Politics – Happy 2005 – now stop that – sacbee.com Ok…check this out for a list of news laws in California. A few are listed below.
Happy new year, Californians, but beware what you can’t do from this day forward – courtesy of state lawmakers.
Thrill seekers no longer can body surf or platform surf behind motorboats, an activity sometimes called “dragging” or “teak surfing.”
Teenagers can’t ride motorized scooters without a valid driver’s license.
Stores and individuals can’t sell to minors various performance-enhancing nutritional supplements, including androstenedione, made famous by home run slugger Mark Mc Gwire.
Children younger than 14 can’t patronize tanning booths.
Motorists can’t purchase electronic devices designed to turn traffic lights from red to green at the push of a button.
Cell phone companies can’t place customers’ numbers in a wireless phone directory without their written consent.
Deep into the list is what should have been front page news. I never heard of it. It was buried at the bottom of the story.
SB 1436 – Bans the use of computer spyware, consisting of downloaded programs that track Internet activities without the user’s knowledge or consent.
What? The problem with this sort of hidden law is that if it isn’t enforced it becomes a dead-letter law and can never be enforced or re-legislated. “Oh, we tried that already. It didn’t do any good.”
This needs follow-up.
Who here thinks this is going to be any more effective than the “CAN-SPAM” bill?
Not me. But it scored some politicians a few points.
What about civil suits?
Well, I am certainly no expert on the law, but here’s what I was thinking when I read this…
First, I’m thinking that both the company or programmer and the computer that the program resides on would have to be in California. I mean, since I’m in Colorado, if I were to download something that had spyware with it, even if the company was in California, how could I possibly sue that company, since it is a California law. Also, if the situation was reversed, and I was the company producing the spyware, how could I possibly be sued? The only possible way I would think someone could try that would be to use Article IV, Section 1 (you’ll have to scroll down to find it, sorry), but my understanding is that this is used more for recognizing marriages and other legal contracts from state to state, and in the end, a federal court would have final say as to how the law would relate to these situations.
Second, it shouldn’t be that hard to stick something about spyware in the licence agreement, assuming it’s not already in there for some of the more popular programs (does anybody read ALL of the licence agreement, or am I the only one who doesn’t?).
Third, if you could get this in a court of law, you would have to convince a judge and/or jury that what you are complaining about really is spyware. You know that the company being sued would drag some “expert” up on the stand that would argue that the “spyware” in question is really an integral part of the application.
Fourth, you would have to hope beyond hope that a judge and/or jury would even understand what we are talking about here. I mean, we are supposed to leave this decision in the hands of 12 people who aren’t even smart enought to get out of jury duty?
Fifth, how far does this reach? I mean (and I’m really splitting hairs with this argument), with this wording, you could “technically” say that any script that gains any information about a user would be tracking Internet activities. Even a simple Javascript fuction to check if a user typed a valid email address could be construed as “tracking Internet activiy”. I use Javascript as an example because that is actually “downloaded” and executed on the browser, not run from the server first like ASP or PHP, but you might be able to make an argument for those, too. What if I made a PHP script that tracked your activity on my site, and stored all of that information in a database? And, I haven’t even got into web server logs.
Wow, as I read over what I typed, I can’t figure out what I’m trying to say, or even what I’m arguing for (or against, for that matter). Does anyone understand what I’m talking about, lol?
“… growers can’t force-feed birds to enlarge their livers, a practice common in producing foie gras – was signed into law but won’t take effect until 2012.”
I found this at epicurious.com:
“Although the literal translation from French is ‘fat liver,’ foie gras is the term generally used for goose liver . This specialty of Alsace and Perigord, is in fact, the enlarged liver from a goose or duck that has been force-fed and fattened over a period of 4 to 5 months. These specially bred fowl are not permitted to exercise — which, combined with the overeating, creates a huge (up to 3 pounds), fatty liver.”
Without comment.
(God, I’m even starting to use Dvorak phraseology.)
Rob, you make good points.