT email's for any of the following:
https://www.protectmichild.com/compliance.html

* Alcohol
* Tobacco
* Pornography or Obscene Material
* Gambling
* Lotteries
* Illegal Drugs
* Vehicle Sales
* Fireworks
* Firearms

chinkley16

Jul 11 2005, 11:07 AM

Someone has to file a complaint before anything can come about of this. If someone signs up for a PTR program I find it hard to believe they are going to complain that they are recieving mail of this nature. But hey you never know nowadays.

priestes

Jul 11 2005, 11:19 AM

QUOTE(chinkley16 @ Jul 11 2005, 10:07 AM)

Someone has to file a complaint before anything can come about of this. If someone signs up for a PTR program I find it hard to believe they are going to complain that they are recieving mail of this nature. But hey you never know nowadays.
[right][snapback]3707253[/snapback][/right]

The problem is not the child that signs up the problem is the parent who didn't know their kid did it that decides they want to file a complant.

Country Clicker
Same canned response I got from them. The problem is not that is the type of email promoted on say my sites, but their laws are stating if a third party advertiser has anything on thier site such as this then you are still liable.

Many search engines for instance have links to these type of sites. I ask about this and was told consult with a lawyer. Any third party site I am still liable for.

So this was my concern. How far do I go to monitor another site? 50 pages into a huge site advertising? Am I therefore responsibile for a third parties third party?

linndy

Jul 11 2005, 11:25 AM

this whole thing is just stupid and another way for the goverment
to make more money.
i am from mi and i am down 1 ptr allready, i wonder how many more
will follow?
i just cant send my id to a wm, way to scared for that been scammed sooooo many times. no offense to anyone but that is just something
i cannot do.
i love doing ptr's it is my extra money. i really don't make much
so it wont kill me but i really dont think any of this was meant for ptr world in the first place. am i wrong? or was it?

Spare-Dollars

Jul 11 2005, 11:50 AM

QUOTE(priestes @ Jul 11 2005, 01:19 PM)

Country Clicker
Same canned response I got from them. The problem is not that is the type of email promoted on say my sites, but their laws are stating if a third party advertiser has anything on thier site such as this then you are still liable.
[right][snapback]3707289[/snapback][/right]

I responded to their mail yesterday about the third party advertiser but I haven't heard back from them yet.

linndy

Jul 11 2005, 12:07 PM

well i got my account back at the one i lost so i am happy.

Essperanza

Jul 11 2005, 12:39 PM

QUOTE(linndy @ Jul 11 2005, 08:07 PM)

well i got my account back at the one i lost so i am happy.
[right][snapback]3707386[/snapback][/right]

You never lost it, hon, I was just asking for opinions... but I'm glad you're staying

WAGP

Jul 11 2005, 01:07 PM

It's me again

I got a reply. Here is my email, and their reply.

QUOTE

Hello,

Me and many other webmasters & webmistresses are wondering how this affects PTR sites (Paid To Read). Unlike normal emailers, we have a double opt-in signup process and the people who receive our email ads are actually members. They don't just get emails. They are members, can log onto our site and also click banner ads, and also view websites in an onsite traffic exchange, and even have a forum to discuss PTR and other issues. All these ads are incentivized, which means the members receive a part of what the advertiser paid for the ad, when they click the link/banner to visit the advertised website.

There are two main problems for us, and I hope you can shed some light on them for us (by replying to this email):

1) You don't have a complete list of content unsuitable for minors, you just write:
" The covered categories of messages include, but are not necessarily limited to
* Alcohol (MCL 436.1701)
* Tobacco (MCL 722.641)
* Pornography or Obscene Material (MCL 722.673-722.677, MCL 750.142-750.143, 47 USC 231(e)(6))
* Gambling (MCL 432.218)
* Lotteries (MCL 432.29)
* Illegal Drugs (MCL 333.7401)
* Vehicle Sales (MCL 750.421c)
* Fireworks (MCL 750.243a, MCL 750.243b)
* Firearms (MCL 750.223,MCL 28.422)"
I insist on the "are not necessarily limited to". Can't you give us a complete list so can know for sure what we can and can't send?

