Anti-Spam Bill Killed In California

Craig Newmark (craigslist) writes "In California, we had a pretty good antispam bill proposed by Sen. Debra Bowen, which was killed yesterday. A pro-spammer bill, backed by the big media sites including Microsoft, passed through committee. Here's a quick round up. We're considering a big feedback campaign, based on conversation with staffers on what works for them, since they want to hear from constituents, as opposed to spam. More to come ..."

Comments

Pro-spammer != Pro-spam

[dewboy]

The summary is misleading. If you read one of the articles, you'll see that the measure that was passed was not in support of spam - it, too, was an anti-spam measure. It just wasn't quite as strict as the Bowen measure.

Furthermore, I don't know that I'd go so far as to call it "pro-spammer"; it still calls for fines to be levied. It just appears more "pro-spammer" than the consumer-backed bill.

Re:Left hand doesn't know right hand?

[gerddie]

Didn't read the article, ej? The other bill was also considered to be sort of an anti-spam bill by those who introduced it, and Microsoft, well ... Bowen contended that Microsoft backs the Murray bill because it wants to be in a position to charge spammers to send ads over its system and to continue to sell anti-spam blockers to their customers. [1]

Another language Nazi emerges...

[osu-neko]

You of course mean "Who's Bill?", short for "Who is Bill?" "Whose Bill" indicates you're wondering which slave-owner Bill belongs to.

Pro-spammer bill, my ass

[geekee]

"A pro-spammer bill, backed by the big media sites including Microsoft, passed through committee."

from abc7news: "According to an Assembly analysis, the spammer could be fined $1,000 per unwanted e-mail or $1 million per incident, whichever was less, plus actual damages to the recipient. An incident is defined in the bill as "a single transmission of substantially similar content." But Givens complained the bill would allow a judge to reduce the penalties to actual damages and $100 per e-mail or $100,000 per incident, whichever was less, if the advertiser had taken "due care" to prevent the transmission of unsolicited ads. ", under the bill that passed. Doesn't sound very pro-spammer to me even under the reduced penalty.