Stopping Spam (Californians READ THIS!!!) Re. SB 12 - Page 4

admiralu · 21 May 2003, 03:32 AM

The old political one two. In between the budget cuts. I hope this bill is watered down any further.

elvey · 22 May 2003, 01:33 PM

The Full senate is expected to vote on this soon!

Even with the significantly weakened text, I'd be thrilled if this passes.

The bill was passed out of the Appropriatesion Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, which states that any bill referred to the Appropriations Committee which does not appropriate money may be directly referred to the Senate floor without a hearing if the chairman of the committee determines that the bill will not cause any significant state costs or significant reduction in state revenues. It is the committee's equivalent of a "consent calendar." - per this link 's definition of rule 28.8

elvey · 22 May 2003, 11:15 PM

New Official Legislative Analysis

Lists the ACLU as registered in opposition. This really annoys me. I'm not mad at the ACLU; I'm mad at Senator Bowen's office, because I told them exactly how to address the likely free speech advocate complaints without weakening the law, but they poo-poo'd me, saying no one would care, because they were only regulating commercial speech. Grr!

Also lists as separate, even though they're not:
Direct Marketing Association
Internet Alliance

elvey · 25 May 2003, 02:06 PM

Yay! It passed the CA State Senate, off to the House! The vote: here

elvey · 10 Jun 2003, 08:17 AM

My senator, Senator Yee is an [edit: official] 'Coauthor' of the bill.

jlnt · 16 Jun 2003, 10:14 AM

I think the ADV: thing would be a great idea, that would really cut down on spam alot, and would make it easier to block on servers as well hehe.

elvey · 16 Jun 2003, 11:11 AM

I guess it is consistent to have a law that says you must not send UCE, but if you do anyway, you must make ADV: the first 4 letters of the subject, or you are subject to additional penalties.

It's like saying selling crack is illegal, and you must collect and pay taxes on it, or you are subject to additional penalties.

Given that the house and assembly versions already differ, it makes sense to push for good amendments!

ANYONE: If you call, try to find out when the next hearing/vote is scheduled.

elvey · 19 Jun 2003, 05:13 AM

I found the web page for the committees, and called their secretaries.

July 1 hearing in B&P.
Not listed at http://www.assembly.ca.gov/committee_hearings/ tho!
The Committee on Business and Professions http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newco...?committee=129
On the ‘net:
Room# 447 http://192.234.213.71/ASM-447 - should be a live audio feed. Hearing will probably be earlyish in the AM.
On tv? Don't know.
Judicial committee next:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newco...p?committee=15
No hearing date scheduled.

Phone #s of the Committee's aide, and the members are on those pages.

elvey · 25 Jun 2003, 12:00 AM

Is your State Assembly person listed here?
Go HERE to enter your address and be told who your state senator and assemblyman are! - it's easy!
Consider giving 'em a call and asking them to be a co-author of the bill!

These are the folks who will vote on this thing NEXT!

Lou Correa, Chair

Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.Correa@assembly.ca.gov

Shirley Horton, Vice Chair

Rep-78 (916) 319-2078 Assemblymember.Shirley.Horton@assembly.ca.gov

Joe Nation

Dem-6 - co-author

Leland Yee

Dem-12 (916) - co-author

Mark Leno

Dem-13 - co-author

Ellen M. Corbett

Dem-18 (916) 319-2018 Assemblymember.Corbett@assembly.ca.gov

Greg Aghazarian

Rep-26 (916) 319-2026 Assemblymember.aghazarian@assembly.ca.gov

Abel Maldonado

Rep-33 (916) 319-2033 Assemblymember.maldonado@assembly.ca.gov

Bill Maze

Rep-34 (916) 319-2034 Assemblymember.maze@assembly.ca.gov

Paul Koretz

Dem-42 (916) 319-2042 Assemblymember.Koretz@assembly.ca.gov

Rudy Bermúdez

Dem-56 (916) 319-2056 Assemblymember.bermudez@assembly.ca.gov

Mark Wyland

Rep-74 (916) 319-2074 Assemblymember.Wyland@assembly.ca.gov

Juan Vargas

Dem-79 - co-author

btn · 25 Jun 2003, 09:02 AM

The San Jose Mercury News rated, in their opinion, the current legislation under consideration. Note that the article will only be available for free online until the end of this week.

FromLine · 27 Jun 2003, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by btn
Note that the article will only be available for free online until the end of this week.

Since this article will only be publicly available for a limited time, I've decided to paste it here since it's relatively brief:

Quote:

Posted on Sun, Jun. 22, 2003

Rating the spam bills

CONGRESS

• Sens. Conrad Burns, R-Mont., Ron Wyden, R-Ore: Allows any business to send email ads to any consumer that hasn't specifically asked to be removed from their marketing lists. Ineffective.

• Reps. Billy Tauzin, R-La., James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisc. Also requires users to ``opt-out'' from any business' marketing lists. Ineffective.

• Reps. Heather Wilson, R-NM, Gene Green, D-Texas. Similar to Tauzin-Sensenbrenner, but with tougher enforcement provisions and fewer loopholes. Ineffective.

• Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-San Jose. Similar to Wilson-Green. Requires email ads to be labelled `ADV:'' Provides bounties for those who help catch illegal spammers. Ineffective.

• Sen. Charles Schumer, D-NY: Creates a do-not-spam registry for where email users and entire domains can place themselves off-limitis to unsolicited ads. Promising.

--------

STATE SENATE

• Sen. Debra Bowen, D-Marina del Rey. Modeled after a ban on junk faxes, it bans all unsolicited commercial email. Effective.

• Sen. Kevin Murray. D-Culver City. Similar to Sen. Bowen's bill, but with gaping loopholes. Ineffective.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

© 2003 Mercury News and wire service sources. All Rights Reserved.
http://www.bayarea.com

elvey · 28 Jun 2003, 02:11 AM

Anyone have sound software to record the streaming audio of the hearing/vote?

Quote:

Originally posted by btn
The San Jose Mercury News rated, in their opinion, the current legislation under consideration. Note that the article will only be available for free online until the end of this week.

Cool. SB 12 is the only bill rated Effective.
I wish more of the people who read this thread posted that they'd done something, like contact a politician or spread the word.

FL, you're pushing fair use a bit far. Speaking of which, there's a bill in congress to make it the job of the law enforcement to go after DMCA copyright violators.

elvey · 2 Jul 2003, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by elvey
I found the web page for the committees, and called their secretaries.

July 1 hearing in B&P.
Not listed at http://www.assembly.ca.gov/committee_hearings/ tho!
The Committee on Business and Professions http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newco...?committee=129
On the ‘net:
Room# 447 http://192.234.213.71/ASM-447 - should be a live audio feed. Hearing will probably be earlyish in the AM.
On tv? Don't know.
Judicial committee next:
http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newco...p?committee=15
No hearing date scheduled.

Phone #s of the Committee's aide, and the members are on those pages.

Starting NOW!

elvey · 2 Jul 2003, 02:17 AM

Senator Kevin Murray Presented
SB 186, a competing bill, and there was support and opposition statements made.
My reading is that it's a very good bill, but the supporters make me think I'm missing a fundamental defect in the bill.
Anyone?

Perhaps it's that if these folks sell the ability to spam their uses without having their email blocked or sent to a bulk mail folder, they're not liable under this bill.
My notes:
The author: Go after advertisers. – key because spammers are offshore. $1mm/incident max. aye vote.
Barry Brokaw- M$ - strong support.
Lesley Medino-Yahoo – hope to move to a support position; close to that now.
AEA in support. Suggest: when prevailing party wins, they should get attorneys fees. Even if it’s not the x side.-Concern for Judiciary.
Opposition: Internet Alliance (AKA THE DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION, scumbags – Ms k cogrow - claim to support legislation that makes criminal the use of false headers/footers/midleading subject lines.
Technical concerns. Have spoken to the author’s staff, hopeful. Co has taken all steps, but an error is inadvertent – reduced if accidental still too high – they’d still be a target for lawsuits. Judge can reduce penalties to 0 in an incorporated amendment.
Joe S wants to be a coauthor.

SB 12 is scheduled for a VOTE ONLY today. I have left a message on the committe secretary's cell phone asking when it would be, but no response yet.

elvey · 3 Jul 2003, 06:16 AM

SB 186 won the B&P committe vote, and is referred to the Appropriations Committee for a hearing sometime after mid-July.

SB 12 Didn't win the vote; seems like SB 186 was preferred. SB 12 WAS approved for a second hearing. Failed immidate passage. Reconsideration granted. New hearing date is TBD as well.

21 May 2003, 03:32 AM	#46
admiralu Essential Contributor Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Camarillo, CA Posts: 442	Ah California The old political one two. In between the budget cuts. I hope this bill is watered down any further.

22 May 2003, 01:33 PM	#47
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	News on SB 12 The Full senate is expected to vote on this soon! Even with the significantly weakened text, I'd be thrilled if this passes. The bill was passed out of the Appropriatesion Committee pursuant to Senate Rule 28.8, which states that any bill referred to the Appropriations Committee which does not appropriate money may be directly referred to the Senate floor without a hearing if the chairman of the committee determines that the bill will not cause any significant state costs or significant reduction in state revenues. It is the committee's equivalent of a "consent calendar." - per this link 's definition of rule 28.8

10 Jun 2003, 08:17 AM	#50
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	My senator, Senator Yee is an [edit: official] 'Coauthor' of the bill. Last edited by elvey : 19 Jun 2003 at 05:10 AM.

19 Jun 2003, 05:13 AM	#53
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	July 1 hearing! Broadcast info. I found the web page for the committees, and called their secretaries. July 1 hearing in B&P. Not listed at http://www.assembly.ca.gov/committee_hearings/ tho! The Committee on Business and Professions http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newco...?committee=129 On the ‘net: Room# 447 http://192.234.213.71/ASM-447 - should be a live audio feed. Hearing will probably be earlyish in the AM. On tv? Don't know. Judicial committee next: http://www.assembly.ca.gov/acs/newco...p?committee=15 No hearing date scheduled. Phone #s of the Committee's aide, and the members are on those pages.