2) As site owners, we can pretty easily (well, if we had a full list, see point 1) make sure we don't have any objectionable ads on our website and sent to the members. BUT, things we can't control are the ads on the advertised page. For example: An advertiser buys an ad for a search engine (one of those PPC - pay per click). The member gets the email/sees the banner and visits the site. But when he gets to the site, there are links to many searches, including objectionable content. To see what I mean, take a look at this search engine http://seekdir.com/search/

And what about websites that use google ads or bidvertiser, that basically have different ads rotating ? We as program owners can make sure our google or bidvertiser banner doesn't contain any unwanted ads, but if we send an ad for a site that happens to have one of those banners, and that sometimes shows objectionable ads?
Example: We show an ad to our members for http://www.weallgetpaid.net/forum/
The site itself is suitable, as it's a forum and it doesn't allow any advertising (apart from referral links for PaidToRead sites, since the forum is actually part of a ptr site). But the bidvertiser banner at the top shows many ads, including sometimes casinos, credit cards, debt management ads. So would it be prohibited to send an ad for that forum to a member with a registered email address?

Any info you can give us (I would show my email and your reply to the other PTR site owners I know) would be greatly appreciated.

Kind regards,
Olivier Robins

=============================================================

If senders are sending advertisements for adult materials that children are prohibited from purchasing then the senders must scrub their lists to remove registered e-mail addresses at least every 30 days. Marketers of products that children are not prohibited from purchasing are not required to scrub their lists.

In order for a message to be prohibited under the law, its "primary purpose" must be to advertise, promote, or link to a prohibited product of service. If the primary purpose is not to promote a prohibited product or service then law does not cover a sender's messages.

The list of prohibited products on the ProtectMIChild website should be seen as a general guideline but may not include every product that children are prohibited from purchasing. Senders should seek legal counsel to see if the specific messages they are sending are covered under the Michigan Children's Protection Registry law.

Thank you for your interest in the Michigan Children's Protection Registry.

ProtectMIChild Customer Support

===============================
Protect MI Child Registry
Michigan Public Service Commission
P.O. Box 30221
Lansing, MI 48909-7721
https://www.ProtectMIChild.com/

I can't quite see if it's an automated response or a real human answer. It seems to cover basically what I asked.

What I understand from reading their email:

1) Basically, anything that anyone under 18 is not allowed to see/signup for/buy, in Michigan or Utah, is prohibited.

and 2) Third party ads are not a problem. The "primary purpose" of an ad is to promote site A. If site A has ads for Site B (more or less objectionnable content included), it's ok. So an example: If I send an email to my members for wolf emails PTP, it's okay, because the "primary purpose" of the ad was to promote wolf emails PTP. Now if wolf emails PTP has, in rotation, a search site with objectionnable links/ads, it's not my fault and I am not at risk.
Did I understand that correctly?

I think it would be possible to make sure our sites and advertised sites don't have any objectionnable/prohibited content, but...it'd be a real pain checking everything in such detail, every time an ad is sent. I think the "set those two states and any other that follow this rule to site inbox, and heck maybe even make it site inbox for all members while we're at it" would be the easiest and less annoying solution to our problems. Althout we should send an email to our members asking them what they think about going site inbox only..

Olivier

Spare-Dollars

Jul 11 2005, 07:59 PM

Their response when asking for clarification on third party advertisers:

QUOTE

You should refer to the text of the law and determine whether the "primary purpose" of the messages you are sending is to promote a product or service children are prohibited from purchasing, viewing, participating, or otherwise receiving under Michigan or United States Federal law.

