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