Xref: utzoo news.admin:5592 comp.org.ieee:66
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ukma!rutgers!att!laidbak!jeq
From: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.ieee
Subject: Re: Telephone Electronic Junk Mail
Message-ID: <2230@laidbak.UUCP>
Date: 12 Apr 89 15:30:15 GMT
References: <1586@ucsd.EDU> <2468@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> <1772@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <1193@westmark.UUCP>
Reply-To: jeq@laidbak.UUCP (Jonathan E. Quist)
Distribution: usa
Organization: Lachman Associates, Inc. Naperville, Il.
Lines: 16

In article <1193@westmark.UUCP> dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson) writes:
 >In article <1772@amelia.nas.nasa.gov>, vancleef@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Robert E. Van Cleef) writes:
 >> In California, there already is a law regulating Junk calls from
 >> electronic systems.  All computer generated calls are required to
 >> be proceded by a live introduction and the receiver's approval is
...
 >If this applies to ALL computer generated calls, that's too bad. 
 >We'll miss all those California-based members of the usenet
 >community whose machnes call each other all day and night exchanging
 >data.  What a pain -- paying human beings to make live introductions
 >before switching to DATA mode when the modem calls another modem... 
...

Except that the act of setting up the connection (phone numbers,
passwords, etc.) implies consent on the part of both parties
to exchange data.