I don't know if this is news or not but I just read about it from a link in a program I'm a member at. It pertains to the laws that went into effect July 1st in the states of Michigan and Utah regarding commercial emails to minors (commercial emailers have until August 1st to comply). It looks pretty scary as the fines are stiff for 1st offenses and can even include jail time for further offenses.
Most PTR programs have an age limit of 13 years old which might be a problem. But even limiting it to 18 and over can be problematic since evidently you even need to make sure that even if the email belongs to an adult, that email is for the adult only... e.i. it's not sometimes used by the minor.
This is the link I received in the email:
http://www.boazepublishing.biz/ezine/archi...test_issue.html
And here are some articles about it...
http://www.newstarget.com/009068.html
http://www.spamfo.co.uk/component/option,c...d,344/Itemid,2/
http://news.com.com/Why+ribaldry+could+ear..._3-5761463.html
Full Version: To all POs: New laws re emails to minors?
Get Paid Forum - Your Resource for 'Get Paid Industry' Discussion > Get Paid To Programs > General Discussion : Free GPT sites and related topics
Hello,
Well, to me it is indeed news, as I never heard of that before.
I sent them an email at isipp (from one of the links you posted) to ask for more info and how it affects PTRs (which are in my opinion different from normal emailers).
Do you think you could forward me the email you said you received about this?
At any of my weallgetpaid addresses
Olivier
Well, to me it is indeed news, as I never heard of that before.
I sent them an email at isipp (from one of the links you posted) to ask for more info and how it affects PTRs (which are in my opinion different from normal emailers).
Do you think you could forward me the email you said you received about this?
At any of my weallgetpaid addresses
Olivier
Hi Olivier,
Thanks for looking into it. Unfortunately I can't forward the email to you as this particular program I'm in has a privacy clause in each email (we aren't allowed to reproduce, forward, copy or anything of that nature the emails they send) but the link they sent in the email, I posted in my first post of this thread.
Any program sending emails seems to be at risk to me since as the link I posted says:
This seems serious to me and it's something that could affect each and everyone of us members of PTR programs. More so than the problems encountered with Paypal lately.
With the Paypal problem, at least there were ways around it. But with this, if a program is in violation of these laws and gets fined, I seriously doubt any program, no matter how successful, can afford the 1st offense fines which seem to be between $5,000. to $250,000. That would mean buh bye program and buh bye to whatever earnings we would have had there.
Though I have no idea if this only affects US based programs as I can't see how they would go after someone outside the country.
Thanks for looking into it. Unfortunately I can't forward the email to you as this particular program I'm in has a privacy clause in each email (we aren't allowed to reproduce, forward, copy or anything of that nature the emails they send) but the link they sent in the email, I posted in my first post of this thread.
Any program sending emails seems to be at risk to me since as the link I posted says:
QUOTE
You can NOT email these addresses any email, even if the email is solicited, that contains material or links to material which kids cannot l?gally see or respond to.
The obvious examples of illegal material are gambling, pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and both illegal and prescription drugs.
The not so obvious content which could be considered illegal for minors to receive because minors are legally prohibited from purchasing and possessing these items.
Matchmaking and Dating services ? Financial services - loans, credit cards, bank accounts ? Travel services - car rentals, travel, hotels, Automobiles sales.
Are you beginning to see the problem?
You do not want to send out an email to a registered minor's address and include a link to a site and have that site contain an ad for even a Capital One cred1t card. If you do this you may have broken the law.
Even though your email was sent to a subscribed address, contained absolutely nothing illegal for minors and you were linking to what you thought was a perfectly acceptable site, you could be in trouble.
Let's say you were just linking back to your own site - but you use Google AdSense to make mon?y. If Google serves up an ad that's illegal for minors to see - guess what - you're at fault.
Here's Why...
For example; an article on finance for your small business is located on a webpage and Google loads in ads for loans, to link to this page in an email maybe illegal if that emails is sent to a registered minor's email address.
You see, No one knows how far the Attorney Generals of Michigan and Utah will take these statutes. And it isn't just the states' Attorney Generals you have to worry about. Parents have the right to bring civil action under the law as well.
The obvious examples of illegal material are gambling, pornography, alcohol, tobacco, and both illegal and prescription drugs.
The not so obvious content which could be considered illegal for minors to receive because minors are legally prohibited from purchasing and possessing these items.
Matchmaking and Dating services ? Financial services - loans, credit cards, bank accounts ? Travel services - car rentals, travel, hotels, Automobiles sales.
Are you beginning to see the problem?
You do not want to send out an email to a registered minor's address and include a link to a site and have that site contain an ad for even a Capital One cred1t card. If you do this you may have broken the law.