25 Jun 2003, 12:00 AM	#54
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	Is your State Assembly person listed here? Go HERE to enter your address and be told who your state senator and assemblyman are! - it's easy! Consider giving 'em a call and asking them to be a co-author of the bill! These are the folks who will vote on this thing NEXT! Lou Correa, Chair Dem-69 (916) 319-2069 Assemblymember.Correa@assembly.ca.gov Shirley Horton, Vice Chair Rep-78 (916) 319-2078 Assemblymember.Shirley.Horton@assembly.ca.gov Joe Nation Dem-6 - co-author Leland Yee Dem-12 (916) - co-author Mark Leno Dem-13 - co-author Ellen M. Corbett Dem-18 (916) 319-2018 Assemblymember.Corbett@assembly.ca.gov Greg Aghazarian Rep-26 (916) 319-2026 Assemblymember.aghazarian@assembly.ca.gov Abel Maldonado Rep-33 (916) 319-2033 Assemblymember.maldonado@assembly.ca.gov Bill Maze Rep-34 (916) 319-2034 Assemblymember.maze@assembly.ca.gov Paul Koretz Dem-42 (916) 319-2042 Assemblymember.Koretz@assembly.ca.gov Rudy Bermúdez Dem-56 (916) 319-2056 Assemblymember.bermudez@assembly.ca.gov Mark Wyland Rep-74 (916) 319-2074 Assemblymember.Wyland@assembly.ca.gov Juan Vargas Dem-79 - co-author Last edited by elvey : 25 Jun 2003 at 12:22 AM.

22 May 2003, 11:15 PM	#48
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	New Official Legislative Analysis Lists the ACLU as registered in opposition. This really annoys me. I'm not mad at the ACLU; I'm mad at Senator Bowen's office, because I told them exactly how to address the likely free speech advocate complaints without weakening the law, but they poo-poo'd me, saying no one would care, because they were only regulating commercial speech. Grr! Also lists as separate, even though they're not: Direct Marketing Association Internet Alliance

25 May 2003, 02:06 PM	#49
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	Yay! It passed the CA State Senate, off to the House! The vote: here

16 Jun 2003, 10:14 AM	#51
jlnt Essential Contributor Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Texas Posts: 310 Representative of: JLMail.com	I think the ADV: thing would be a great idea, that would really cut down on spam alot, and would make it easier to block on servers as well hehe.

16 Jun 2003, 11:11 AM	#52
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	I guess it is consistent to have a law that says you must not send UCE, but if you do anyway, you must make ADV: the first 4 letters of the subject, or you are subject to additional penalties. It's like saying selling crack is illegal, and you must collect and pay taxes on it, or you are subject to additional penalties. Given that the house and assembly versions already differ, it makes sense to push for good amendments! ANYONE: If you call, try to find out when the next hearing/vote is scheduled.

25 Jun 2003, 09:02 AM	#55
btn Cornerstone of the Community Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: San Jose, CA, US Posts: 688 Representative of: Everyone.net	The San Jose Mercury News rated, in their opinion, the current legislation under consideration. Note that the article will only be available for free online until the end of this week.

2 Jul 2003, 02:17 AM	#59
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	Senator Kevin Murray Presented SB 186, a competing bill, and there was support and opposition statements made. My reading is that it's a very good bill, but the supporters make me think I'm missing a fundamental defect in the bill. Anyone? Perhaps it's that if these folks sell the ability to spam their uses without having their email blocked or sent to a bulk mail folder, they're not liable under this bill. My notes: The author: Go after advertisers. – key because spammers are offshore. $1mm/incident max. aye vote. Barry Brokaw- M$ - strong support. Lesley Medino-Yahoo – hope to move to a support position; close to that now. AEA in support. Suggest: when prevailing party wins, they should get attorneys fees. Even if it’s not the x side.-Concern for Judiciary. Opposition: Internet Alliance (AKA THE DIRECT MARKETING ASSOCIATION, scumbags – Ms k cogrow - claim to support legislation that makes criminal the use of false headers/footers/midleading subject lines. Technical concerns. Have spoken to the author’s staff, hopeful. Co has taken all steps, but an error is inadvertent – reduced if accidental still too high – they’d still be a target for lawsuits. Judge can reduce penalties to 0 in an incorporated amendment. Joe S wants to be a coauthor. SB 12 is scheduled for a VOTE ONLY today. I have left a message on the committe secretary's cell phone asking when it would be, but no response yet.

3 Jul 2003, 06:16 AM	#60
elvey The "e" in e-mail Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: San Francisco Posts: 2,458	SB 186 won the B&P committe vote, and is referred to the Appropriations Committee for a hearing sometime after mid-July. SB 12 Didn't win the vote; seems like SB 186 was preferred. SB 12 WAS approved for a second hearing. Failed immidate passage. Reconsideration granted. New hearing date is TBD as well.