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.

---

said by lesopp :

---

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.

---

said by NOVA_Guy :

---

said by lesopp :

---

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.

---

The courts have ruled a number of times that there are different "classes" of speech when it comes to free speech. Commercial speech (which spamming would fall under, IMO) receives substantially less freedom than any statements that you or I would make. At least that's what one of my lawyer-friends told me a while ago when we discussed the whole anti-spamming-laws issue...

---

said by MrJames :

---

Excellent point. Many companies will have to re-think their "marketing" strategy since they will be liable under this new bill.

---

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.

---

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]

---

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.

---

said by snkeyes3 :

---

You're missing one key point:
Most of the spammed products are fraudulant or stolen.

For example: The version of Norton Systemworks being sold via SPAM is a PIRATED COPY!! Symantec has no responsibility in this matter, only the Spammer and the Pirate are liable.

---

said by amenite :

---

said by snkeyes3 :

---

You're missing one key point:
Most of the spammed products are fraudulant or stolen.

For example: The version of Norton Systemworks being sold via SPAM is a PIRATED COPY!! Symantec has no responsibility in this matter, only the Spammer and the Pirate are liable.

---

And that's only one example. The are thousands if not millions of potential scenarios involving perfectly legitimate products passing through normal distribution channels. The issue is not addressed in the article. I'd like to see a draft of the legislation to see exactly what's being proposed here.

---

said by CatSnak :

---

Here is a link to the bill as it was introduced:

»info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_···ced.html

And here is an analysis of the bill:

»info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_···oor.html

And here is the enrolled version:

»info.sen.ca.gov/pub/bill/sen/sb_···led.html

---

quote:

---

OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/19/03)

American Civil Liberties Union
American Electronics Association
California Alliance for Consumer Protection
Challenger One
Direct Marketing Association
Internet Alliance

---

said by article:

---

but also the companies whose products are being advertised.

---

said by ArchAngel21x :

---

said by article:

---

but also the companies whose products are being advertised.

---

Someone in power understands!

---

said by Rwood :

---

Hummm think I'll hire a foreign spammer to advertise my competitor's products.

---

said by amenite :

---

Everyone knows the lumberjack song is better

---

said by Transmaster :

---

said by amenite :

---

Everyone knows the lumberjack song is better

---

I agree, but Davis wouldn't use it because lumberjacks to the Earth First crowd are the enviromental KKK, and Davis doesn't want to piss off the enviromentalists.

---

quote:

---

...to bring an action to recover actual damages and would authorize these parties to recover liquidated damages of $1,000 per transmitted message up to $1,000,000 per incident, as defined, subject to reduction by a court for specified reasons.

---

quote:

---

Many spammers have become so adept at masking their tracks that they are rarely found, and are so technologically sophisticated that they can adjust their systems to counter special filters and other barriers against spam and can even electronically commandeer unprotected computers, turning them into spam-launching weapons of mass production.

---