Slashdot Mirror

They've been trying to pass legislation like this for the last seven Congressional terms, this makes it eight.

http://www.netchoice.org/library/sales-tax-collection-myth-vs-reality/ ...legislation has been proposed in each of the past seven Congresses that would reverse decades of history and legal precedent preventing out–of-state sales tax collection, and another bill is being circulated for cosponsors by Senator Mike Enzi (R-WY). It would impose on all states and all retailers the provisions of the now voluntary Streamlined Sales Tax Agreement (SSTA). SSTA proponents have touted this measure as a simplified, streamlined method for collecting sales tax. Unfortunately, the reality is far different – the SSTA promises to increase significantly the complexity and compliance burdens for interstate sellers.

Here's the URL to the full list of 10 items: http://www.netchoice.org/press/misguided-marketing-restriction-and-online-travel-tax-top-list-of-worst-internet-legislation.html

And WHY DIDN'T YOU LINK to the ACTUAL LIST? Instead of a PRESS RELEASE of an ARTICLE about an ARTICLE about the List after ragging on someone about NOT LINKING to the ACTUAL LIST and to an ARTICLE about an ARTICLE about the List?

http://netchoice.org/iawful/

Governments who want to stomp-out dissidents or just stick a finger in the American eye are attempting to hijack the "Critical Internet Resources (CIR)" debate. For them, the term "Protecting Critical Internet Resources" has become a euphemism for "killing ICANN." Those who see ICANN as a mechanism for American imperialism over the Internet are grossly overestimating the power of ICANN. The technology industry spent a trillion dollars to bring the Internet to a billion people, with little help from governments. We are investing even more to help fulfill IGF's mandate to reach the next billion people - and that is what the world's repressive regimes fear. We cannot shove the private sector out of room, leaving governments--including some notoriously repressive regimes--in control of a vital Internet resource. http://blog.netchoice.org/2007/11/dont-blame-it-o.html

There are three things that tend to make something "spyware"

1. Sneaky Delivery
2. Secret Collection (of PI)
3. Resisting Removal

Below is a snippet from our Testimony prepared for the hearing. If anyone would like to see the full text, you can find it at www.netchoice.org

To combat spyware, NetChoice sees the following plan of attack:

Any approach to tackling spyware should employ a three-pronged approach of increased enforcement, consensus around industry best practices, and consumer education and empowerment.

Existing laws have teeth

Consumers are already afforded substantial protection against unfair and deceptive business activity conducted over the Internet, including spyware practices such as sneaky delivery, secret collection, and resisting removal. In the words of Federal Trade Commission (FTC) Commissioner Mozelle Thompson at a recent workshop on spyware, "our worst first response is to legislate." An FTC attorney on another workshop panel said that a lack of specific spyware legislation wasn't inhibiting FTC enforcement, and that precise spyware definitions aren't essential since the commission focuses more on "what actually happened" in each case it pursues.

Today, there is sufficient law already on the books that can effectively be used to prosecute spyware offenders. Section 5 of the FTC Act prohibits unfair and deceptive trade practices, and the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (18 USC 1030) can be used to prosecute unauthorized use of a computer. In late 2003, the FTC obtained an injunction (later overturned) against D Squared, a small company run by two college students, that was serving pop-ups to consumers. The firm served ads using a since-patched security hole in the Windows operating system that bombarded customers with pop-ups and then offered to sell a tool to stop the exact type of pop-up it was sending. The case is scheduled for trial in September 2004.

In 2003, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) pursued a case where spyware was installed on machines at several Kinko's locations in New York City in an attempt to steal names, passwords, and credit card numbers from Kinko's customers. The perpetrator of this scam pleaded guilty to five counts of computer fraud and software piracy in July of 2003.

Market forces will squeeze the spies

Money is the mother's milk of spyware. Spyware firms need cash and the promise of ongoing revenue to cover their development and distribution costs for "innovative" new spyware technologies that can sneak past spyware defenses and collect information that appeals to advertisers. Almost certainly, this "arms race" between spyware attackers and anti-spyware defenders is more technologically complex and expensive than the comparable battle between spammers and spam-blockers.

Spyware vendors could fall further behind in this arms race if significant sources of ad revenue are diverted to other advertising channels. There is real promise in this regard, since the negative stigma of spyware makes it a poor choice for advertisers who want to protect their hard-won consumer brands. Further agreement on industry best practices to improve the notice, consent, and removal of adware products will further stigmatize the most parasitic spyware vendors and the marginal advertisers who support them.

An educated consumer is the best defense against spyware

Finally, consumers need to be better educated about the risks of downloading software, and about the tools and tactics they can use to avoid spyware. In conjunction with more aggressive FTC and DOJ enforcement, consumers should seek and install anti-spyware tools, many available at no cost, to remove spyware and inoculate against future downloads. But installation of these anti-spyware tools won't be a lasting cure unless users are conditioned to obtain regular updates of new spyware definitions and defenses.

If you would like to know more about SSTP, NetChoice has just released a report on the effect it will have on eCommerce.

As the dot-com bubble burst, the US economy entered recession, and states faced huge revenue shortfalls, the debate over imposing sales taxes on remote Internet sales has quickly heated up. States forecast an aggregate revenue gap between $40 and $70 billion annually and they cite taxes lost to e-commerce as a primary reason. States add that remote catalogs and e-commerce are hurting "Main Street" retailers who are collecting sales tax on every purchase.

In reality, states will realize about ten percent of their oft-cited projections of uncollected sales taxes. At the same time, e-commerce has not had the anticipated devastating effect on "Main Street" retailers. Growth in e-commerce has cannibalized catalog and phone order sales, which have never been widely taxed nor pillaged the sales of Main Street.

In addition, the SSTP lacks the clarity necessary for tax fairness and favors tax collection authority over the interests of Web retailers and consumers. Ambiguity surrounding taxable goods, intra- and inter-state battles around participation in the Project, and the unresolved issues of business activity taxes all mean the SSTP's real simplicity, fairness, and viability are far from certain.

The compliance costs of SSTP -- especially for small firms -- could well outweigh the probable benefits of taxing all remote purchases. States can recoup some lost revenue and help make-up budget shortfalls with more aggressive pursuit of multi-channel, multi-state retailers and greater use tax enforcement, without a federal mandate imposed on all inter-state retailers.