Slashdot Mirror

It appears Infoworld may be right:

There appear to be two separate things: one is a resolution to study the UCITA, the other is the UCITA itself.

The resolution to study the UCITA, HJ277, was stricken from the docket by the Rules Committee.

The UCITA itself, HB561, appears to have passed the House 95:2 with almost no modification and has been communicated to the Senate.

So not only does the House appear to have passed the bill, it would appear that they aren't even interested in its implications!!

What a surprise...(not...)

Sigh...


--

It appears Infoworld may be right:

There appear to be two separate things: one is a resolution to study the UCITA, the other is the UCITA itself.

The resolution to study the UCITA, HJ277, was stricken from the docket by the Rules Committee.

The UCITA itself, HB561, appears to have passed the House 95:2 with almost no modification and has been communicated to the Senate.

So not only does the House appear to have passed the bill, it would appear that they aren't even interested in its implications!!

What a surprise...(not...)

Sigh...


--

No, you are wrong. If you search a little harder, it looks like it has passed in BOTH the house and senate as of today. They just gave the bills new names.

Look at:

HB499

and

SB372

It makes me sick to be a Virginian because it is in such stark contrast to our history (Patrick Henry et. al.).

According to these pages the house passed it on 2/10/2000 and the senate passed it on 2/15/2000 (today).

No, you are wrong. If you search a little harder, it looks like it has passed in BOTH the house and senate as of today. They just gave the bills new names.

Look at:

HB499

and

SB372

It makes me sick to be a Virginian because it is in such stark contrast to our history (Patrick Henry et. al.).

According to these pages the house passed it on 2/10/2000 and the senate passed it on 2/15/2000 (today).

Here's just a few points that I noticed (this is from the VA state House Bill 561):

• Section 59.1-502.9. This section deals with mass-market licenses (which is pretty much what you run into with mainstream software). It specifically requires the license to be available for review before you are obligated to pay. That means no more of Microsoft's "You accept the license inside by opening this software" licenses. It also provides for refunds if that situation arises, including reimbursement for the costs of returning the software and compensation for changes to your system if reading the license required installing software.
• Section 59.1-504.2. This section deals with express warranties. It provides for the creation of a warranty on the performance of the software through the seller's advertising, demos, etc. So, in essence, it's enforcing truth in advertising and creating avenues for seeking damages if the software doesn't turn out to be what it was purported to be.
• Section 59.1-504.7. This section deals with modification of the software. Let's say that you purchased a piece of software, and then modified it. If your modified copy doesn't work, you don't get any support for that. Makes sense. However, if you then revert to the unmodified copy, and that doesn't work, you do get support. That's what it says here.
• Section 59.1-506.5. This section deals with automatic restraints in the "computer information". It specifically disallows automatic restraints being used to enforce breaches of the license. This means that a software company cannot "reach into your computer and turn off your software" as some posters have suggested.
• Section 59.1-506.8. This section deals with the right to inspect a piece of software before payment, and what happens if payment is required before inspection. It's particularly nice. Basically, it says that in purchasing a piece of software, I have the right to take a reasonable amount of time to inspect it and make sure it complies with the contract. Remember, that contract also includes express warranties from their advertising. It also provides that if I have paid for the software before being able to inspect it, that does not mean that I can't get my money back if it doesn't fulfill the contract. There is a piece of language in here that might cause some hackles to go up, which is "(4) A party's right to inspect is subject to existing obligations of confidentiality," but there is no concern over this. The word "existing" denotes that this does not create any new obligations of confidentiality. So, contrary to popular belief, you can tell your friends all about your tests, unless you signed an NDA beforehand.
• Section 59.1-508.16. This section deals with electronic means to exercise the software publisher's rights to possession of the software and prevention of use due to a breach of contract. It specifically disallows the use of electronic methods for this unless you, as the end user, has specifically and separately (separate from the license) agreed to the use of these methods. Which means that once again, they can't reach in and delete or disable the software unless you told them that they could. And even if you have agreed to this, they have to notify you before they do using a means that you both agreed on beforehand (whether it be email, phone, in writing, etc.). And if they misuse these electronic means, this section provides you with a recourse against them for damages.

Again, that's just what I see for some salient points of the UCITA. So they can't reach into your computer and disable things, even if you break the contract. They can't prevent you from benchmarking the software. Actually, the UCITA provides some nice protections for the consumer. And it spells everything out in a uniform language, so when dealing with transactions across the Internet, there won't be any arguments regarding one state's laws versus another state's laws.

