I promise I will soon stop talking about Unspam, its ill-conceived child protection registry in Utah and the recent-but-already-infamous Utah key-word law it's been associated with [link].  (Previous Unspam-related posts here.)  To briefly recap, Utah enacted a:

law which allows parents or guardians to register "electronic 'contact points'" for their kids.  A contact point includes an email, instant message, telephone number, or any other electronic "address" (point of contact).  The law prohibits the transmission of any communication through a contact point which (1) advertises a product or service which the minor is pohibited from purchasing or (2) which contains "adult-oriented" material.  In order to screen email addresses against registered contact points, emailers must "[utilize] the Registry's so-called 'scrubbing' services and have Unspam compare hash values to look for matches with any contact point on the Registry.

Many raised eyebrows at maintenance of the registry by a wholly private entity.  The fact that the entity had a hand in lobbying/crafting the law did not help.  As consolation, people thought the registry must at least be a moneymaker for the State of Utah.  Right? 

Wrong.  Professor Goldman notes that (among other things) the registry has been a financial fiasco:

gross revenues have been $187,224, split 80% to Unspam and 20% to Utah—netting Utah a grand total of $37,445. Worse, the law has cost Utah a lot of money, including the following directly attributable expenses:

$58,000-a-year in prosecutorial fees (estimated cost in original law--not sure if this money has been spent)

$75,000-a-year for a full-time Department of Commerce investigator (estimated cost in original law--not sure if this money has been spent)

$100,000 for a private lawyer to defend the law in court (under a contract that could cost up to $200,000).

That does not sound like a financially prudent endeavor.  Professor Goldman notes something important about the scheme:  "[i]n practice, the law is just an email tax."  In my mind this really brings to the surface Commerce Clause issues.  But even if you get past this, it may seem particularly unpalatable to some that the tax is not really going to the state at all. 

Also: I forgot to mention that I can see someone kicking up some public disclosure request dust around this soon.

[See also Direct Mag:  "Utah Paying Unspam's Lawyer".]