[Ecommerce] Colorado Spam law

[James Love]

I don't know the details of the bill, and my brief note may have been
inaccurate.     Allow me to make a few distinctions, however.  I
consider nearly every unsolicited email pitching a commerical product
spam.   I recieve a lot of unsolicited email that people send out, such
as "alerts" or things like that, that I treat differently.  

   I wonder what is covered by the bill, since the news report
mentions politicans.  Maybe it only covers non-profits or politicans if
they are soliciting contributions or selling things. 

   Does anyone know how to get a copy of this  bill?  Jamie

On Fri, 18 Feb 2000, Cem Kaner wrote:

> looks good to me. I don't see any difference between commercial and non-commercial spam.
> 
> At 12:12 AM 2/19/00 -0500, James Love wrote:
> >A Colorado legislative committee approves anti-spam bill, that would
> >require ADV label on unsolicited spam, and make no distinction between
> >commercial and non-commerical spam.
> >
> >   Jamie 
> >
> >
> >http://news.excite.com/news/ap/000218/09/internet-spam
> >
> >Updated 9:46 AM ET February 18, 2000
> >
> >   DENVER (AP) - Internet spammers would have to slap a crystal-clear
> >"advertisement" label on all electronic junk mail and provide an easy
> >way for consumers to scratch their names from mailing lists under a bill
> >passed Thursday by a state House committee. 
> >
> >   Before approving the bill by a 10-2 vote, the House Business Affairs
> >and Labor Committee toughened the rules further by adding politicians
> >and nonprofit groups to the mailers who must use the dreaded "ADV:"
> >label. 
> >
> >   The tag must appear at the beginning of any junk mail's subject memo,
> >which appears in consumers' lists of new e-mail and guides them on what
> >they wish to read. 
> >
> >   [snip]
> >
> >   Any individual computer user receiving mail that violates the law
> >could sue the sender for $10 for each message. But the bill also allows
> >that customer's Internet service provider to collect hundreds or
> >thousands of bad messages sent through its main computers and sue the
> >mailer for $10 on each one, providing the incentive of millions of
> >dollars in potential damages. 
> >
> >-- 
> >James Love, Consumer Project on Technology
> >v. 1.202.387.8030, fax 1.202.234.5176
> >love@cptech.org, http://www.cptech.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Ecommerce mailing list
> >Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
> >http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
> 
> _______________________________________________________________________
> Cem Kaner, J.D., Ph.D.
> P.O. Box 1200, Santa Clara, CA 95052
> 
> http://www.kaner.com
> http://www.badsoftware.com
> 
> Author (with Falk &  Nguyen) of TESTING COMPUTER SOFTWARE (2nd Ed, VNR)
> Author (with David Pels) of BAD SOFTWARE (Wiley, 1998)
> 
> This e-mail communication should not be interpreted as legal advice 
> or a legal opinion.  The transmission of this e-mail communication 
> does not create an attorney-client relationship between me and you.
> Do not act or rely upon law-related information in this communication 
> without seeking the advice of an attorney. Finally, nothing in this
> message should be interpreted as a "digital signature" or "electronic
> signature" that can create binding commercial transactions.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ecommerce mailing list
> Ecommerce@lists.essential.org
> http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/ecommerce
> 

James Love, Consumer Project on Technology    
P.O. Box 19367        | http://www.cptech.org 
Washington, DC 20036  | love@cptech.org       
Voice 202/387-8030    | Fax 202/234-5176