Even though your email was sent to a subscribed address, contained absolutely nothing illegal for minors and you were linking to what you thought was a perfectly acceptable site, you could be in trouble.
Let's say you were just linking back to your own site - but you use Google AdSense to make mon?y. If Google serves up an ad that's illegal for minors to see - guess what - you're at fault.
Here's Why...
For example; an article on finance for your small business is located on a webpage and Google loads in ads for loans, to link to this page in an email maybe illegal if that emails is sent to a registered minor's email address.
You see, No one knows how far the Attorney Generals of Michigan and Utah will take these statutes. And it isn't just the states' Attorney Generals you have to worry about. Parents have the right to bring civil action under the law as well.
This seems serious to me and it's something that could affect each and everyone of us members of PTR programs. More so than the problems encountered with Paypal lately.
With the Paypal problem, at least there were ways around it. But with this, if a program is in violation of these laws and gets fined, I seriously doubt any program, no matter how successful, can afford the 1st offense fines which seem to be between $5,000. to $250,000. That would mean buh bye program and buh bye to whatever earnings we would have had there.
Though I have no idea if this only affects US based programs as I can't see how they would go after someone outside the country.
I would hope it wouldn't apply to double opt-in mails as PTR is. But if it does, then I don't see any way to continue. We have no way to verify a member is the age he/she claims.
From the Michigan Website :
PTR owners will just have to be on the lookout, and make sure their databases don't contain 'registered' addresses.
QUOTE
Michigan?s child protection registry, called the Protect MI Child Registry, will allow individuals and schools to register email addresses to which minors have access. In the near future, instant message IDs, mobile phone numbers, fax numbers, pager numbers, and other contact points can also be registered. There is no cost to register.
On July 21, 2004, the Governor signed SB 1025, creating the Michigan Children?s Protection Registry Act (Public Act 241).
Public Act 241 prohibits persons from sending to registered addresses messages about products or services that are legally prohibited for children. Examples include pornography, tobacco, gambling, alcohol, illegal or prescription drugs, firearms, and fireworks. Senders of material are required to remove registered email addresses from their mailing lists within 30 days.
If a registered contact receives a prohibited message, a complaint may be filed with the Michigan Attorney General?s office. A first violation is a misdemeanor; subsequent violations are felonies. Civil penalties may also be sought.
On July 21, 2004, the Governor signed SB 1025, creating the Michigan Children?s Protection Registry Act (Public Act 241).
Public Act 241 prohibits persons from sending to registered addresses messages about products or services that are legally prohibited for children. Examples include pornography, tobacco, gambling, alcohol, illegal or prescription drugs, firearms, and fireworks. Senders of material are required to remove registered email addresses from their mailing lists within 30 days.
If a registered contact receives a prohibited message, a complaint may be filed with the Michigan Attorney General?s office. A first violation is a misdemeanor; subsequent violations are felonies. Civil penalties may also be sought.
PTR owners will just have to be on the lookout, and make sure their databases don't contain 'registered' addresses.
At the end of the article in MenaC's last link there is a statement that these laws may have some problems holding up against the Can Spam Act. I do hope that none of us has to find out the hard way if they can or cannot. Though, I don't see anything that we can do about this at all with no way to verify a person's age. And does the double opt-in clause in PTR protect us from this at all. It seems that even having our databases scrubbed monthly throught the states involved would be ineffective if a parent seriously wanted to pursue this. And now I'm really wondering exactly how many PTR members are under 18...
A few more things (I'm reading the text of the bills).
No, the double opt in does not protect PTR owners. This places all the responsibility on the website, regardless of false information. It is not a simple procedure for parents to register. So the idea is parents are explicitly stating their children may not receive there material, regardless of what the children sign up for.
This part is the most disturbing. Another chip away at the internet :
So, you will have to pay a fee to get this list. If you're host or another service gets the list for you, you will have to pay 3 cents (or more, if the service decides to jack up the price) per eMail checked. How sweet.
No, the double opt in does not protect PTR owners. This places all the responsibility on the website, regardless of false information. It is not a simple procedure for parents to register. So the idea is parents are explicitly stating their children may not receive there material, regardless of what the children sign up for.
This part is the most disturbing. Another chip away at the internet :
QUOTE
R 484.511 Fees.
Rule 11. (1) A registry sign-up fee or charge shall not be assessed to a
person registering a contact point with the department.
(2) Both of the following apply to a registry access fee:
(a) Senders shall be charged a fee to access the registry.
(
The vendor creating the registry system shall propose a fee schedule.
That fee schedule shall not exceed 3 cents per contact point checked against
the registry, for each time a contact point is checked against the registry.
In determining the appropriate fee schedule, the department shall judge
vendor submissions which encourage the largest number of compliant senders.
