Xref: utzoo news.admin:5613 comp.org.ieee:68 Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!ames!lll-winken!uunet!snjsn1!bilbo!greg From: greg@bilbo (Greg Wageman) Newsgroups: news.admin,comp.org.ieee Subject: Re: Telephone Electronic Junk Mail Message-ID: <887@snjsn1.SJ.ATE.SLB.COM> Date: 14 Apr 89 21:43:29 GMT References: <1586@ucsd.EDU> <2468@PEDEV.Columbia.NCR.COM> <1772@amelia.nas.nasa.gov> <1193@westmark.UUCP> Sender: news@SJ.ATE.SLB.COM Reply-To: greg@sj.ate.slb.com (Greg Wageman) Distribution: usa Organization: Schlumberger ATE, San Jose, CA Lines: 32 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 >> required before you can connect the computer interviewer. > >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. I have no problems if calling my modem without previous arrangements with me becomes an illegal act. Every Usenet connection I know of exists with the prior consent of the owner/administrator of the system called. As long as the word "unsolicited" appears in the language of the bill, Usenetters and other legitimate computer networkers need not fear. Longish .signature follows. Skip now, or don't complain. Greg Wageman DOMAIN: greg@sj.ate.slb.com Schlumberger Technologies UUCP: ...!uunet!sjsca4!greg 1601 Technology Drive BIX: gwage San Jose, CA 95110-1397 CIS: 74016,352 (408) 437-5198 GEnie: G.WAGEMAN ------------------ "Live Free; Die Anyway." ------------------ Opinions expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the author.