Slashdot Mirror

New laws that took effect in Nevada on Oct. 1 and will kick in on Jan. 1 in Massachusetts may effectively mandate encryption for companies' hard drives, portable devices, and data transmissions. The laws will be binding on any organization that maintains personal information about residents of the two states. (Washington and Michigan are considering similar legislation.) Nevada's law deals mostly with transmitted information and Massachusetts's emphasizes stored information. Between them the two laws should put more of a dent into lax security practices than widespread laws requiring customer notification of data breaches have done. (Such laws are on the books in 40 states and by one estimate have reduced identity theft by 2%.) Here are a couple of legal takes on the impact of the new laws.

wario78 writes: "The BBC is running a story about the law firm Morrison and Foerster which is claiming damages against the spam company Etracks based in California. They are asking for $50 in damages for each spam they receive, up to the maximum of $25,000 per day. Nice to see a lawyer doing something community-oriented for a change (even if they are just trying to make a profit from it)."

sfjoe writes "California-based spammer eTracks is being sued by the law firm, Morrison and Foerster (who have a very cool homepage). M & F's press release says they are "...seeking other relief, including attorneys' fees and statutorily authorized damages of $50 for each email delivered in violation of the law, up to $25,000 per day". California's anti-spam law has already held up under appeals court scrutiny so this may very well be a major setback to the spam industry." I think spammers should be forced to pay by donating an organ for each forged header.

sfjoe writes "California-based spammer eTracks is being sued by the law firm, Morrison and Foerster (who have a very cool homepage). M & F's press release says they are "...seeking other relief, including attorneys' fees and statutorily authorized damages of $50 for each email delivered in violation of the law, up to $25,000 per day". California's anti-spam law has already held up under appeals court scrutiny so this may very well be a major setback to the spam industry." I think spammers should be forced to pay by donating an organ for each forged header.

Ed Cherlin writes: "A press release on PR Newswire states that Morrison & Foerster, aka MoFo, is suing Etracks of Belmont CA under California law for continuing to spam MoFo's e-mail clients after proper legal notification to stop, and for failing to put ADV: or ADV:ADLT in the subject line. MoFo asks for an injunction and legal costs in addition to statutory damages ($50/spam up to $25,000/day). More than 6,500 messages were received after the notification was delivered, so that comes to $325,000 on the first count, plus fees. MoFo lawyers get what? $500/hour? More?"