Those people who wish to denounce the UCITA need to start coming up with some specific grievances, and cite the sections of the code that they are complaining about. Shouting at the top of your lungs that something is bad, while at the same time not saying exactly what it is that is bad, is not going to have any effect. How about we have an intelligent discussion on that law for a change, rather than assuming that all laws are bad?

-Todd
---

Searching for Senate Bill 372 shows that the bill passed the senate side on Feb 15.

http://leg1.s tate.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=001&typ=bil&val =sb372

Ugh.

VA HB 561 Read it yourself.

HB 561 is UCITA. It was passed by the House but then appears to have been dropped in favor of this resolution to study the issue.

--Brett Glass

HB 561 is UCITA. It was passed by the House but then appears to have been dropped in favor of this resolution to study the issue.

--Brett Glass

HB 561 is UCITA. It was passed by the House but then appears to have been dropped in favor of this resolution to study the issue.

--Brett Glass

Offered January 24, 2000
Establishing a joint subcommittee to study the
Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act.

----------

Patrons-- Baskerville, Christian, Crittenden, Harris, Kilgore, Melvin and Rhodes; Senator: Miller, Y.B.

----------

Referred to Committee on Rules

----------

WHEREAS, the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws has promulgated the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act (UCITA), and it is now available for consideration for adoption by the several states; and

WHEREAS, the UCITA is major legislation that would govern transactions of computer information, thereby significantly impacting all Virginians who use computers; and

WHEREAS, the UCITA presents a significant policy decision to be made by the General Assembly; and

WHEREAS, the voluminous pages of the UCITA contain highly technical language and a legal scheme which even legal professionals may have trouble understanding; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth may be one of the first states to consider this major legislation and other states may be looking to the Commonwealth for guidance in considering the UCITA; and

WHEREAS, the Commonwealth is the leader in technology and relevant laws and it must be responsible in leading other states; now, therefore, be it

RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That a joint subcommittee be established to study the Uniform Computer Information Transactions Act. The joint subcommittee shall be composed of twelve members, which shall include seven legislative members and five nonlegislative citizen members as follows: four members of the House of Delegates, to be appointed by the Speaker, one of whom shall be a member of the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, one of whom shall be a member of the House Committee on Science and Technology, one of whom shall be a member of the House Committee on Courts of Justice, and one of whom shall be a member of the House Committee on Corporations, Insurance and Banking; three members of the Senate, to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections, one of whom shall be a member of the Joint Commission on Technology and Science, one of whom shall be a member of the Senate Committee on Courts of Justice, and one of whom shall be a member of the Senate Committee on Commerce and Labor; one representative of those who would be considered licensors under the UCITA and one representative who would be considered a licensee under the UCITA to be appointed by the Senate Committee on Privileges and Elections; and one representative of consumer interests, one member with an expertise in intellectual properties, and one member from the academic legal community who is knowledgeable in the UCITA and the Uniform Commercial Code, to be appointed by the Speaker.

In conducting its study, the joint subcommittee shall review the UCITA and make a recommendation regarding the appropriateness of using the UCITA as the proper model to govern computer information transactions and shall make suggestions regarding alternatives or amendments to the UCITA that will assure that interests of both the licensors and licensees are adequately protected.

The direct costs of this study shall not exceed $13,500.

The Division of Legislative Services shall provide staff support for the study. All agencies of the Commonwealth shall provide assistance to the joint subcommittee, upon request.

The joint subcommittee shall complete its work in time to submit its findings and recommendations to the Governor and the 2001 Session of the General Assembly as provided in the procedures of the Division of Legislative Automated Systems for the processing of legislative documents.

Implementation of this resolution is subject to subsequent approval and certification by the Joint Rules Committee. The Committee may withhold expenditures or delay the period for the conduct of the study.

#

See http://leg1.state.va.us/c gi-bin/legp504.exe?001+ful+HJ277.

Gross errors such as the one InfoWorld made in its UCITA coverage were frequently introduced into my column during editing and then printed; I rarely had a chance to review the column and catch those mistakes. The editor I worked with there actually resented it when I complained about such errors being introduced. It is thus no surprise that InfoWorld got it wrong.