Rule 11. (1) A registry sign-up fee or charge shall not be assessed to a
person registering a contact point with the department.
(2) Both of the following apply to a registry access fee:
(a) Senders shall be charged a fee to access the registry.
(
The vendor creating the registry system shall propose a fee schedule.That fee schedule shall not exceed 3 cents per contact point checked against
the registry, for each time a contact point is checked against the registry.
In determining the appropriate fee schedule, the department shall judge
vendor submissions which encourage the largest number of compliant senders.
So, you will have to pay a fee to get this list. If you're host or another service gets the list for you, you will have to pay 3 cents (or more, if the service decides to jack up the price) per eMail checked. How sweet.
Correct me if I'm wrong... but doesn't this affect only PTRs hosted in michigan and utah? Like illegal filesharing, you can still find hundreds of websites with that material, but they are hosted in countries with no laws regarding filesharing, so no action can be taken against them.
It affects all senders. eMail is being treated as an actual commodity, so this is restricting what can be 'imported' into the state. Constitutionally, states have the right to restrict imports and exports in their boundaries. We cannot affect what happens in other countries, and currently no charges are being brought against people in the US who download files illegally because the SC hasn't heard the case on it.
Re : CAN SPAM Act
The state found a way around it. In Section 8 of the CSA :
These states have made sending certain eMails to a minor computer crimes, effectively skirting the rules of the CSA. They didn't word it in a way to control 'eMail' but as a way to control a minor's access to 'illegal' [for them] activity.
Re : CAN SPAM Act
The state found a way around it. In Section 8 of the CSA :
QUOTE
STATE LAW NOT SPECIFIC TO ELECTRONIC MAIL- This Act shall not be construed to preempt the applicability of--
(A) State laws that are not specific to electronic mail, including State trespass, contract, or tort law; or
( other State laws to the extent that those laws relate to acts of fraud or computer crime
(A) State laws that are not specific to electronic mail, including State trespass, contract, or tort law; or
(
other State laws to the extent that those laws relate to acts of fraud or computer crimeThese states have made sending certain eMails to a minor computer crimes, effectively skirting the rules of the CSA. They didn't word it in a way to control 'eMail' but as a way to control a minor's access to 'illegal' [for them] activity.
Hmmm... not quite M07hM4n. Here in the Netherlands a Dutch citizen can be (and has been) exported to and tried in the US for allegedly providing an American tourist in Amsterdam with a joint.
Now I don't do adult ads but if one escaped me I shudder to think what type of reaction showing a (semi-)bare breast in an adult ad to a minor would provoke. The US would probably invade the Netherlands to come and get me, they already accepted a law allowing this some time ago...
edited to add a more serious note: 3 cents per check is horrible given the margins we work with. All that remains is banning all (future) members from Michigan and Utah. There's no way to check who is of age and who isn't... unless we go for demanding a copy of an ID or utility bill before someone can join. And even then....
Now I don't do adult ads but if one escaped me I shudder to think what type of reaction showing a (semi-)bare breast in an adult ad to a minor would provoke. The US would probably invade the Netherlands to come and get me, they already accepted a law allowing this some time ago...
edited to add a more serious note: 3 cents per check is horrible given the margins we work with. All that remains is banning all (future) members from Michigan and Utah. There's no way to check who is of age and who isn't... unless we go for demanding a copy of an ID or utility bill before someone can join. And even then....
PTR gets even more complicated....seems all the odds are against it!
Nevermind. Getting Off-Topic. Original quote was changed anyway.
QUOTE(Essperanza @ Jul 9 2005, 02:20 PM)
3 cents per check is horrible given the margins we work with. All that remains is banning all (future) members from Michigan and Utah. There's no way to check who is of age and who isn't... unless we go for demanding a copy of an ID or utility bill before someone can join. And even then....
[right][snapback]3702602[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3702602[/snapback][/right]
I was thinking the same thing... the only safe route would be to not accept members from Utah and Michigan but how can anyone even check with certitude that the person isn't in Utah or Michigan. Does the whois really give the exact location of the IP No.?
QUOTE(MenaC @ Jul 9 2005, 08:31 PM)
Does the whois really give the exact location of the IP No.?
[right][snapback]3702620[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3702620[/snapback][/right]
Yes, there lies the problem. Sometimes it does give a city, but if I look at my own IP check it comes up with my ISP information. And my ISP is 200 kilometers from here - on the other side of the country. I guess it's very well possible that there are across-state border ISP's in the US.
Oh I just thought of possibly a safer course of action: no sending of emails 
While I was reading the info on this, I kept thinking that 5StarPromotions and NoBannerZone would be safe since they do not send emails. All the clicking is done onsite including email links.
