Re:Does anyone actually GET much cell phone spam?
by
dotgod
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Maybe it's not a problem at this point...but "[Gov.] Davis said he endorsed the plan because he didn't want unsolicited messages on mobile phones to reach the same level of mayhem that spam e-mails have." The whole point is to nip it in the bud.
Re:California Laws
by
fmaxwell
·
· Score: 4, Informative
Here is another example of well-meaning, yet relatively irrelevant laws being passed.
I disagree. This is a valuable, pro-active attempt to keep Californians from being forced to pay for spam sent to their cell phones and pagers.
Remember that, unlike the Internet, there are long-distance charges to call cell phones from out of area. Since spammers are bottom feeders that look for ways to pay nothing for their advertising, the vast majority of the spam would come from in-state. Thus, there would be no question of jurisdiction, extradition, etc. in most cases.
Maybe it's not a problem at this point...but "[Gov.] Davis said he endorsed the plan because he didn't want unsolicited messages on mobile phones to reach the same level of mayhem that spam e-mails have." The whole point is to nip it in the bud.
Here is another example of well-meaning, yet relatively irrelevant laws being passed.
I disagree. This is a valuable, pro-active attempt to keep Californians from being forced to pay for spam sent to their cell phones and pagers.
Remember that, unlike the Internet, there are long-distance charges to call cell phones from out of area. Since spammers are bottom feeders that look for ways to pay nothing for their advertising, the vast majority of the spam would come from in-state. Thus, there would be no question of jurisdiction, extradition, etc. in most cases.