FC: Did MS, AOL, Yahoo block vote on California antispam bill?

From: Declan McCullagh (declanat_private)
Date: Thu Jun 19 2003 - 21:27:01 PDT

  • Next message: Declan McCullagh: "FC: Lofgren, Boucher criticize Singapore and Chile trade deals"

    ---
    
    Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 15:25:04 -0700
    From: "Bretschneider, Jennie" <Jennie.Bretschneiderat_private>
    Subject: PR CA spam bill/Microsoft
    
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE                                            	
    CONTACT: Jennie Bretschneider
    June 17, 2003
    
    (916) 445-5953/(916) 855-7286
    
    . . . AND ON THE 17TH DAY OF JUNE, MICROSOFT SAID:
    
    "LET THERE BE SPAM!"
    
    AS MICROSOFT ANNOUNCES LAWSUITS
    AGAINST SPAMMERS IN WASHINGTON, IT WORKS TO LIMIT
    ABILITY OF CALIFORNIA SPAM VICTIMS TO GO AFTER SPAMMERS
    
    SACRAMENTO - Backed by Microsoft, America Online (AOL) and Yahoo!, the
    Assembly Business & Professions Committee today refused to permit a vote on
    SB 12 by California State Senator Debra Bowen (D-Redondo Beach), a bill that
    sought to create the country's toughest anti-spam law by requiring
    advertisers to get permission from computer users before sending them
    unsolicited ads.
    
    "Spam accounts for more than half of all e-mail sent, sticking businesses
    with a $20 billion tab for unsolicited ads they didn't ask for and don't
    want," said Bowen (D-Redondo Beach). "Spam isn't legitimate advertising and
    it's not free speech - it's basically high-tech junk faxing that forces
    e-mail users to pay for someone else's advertising campaign through slower
    computer service and higher Internet access fees."
    
    Today in Redmond, Washington, Microsoft announced it filed 13 civil suits
    against U.S. spammers for sending unwanted, deceptive, commercial e-mail to
    Microsoft customers.  Meanwhile, at that same time, Microsoft was testifying
    in Sacramento, California, before the Assembly Business & Professions
    Committee against Senator Bowen's bill, that would have banned spam and
    created an "opt-in" system for sending unsolicited commercial e-mail.  If
    enacted, it would be the strongest anti-spam bill in the country, but
    Microsoft opposed it because it would have required businesses to get
    permission before sending e-mail ads (a concept known as "opt-in") and would
    have allowed individual e-mail spam victims to sue spammers for $500 per
    spam.
    
    "Who do you trust to protect your e-mail inbox in the war against spam,
    Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo! or the Attorney General and the Privacy Rights
    Clearinghouse?," asked Bowen, referring to the three leading opponents and
    the two leading supporters of SB 12.  "If you don't want to be sued for
    sending spam, don't send spam, it's not all that complicated.
    
    "Microsoft, AOL, and Yahoo! sit in committee with a straight face, saying
    they're trying to improve the bill, while at the same time they're back in
    Washington, pushing measures to wipe out this bill and every single
    anti-spam law that states have adopted over the past half-dozen years,"
    continued Bowen.  "Why?  Because they don't want to ban spam, they want to
    license it and make money from spammers by deciding what's 'legitimate' or
    'acceptable' unsolicited commercial advertising, then charging those
    advertisers a fee to wheel their spam into your e-mail inbox without your
    permission."
    
    SB 12 repeals California's "opt-out" spam statute in favor of a tougher
    "opt-in" system modeled on the federal law that bans unsolicited fax
    advertising.  The bill requires companies that want to send e-mail ads to
    get an e-mail user's permission in advance if they don't already have a
    business relationship with the person.  SB 12 allows any Californian who
    receives unsolicited ads to sue the sender and the advertiser in court for
    $500 per spam and the judge can triple the fine if he or she finds the
    sender willfully and knowingly violates the California ban.  The bill also
    requires the court to impose an additional $250 per spam civil penalty to be
    directed to high tech crime task forces throughout the state in any spam
    judgement.
    
    A June 10 report by the Radicati Group
    <http://www.radicati.com/single_report/index.shtml
    <http://www.radicati.com/single_report/index.shtml> > found e-mail spam will
    cost companies $20.5 billion in 2003, and by 2007, businesses will be
    forking over nearly ten times that amount of money, or  $198 billion, to
    battle spam.  A June 2 report by MessageLabs
    <http://www.messagelabs.com/news/virusnews/detail/default.asp?contentItemId=
    418&region=america
    <http://www.messagelabs.com/news/virusnews/detail/default.asp?contentItemId=
    418&region=america> >, a private anti-spam service, found 55.1% of all
    e-mail sent in May 2003 was spam.  Jupiter Research found U.S. e-mail users
    received more than 140 billion pieces of spam in 2001 and an estimated 261
    billion pieces in 2002 - an 86%  increase.  A Harris Interactive
    (www.harrisinteractive.com <http://www.harrisinteractive.com> ) poll
    released in early January found that 74% of online users surveyed would
    favor laws to outlaw spam.
    
    SB 12 was approved by the Senate last month on a bipartisan 21-12 vote and
    may be reconsidered by the committee in the next few weeks.
    
    
    
    
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    POLITECH -- Declan McCullagh's politics and technology mailing list
    You may redistribute this message freely if you include this notice.
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To subscribe to Politech: http://www.politechbot.com/info/subscribe.html
    This message is archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
    Declan McCullagh's photographs are at http://www.mccullagh.org/
    Like Politech? Make a donation here: http://www.politechbot.com/donate/
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------
    



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 01:10:10 PDT