--Brett Glass

http://leg1.state.va.us/c gi-bin/legp504.exe?001+sum+SJ239

Yet again this is another show of bad journalism. the above infoworld article got most of the information wrong.

the virginia SENATE has passed it, and the house is still working on it. They are studing it, and deciding if they want to create a committee to look at it.

Check it out for yourself:
HB561,
HJ277,
and SB372 [0]

[0] the last url is sponsered by the senator from my home town :(

Yet again this is another show of bad journalism. the above infoworld article got most of the information wrong.

the virginia SENATE has passed it, and the house is still working on it. They are studing it, and deciding if they want to create a committee to look at it.

Check it out for yourself:
HB561,
HJ277,
and SB372 [0]

[0] the last url is sponsered by the senator from my home town :(

Yet again this is another show of bad journalism. the above infoworld article got most of the information wrong.

the virginia SENATE has passed it, and the house is still working on it. They are studing it, and deciding if they want to create a committee to look at it.

Check it out for yourself:
HB561,
HJ277,
and SB372 [0]

[0] the last url is sponsered by the senator from my home town :(

OK, If you actually bothered to do a little research at the VA state Senate site, you would have found that all that passed the House or Senate was a joint resolution to create a joint subcommittee to study the UCITA and its language. And of course that passed unanimously. All the legislators want to have more information on this, and a technical subcommittee is one of the best ways to get it. The bill was not passed. Not only that, but the report from the subcommittee isn't due until December 1, 2000. So it won't even be voted on until 2001.

Why did they do this? Because, as they say in the resolutions (which, by the way, is both HJ277 and SJ239), "the voluminous pages of the UCITA contain highly technical language and a legal scheme which even legal professionals may have trouble understanding," among other reasons, which are listed in the resolution.

So all I say is shame on Slashdot, michael, Keith Kris, and those prominent people who posted such as Dan Kaminsky. Shame on you for creating yet more sensationalist journalism because you didn't bother to check your references. Any geek with half a brain knows that InfoWorld, NetworkWorld and the like are not very reputable sources.

-Todd

---

Senate:
href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe? 001+sum+SB372">SB 372 Computer Information Transactions Act.

Bill Patron:
Senator Edward L. Schrock (R) - Senate District 7
In-session address: ,br> General Assembly Building, Room 307
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7507
Mailing address:
P. O. Box 62996
Virginia Beach, Virginia 23466-2996
(757) 460-3777

House:
href="http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe? 001+sum+HB561">SB 372 Computer Information Transactions Act.

Bill Patron:
Delegate Joe T. May (R) - House District 33 In-session address:
General Assembly Building, Room 514
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-1033

email: del_May@House.state.va.us
Mailing address:

P.O. Box 4104
Leesburg, Virginia 20177
(703) 777-1191

Here is the link to the actual Bill:
Summary: HB 499 Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
Full Text: HB 499

Link to updates to Technology legislation in Virginia:
Virginia Secretary of Technology

This is extremely important. Today is the big day:

Dates to Remember:
January 12 -- General Assembly convenes at noon

January 24 -- All bills and joint resolutions filed by 5 p.m.

February 15 -- Cross-over, each house to consider legislation of the other house (except budget, appropriation debt, revenue and VRS bills)

February 22 -- Amendments on the Budget Bill(s) available by noon

March 11 -- Adjourn Sine die

April 10 -- Last Day for Governor to Act on Legislation.

Here is the link to the actual Bill:
Summary: HB 499 Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
Full Text: HB 499

Link to updates to Technology legislation in Virginia:
Virginia Secretary of Technology

This is extremely important. Today is the big day:

Dates to Remember:
January 12 -- General Assembly convenes at noon

January 24 -- All bills and joint resolutions filed by 5 p.m.

February 15 -- Cross-over, each house to consider legislation of the other house (except budget, appropriation debt, revenue and VRS bills)

February 22 -- Amendments on the Budget Bill(s) available by noon

March 11 -- Adjourn Sine die

April 10 -- Last Day for Governor to Act on Legislation.

Here is the link to the actual Bill:
Summary: HB 499 Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
Full Text: HB 499

Link to updates to Technology legislation in Virginia:
Virginia Secretary of Technology

This is extremely important. Today is the big day:

Dates to Remember:
January 12 -- General Assembly convenes at noon

January 24 -- All bills and joint resolutions filed by 5 p.m.

