Legislature(2005 - 2006)CAPITOL 17
04/25/2005 03:15 PM House LABOR & COMMERCE
| Audio | Topic |
|---|---|
| Start | |
| HB249 | |
| SB137 | |
| SB139 | |
| SB140 | |
| SB139 | |
| Adjourn |
* first hearing in first committee of referral
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
+ teleconferenced
= bill was previously heard/scheduled
| += | SB 137 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 139 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | SB 140 | TELECONFERENCED | |
| + | TELECONFERENCED | ||
| = | HB 249 | ||
SB 140-COMPUTERS & INTERNET 4:38:42 PM CHAIR ANDERSON announced that the final order of business would be CS FOR SENATE BILL NO. 140(JUD), "An Act relating to spyware and unsolicited Internet advertising." DAVID STANCLIFF, Staff to Senator Gene Therriault, Alaska State Legislature, explained that Alaska is one of 10 states that is trying to provide a better threshold for people to have recourse when their computer has been invaded or rendered inoperable. Therefore, the legislation before the committee had the advantage of reviewing the models of 10 other states. Mr. Stancliff explained that the goal of SB 140 is to begin to unwind the serious web with spyware. Beyond the trade and commerce aspect of this legislation, the more serious problem is that an expensive investment, one's computer, can be rendered useless. 4:41:29 PM BENJAMIN EDELMAN informed the committee that he is a graduate student working on a degree in economics at Harvard after just completing law school. He noted that on the side he has been testing spyware writing about what he has found. He further noted that he has been honored by serving as the expert in some cases trying to "put a check on spyware companies." Mr. Edelman agreed with Mr. Stancliff that there is much software on a typical PC, whether located in an office or a home. Some of the spyware programs track the user's name, e-mail address, credit card numbers, etcetera while other spyware programs focus on advertising. Although the later would seem to be less nefarious, it has turned out to be fairly profitable. These pop-up programs are a large part of the spyware problem and new legislation can address that, he opined. However, there is legislation already in place for those individuals stealing credit card numbers and thus there's no need to pass yet another law on that subject. MR. EDELMAN explained that the pop-up companies operate in what seems to be a gray area. In fact, some courts have said that these extra pop-ups might be legally permissible. Therefore, scores of companies have tried to use pop-ups. This legislation puts an end to the aforementioned and specifies that it's not fair game. He likened a pop-up advertisement to one's cell phone company playing an advertisement for a specific airline when one used the phone to call another airline. Mr. Edelman said that although some courts may have said that pop-up advertisements are acceptable under existing law, legislatures have the right to say otherwise. 4:46:11 PM MR. EDELMAN turned to the differing approaches various legislatures have followed. California passed legislation last year that's now under consideration in at least six other states. California's law specifies about a dozen specific tactics that are prohibited. However, Mr. Edelman opined that California's approach is quite ineffective because the tactics prohibited aren't those used by the largest, prominent, and most profitable companies but rather those tactics used by the "little guys that we can't even find." In fact, not much has changed for the better since the passage of California's legislation. He noted that there a couple of pieces of legislation in Washington, D.C., that are being put forth, although they too seem to address infractions that only impact tens of thousands of users not tens of millions. He informed the committee that last year Utah passed legislation with important similarities to SB 140. Mr. Edelman noted his surprise with the number of companies presenting false information regarding what Utah's legislation would do, although there was no legitimate basis for the allegations. Therefore, he sensed that software companies don't like governments instructing them with regard to how they can do business. He opined that software companies view their actions on a computer as not having a basis for any government oversight at all. However, he disagreed. 4:49:43 PM REPRESENTATIVE GUTTENBERG asked if there is another way to address spyware. He asked if a computer that detects spyware could then send a notice to the spyware companies informing them they are being charged for installation. MR. EDELMAN said that there's no way to send such a message to the spyware company. "Consumers just aren't in a good position to impose their terms on the makers of software," he highlighted. 4:52:32 PM CHAIR ANDERSON, upon determining no one else wished to testify, closed public testimony. 4:53:10 PM REPRESENTATIVE LEDOUX moved to report CSSB 140(JUD) out of committee with individual recommendations and the accompanying fiscal notes. There being no objection, it was so ordered.
| Document Name | Date/Time | Subjects |
|---|