FW: [atlarge-discuss] FYI California State Assembly: Bill AB2297 & Bill AB700 3

["Jkhan" <Jkhan@MetroMgr.com>]

Jeff and all stakeholders, assembly members or other interested parties,

Indeed, Jeff is right here to conclude that, The Calif. Bills (AB2297 &
Bill AB700) are predicated on the premise of California [California
Civil Code 1798.85 TITLE 1.81.1.  CONFIDENTIALITY OF SOCIAL SECURITY
NUMBERS].

James Tyre is most correct here in stating, that the Bill (AB2297 & Bill
AB700) will undoubtedly be challenged on a later date if passed.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, September 03, 2002 10:39 PM
To: James S. Tyre
Cc: atlarge-discuss@lists.fitug.de; General Assembly of the DNSO
Subject: Re: [atlarge-discuss] FYI California State Assembly: Bill
AB2297 & Bill AB700 3

James and all stakeholders, assembly members or other interested
parties,

  The Calif.. based bill is borne of the IP interests in attempting to
build
the case that a consumers personal and private information such as
Home Address, and SSN, are essential in tracking fraud and other
nefarious and illegal activities of great interest to IP interests.

  In addition I don't see this bill "As is" passing as was eluded in the
Article that James Khan kindly provided the URL for below.  It
also seems to be to fly in the face of the Privacy Act and as well as
the Credit protection Act, both of which are federal statutes.  I do
believe that Federal Statute still trumps state laws of various
sorts, and there have been many that have been conflicting
from time to time and so challenged...

James S. Tyre wrote:

> If the Bill passes, expect that it will be challenged on dormant
commerce
> clause grounds (under Article I, Section 8, clause 3 of the U.S.
Const,
> Congress has the exclusive power to regulate interstate commerce).
>
> Generally speaking (not universally), such challenges have failed if
the
> challenge is to state legislation regulating spam, but have succeeded
in
> most other instances.
>
> At 07:28 PM 9/3/2002 -0700, Jkhan wrote:
> >"This bill provides meaningful privacy protections that will help
foster
> >the continued growth of the Internet economy. Currently the law is
> >unclear on what recourse individuals may have, if any, when somebody
> >chooses not to honor their posted privacy policy. Right now, the only
> >sure method of recourse is to literally make a federal case of the
> >matter. This bill provides for meaningful and accessible enforcement
> >under California Law."
> >
> >See:
> >Bill Could Expose Internet Privacy Practices:
> >[ http://siliconvalley.internet.com/news/article.php/1454691 ]
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------
> James S. Tyre                              mailto:jstyre@jstyre.com
> Law Offices of James S. Tyre          310-839-4114/310-839-4602(fax)
> 10736 Jefferson Blvd., #512               Culver City, CA 90230-4969
> Co-founder, The Censorware Project            http://censorware.net
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
> For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de

Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup - (Over 127k members/stakeholders strong!)
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng/SR. Java/CORBA Development Eng.
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 972-244-3801
Address: 5 East Kirkwood Blvd. Grapevine Texas 75208



---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-unsubscribe@lists.fitug.de
For additional commands, e-mail: atlarge-discuss-help@lists.fitug.de