Re: Epic Alert 10.23 - AB Spam yasa taslagi hk

Spam ile ilgili Türkçe Hukuki kaynak nereden bulabilir...



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Mustafa Akgul" <[email protected]>
To: <[email protected]>
Cc: <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, November 14, 2003 8:29 AM
Subject: [anti-spam] Epic Alert 10.23 - AB Spam yasa taslagi hk


>                              E P I C  A l e r t
> =======================================================================
> Volume 10.23                                          November 13, 2003
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>                               Published by the
>                 Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC)
>                               Washington, D.C.
>
>              http://www.epic.org/alert/EPIC_Alert_10.23.html
>
> ======================================================================
> Table of Contents
> ======================================================================
>
> [1] Report Raises More Questions About Voting Machines
> [2] Attorneys General Oppose Spam Legislation
> [3] Gore Calls for Repeal of the Patriot Act
> [4] Members of Congress Object to New Postal Rule
> [5] Courts Issue Wiretapping Decisions
> [6] News in Brief
> [7] EPIC Bookstore:
> [8] Upcoming Conferences and Events
>
>
> ======================================================================
> [2] Attorneys General Oppose Spam Legislation
> ======================================================================
>
> A coalition of state attorneys general from around the country signed
> a November 4 letter urging Congress to address the many loopholes and
> exemptions that plague the CAN-SPAM Act of 2003 before the bill comes
> to a vote in the House.
>
> A version of the Act, S. 877, passed in the Senate last month.  The
> attorneys general criticize the Senate version, which would preempt
> stronger state spam law in several states, for its minimalist
> protection of individuals.  As the letter states:  "Its substantive
> protections are weak, as are its damage provisions."  The bill
> "virtually assure[s] that it will engender litigation, rather than
> deter unlawful conduct."
>
> Specifically, the attorneys general point out that the current spam
> bill: uses a "standard [of proof that] exceeds what is found in other
> consumer protection statutes;" allows spammers to "escape liability
> by insulating themselves from knowledge;" "creates a loophole for
> spammers who may argue the primary purpose of their email is something
> other than advertising;" "forecloses any liability for merchants,
> except in extremely limited circumstances;" and opens a loophole
> whereby spammers do not have to offer an opt-out option to individuals
> for technical reasons (as in the case where the spammer's inbox is
> full).
>
> The coalition of state attorneys general includes the legal officers
> from:  California, Kansas, Maryland, Nevada, Texas, Vermont, Virginia
> and Washington.
>
> More than thirty states have spam laws that may face preemption by the
> CAN-SPAM Act.  California's spam law, which will go into effect in
> 2004 if not preempted, is the toughest in the nation.  It would
> require e-mail advertisers to seek permission before sending
> advertisements, give individuals strong, enforceable opt-out
> capabilities, and allow individuals to sue violators for $1000 per
> unwanted e-mail.
>
> The state attorneys general's letter to Congress is available at:
>
>       http://www.epic.org/privacy/junk_mail/spam/agltrs877.pdf
>
> The text of S. 877 is available at:
>
>       http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c108:S.877:
>
> For background information, see EPIC's Spam page at:
>
>       http://www.epic.org/privacy/junk_mail/spam
>
>
>