February 15 -- Cross-over, each house to consider legislation of the other house (except budget, appropriation debt, revenue and VRS bills)

February 22 -- Amendments on the Budget Bill(s) available by noon

March 11 -- Adjourn Sine die

April 10 -- Last Day for Governor to Act on Legislation.

Here is the link to the actual Bill:
Summary: HB 499 Uniform Electronic Transactions Act
Full Text: HB 499

Link to updates to Technology legislation in Virginia:
Virginia Secretary of Technology

This is extremely important. Today is the big day:

Dates to Remember:
January 12 -- General Assembly convenes at noon

January 24 -- All bills and joint resolutions filed by 5 p.m.

February 15 -- Cross-over, each house to consider legislation of the other house (except budget, appropriation debt, revenue and VRS bills)

February 22 -- Amendments on the Budget Bill(s) available by noon

March 11 -- Adjourn Sine die

April 10 -- Last Day for Governor to Act on Legislation.

Here is the contact info for the sponsoring senator:

Senator Stephen D. Newman (R) - Senate District 23

In-session address:
General Assembly Building, Room 305
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

email:snewman@inmind.com

Mailing address: General Assembly Building, Room 305 Capitol Square Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

Here are links to the bills :
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 277
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239

Member in charge of the study:

Delegate Viola O. Baskerville (D) - House District 71

In-session address: General Assembly Building, Room 525
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-1071

email: del_Baskerville@House.state.va.us

Mailing address:

P. O. Box 406
Richmond, Virginia 23218
(804) 698-1171

Here is the contact info for the sponsoring senator:

Senator Stephen D. Newman (R) - Senate District 23

In-session address:
General Assembly Building, Room 305
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

email:snewman@inmind.com

Mailing address: General Assembly Building, Room 305 Capitol Square Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

Here are links to the bills :
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 277
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239

Member in charge of the study:

Delegate Viola O. Baskerville (D) - House District 71

In-session address: General Assembly Building, Room 525
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-1071

email: del_Baskerville@House.state.va.us

Mailing address:

P. O. Box 406
Richmond, Virginia 23218
(804) 698-1171

Here is the contact info for the sponsoring senator:

Senator Stephen D. Newman (R) - Senate District 23

In-session address:
General Assembly Building, Room 305
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

email:snewman@inmind.com

Mailing address: General Assembly Building, Room 305 Capitol Square Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

Here are links to the bills :
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 277
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239

Member in charge of the study:

Delegate Viola O. Baskerville (D) - House District 71

In-session address: General Assembly Building, Room 525
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-1071

email: del_Baskerville@House.state.va.us

Mailing address:

P. O. Box 406
Richmond, Virginia 23218
(804) 698-1171

Here is the contact info for the sponsoring senator:

Senator Stephen D. Newman (R) - Senate District 23

In-session address:
General Assembly Building, Room 305
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

email:snewman@inmind.com

Mailing address: General Assembly Building, Room 305 Capitol Square Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-7523

Here are links to the bills :
HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 277
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239
SENATE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 239

Member in charge of the study:

Delegate Viola O. Baskerville (D) - House District 71

In-session address: General Assembly Building, Room 525
Capitol Square
Richmond, Virginia 23219
(804) 698-1071

email: del_Baskerville@House.state.va.us

Mailing address:

P. O. Box 406
Richmond, Virginia 23218
(804) 698-1171

Wrong bill. You were looking at a Joint Resolution between the House and the Senate. The bastards already slipped this by in the House of Delegates (making the JR unnecessary) -- see HB 561 for details. The house amended it slightly, and required that a panel be formed to study the ramifications and report back by December 1, 2000. If the house does nothing else, it goes into effect July 1, 2001.

This all assumes that the VA Senate signs off on it as well; Governor Gilmore is expected to sign whatever gets passed.

What pisses me off is that the subcommittee that did this wasn't scheduled to meet until Monday morning (2/14) at 8:00am; they got wind that people were organizing opposition, so they pushed up their meeting to Thursday, and got the bill onto the floor early. By the time that I had a chance to register my opposition it had already been approved.

If you live in Va and want to find out who your delegate and senator is go here.

It looks like it has been stricken from the docket of the Virginia House of Delegates. I'm not incredibly familiar with legislative rules, but I *think* that this means that it can't pass in VA without being re-introduced to the VA House. If someone can clarify this, please post it. You can find out more here.

