Michigan and Utah - The Child Protection Registry- What does it mean?

There's been a lot of hoopla surrounding the Do Not Email Registries in Utah and Michigan. So I wanted to take a sec to break it down for you and then talk about what VR is doing about it. First of all, VR is VERY opposed to this idea. We are helping the Email Service Provider Coalition in the fight against these registries and it seems to be working. Michigan has postponed their registry because of the issues raised by the ESPC. We are now in the process of getting Utah to do the same. Stay Tuned.

What It Is

I went through about 50 searches to find the Utah's Child Protection Registry. Apparently you need to search on "Register Your Child Utah Child Protection Registry" and it comes up on the 3rd page! Anyhoo, it allows parents to list any e-mail address to which their children have access. Sort of like the Do Not Call list but worse. Thirty days after registration, it is illegal for anyone to send spam to the address if the e-mail advertises pornography, alcohol, tobacco, gambling or any product or service illegal in Utah.

With the Utah Registry you cannot send emails to a minor with the following content:

• Alcoholic beverages
• Tobacco
• Porn
• Any product or service that is illegal in UT (whether purchased by a minor or an adult), such as illegal drugs, prostitution, and gambling.

Senders in violation will face up to three years in jail and up to $30,000 in fines as well as potential civil penalties of $1000 per message.

Michigan is on hold for now. That's the good news. They have postponed the implementation of their Registry until the issues raised by the ESPC (Email Service Provider Coalition) have been addressed. There are concerns about fee structures as well. They are trying to work out a timetable for future implementation. There is currently, as of this posting no risk to any sender.

In the event the MI Registry goes live you would not be able to send email to a minor with the following content:

• Alcohol
• Tobacco
• Porn or obscene material
• Gambling
• Lotteries
• Illegal Drugs
• Firearms

Michigan's law face similar fines and jail time, and may be liable to civil penalties of $5,000 per message or $250,000 per day of violation.

Why VerticalResponse is in Opposition

As i mentioned in my first paragraph we are not in favor of a "Do Not Email" registry. Here's why

• We are concerned with the security of the email addresses on the Registry
• There is no security audit of the system conducted by any third parties
• Many businesses are forbidden by their privacy policies from sharing their email lists with any third parties
• There needs to be more of an audited employee background check

Most notably, the FTC spent many months interviewing numerous constituencies in the email world, and hired independent email experts, prior to issuing a comprehensive report to Congress on the viability of registry-type solutions.  Their findings were conclusive: registries would not stop spam, and would very likely create greater risks for the individuals placing their names on the list. So we think that UT and MI should listen to us.

How You Get Minors Off of Your Email

While the fight continues we must offer solutions to appeal to these states. Unspam is the service that has been approved to scrub email addresses each month. The law in UT requires that every 30 days you clean your list of minors if your email contains any barred content. The service appears to cost about a half penny for each email address you pass through.

What VR is Doing for You in the Meantime...

Since Utah has gone forward with their registry we have been approved by Unspam to pass data on behalf of our customers. VerticalResponse is now working with Unspam's technical specs to enable you to scrub your data on a monthly basis. We need to be prepared for you in the event that the registries live. We should have more information for you about process, pricing and just how the whole thing works in the coming weeks. So stay tuned.

Comments

[Janine]

Thanks for your comment Suzanne.

And I'll repeat that while I agree that children should not receive inappropriate content, I don't agree that a ready-to-be-hacked "Do Not Email" registry containing only email addresses of children is the answer. It actually could cause more harm than good.

[Suzanne]

I like VR emails. I read them, and while I am not a large user of email campaigns, it helps me to understand the challenges of building an email promotions program.

The biggest part of that is ensuring that the people receiving my emails actually WANT to be getting them. An email is different than a telemarketing call, in that there is no real labour cost after the first email is prepared, but the goodwill factor, for REAL companies, seems to me to be huge. I get about 25 emails per day where I have chosen to receive information or promotions, and I read them. The unsolicited ones that arrive, no matter how legitimate, are a time consuming, expensive inconvenience. Of course, most of them are not legitimate. Is this the real nature of this industry - scam artists and garbage-hawkers? I don't think that is what Vertical Response readers would want to see themselves as.

So, with that reality, how can it possibly be argued that material inappropriate for children's eyes should be sent to them without restriction just because it causes an incovenience to companies?

It can't be all left up to parents, or schools, or to the children themselves to learn how to be safe and free from disturbing and hurtful images and ideas. That's far too easy a cop-out.

There are far, far greater freedom of speech concerns these days than the right to market addictions to children.

[Janine]

Josh, you raise interesting issues, but I fear you miss our point and maybe I wasn’t clear. Of course we here want to defend against porn materials being sent or made available to children. We just don’t think a registry is the answer.

Now I know that you are an email marketer yourself, and a legitimate one as are all VR customers since we take a pretty strong stand against spam. But the law does not focus only on porn, it focuses also on other products, like the ones I outline, that many legitimate businesses sell. There are very few child-spam related issues with tobacco, wine and spirits products, especially since they are not delivered electronically as with porn. So we think it is also a mis-step to throw all these product categories into one ‘bucket’ alongside porn and even gambling.

A small business, for example a winery, may have to take an extra step now to just ensure that no one has “mistakenly” put a child’s email address from these registries on their list. There is a cost associated with that, and more often than not they will come up with a very low match rate if any at all.

There are many filtering and challenge-response tools that parents can use to help block emails. Perhaps these tools are more along the lines of an answer rather than a registry. And on one last note we hope that the security of the list in Utah is strong since so much data on children will now reside in one place.

[Josh Norman]

Janine,

As one of the early adapters to Vertical Response and having sent millions of emails through your system, I know the value of keeping the list big. However, I think that sending pornographic material to children is a crime.

Rich said that is the parents, not the government that is responsible for protecting their kids. What the heck do you think the parents are doing? They are electing officials that are trying to pass laws to protect their children. We wouldn't allow this type of marketing in print in our homes or schools, why should it be allowed to be sent to children through email?

I love email marketing, but if we don't start somewhere trying to close out the filth that get to kids, nothing will be done. Can you tell that I am a parent? I am trying to take my responsibility seriously. Are you?

[Rich Ottum]

Janine:

While the intent of such legislation is laudable, it is really not possible for regulators to enforce such efforts. Your statement of opposition is both valid and intelligent. In the long run, parents, not the government, are responsible for protecting their children.

Sincerely,
Rich

[Sarah Donnelly]

Thanks for the update and for your efforts to stop the madness. Cool blog! Keep up the good work.
-Sarah