You can find the text of the Michigan Children's Protection Registry statute at:

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/20...004-PA-0241.htm
http://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/20...004-PA-0242.htm

Thank you for your interest in the Michigan Children's Protection Registry.

ProtectMIChild Customer Support

Protect MI Child Registry
Michigan Public Service Commission
P.O. Box 30221
Lansing, MI 48909-7721
https://www.ProtectMIChild.com/

QUOTE

Sec. 5. (1) A person shall not send, cause to be sent, or conspire with a third party to send a message to a contact point that has been registered for more than 30 calendar days with the department if the primary purpose of the message is to, directly or indirectly, advertise or otherwise link to a message that advertises a product or service that a minor is prohibited by law from purchasing, viewing, possessing, participating in, or otherwise receiving.

The way I'm reading this: if you send a mail that contains for example a link to a search engine, as long as it was not your "primary purpose" for the person to click a link to a product or service prohibited under Michigan or United States Federal law then you're fine. Your "primary purpose" of the search link in your mail was for the person to either perform a search or sign up with the search engine, etc.

priestes

Jul 11 2005, 09:07 PM

QUOTE(CountryClicker @ Jul 11 2005, 06:59 PM)

Their response when asking for clarification on third party advertisers:
The way I'm reading this: if you send a mail that contains for example a link to a search engine, as long as it was not your "primary purpose" for the person to click a link to a product or service prohibited under Michigan or United States Federal law then you're fine. Your "primary purpose" of the search link in your mail was for the person to either perform a search or sign up with the search engine, etc.
[right][snapback]3708337[/snapback][/right]

Yes but are we going to have like paypal .. Who determines whether we directly or indirectly sent a link? They have to many grey areas in their provisions.

WAGP

Jul 12 2005, 01:48 AM

I have now sent an admin email about this to my members, with a link to this forum and a question: "Would it be ok for you if we went "site inbox only"?".

I'll let you know how many reply, and what yes/no ratio I got.

Olivier

p.s. If members don't mind this (I did tell them about all the advantages too), I think it'll save us a lot of present and future trouble.

Gray Eminence

Jul 12 2005, 02:07 AM

QUOTE(WAGP @ Jul 12 2005, 09:48 AM)

I have now sent an admin email about this to my members, with a link to this forum and a question: "Would it be ok for you if we went "site inbox only"?".

I'll let you know how many reply, and what yes/no ratio I got.

Olivier

p.s. If members don't mind this (I did tell them about all the advantages too), I think it'll save us a lot of present and future trouble.
[right][snapback]3708965[/snapback][/right]

I guess that your using "interests" on your site?
So tll them that people who prefer to receive emails in their own mailbox will not receive any email sent to InboxOnSite, arguing that xx% of the emails will go to InboxOnSite due to PTP and Searches. Only 100% safe ads will be sent to all members (I guess that actually, if your site is "standard", you mostly send PTP or/and Searches)

But I've the impression that as for Paypal, even if the emaisl are InboxOnSite only, your not safe at 100% becasue they can still "interprete" the law their way

Edited to add : indeed, everybody with InboxOnSite only will be safe for the futur, no more spam (missing emails) issues, no more adaptations to the last law about emails, no more bouncing emails, more visitors to your site (weel already explain the advantage above :-) )

Cheesr,
Gray Eminence

belladk

Jul 12 2005, 03:17 AM

What really bothers me is, if every single state is going to have its own registry: It is absolutely impossible checking e-mail adresses in multiple databases.

The idea is great in some ways; but it should be one common, global database.
Otherwise, we need a global database of databases containing such addresses.

Michigans registry is found at ProtectMiChild.com - Utah will be ready with another soon.

I think, parents should secure, their children have their interests correctly registered, i.e. not selected types of interest, that could contain some of the illegal ads. Then it should not be a major problem to PTR-sites using targetted marketing.

I do beleive, parents still have some kind of responsibility on these matters, too!

Kind regards

belladk