For Virginia:

In the House of Delegates, UCITA is House Joint Resolution 277

In the State Senate, UCITA is Senate Joint Resolution 239

The link for Identifying your Delegate and Senator is here

For Maryland: In the House of Delegates, it's House Bill 19

In the State Senate, it's Senate Bill 142

To ID your State Representative and Senator, click here

The usual advice about being direct, to the point, and not threatening or ranting apply. Snailmail and phone calls get more interest than email, sad to say, but that's reality. Go to it, gang. I am. . .

For Virginia:

In the House of Delegates, UCITA is House Joint Resolution 277

In the State Senate, UCITA is Senate Joint Resolution 239

The link for Identifying your Delegate and Senator is here

For Maryland: In the House of Delegates, it's House Bill 19

In the State Senate, it's Senate Bill 142

To ID your State Representative and Senator, click here

The usual advice about being direct, to the point, and not threatening or ranting apply. Snailmail and phone calls get more interest than email, sad to say, but that's reality. Go to it, gang. I am. . .

There is a link on this page that says "Who is my Legislator" Works great... Virginia Legislature Online

You should call or write your representatives in the Virginia General Assembly. This page is a good starting point, it's the official Virginia ONLINE Legislature web page. You can use it to find out who your senator and representatives are.

However, there are some organizations, such as the American Board of Medical Specialties (ABMS) that allow you to buy their directory for a reasonable sum, but if you need the data in an electronic form, like we do, they charge you, quite literally an arm and a leg. The CD that we bought (actually, rent, as they want the CD back), cost at least 36 times that of the bound version of the data.

Even all the data with their own GUI on it is approximately $1500 (i am making an educated guess), and that data cannot be easily exported to a usable format (only 200 lines at a time, and with 600,000 records, it's rough). My question is this: "Which is cheaper, the development time for this GUI, or to put the data in comma separated value files?" Surely, it is the latter. I assume it boils down to the fact that whomever controls the data, holds the upper hand.

• Time Magazine and CNN on Project Exile
• Va. Governor's Comments on Project Exile
• Charlton Heston of the NRA on Project Exile
• NY Times Article about Project Exile
• Homepage on Project Exile
• Republicans in the Senate on Project Exile

A couple things

1. The moment you start filtering content, you are liable for that content. You no longer are a common carrier. So if a library has a filtering system in place, they can be sued if a 14 year old gets past it to porn.

2. There is a fundamental rule of nature that no barrier will ever suffice to completely separate a 14 year old male and his porn.

3. There is an argument that has been made (and a Virginia state Delegate from a rural part of the state made it in testimony to the Virginia General Assembly last year) that libraries ALREADY filter content by chosing to stock some books and not choosing to stock others. Librarians are very vulnerable to this argument and in my experience have not made good arguments against it.

4. Virginia has looked into this issue deeply, through the Joint Commission on Technology and Science of the General Assembly. In that Commission's Annual Report for 1999, they addressed this very issue. (Advisory Committee One studied it, I actually was on that committee) The ultimate recommendation was against mandated filtering, and in favor of people under 18 being required to sign Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) to use Internet terminals at libraries. This way, the librarians have grounds to restrict inappropriate or illegal usage by kids under 18. Some libraries in the state have taken it upon themselves to setup separate areas with privacy desks or study carels for adult Internet use. The Commission's final report pretty conclusively posited that filters are simply unworkable in a public library environment because Internet content is changing so quickly and libraries are the public bastion of free speech and expression and are held to a very high free speech standard.

5. Finally, the Courts decided in a Virginia case, Mainstream Loudoun vs. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, that filtering websites at libraries is not a library acquisition decision (as voiced by that Delegate noted above) and that filtering is unconstitutional if it applies unilaterally to both adults and children. Applying the same speech standards to both adults and children online was specifically overruled by the Supreme Court in Reno vs. ACLU (the CDA decision).

So unless Elizabeth Dole will commit to appointing a Federal Judges who see the constitution differently than most, (incuding the Supreme Court) she won't be able to enforce her policy. IMHO.

I think this is just a move to the Right by her in the hopes of winning conservative primary voters. I don't actually think she'll keep this policy all the way through the campaign, and if she makes it past Iowa and New Hampshire, I seriously doubt we'll ever hear it again. It's a political tactic to try to win a conservative voting base among Republican primary voters.

IMHO

A couple things

1. The moment you start filtering content, you are liable for that content. You no longer are a common carrier. So if a library has a filtering system in place, they can be sued if a 14 year old gets past it to porn.

