When Utah passed a law establishing a do-not-e-mail registry, critics condemned the measure as short-sighted, not to mention unlawful.
The law, the Child Protection Registry Act, establishes a
registry of children's e-mail addresses, compiled from information submitted by parents. The act bans marketers from sending e-mail promotions for material considered harmful or illegal for
minors--including pornography, alcohol, cigarettes, or gambling--to addresses on that registry.
The Free Speech Coalition, a trade organization representing members of the adult entertainment
industry, filed suit last November, claiming that the act violates the federal Can-Spam
statute--which supersedes state laws regulating commercial e-mail, except for laws relating to fraud and computer crimes.
A coalition of ad groups and civil rights watchdogs--the American
Advertising Federation, American Association of Advertising Agencies, Association of National Advertisers, Inc., Email Sender and Provider Coalition, Electronic Frontier Foundation, and Center for
Democracy & Technology--also filed papers opposing the law.
Among other arguments,
they warned that the very act of creating a registry of children's e-mail addresses potentially put kids at risk because once such a list exists, it can fall into the wrong hands.
That
particular concern at least has proven prophetic. It's now come to light that several weeks ago, a state employee in Utah released the e-mail addresses of four minors to the Email Sender and Provider
Coalition. That gaffe occurred even though Unspam--the private agency managing the list--said it was inconceivable that the list would ever be divulged. "Even if ordered by a court or held at
gunpoint, there is no feasible way that I, any Unspam employee, or any state official could provide you even a single address that has been submitted for compliance by any sender," Prince reportedly
said in an affidavit.
A federal court in Utah is slated to hold a hearing on the law Nov. 9. It should seriously consider whether compiling and storing sensitive information, like e-mail
addresses, potentially does more harm than good when it comes to protecting consumers.