Or am I wrong in thinking that it's a way around the Utah & Michigan problem?
While I was reading the info on this, I kept thinking that 5StarPromotions and NoBannerZone would be safe since they do not send emails. All the clicking is done onsite including email links.
Or am I wrong in thinking that it's a way around the Utah & Michigan problem?
That would solve the issue, as long as you never sent an eMail.
But, could you be charged by the activation mail, since you are leading them to possibly illegal activities? O_o
But, could you be charged by the activation mail, since you are leading them to possibly illegal activities? O_o
You are probably right, Altari.
But I guess some protection is better than no protection at all
But I guess some protection is better than no protection at all
man now i am worried
i love my ptr accounts.
this is gonna suck for us in michigan!
am i gonna get canceled at all the ones i am in just cause i live in
michigan? i am willing to verify i am an adult somehow.
i am open to ideals!
edited to add i could send a pic of my wrinkles!
i love my ptr accounts.
this is gonna suck for us in michigan!
am i gonna get canceled at all the ones i am in just cause i live in
michigan? i am willing to verify i am an adult somehow.
i am open to ideals!
edited to add i could send a pic of my wrinkles!
QUOTE(linndy @ Jul 9 2005, 09:34 PM)
edited to add i could send a pic of my wrinkles!
[right][snapback]3702748[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3702748[/snapback][/right]
Ehm... no thanks, I have enough trouble not seeing my own
QUOTE(Essperanza @ Jul 9 2005, 02:53 PM)
Ehm... no thanks, I have enough trouble not seeing my own
[right][snapback]3702781[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3702781[/snapback][/right]
yea me too! lol
but what about this going on seeing as one of the programs i am
in belongs to you?
is there really some way to verify that only adults are here?
i don't see how. we don't even have any of our kids living at home
but how could i prove that? we do have grandkids over so no mails
while they are here?
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
well said i agree
I know a lot of members would hate if we went to on site email only, but the change states specifically if an email is sent to them with links of the nature mentioned. So the confirmation email would not be this. I suppose they could find a loop hole to make it so but think it would a lot of trouble to state a site led them because they signed up for a site to. I dont see how it would affect sites that are compliant with paypals tos of all the things listed are against paypals aup.
Perhaps another thing could be done is only allow accounts for paypal that are verified for these states.
It could be that we might have to require picture ID with birthdate set for members from these states to join. Which sucks. Already members hate giving info but if these two methods would protect ptrs then it might have to be the choices.
Perhaps another thing could be done is only allow accounts for paypal that are verified for these states.
It could be that we might have to require picture ID with birthdate set for members from these states to join. Which sucks. Already members hate giving info but if these two methods would protect ptrs then it might have to be the choices.
QUOTE(priestes @ Jul 9 2005, 03:24 PM)
I know a lot of members would hate if we went to on site email only, but the change states specifically if an email is sent to them with links of the nature mentioned. So the confirmation email would not be this. I suppose they could find a loop hole to make it so but think it would a lot of trouble to state a site led them because they signed up for a site to. I dont see how it would affect sites that are compliant with paypals tos of all the things listed are against paypals aup.
Perhaps another thing could be done is only allow accounts for paypal that are verified for these states.
It could be that we might have to require picture ID with birthdate set for members from these states to join. Which sucks. Already members hate giving info but if these two methods would protect ptrs then it might have to be the choices.
[right][snapback]3702838[/snapback][/right]
Perhaps another thing could be done is only allow accounts for paypal that are verified for these states.
It could be that we might have to require picture ID with birthdate set for members from these states to join. Which sucks. Already members hate giving info but if these two methods would protect ptrs then it might have to be the choices.
[right][snapback]3702838[/snapback][/right]
that would be hard for me to do just because i have been scammed so many times
I think it seems 'unfair' to invoke a law where you have to pay to be able to comply with it?
Is that just for Michigan or do you have to pay the fee per check in each state? It says about monthly checks so would you have to pay every month for the same email address if it stays on your list? What if all the rest of the US states follow suit?
Would it be legal to add a line to the TOS to state that you agree not to add an email address that is on a prohibited sending list and/or that you state you are not under that age in those particular states?
I think this is ridiculous - do they also prohibit children walking past bookmakers or pubs, do they make supermarkets hide the alcohol when a child enters? Do they stop minors buying newspapers or magazines that might have that type of advertising?
QUOTE
That fee schedule shall not exceed 3 cents per contact point checked against
the registry
the registry
Is that just for Michigan or do you have to pay the fee per check in each state? It says about monthly checks so would you have to pay every month for the same email address if it stays on your list? What if all the rest of the US states follow suit?