2. There is a fundamental rule of nature that no barrier will ever suffice to completely separate a 14 year old male and his porn.

3. There is an argument that has been made (and a Virginia state Delegate from a rural part of the state made it in testimony to the Virginia General Assembly last year) that libraries ALREADY filter content by chosing to stock some books and not choosing to stock others. Librarians are very vulnerable to this argument and in my experience have not made good arguments against it.

4. Virginia has looked into this issue deeply, through the Joint Commission on Technology and Science of the General Assembly. In that Commission's Annual Report for 1999, they addressed this very issue. (Advisory Committee One studied it, I actually was on that committee) The ultimate recommendation was against mandated filtering, and in favor of people under 18 being required to sign Acceptable Use Policies (AUPs) to use Internet terminals at libraries. This way, the librarians have grounds to restrict inappropriate or illegal usage by kids under 18. Some libraries in the state have taken it upon themselves to setup separate areas with privacy desks or study carels for adult Internet use. The Commission's final report pretty conclusively posited that filters are simply unworkable in a public library environment because Internet content is changing so quickly and libraries are the public bastion of free speech and expression and are held to a very high free speech standard.

5. Finally, the Courts decided in a Virginia case, Mainstream Loudoun vs. Board of Trustees of the Loudoun County Library, that filtering websites at libraries is not a library acquisition decision (as voiced by that Delegate noted above) and that filtering is unconstitutional if it applies unilaterally to both adults and children. Applying the same speech standards to both adults and children online was specifically overruled by the Supreme Court in Reno vs. ACLU (the CDA decision).

So unless Elizabeth Dole will commit to appointing a Federal Judges who see the constitution differently than most, (incuding the Supreme Court) she won't be able to enforce her policy. IMHO.

I think this is just a move to the Right by her in the hopes of winning conservative primary voters. I don't actually think she'll keep this policy all the way through the campaign, and if she makes it past Iowa and New Hampshire, I seriously doubt we'll ever hear it again. It's a political tactic to try to win a conservative voting base among Republican primary voters.

IMHO

A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a person, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the person's:

3. Causing tortious injury by an act or omission in this Commonwealth . . . .

The judge in this case found jurisdiction under this provision on the ground that the defendants committed an "act" in Virginia by publishing on AOL's Virginia-based server. That's pretty questionable in and of itself, but what makes it even worse is that the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution has been held to require that nonresidents have some certain level of "minimum contacts" with a state before they may be subject to that state's jurisdiction. It certainly seems questionable whether that standard was met here.

Incidentally, if you ignore a lawsuit against you in another jurisdiction as one poster has suggested -- "default" is the technical term -- the plaintiff can generally have the judgment entered in whatever jurisdiction you keep your wealth and use it to go after your assets there. (In particular, U.S. states are required by the Constitution to give the judgments of other state courts "full faith and credit.") A court will generally only refuse to enter the judgment where it is "repugnant to public policy" of the jurisdiction; for example, U.S. courts won't enter a British judgment if the underlying claim is a libel claim which would be barred by the First Amendment in this country.

1. using the services of anelectronic mail service provider in contravention of the
   authority granted by or in violation of the policies set by the electronic mail service provider;
   
2. falsifying e-mail transmission information in
   connection with the transmission of unsolicited bulk e-mail;
   
3. selling or distributing software which makes possible the transmission of
   false e-mail with the intent to facilitate the transmission of false e-mail.
   

Among other questionable things, this law criminalizes "distributing software which makes possible the transmission of false e-mail."

http://leg1.s tate.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?ses=991&typ=bil&val =sb881

In other words, your favorite e1eet hackerz site that happens to have a copy of Up Yours or any other mailbombing software is now guilty of a misdemeanor in the state of Virginia and subject to a fine of $1000 for each and every download of that software.

(One could even argue that sendmail itself, that famous MTA built on trust and cooperation instead of verification and security, is software that fits the above description. The following clause requires that it also have "the intent to facilitate the transmission of false e-mail." Would that mean that anyone offering a downloadable copy of sendmail without the antispam provisions built into recent versions is also liable for $1000 per download?)

It is possible to write a good law against spam. This is nowhere near that law. This is a brutally overbroad law which criminalizes a wide range of legitimate and proper activity on the net, and the ACLU deserves our thanks for challenging it.

Jamie McCarthy