Direct
advanced search
Advertising | Contact Us | Multichannel Merchant Magazine | DM Buyer's Guide | E-Newsletters | Subscribe
Utah Exposes Kids' E-mail Addresses
Oct 16, 2006 8:55 AM , By Ken Magill
buyer's guide
Find any supplier you need - agencies, CRM, fulfillment, lists, e-commerce, paper, printers, telemarketing, and more.
Featured Categories
Lists and Data
Telemarketing
Database Marketing
E-commerce
Web Marketing
Agency & Creative Services
Print, Production & Paper
Lists and Data Processing
:: view all categories
Resource Center
Get free access to more than 50,000 list data cards - one of the most comprehensive databases in the industry.
>> Search Now
This Month in Direct Magazine
Deal With It
Direct had a full house for this year's list roundtable. Considering all the additional responsibilities on brokers' plates, that's impressive...

See Full July Issue


In a jaw-dropping embarrassment, the state of Utah has mistakenly divulged e-mail addresses of kids on its so-called child-protection do-not-e-mail list -- a registry proponents claim is foolproof.

The gaffe stems from four citations the state issued recently against companies it alleges sent e-mail to children's addresses on its do-not-e-mail registry promoting alcohol, gambling and pornography.

According to court papers, when Justin Weiss, director of legislative affairs for the E-mail Sender and Provider Coalition, requested copies of the citations from Utah, the state complied but failed to redact the e-mail addresses of the children in the complaints.

"I have no personal knowledge of how many other unredacted copies may have been sent out to other individuals that made information requests like mine," said Weiss in an affidavit.

State officials are reportedly mortified over the incident.

"A fair amount of trust has been placed with us and this is not a good thing," Utah's Department of Commerce Director Francis Giani reportedly told the Salt Lake Tribune. "I'm sick about it."

Though the incident in Utah was not a breach of its do-not-e-mail registry per se, critics argue it is proof the system puts children's addresses in danger.

"It's unfortunate, sad and concerning that the fallibility of the registry had to be demonstrated in this way, but regardless of the technological protections in place, on any registry, human error is always an issue," said Trevor Hughes, executive director of the ESPC. "Where we have a central database of children's e-mail addresses, the risks are simply too high."

Recently, Matthew Prince, chief executive of Unspam Technologies, the company that runs children's no-e-mail registries in Michigan in Utah, claimed in court papers it is impossible for people to get e-mail addresses off the registries.

"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 said in an affidavit.

Utah's mistake clearly demonstrates otherwise, said Hughes.

"The concerns that industry, the FTC, e-mail advocates, children's advocates have been raising for over two years have been glaringly demonstrated in this situation," he said.

Utah and Michigan have so-called child protection do-not-e-mail laws in place requiring marketers who want to include anything it is illegal for minors to view or buy in e-mail to screen their lists against the states' registries monthly for a fee.

Marketers argue that the registries place an unfair burden on law-abiding companies while doing nothing to stop illegal spammers from polluting people's e-mail inboxes.

Moreover, marketers and the Federal Trade Commission argue that do-not-e-mail registries cannot be made secure. As a result, they argue, Utah and Michigan's do-not-e-mail registries put children's addresses at greater risk of being exposed to predators.



Back to Top

Browse Issues
Direct Cover Direct Cover Direct Cover Direct Cover Direct Cover Direct Cover Direct Cover
0
July 1, 2007 June 1, 2008 May 1, 2008 April 1, 2008 March 1, 2008 February 1, 2008 January 1, 2008
Browse Back Issues
Browse E-Newsletters
0 0 0 0
0
0 0
0