Would it be legal to add a line to the TOS to state that you agree not to add an email address that is on a prohibited sending list and/or that you state you are not under that age in those particular states?
I think this is ridiculous - do they also prohibit children walking past bookmakers or pubs, do they make supermarkets hide the alcohol when a child enters? Do they stop minors buying newspapers or magazines that might have that type of advertising?
QUOTE(wagdoll @ Jul 9 2005, 03:29 PM)
I think this is ridiculous - do they also prohibit children walking past bookmakers or pubs, do they make supermarkets hide the alcohol when a child enters?? Do they stop minors buying newspapers or magazines that might have that type of advertising?
[right][snapback]3702848[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3702848[/snapback][/right]
right where do they draw the line?
and it is michigan and utah
QUOTE(linndy @ Jul 9 2005, 01:27 PM)
that would be hard for me to do just because i have been scammed so many times
[right][snapback]3702844[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3702844[/snapback][/right]
Perhaps it would make it hard for you but it may come down to no choice for members from these states. It may be a matter of what programs have to do to allow members from there states. I sure cant afford a fine.
QUOTE(linndy @ Jul 9 2005, 10:12 PM)
yea me too! lol
but what about this going on seeing as one of the programs i am
in belongs to you?
is there really some way to verify that only adults are here?
i don't see how. we don't even have any of our kids living at home
but how could i prove that? we do have grandkids over so no mails
while they are here?
[right][snapback]3702820[/snapback][/right]
but what about this going on seeing as one of the programs i am
in belongs to you?
is there really some way to verify that only adults are here?
i don't see how. we don't even have any of our kids living at home
but how could i prove that? we do have grandkids over so no mails
while they are here?
[right][snapback]3702820[/snapback][/right]
I honestly doubt there are only adults here, I remember a poll about forum member's ages some time ago and if I remember correctly the majority of voters was under 18. I do know I felt like an ancient old hag at the time
It's in my TOS that members must be 16 years or older. I can not check every single member's age. Even if I asked for a copy of an ID when signing up, any non Dutch ID could be easily counterfeited and I wouldn't know.
I think these new laws are totally unreasonable.
I agree with Wagdoll that this goes way beyond a PO's responsibility. We are NOT responsible when a child lies about it's age when signing up. So what should we do next? Put every new member on some futuristic online lie detector?
Problem is that even if I'm in the Netherlands and this law doesn't apply to me directly (I hope) the next step could be they file complaints with my host. So I'm really not sure what to do, if anything.
These legislators should invest their time and energy in doing something about SPAM, there's a whole lot more trash sent that way than in any email we send out...
even if POs required members from those 2 states to send in a copy of an ID - it would be very hard to tell if it's a real ID or not unless the PO knows how that state's ID cards are supposed to look.
- My hubby is the "door guy" at a nightclub which means that a huge part of his job is checking IDs to make sure they are real. It's very easy to get a fake ID card made. For example - lots of fake IDs in Texas say that they're given by the Tx dept of identification - well, there isn't any dept of ID in Tx so he knows it's fake. But how is a PO in Texas, or Canada, or Europe supposed to know what a valid Michigan or Utah ID card is supposed to look like???
- My hubby is the "door guy" at a nightclub which means that a huge part of his job is checking IDs to make sure they are real. It's very easy to get a fake ID card made. For example - lots of fake IDs in Texas say that they're given by the Tx dept of identification - well, there isn't any dept of ID in Tx so he knows it's fake. But how is a PO in Texas, or Canada, or Europe supposed to know what a valid Michigan or Utah ID card is supposed to look like???
QUOTE(girrl88 @ Jul 9 2005, 03:01 PM)
even if POs required members from those 2 states to send in a copy of an ID - it would be very hard to tell if it's a real ID or not unless the PO knows how that state's ID cards are supposed to look.
- My hubby is the "door guy" at a nightclub which means that a huge part of his job is checking IDs to make sure they are real. It's very easy to get a fake ID card made. For example - lots of fake IDs in Texas say that they're given by the Tx dept of identification - well, there isn't any dept of ID in Tx so he knows it's fake. But how is a PO in Texas, or Canada, or Europe supposed to know what a valid Michigan or Utah ID card is supposed to look like???
[right][snapback]3702993[/snapback][/right]
- My hubby is the "door guy" at a nightclub which means that a huge part of his job is checking IDs to make sure they are real. It's very easy to get a fake ID card made. For example - lots of fake IDs in Texas say that they're given by the Tx dept of identification - well, there isn't any dept of ID in Tx so he knows it's fake. But how is a PO in Texas, or Canada, or Europe supposed to know what a valid Michigan or Utah ID card is supposed to look like???
