Xref: utzoo news.admin:5625 comp.org.ieee:71
Path: utzoo!dptcdc!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!elroy!ucla-cs!rutgers!att!mtuxo!rolls!westmark!dave
From: dave@westmark.UUCP (Dave Levenson)
Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.ieee
Subject: Re: Telephone Electronic Junk Mail
Message-ID: <1217@westmark.UUCP>
Date: 16 Apr 89 12:50:58 GMT
References: <1586@ucsd.EDU> <2468@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> <887@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM>
Distribution: usa
Organization: Westmark, Inc., Warren, NJ, USA
Lines: 31

In article <887@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM>, greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) writes:
> 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...
...
> >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.

> I believe that the key operational word in the bill is UNSOLICITED
> calls.
...
> As long as the word "unsolicited" appears in the language of the bill,
> Usenetters and other legitimate computer networkers need not fear.


I agree.  But the original posting never mentioned the
word 'unsolicited' anywhere.  It merely stated that in California,
all computer-generated calls must be announced by a live person.  I
posted my original followup in the hopes that someone would either
expand upon the original posting (as Greg has - thank you!) or else
initiate legislation to correct the legislation to make it say what
it probably meant!

-- 
Dave Levenson			/-----------------------------\
Westmark, Inc.			|  If you can't give me your  |
Warren, NJ USA			|  Phone number, don't call!  |
{rutgers | att}!westmark!dave	\-----------------------------/