MrJames
join:2003-05-19
Jacksonville, FL
 ·Comcast
| Nice
quote:
The bill, which would become law Jan. 1, allows the state attorney general to target spam operations anywhere in the United States and offshore.
If they can go after anyone in the US would we need any other state to pass a similar bill? As long as spam is being received by anyone in California they would be subject to the fines, correct? |
|
Frank
is chilling
Premium
join:2000-11-03
somewhere | Good
Now if we only had a law like this in my state 
--
Stop using P2P!, buy pirated cd's instead  |
|
amenite
The Soylent - It's People
Premium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ
clubs:
 ·Verizon Online DSL
| It's a start but...
This part about fining the companies whose products are being pushed will need to be written very carefully or it will not fly.
--
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese |
|
alalper
Premium
join:2000-08-20
Philadelphia, PA |  reply to Frank
Re: Good
I'll second that!!! |
|
technick
Premium
join:2000-12-16
Loganville, GA | reply to MrJames
Re: Nice
correct.. im going to route my email through a server in california |
|
Lex Luthor
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Hicksville, NY
Host:
OptimumOnline
Users Find Hot Deals
Users find Hot Dea..
Requests for Hot D..
| One important thing, as I see it, is that you'll actually be able to go after the companies whose products are being advertised in the spam as well as their bank accounts.
I wonder how spammers are going to deal with this. Obviously, a spammer can't tell if an email address they bought on one of those CDs or found on the net is located in California. If they sent out a 1 mil piece of spam, aren't they going to hit 100k California people with it? That could be very costly under this new law.
I'm sure they'll find a way around it, somehow.
I still wonder how difficult enforcement will be. |
|
meskinct
Mad Scientist at Work
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Danbury, CT
clubs: | Good in Theory
We will see how well it works in the real world. |
|
bistro777
Donuts-Is There Anything They Can't Do?
Premium
join:2002-02-07
Englewood, CO
| reply to MrJames
Re: Nice
If the crime is committed in California, i.e. the recipients of spam are domiciled there, California courts hold jurisdiction. Same as if you'd struck a pedestrian in with a car registered in another state or committed mail or wire fraud in California without ever having crossed the state line.
The problem lies in forcing someone to appear in California court, especially spammers from overseas. Extradition is not an option, probably even in the US for this civil offense, so they would then have to refile in the jurisdiction where the spammer has seizable assets.
I think.
Veni, Vedi, Napi. I came, I saw, I took a nap. |
|
MrJames
join:2003-05-19
Jacksonville, FL | reply to Lex Luthor
Excellent point. Many companies will have to re-think their "marketing" strategy since they will be liable under this new bill. |
|
damox
Premium
join:2002-01-07
Olympia, WA
·Comcast Formerly ..
| A Step in the Right Direction
It appears that we are moving in the right direction, but at this point, won’t spammers simply locate themselves outside of California? I don't have the scoop on it so I'm not sure how it works. How does this legislation affect spammers who live outside of California, who spam residents of California? How does this legislation affect residents of California who spam folks in Washington, for instance? Of course, it probably doesn't have any affect on those who are located overseas. Inquiring minds want to know! |
|
maartena
Stacked.
Premium
join:2002-05-10
Orange, CA
·RoadRunner Cable
| reply to bistro777
Re: Nice
The nice thing about spam is that spam sells a product that is available to me in California. So if an AMERICAN based company selling Penis Enlargement Pills (LOL) and they use some obscure Thai spamming service, they can still go after the company selling the pills.
--
»www.deanforamerica.com - You have the power to make a change! Support Howard Dean 2004 |
|
ArchAngel21x
MacFan Pro
Premium
join:2001-10-28
Lincoln, NE | Finally
said by article:
but also the companies whose products are being advertised.
Someone in power understands!
--
Death Is Irrelevant. |
|
amenite
The Soylent - It's People
Premium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to MrJames
Re: Nice
said by MrJames  :
Excellent point. Many companies will have to re-think their "marketing" strategy since they will be liable under this new bill.
If you look at the entire distribution chain in just about any industry (excluding services), it is clear that producers are not in complete control of distribution. This will be a huge fiasco if lawmakers intend to attempt to penalize manufacturers for the spam of distributors. The law must address this in some manner.
--
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese |
|
Big Time
Merry Whatever
Premium
join:2002-10-19
Washington
| reply to ArchAngel21x
Re: Finally
said by ArchAngel21x :
said by article:
but also the companies whose products are being advertised.
Someone in power understands!
That was a great line in the article to read. Now I just hope they can put it to practice. Will be interesting to see how long it takes the first case to be prosecuted.
--
I don't believe in political jokes. Too many of them get elected. |
|
Lex Luthor
Premium,Mod
join:2000-09-17
Hicksville, NY
Host:
OptimumOnline
Users Find Hot Deals
Users find Hot Dea..
Requests for Hot D..
| reply to amenite
Re: Nice
said by amenite :
said by MrJames :
Excellent point. Many companies will have to re-think their "marketing" strategy since they will be liable under this new bill.
If you look at the entire distribution chain in just about any industry (excluding services), it is clear that producers are not in complete control of distribution. This will be a huge fiasco if lawmakers intend to attempt to penalize manufacturers for the spam of distributors. The law must address this in some manner.
If someone is spamming Norton Systemworks, for example, I can't image it's going to be Symantec that's going to be liable, it's the company reselling Norton Systemworks that's going to be liable.
I'd guess the law must be written that it's not the company being advertised in the spam is liable, it must be the company that is benefiting from the spam.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-24 10:22:39] |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to MrJames
This is a good idea, at least until the ACLU takes it to the three judge panel and claims it is a freedom of speech issue. |
|
oliphant5
Got Identity?
Premium
join:2003-05-24
Corona, CA | You mean a bill passed with no new taxes in it?
Say it ain't so... |
|
amenite
The Soylent - It's People
Premium
join:2002-11-21
Ridgewood, NJ
clubs:
·Verizon Online DSL
| reply to Lex Luthor
Re: Nice
said by Lex Luthor :
If someone is spamming Norton Systemworks, for example, I can't image it's going to be Symantec that's going to be liable, it's the company reselling Norton Systemworks that's going to be liable.
I'd guess the law must be written that it's not the company being advertised in the spam is liable, it must be the company that is benefiting from the spam.
[text was edited by author 2003-09-24 10:22:39]
The article says plainly:
quote:
The anti-spam legislation targets not only the firms that package and send the unwanted e-mails to consumers, but also the companies whose products and services are being advertised.
This is all I have to go on right now, and it implies Symantec/Norton *would or could* be liable in your example, as their products are being spammed. It would seem unreasonable to do so, but there's not enough information here to evaluate this.
--
Time is an abstract concept invented by carbon based life forms to monitor their constant decay.-Thunderclese |
|
wentlanc
You Can't Fix Dumb..
join:2003-07-30
Maineville, OH | reply to oliphant5
Re: You mean a bill passed with no new taxes in it?
HAHAHAHAHA!!!
puritan |
|
Mythicman
join:2003-04-15
Lithonia, GA | reply to lesopp
Re: Nice
Actually, all I've read so far the ACLU supports most of the anti-spam laws which have been enacted. There is a line, but since the end-user foots the bill for spam, the ACLU seems to understand that it's not really a free speech issue. |
|