[right][snapback]3702993[/snapback][/right]
Yes but if you were sued or fined you would at least have something to say but this is what I have that they gave me as proof.
I am not saying any of this is right but who wants a big fine. Do we then require paypal accounts verified only for this type of member? Or just ban those two states from joining totally. If the states were banned from joining even if one did join through a proxy or otherwise you would be protected under your disclaimer of no such and such states allowed to join.
I am not saying this is the answer but .. if we are going to get all paranoid some more then guess we all need to look at what are the alternatives ...
And what's to stop a 13 year-old from sending in mom's driver's license? In my job I hire people from other states to do demos. I'm supposed to ask for a recent snapshot for security purposes. I keep telling my boss that Miss Piggy could be sending a picture and it would actually be a picture of Julia Roberts for all I know. LOL There's really no way to tell its the person or not.
QUOTE(priestes @ Jul 9 2005, 02:24 PM)
I know a lot of members would hate if we went to on site email only, but the change states specifically if an email is sent to them with links of the nature mentioned. So the confirmation email would not be this. I suppose they could find a loop hole to make it so but think it would a lot of trouble to state a site led them because they signed up for a site to. I dont see how it would affect sites that are compliant with paypals tos of all the things listed are against paypals aup.
Perhaps another thing could be done is only allow accounts for paypal that are verified for these states. [right][snapback]3702838[/snapback][/right]
Perhaps another thing could be done is only allow accounts for paypal that are verified for these states. [right][snapback]3702838[/snapback][/right]
What of the sites that stopped using PayPal in favor of eGold and MB? I know they are few and far between, but it is something to consider.
Also, as for the verification link, I suppose youcould create a seperate and isolated 'your account has been verified' page. One that does not contain any advertisements, any links, anything. It would be a way to prevent 'serving illega content' to minors.
These internet laws are getting more ridiculous by the day.
One would think that the government in Utah would have bigger fish to fry than mail on the internet... like...oh dunno... maybe polygamy. Michigan, is probably just going through hockey withdrawal symptoms. 
Up to now, other than as priestes suggested verification of identity, and having emails done on site, I can't see how else program owners (more so the ones based in the US) can protect themselves.
I'm surprised that other than us posting here, there aren't more concerned members and/or POs. Maybe this is just not as sexy as inter-personal dramas between POs?
Seriously though... would it maybe help to email the government representatives for Utah and Michigan to find out what the best course of action is?
Up to now, other than as priestes suggested verification of identity, and having emails done on site, I can't see how else program owners (more so the ones based in the US) can protect themselves.
I'm surprised that other than us posting here, there aren't more concerned members and/or POs. Maybe this is just not as sexy as inter-personal dramas between POs?
Seriously though... would it maybe help to email the government representatives for Utah and Michigan to find out what the best course of action is?
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. Michigan, is probably just going through hockey withdrawal symptoms.
Up to now, other than as priestes suggested verification of identity, and having emails done on site, I can't see how else program owners (more so the ones based in the US) can protect themselves.
I'm surprised that other than us posting here, there aren't more concerned members and/or POs. Maybe this is just not as sexy as inter-personal dramas between POs?
Seriously though... would it maybe help to email the government representatives for Utah and Michigan to find out what the best course of action is?
[right][snapback]3703204[/snapback][/right]
Up to now, other than as priestes suggested verification of identity, and having emails done on site, I can't see how else program owners (more so the ones based in the US) can protect themselves.
I'm surprised that other than us posting here, there aren't more concerned members and/or POs. Maybe this is just not as sexy as inter-personal dramas between POs?
Seriously though... would it maybe help to email the government representatives for Utah and Michigan to find out what the best course of action is?
[right][snapback]3703204[/snapback][/right]
I already have sent out an email to each representative for each state. Will let you all know what answers I get.
On the other sites not using Paypal I am not sure what recourse they could use. My only point was paypal requires on verified accounts checking and a credit card to get the verified account so it would be one way of preventing the problem for those signing up for those states. It was only a suggestions and one of I am sure many ways to work with the problem at hand. i am sure each will have to take thier own approach just like the paypal issue.
US Representative Emails
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
Utah House of Representaves Emails
http://le.utah.gov/house/members2003/membertable1.asp
Michigan Representatives Emails and Phones
http://house.michigan.gov/replist.asp
Michigan Attorneys General Office
Attorney General Cox
http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-21...51368--,00.html
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff can be contacted by e-mail at Mshurtleff@utah.gov.
http://www.house.gov/house/MemberWWW.shtml
Utah House of Representaves Emails
http://le.utah.gov/house/members2003/membertable1.asp
Michigan Representatives Emails and Phones
http://house.michigan.gov/replist.asp
Michigan Attorneys General Office
Attorney General Cox
http://www.michigan.gov/ag/0,1607,7-164-21...51368--,00.html
Utah Attorney General Mark Shurtleff can be contacted by e-mail at Mshurtleff@utah.gov.
I wrote several emails and here is my first response although they did not answer my questions 
They skirted around them. But here is the first reply. I sent emails to representatives of each state, attorney generals office and this site as well as another so maybe somewhere along the line I can get an answer. Although I ask specific questions in regards to double opt in, verifying age, and legalities and how to become compliant. They are answering like paypal ugh.
They skirted around them. But here is the first reply. I sent emails to representatives of each state, attorney generals office and this site as well as another so maybe somewhere along the line I can get an answer. Although I ask specific questions in regards to double opt in, verifying age, and legalities and how to become compliant. They are answering like paypal ugh.QUOTE
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. For more information, please see:
https://www.protectmichild.com/compliance.html
Addresses must be removed regardless of whether the messages are solicited or unsolicited. Senders should seek legal counsel to see if the 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
https://www.protectmichild.com/compliance.html
Addresses must be removed regardless of whether the messages are solicited or unsolicited. Senders should seek legal counsel to see if the 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
I tried again by asking specific questions...They are not answering me although the links I was given did answer a couple questions. 18 is the legal limit they are stating. Still reading the rest.
QUOTE
> Thank you for your reply but this still did not answer my
questions. The? sites in question do not promote pornography, drugs,
violence,? or anything else listed on your site. My question was if they are
double opt? in and even if we requested verification of age how far are we
responsible for third party advertising, and liability of a third party site.
It would take hours to go through some sites which are advertised.?
All sites are compliant with your list but it would terribly hard to police?
third? party sites. So what are the ramifications of an opt in list trying?
to be compliant and if they had requring proof of age.
What are you considering a? minor as most states consider 16 legal age
to work or earn, but? some states? have 21 as a drinking limit, 18 for
smoking. I am sorry but really am not trying to be difficult am trying to find
answers and how the small business owner who is already on a tight
budget can? be compliant with the new law.
Thank You
Suzanne
The Michigan Children's Protection Registry law covers senders of?
messages whose primary purpose is to advertise, link to, or otherwise?
promote materials children are prohibited from purchasing. Such?
senders much scrub their lists against the ProtectMIChild registry or?
face liability. You should consult with your legal counsel to?
determine whether the e-mail messages in question meet this standard.
For more information on the Michigan Children's Protection Registry?
Law you may consult the text of the relevant statutes:
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
questions. The? sites in question do not promote pornography, drugs,
violence,? or anything else listed on your site. My question was if they are
double opt? in and even if we requested verification of age how far are we
responsible for third party advertising, and liability of a third party site.
It would take hours to go through some sites which are advertised.?
All sites are compliant with your list but it would terribly hard to police?
third? party sites. So what are the ramifications of an opt in list trying?
to be compliant and if they had requring proof of age.
What are you considering a? minor as most states consider 16 legal age
to work or earn, but? some states? have 21 as a drinking limit, 18 for
smoking. I am sorry but really am not trying to be difficult am trying to find
answers and how the small business owner who is already on a tight
budget can? be compliant with the new law.
Thank You
Suzanne
The Michigan Children's Protection Registry law covers senders of?
messages whose primary purpose is to advertise, link to, or otherwise?
promote materials children are prohibited from purchasing. Such?
senders much scrub their lists against the ProtectMIChild registry or?
face liability. You should consult with your legal counsel to?
determine whether the e-mail messages in question meet this standard.
For more information on the Michigan Children's Protection Registry?
Law you may consult the text of the relevant statutes:
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
QUOTE
They are answering like paypal ugh.
What they are saying there is they don't want you to become compliant in any other way than subscribing to their list and paying to do the monthly checks so they are simply ignoring that part of your questioning.
Double opt in would not make any difference as this is talking about solicited mail which double opt-in would constitute.
Even 'if' you had a surefire way to verify the age of the member that in itself wouldn't technically mean you had a clean email address for them if they shared that email address with a minor now/past/future who did go onto that list.
As cajunlady said, what is to stop a child from putting their email address onto a parent's paypal which is verified and at the same time having the email addy on the prohibited list for the state? Unless this law is challenged in court they appear to be holding all the cards.
QUOTE(wagdoll @ Jul 9 2005, 10:37 PM)
What they are saying there is they don't want you to become compliant in any other way than subscribing to their list and paying to do the monthly checks so they are simply ignoring that part of your questioning.
Double opt in would not make any difference as this is talking about solicited mail which double opt-in would constitute.
Even 'if' you had a surefire way to verify the age of the member that in itself wouldn't technically mean you had a clean email address for them if they shared that email address with a minor now/past/future who did go onto that list.
As cajunlady said, what is to stop a child from putting their email address onto a parent's paypal which is verified and at the same time having the email addy on the prohibited list for the state? Unless this law is challenged in court they appear to be holding all the cards.
[right][snapback]3703608[/snapback][/right]
I ask that same question in my first email to them. They are not going to answer me and yes it seems they dont care if you become compliant they want your money.
So now another dilemna. Do we remove the states from joining or? I will wait and see if I get a reply back from the Attorney Generals office and the other couple places I wrote.
QUOTE
Do we remove the states from joining or
How would you check that though? Ip addresses aren't going to make 100% certainty that email address doesn't belong to someone in one of those states and possibly on that list.
I didn't read it enough times but isn't this more about actually sending the credit card offer or pornography stuff in the content of the mail or linking directly to it in a purposeful manner rather than a link to a 'child friendly' web site that happens to have a link to something else on it?
QUOTE(wagdoll @ Jul 9 2005, 10:48 PM)
How would you check that though? Ip addresses aren't going to make 100% certainty that email address doesn't belong to someone in one of those states and possibly on that list.
[right][snapback]3703622[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]3703622[/snapback][/right]
I don't know it was a question. If it was stated on the site and we took every precaution then I suppose we would have a better chance at arguing it. I am only asking question. I am not an attorney so not sure why you all keep asking me the questions to my questions...
I suppose an attorney is going to have to be consulted or perhaps their attorney generals office will shed more light on it.
Ugh...absolutely ridiculous!
It seems they don't care if there is a double opt in, or whatever. If you can in anyway be considered responsible for serving this material to a minor, then you have to scrub your list. Seems to be a way for these states to raise funds. Michigan has been having some financial difficulties...
It seems they don't care if there is a double opt in, or whatever. If you can in anyway be considered responsible for serving this material to a minor, then you have to scrub your list. Seems to be a way for these states to raise funds. Michigan has been having some financial difficulties...
QUOTE
I don't know it was a question. If it was stated on the site and we took every precaution then I suppose we would have a better chance at arguing it. I am only asking question. I am not an attorney so not sure why you all keep asking me the questions to my questions... I suppose an attorney is going to have to be consulted or perhaps their attorney generals office will shed more light on it.
LOL not exactly asking 'you' the questions, just the more 'answers' have just left more questions.
I agree with you that if you take those type of precautions you would surely be in a better position legally and as you say it might take consulting a lawyer - even then you are not guaranteed anything though are you..
I hope you do get some proper answers from the AG's office - and thx for sharing what you have learned so far
It sure would not be cost effective for a site to pay for the list if they were extremely large. And if one is responsible for 3rd party advertisement it would mean absolutely no search ads at all as drugs, etc are mentioned on search engines. My god this is nuts.
Didn't think of search portals - they have just about everything on them that is on the prohibited list!
But at some point it has to be that the minor has reached the ad through surfing and not through being 'sent' the ad, and at that point my personal feeling is that the parent and the minor have to take personal responsibility (and the end advertiser also needs to be responsible in stopping them from signing up) you can't stop kids from using the net and they will be coming across this stuff while they surf anywhere
But at some point it has to be that the minor has reached the ad through surfing and not through being 'sent' the ad, and at that point my personal feeling is that the parent and the minor have to take personal responsibility (and the end advertiser also needs to be responsible in stopping them from signing up) you can't stop kids from using the net and they will be coming across this stuff while they surf anywhere
QUOTE(wagdoll @ Jul 10 2005, 12:42 AM)
Didn't think of search portals - they have just about everything on them that is on the prohibited list!
But at some point it has to be that the minor has reached the ad through surfing and not through being 'sent' the ad, and at that point my personal feeling is that the parent and the minor have to take personal responsibility (and the end advertiser also needs to be responsible in stopping them from signing up) you can't stop kids from using the net and they will be coming across this stuff while they surf anywhere
[right][snapback]3703687[/snapback][/right]
But at some point it has to be that the minor has reached the ad through surfing and not through being 'sent' the ad, and at that point my personal feeling is that the parent and the minor have to take personal responsibility (and the end advertiser also needs to be responsible in stopping them from signing up) you can't stop kids from using the net and they will be coming across this stuff while they surf anywhere
[right][snapback]3703687[/snapback][/right]
That's a nice theory, but dollars to dimes the people who presented this law are in favor of an internet tax. It's not about protecting minors at all.
Ok then we are back to the question How do we keep them from signing up? How do we verify their age? How do we know they are of legal age and how do we protect ourselves? I have no problem being compliant but I am sure not going to be sued for someone having a banner on thier site 50 pages in someone complains about ...
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.